Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end.
Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box.
Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers.
Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.
Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives.
Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.
Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.
casimir effect scale up
Can the casimer effect in theory if not practice yet be scaled up in size and effect range? could we in theory make a repulsive or attractive force from it that could act on larger objects? Is there debate on this subject or is it a flat out no. How then if not by this are scientist proposing right or wrong to produce propulsive force from vacuum energy -- Restless
No. In the Casimir effect, two very closely spaced neutrally charged parallel electrically conducting plates mutually attract because their presence changes the mode structure of the quantum zero point field (ZPF) relative to free space. If the plates are a distance d apart, the force per unit area <cool math stuff I couldn't get to work, sorry> is the reduced Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light in vacuum. The attraction between the two parallel plates can be understood in terms of the pressure of zero-point energy being greater outside the two plates, than in between—the plates snap together. This force is so so small. That is why the Casmir effect could never be scaled up—the mass of the plates would be greater, while the energy pressure continues to stay the same. ...unless you could get them closer and closer together. What would be that limit? Probably the Planck length Where is the article on the Casmir effect?? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I swear I tried that, even though I thought it was spelled "Casmir." — [Mac Davis] (talk)
What if you could somehow increas the radiation pressure of the zero-point field in one area, would that be able to cause a larger version of the casimir effect? you also never aswered how people are trying to produce propulsive force from zero point energy.
restless
Look up for my response to a poster inquiring about some cranky stuff he found at some websites which promote "free energy from the vacuum schemes". Basically, vacuum energy is a legitimate topic in mainstream physics, but the idea that you can use it to do useful work is highly suspect, and in particular, claims that you can use vacuum energy to build a device which would violate the laws of thermodynamics (the term used by many cranks is "over-unity") is definitely cranky.---CH23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm for a mathemetician with with no physics degrees that i have seen in your profile CH, you fling the word crank around alot. SEAS is run by a guy called tom valone I wouldnt call that a crank myself. And hal puthoff who while controverisal in some areas is a well acknowledged expert in vacuum energy [he hosted the NASA talks on alternative energy sources in 2001] agrees with many of these ideas. Just because you dont like his ideas doesnt make him a crank. Furthermore if you look at vacuum energy on this site even it is a huge resevoir of energy, so much that it should be bending time and space. That sounds like energy that can be put to work to me so this fact is not highly suspect, if it were NASA , british aerospace project greenglow, the calphysics institute, the institute for advanced studies in austin and a number of other institutes that are looking into what is not-known [and not highly suspect as you put it] is wether or not we can work with this energy or not with the tools we have at this moment in time. You cannot dismiss this fact. Dont get me wrong i do not beleive in free energy I only beleive that with the right tools we can make the vacuum energy do certain things, perhaps a novel system of propulsion by causeing the waves to effect, or changing them into negative energy like in the casimir effect, but not free energy. Also in closeing attacking the people of these websites is a logical fallicy, you are not disproving the argument only attacking the people. I will not say anything further exept that firstly the statement above is biased, secondly the person posting has no physics qualifications.
Commenter
Birthday
In honor of my birthday (august 14th) I will ask a trivia question and review anyones article of choice if they get it correct. What is the probability that someone shares the same birthday as me if I am in a room with 22 other people? -Ravedave02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way you've phrased it, 100% (certainly someone somewhere shares your birthday, whether you're in a room with 22 people, or five people, or alone on the top of the Eiffel Tower). But what you probably meant (what is the likelihood that at least one of 22 randomly chosen people will be born on a given day, in this case 14 August) would give an answer more like 6%. (The probability that any one person was born on a certain date (other than 29 February) is about 1/365 or more precisely 4/1461; they are independent events so they are added, so the probability is 88/1461 = 6%). Note that what you have proposed is not the birthday paradox, which asks for the probability of two of 23 people sharing a birthday, rather than specifying the date in advance. Happy Birthday. - Nunh-huh02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now for a harder question: What is the probability it will be your birthday on any given day, if you attend a restaurant that gives away free birthday meals on that day (one that doesn't check ID) ? :-) StuRat08:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that won't be a constant, it will be a function of how often you visit the restaurant and how good the waiters are at remembering your face. 1/365, because we're all scrupulously honest round here, right? ;-) -- AJR | Talk12:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, TERdON couldn't have meant 29 Feb. That date is already included in my 365.2425 calculation. Maybe he/she was just overcompensating for the loss of Pluto as a planet. :--) JackofOz02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insect identification
Strange insect
I found this insect which had apparently crawled out of my lawn onto the side of the curb and emerged from its chrysalis. After a few hours it flew away. Anyone know what it is? Thanks, --Bmk02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think that's the one! The picture on the cicada page was great. Extra points to anyone who can tell me what species this one is. It was seen in upstate NY, USA. --Bmk02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looks like the one in the template to me which is of the genus Tibicen. I am guessing the one in your picture has light color becuase it hasnt matured. -Ravedave04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tibicen it appears to be! Extra points all around. Thanks folks --bmk
As a side, somewhat irrelevant note, cicadas are what makes the loud, constant buzzing noise in many forest areas. In the Florida (where I live) wilderness it is easily identified if cicadas are in proximity (which they mostly are) and an appropriate nickname for their sound would be the white noise of the wilderness. Not many people I know actually know where this sound comes from, but if they read this now they know. Also, when I traveled to Costa Rica I found gargantuan cicadas that where nearly half a foot long. Pretty amazing, huh?--Porsche997SBS20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-chlorine bleach
Does it clean as effectively as chlorine bleach?
Depends on what you're cleaning. I've never tried laundry, but fo whackin' out a person, no, the chlorine bleach works much better. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
The battery in my car keeps going flat if i don't use it for a couple of days. Yet I've had the battery tested and they say there is nothing wrong with it. Could there be another reason?
I should probably explain more. Your Alternator is what charges your battery when you are driving. So if its not chanrging your battery then it will go dead from beign used, but not charged. Also I have heard of stuff like hood lights staying on. -Ravedave04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you could have an intermittent short circuit. For example, I had an 83 Trans Am which had an intermittent short in the passenger power door lock, which would eventually drain the battery. StuRat08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it winter where you are? Old car batteries tend to go flat if just left in the cold.
Actually, batteries last longer in the cold. However, if they do go completely dead, they can freeze and split open, and thus be destroyed, by the cold. Also, it takes more juice to start a cold car, due to the sluggish cold oil, so a poorly charged battery will become more apparent in cold weather. StuRat19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and if you've recently put in car electronics, you might have stuffed the wiring up so it draws current even when the ignition is off. it happens. Xcomradex12:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been cases where the car's key fob receiver gets repeatedly activated, either by an external radio source (case study here) or by the fob itself being left overnight near the car (can't find a ref. for this, but read it a few days ago). This keeps the car's electrical systems continually awake and quickly drains the battery. --Heron17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a person who has delt with bad car batteries (and bad cars) more times than I would like to admit, there are MANY reasons your battery might go bad. A bad alternator is the most likely cause, but also there are cells inside a batter that hold about 3/4 H2SO4 and 1/4 water. If the water evaporates, the battery efficiency is severely compromised. You can rememedy this by pouring a small amount of distilled water into the cells (NOT TAP WATER, this will cause a violent reaction that will spew acid on you) of a completely cold battery. Also, sometimes the terminals become corroded, which will cause bad connections between the power cables and the terminals; a solution of 1/2 baking soda and 1/2 water will take that corrosion right off in most cases. Frequent jumping and subsuquent light driving also ruins batteries because they cannot retain a good change, and then you have to jump them again...a cycle of pain. Sometimes batties just wear out...for a good one, 5-7 years or more, a cheap one, about 2 years. Hope that helps. --69.138.61.16803:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rectifier in the alternator which converts the AC current to DC, if this is defective, the alternator will run AC current through the battery which will ruin it.
Check the glove box light and the trunk light. Make sure they are not staying on.
Wouldn't adding any water to concentrated H2SO4 cause a highly exothermic reaction (generates heat) that could splash acid on you? --Shanedidona13:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chronic cough
My 6 years old daughter has chronic cough for more than one month. (Her cough starts when she goes to bed, during night and before she wakes up.)First it started with having caught cold and treated with antibiotic but her cough continued.
When she was only 5 months years old, she was hospitalized by diagnosis of "Whooping cough" for 2 months. Now is there any relation between her chronic cough and this childhood disease? Is it a symptom of other disease or as her doctor says it could be an allergy?
As usual, you might get better answers by paying a person with years of expertise, accountability, and far more information about your daughter, rather than anonymouse volunteers with unknown qualifications whom you cannot hold responsible. You don't specify some important details, but let's assume you are a middle class American mother and you daughter is basically healthy and growing well with no serious disease since pertussis in infancy. Some of the likely possibilities:
She hasn't finished recovering from her viral respiratory infection
She has an asthmatic cough from an environmental trigger (outdoor or indoor source)
She has an asthmatic cough from a persistent sinusitis
She has a habit cough (this is the typical age) or a psychogenic cough
There are many more rarer possibilities that you don't even want to know about. If she definitely had pertussis in infancy it is unlikely to recur. How certain was that diagnosis? Despite immunization?
Another possibility, especially since you said this only happens when she lies down to sleep, is acid reflux disease. This means that the valve at the top of the stomach fails to prevent acid from entering the esophagus. During the day, gravity performs this function, but not when you lie down. StuRat21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is her bed next to an outside wall? That's often the coldest part of the house, and I've sometimes had persistent nocturnal coughing for that reason. —Tamfang07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Formula for calculating the Heating Load in KW of Convectional oven
Dear sir,
I am intrested to know that how to know the heating load in KW of convectional Heating oven if I know the Volume of Oven in Cumbic Meter and Weight of Material which has been put inside the oven and set temperature upto what time. I am also intrested to know, How Much Initial heating time effect the Heating load.
As I know the Heating Load is depend upon Set Temperature, Volume of Heating oven, Materail in side the Oven, Air Inside the oven, Thickness of Insulation, Heating up time, Ambient temperature. I am really intrested to know the optimum formula for calculating the heating load of conveyorised and batch oven.
Biggest cells, and hen's eggs?
How big is the biggest cell (animal, plant, or fungus) please? I remember as a schoolboy wondering about unfertilized hen's eggs. Now while it is extremely unlikely they are just one large cell, just how many cells do they have in them?
Contrary to popular belief, and to thier names, ostrich and hen's eggs (and any other poultry eggs) are not single cells. In the yolk of the egg, there is just one single cell - that of the embryo, which divides and grows during the incubation of the egg. As for your original question, I'd say that the biggest cells would be those of some single celled organisms, such as algaes. Martinp2312:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say that some plant cells are large enough to actually see with a nude eye. I recall those are the largest known. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Looks like we have our answer!! — [Mac Davis] (talk)
It says in the Ostrich entry that the eggs are the world's largest single cells. If that is not true, then the entry needs to be changed. I'm rather sceptical as a cell that size would have tremendous problems with respiration. But if it is the case, what do the yolk and egg correspond to? If there is just one little cell in an unfertilized egg, where is it? And the sac (correct spelling I think) containing the yolk, or the membrain inside the shell, how were those made? It could have been made of specialized cells. Cells<-->eggs are still a mystery. If an Ostrich egg truely is a cell then it must be bigger in volume than the algae cell, even if its 3m long.
I thought that in an unfertilised bird's egg the yolk is one great big haploid cell, with no cell membrane between the chromosome-containing non-yolky clear cytoplasm on one side, and the rest of the yolk - a telolecithal cell which will undergo meroblastic cleavage. Is that right? Strange how difficult it is to get real hard facts on this. A fertilised egg, by the time it is laid, is multicellular (already 60000 cells), and the blastodermal cells are separated from the yolk that has no nucleus, so that does not count as a single cell. How long can a giraffe's spinal nerves be (bonus: has only one nucleus), and how big are the the neurons of giant squids? What would be the size of the (multinucleate) muscle cells of an elephant or a whale? --Seejyb23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Electrical Engineering
My question is a very ODD one .
The question is : -
Out of AC and DC voltages which poses a repulsive shock and which an attractive shock ?
Please reply soon .
I'm not sure what you mean by a "repulsive" or "attractive" shock. They both are pretty unpleasant if the voltage is high enough, so I guess they're both pretty repulsive to me :). But seriously, I think what you may be referring to is the way that strong electric currents cause muscles to contract, resulting in a person being unable to release the source of the voltage (the actual reason is that flexors are usually stronger than extensors, so when they both contract, the flexors win). Other than that, I think you should read our article on electricity to get the basics down. --Bmk12:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what the confusion is here. In modern electric fences, they frequently turn the voltage on and off every second or so. This allows people who get zapped by them to let go, and thus survive. This is unrelated to A/C versus D/C, however. StuRat21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Prothonotary Warbler is a small songbird of the New World warbler family. It breeds in hardwood swamps in southern Canada and the eastern United States, nesting in a cavity. The male often builds several incomplete unused nests in his territory; the female builds the real nest. It winters in the West Indies, Central America and northern South America. This bird was named after officials in the Roman Catholic Church known as the protonotarii, who wore golden robes.
Most activities in the animal kingdom have a biological advantage, I was wondering if the male bird does this activity, as a method of fooling predators. ie, the predator will see the false nest and attempt to steal eggs from that nest....
Any information about this would be much appreciated.
It is an interesting division of labour. The male typically selects several potential nesting sites in advance, and "illustrates" their suitability by building a dummy nest, using moss. It's a bit like a real-estate agent dressing up a place for viewers. When a female arrives, the male shows her around, and if she is sufficiently impressed by one of these sites, she'll turn it into a real nest. As a male you always wonder: "What does woman want?" By selecting several sites, the male increases the likelihood that the female will like one of them. --LambiamTalk01:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This piece of 'equipment'?
I have been challenged to find out the name of this piece of equipment, I can only guess it is used somewhere in science but having looked through various lists on here of science equipment and clicking on the ones that I hadn't heard of hasn't actually got me anywhere. The piece of equipment is linked below.
Thanks, I found the exact image on google images when I searched it so I guess that you're right. Sorry if it crashes Konqueror, I'd only tried it on Firefox. ~~
what makes gold so precious? what quality does it have that is of so much value?
1) It is scarce. That alone makes people want it. Which makes it more scarce, etc. Which is a bloody shame, because this jewellery-nonsense forces up the prices also for
2) practical implementations. It is one of a sel;ct group of chemicals that are not very reactive. In plain English, it doesn't rust. For that reason it is used for electrical connections because they are especially prone to rust, which reduces their conductivity, their very reason for existence. DirkvdM12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Practicality aside, if you've ever held 99.9% pure gold in the sunlight, it is just so incredibly pretty! I think that's the real reason :) --Bmk12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's so non-reactive, it's one of a very few elements that are commonly found in the pure form (nuggets). This meant that it was one of the first elements to be discovered in antiquity, so people started figuring out how to make pretty things out of gold long before they did so with other things. Result: several millennia of accumlated cultural mystique. --Pyroclastic19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gold just has lots of practical applications in industry. For the same reason copper is actually rather valuable — a couple bucks a pound. --Cyde Weys17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gold is quite ductile (soft), which makes it easy to work with. It's also highly electrically conductive, which makes it good for wiring (except it costs too much for most wiring), and, as previously noted, it doesn't oxidize, like iron (to form rust), silver (to form tarnish), copper (to form that nasty green stuff), or aluminum (to form white spots). If it was plentiful enough (and thus cheap), we might even make car body panels out of it. StuRat21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copper is so valuable that it's being stolen frequently. Recently, a nearby school had ten classrooms flooded because thieves broke in to steal the copper pipes. User:Zoe|(talk)02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought i would throw in that Silver is a better room temperature conductor than gold, and that gold car panels would be impractically soft and heavy, high grade aluminum would be a more feasible corrosion-resistant choice. --66.195.232.12113:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silver wouldn't be as good as gold for electrical use, because it tarnishes, and the silver oxide would prevent electricity from flowing across electrical contacts. Gold isn't any softer than the plastic body panels used on many cars. And aluminum gets those ugly white spots of aluminum oxide. StuRat18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically silver tarnish is really Silver Sulfide, as it reacts slowly with Hydrogen Sulfide found in trace amounts in the air. Over time the black tarnish builds up.
Longer than you'll live if it's in a bog. So if ou don't slide into the bog yourself, you'd decompose before the other body. More in general, this depends to a large degree on how much oxygen the body is exposed to. And the temperature also makes a big differnce. This was asked before, but I can't find the thread. DirkvdM12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's say instead for three different environments: Out in the open air at moderate humditiy, in a shallow grave and in a coffin buried deep underground. --Burbster23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because three questions up Konqueror crashed, I switched to Mozilla and now I notice the strange effect that when I hit the 'save page' button, the screen moves up a bit. Only when I hit it a second time does it work. Is the button teasing me? DirkvdM12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the questioner is using Konqueror, I assume he is using KDE. I use Firefox in KDE and have no issues with the save button. --Kainaw(talk)16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have issues like this occasionally with Firefox on Windows. My only guess is that, for whatever reason, when you try to click the button it instantaneously re-renders the page such that the new location of the save button is no longer under the mouse pointer, and thus, it doesn't get clicked. This might be JavaScript-related. --Cyde Weys17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed using KDE (under Suse). And it might indeed have something to do with Javascript. Between the edit frame and the options above it, there is some space. When I hit the save button, this space disappears. It might indeed re-render then. But when I hit the top of the save button, it doesn't move up enough and there is no problem (the button works). I don't have Javascript enabled for Konqueror, so that may be it. Nothing to do with the OS, the DE or the browser. DirkvdM17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This actually has to do with your Wikipedia preferences. If you go to your preferences and the Editing tab, at the very bottom is a option saying "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". If you checked it, then if you enter nothing or enter /*(text)*/ in the edit summary and click save, at the top you will get a message telling you: "You have not provided an edit summary. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without one." Only if you click save again, it will save. --Yanwen18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If mountains have effect on earth Consistency and stabilizing?
the earth has move (in orbit) and shake. if mountain effect it and other things similar these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.225.166.13 (talk • contribs) .
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but let me point out a few things that may be relevant. The overall shape of the Earth is practically a perfect sphere: the equatorial bulge is small and Mount Everest is even smaller. I don't see how mountains could have any "stabilizing" effect on earthquakes. In fact, the same tectonic activity that produced the mountains could also produce earthquakes, so I'd say earthquakes are more likely to occur in mountainous regions, not less. —Keenan Pepper16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The plates of the Earth's crust move about (extremely slowly) and collide with each other, pushing up mountains (like the Himalaya). This causes friction, which also causes earthquakes.
Below that crust is lava, which sometimes breaks through and causes volcanoes, another type of mountain (like the ones in Indonesia). And this also causes earthquakes.
So mountains don't really cause earthquakes, but the two have a common cause, so that's why earthquakes occur in mountainous areas. If your English isn't good enough to read these articles, you might want to have a look at the Simple English Wikipedia. It is not quite as extensive as the 'normal' Wikipedia, though. DirkvdM18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question-asker may be referring (knowingly or unknowingly) to Milankovitch cycles rather than earthquakes. Do mountains have an effect on orbital parameters? might be what is being asked, I think - much like if you stick a blob of something to a ball it will affect how it spins. With regards to the Earth, the answer is no. If the earth was scaled down to 7 or 8 centimetres across, it would be smoother than a billiard ball. Mountains are not large enough with respect to the Earth to make any difference to its orbit, spin, precession, etc. BenC702:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone kindly tell me what this scientific instrument is...it looks like a beehive but i`m relatively sure it`s not.
That is a weather station, where anyone interested in measuring the weather puts instruments such as barometers and thermometers, where they are subjectedto the atmosphere but protected from the elements. Martinp2314:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same person? We just had this question a few hours ago. The answer is Stevenson screen. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
artificial insemination
Can all animals be inseminated artificially?
Yes. Its really the phallus that is artificial, not the semen. I guess the insemination is artificial. Anyway, it doesn't matter if there was copulation involved, the sperm just has to get to the egg. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Well, you need more than the sperm and the egg. You also need a womb (if you want a baby to come out of it, that is). So you indeed have to enter something in a female, be it a fertilised egg, as it is done with humans, or with a functional dildo, so to say. I can imagine that with some animals that would be problematic, like very small animals (without killing them, which would defeat the purpose). Or with very big ones. Try inseminating a whale (a sperm whale of course :) ). DirkvdM18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be very difficult for microscopic animals. I wonder if anyone does this for any reason. Also remember that creatures such as sponges and corals are animals. Maybe they could be "artifically inseminated", but it would be much different that the process for a horse or a pig. ike989819:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can a ship powered only by sail exceed the wind velocity? If so, what is the maximum speed it can reach relative to the wind velocity? --Cyde Weys16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a more serious answer can be found here: "the motion of the boat creates its own apparent wind, which combines the windspeed vector and the hull speed vector. Sailing into the wind, this can quickly add up to apparent winds of far greater than the true windspeed" -- C. S. Joiner (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Csjoiner, yes—modern racing hulls are efficient enough to exceed the wind speed when on a broad or beam reach. (Most sail boats are fastest on a beam reach, though may not be able to exceed the wind's speed.) Ice boats, because they travel on a very low friction surface, can usually easily exceed the wind's speed when reaching. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this is that the boat is (at least when on a beam reach or closer to the wind) not mainly powered by the direct force of the wind on the sail. It is driven by the bernoulli effect of the wind blowing across the wing-like shape of the filled sail, and thus is not limited by the velocity of the wind. --198.125.178.20718:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Sailing into the wind? That won't get you anywhere, or do I get the English sailing terms wrong? (If not, the article needs correcting.) But even sailing upwind (at an angle of up to about 45° to the wind) isn't very fast - it just feels very fast. Sailing downwind is a lot faster and quieter. But that way you just get pushed by the wind and you miss out on the wing-effect. Indeed, broad or beam reach (getting the wind from the side) is fastest. That way you can indeed exceed the speed of the wind. Which sounds counterintuitive, but so does the ability to sail upwind (close hauled). Both are possible thanks to the wing-effect.
By the way, if things go just right, the bough can be lifted on to of the bough wave. This has happened to me once (in a Valk or 'falcon' - I thought we had an article on that) and it's a wonderful feeling, like you're flying. What is this called and is this an indication one is exceeding the wind speed?
"Sailing into the wind" is indeed a not uncommon (but potentially confusing) way of expressing "sailing upwind". You also hear "sailing against the wind" (which makes me wonder who was the winner), possibly influenced by Germangegen den Wind segeln or similar expressions in other Germanic languages. --LambiamTalk00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the nature of your problem, and what concentration of azide are you using? I can say, however, that I regularly use azide in my peptide samples to prevent bacterial contamination, and I've never had any problem with them (none, at least, that I traced to the presence of azide). – ClockworkSoul21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting an External Harddrive
I have an external USB hard drive. It is currently in NTFS, but I want to format it in FAT32 so that I can use it with my
Linux dual boot. Windows XP doesn't let you format it into anything but NTFS and I'm a Linux noob running Ubuntu. I tried GParted, but it doesn't seem to be able to manage externals. Any help? --Russoc420:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give it to one of your friends that runs a Mac, it only takes a few clicks. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
In the command prompt 'format [drive letter]: /FS:FAT32'
P = I*V
And now for a completly unrelated question to the one above...
I know that Power in Watts = Current * Voltage. I know that current is the flow of electrons and voltage is the potential energy to push the electrons, , but I'm not sure what that means in practice. Lets say you have a 100W lightbulb. Is there any different in powering it with 20 amps and 5 volts compared to 2 amps and 50 volts? How about for a DC motor? What role do each current and voltage play when powering a motor? I've been wondering about this for a while, but I keep forgetting to ask it.--Russoc420:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One quick response--while 20A*5V = 2A*50V in power output, they would work differently based on the limitations of real world material. 20 amps is a lot to send through wires.
It may also help, when thinking about this topic, to remember V = I*R, therefore, P = I2*R, which might make more intuitive sense when thinking about the "roles" of current-voltage-resistance in motor power. -- Scientizzle21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One difference between powering a 100 W light bulb with 5 V 20 A or 50 V 2 A is that you would have to use different bulbs. Another difference is that the low voltage case would need power supply wires that have more copper in them, but could get away with less insulation. Since insulation is generally cheaper than copper, higher voltages are generally preferred. In the case of electric motors, the windings for a high voltage motor will have comparatively many turns of thin wire, while the low voltage motor will have fewer turns of thick wire. --Gerry Ashton23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays bulbs may say "100W" while they have much lower wattage but equivalent luminosity, an unfortunate development. Let's assume it is a "true" 100W bulb, which has been designed for use at 120V. Then the current going through will be 100W/120V = 0.833A. It's resistance, using Ohm's Law, is then 120V/0.833A = 144Ω. The latter is an actual physical characteristic of the lamp, independent of the voltage applied. If instead of 120V we apply 60V, we get a current of 60V/144Ω = 0.417A, and a power of 0.417A × 60V = 25W, only a quarter of what it says on the bulb. Likewise, if we apply 240V, we get a power consumption of 400W in the split second before the filament melts. The point is that the wattage listed is not an invariant physical characteristic, but only applies within the design parameters. --LambiamTalk23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In many real materials, resistance is a function of temperature. So the 144Ω figure may only apply at the temperature which the filament reaches in operation at that voltage. So it's even more design-specific than you suggest. In general, a bulb will have an output (e.g., blackbody radiation) and a resistance . At equilibrium, , or . Since output tends to increase very rapidly with temperature, even if we expect to find a balance. (In fact, resistance tends to increase with temperature due to increased disorder within the material.) Of course, even this is a simplification since in reality there will be temperature variations (and thus resistivity variations) within the wire and the current may create complex patterns that are harder to analyze. The important bit with respect to the initial question is that for most things as simple as light bulbs, once you pick the voltage the current is determined, so you can't just "go to" half the voltage and twice the current and "see what happens". Hope this helps. --Tardis06:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that P=I*V is true for AC. It is strictly true only for DC. For AC, it is true only for a load which is purely resistive. A resistive load could be a heater or an incandescent light bulb. Any load which is reactive, containing net inductance or capacitance, will consume power less than I*V. High voltage power lines (such as 345 kv) are likely to be capacitive (combination of resistance and capacitance) and the current will lead the voltage. Residential loads, with motors and air conditioners, are likely to be inductive combination of resistance and inductance. In an inductive load the current waveform will lag behind the voltage waveform. The electric meter on your house bills for energy used in kilowatt hours; the reactive current is basically free. Commercial and industrial customers are billed if their power factor is too reactive. The reactive current is termed VARs for "volt-amps reactive" and the power company hates them, since they heat up transformers and distribution lines just like revenue-producing watts. They install capacitor banks to improve the power factor towards unity (neither inductive nor capacitative). Edison16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G2B2... what does it mean?
Trying to figure out what G2B2 means in a medical context, as an adjective applied to a woman, or as a status associated with a woman. --MattShepherd20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you provided the specific context in which you heard this term it would be easier for us to figure out what it means. Was it on a lab sheet? ...in a text book? Did you overhear it? Tuckerekcut20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean G2P2? It is shorthand for an obstetrical history. "G" (for gravida) refers to the number of pregnancies. "P" (for para) refers to the number of live births. Some include an "A" or "SA" for abortions/miscarriages. G2P1 means 2 pregnancies, 1 delivery (and currently pregnant with the second). G1P2 means 1 pregnancy with a set of twins delivered. - Cybergoth21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way you describe the circumstance in which the term is used would indicate the pregnancy related meaning. "G" does refer to the number of times the woman has fallen pregnant. As noted, the second letter is a capital "P", but these days a somewhat complicated four-digit "code" follows it. The first digit after the P indicates the number of full-term pregnancies (those that lasted > 37 weeks), the second, the number of pregnancies where a premature baby was born (20-37 weeks' pregnancy), the third, the number of pregnancies ending before 20 weeks (spontaneous or induced abortion), and the fourth indicates the number of children living at present. An example would be "G5 P3115", analysed as: G5 = times pregnant, P3xxx = 3 times full-term pregnancies, Px1xx = 1 premature delivery, Pxx1x = 1 miscarriage before 20 weeks, and Pxxx5 = 5 living children. Note that this does not indicate in what sort of combination(s) the 5 living children come from, all one can say is that out of 5 pregnancies, 4 lasted to a viable gestational age. They could all have been twin pregnancies, with three kids having died, one from prematurity, one poisoned by her husband, and one in battle. The coding does not allow for indicating twins, triplets, and such. Note also that if the first three numbers following the P add up to 1 less than the G, then it indicates that the woman is presently pregnant. --Seejyb01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
broken neon
Do broken neon tubes release a dangerous amount of mercury vapor? I was in a convenience that had a broken neon sign and I'm wondering if I should bother with going to the doctor. KeeganB
Doesn't elemental mercury produce a poisonous vapor? Anyway, I forgot to point out that the duplicates of this sign produced blue light, which it caused by mercury. KeeganB
I wouldn't worry to much about your mercury exposure. I myself have come into contact with a solution which contained a small amount of the mercury salt mercury(II)chloride without even knowing what it was till much later. As far as I know elemental mercury is actually quite safe compared to its salts. Seeing how very little is in the tube to begin with I wouldn't think that you have anything to worry about at all short term or long term. PvT12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a scientific basis for questioning that mercury is every bit as deadly as its present reputation. The term "mad as a hatter" is supposed to refer to recognition centuries ago that exposure to mercury caused brain damage. But a few decades ago everyone in chemistry class got to roll some of it around in the palm of his hand and it felt really cool. It would also coat a penny and make it look like a dime. In the late 19th century, gold miners would make up snowball-like wads of gold ore and mercury with their bare hands to extract the precious metal. Electrical experimenters used it all the time for low resistance low friction contact points is circuits. Mr. Wizard on TV kid science shows used mercury many times this way, as for a "jumping spring." 19th century photographers used it to make Daguerrotypes. It was in fever thermometers, which many a child bit through and got mercury in the mouth. It is in the silver amalgam fillings which have been in the mouths of many millions of Americans for many decades. For these reasons, I have to feel a little skepticism about the deadly peril of the vapor from a drop of spilled mercury.
Edison17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on the first point, you don't have the "scientific basis" for understanding the difference between mercuric nitrate, dimethylmercury, methylmercury, and mercury the element. If I were to follow the reasoning you have just outlined, I would have to conclude that the toxicity of chlorine gas is a myth, after all, people consume sodium chloride all the time, and don't do anything other than raise their blood prease, therefore chlorine isn't really toxic, that's just media hype, bah, brain hurt.--71.247.125.14403:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury is what is known as a heavy metal poison. What is dangerous about it is it bioaccumulates. This means any taken in to the body is not eliminated very quickly, so if you are exposed to it as a very young child most of it will still be in you when you are very old. Other poisons, like cyanide, will allow you to recover from a less than fatal dose as the poison will be eliminated after a time, a few days maybe. Poisons which bioaccumulate won't do that. Sicne Mercury is a liquid, it has a higher vapor pressure than solids so you can inhale enough to be significant. The amount in a neon tube is not very much, you would have to hang around the convenience store a long time (weeks) with a neon tube breaking nearly every day to have a chance of having problems.
Mammals and body temperature
Could someone explain why, say, my cat has a different body temperature than myself, even though we share a great deal of temperature-sensitive biochemistry? Peter Grey23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, doesn't it seem odd that mammals have so many genes in common, and these genes govern chemical reactions highly sensitive to temperature, and yet different species have different normal body temperatures? Peter Grey18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a related subject, I remember seeing a chart purporting to show how you can read the temperature in a room from the posture of a resting cat. Wish I could find that again! —Tamfang06:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They also find the warmest and coolest location in the house. I once found my cat sleeping in the bathroom sink. I thought it's little walnut brain had blown a fuse until I realized the ceramic sink was connected to thick metal pipes filled with cool water, and probably stayed cool all day long. StuRat07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mushroom clouds
Was the Trinity test the first instance in which the iconic mushroom cloud seared its image into humanity's collective consciousness, or did scientists even before the first nuclear explosion have an idea of what the resultant cloud would look like? --Cyde Weys23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read our article Mushroom cloud; it suggests that they should have known the answer if they asked the question. Probably they were smart enough to figure it out anyway without experimental evidence. I don't remember reading anywhere that they actually wondered or speculated about this aspect, although it appears unlikely to me that they wouldn't have. --LambiamTalk00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that much smaller conventional explosions also produce mushroom clouds, so people would have known about them long ago. I would even think, under the right circumstances, that a volcano could produce a mushroom cloud. StuRat00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've had the experience of seeing an explosion complete with a mushroom cloud less than a mile away. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Before the Trinity explosion, they did a trial run with 100 tons of TNT to get an idea of what a large explosion would do, and how the radioactive fallout would behave. That explosion also generated a mushroom cloud. --Serie22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned comment
I'm not sure where this belongs, because it was added to the Science Ref desk after this date had been transcluded:
The Earth follows a path around the Sun. Given that the globe is spinning, how would one describe or calculate the direction of its orbit in terms of planetary coordinates?
Or, to put it another way: imagine an axis through the Earth which always points in the direction of the planet's orbit around the Sun. Would the points this axis describes on the surface of the Earth form a meaningful pattern, and how would it be described? --Halcatalyst02:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you are asking. You would need to realize that the Earth's orbit isn't "pointing" in one direction, like a curved line with an arrow on the end. You need to think in terms of Vectors. One vector points in a straight line out into space, based on the direction the earth is going at that specific moment (inertia). The other vector points in a straight line towards the sun, representing the acceleration of the earth towards the sun (gravity). When you combine the effect of these two vectors, the earth follows a circular path around the sun. BenC702:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about the velocity vector of the earth here, during a single rotation, it doesn't change significantly in the solar coordinate system, so as the earth rotates on it's 23.5 degree-tilt axis, it will trace out a circumference of the earth. Because the earth keeps its axial orientation (in the solar frame) over the course of a year, the circle will slowly rotate on the earth's surface (at the equinoxes it will trace along the equator, at the solstices, it will trace a "perpendicular" circumference), and the trace will wander around between the + and - 23.5 degrees latitude. Over a long time, it will travel through every point (approximately) between the latitudes +23.5 and -23.5 degrees. Actually, I don't know - does anyone know if the earth's rotation is in any kind of resonance with its orbit around the sun? If so, it will only have a limited "rosetta" pattern on the earth's surface, rather than hitting every point. --Bmk03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but the slowing of the rotation (from something like 22 hours in the dinosaur age?) implies that there is no resonance. So, yeah, the curve is space-filling. —Tamfang06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since nothing is working on our orbit in the way that tidal friction works on our rotation, it is believed that the length of the year can be changing only if the gravitational constant is changing, as some theories suggest, but consensus says that's not happening either. —Tamfang06:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to general relativity, orbiting bodies give off gravitational radiation, which does slow the orbit. In GR, there are no stable orbits! Also, there is the effect of interplanetary gas dragging on the planet. Of course, both of these effects are extremely small, and they probably have a negligible effect, but nonetheless, they exist. --Bmk17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My question is about energy use in cold blooded animals vs warm blooded animals. I have written;
"A lucky 70 kg snake might find a 15 kg pig to eat. This would provide
it with enough energy for about three months of living, give or take.
If you or I, on the other hand, ate 15 kg of bacon, this would sustain
us for a bit more than a week."
Do these numbers seem reasonable? What numbers would you use?
It sounds erroneous to me. The normal number is 2000 kcal/day, or of course 14000 per week. 15000 grams of bacon would then have to have less than one (dietary) calorie per gram... and as can be seen on most nutrition labels (at least in the US), protein has 4 and fat 9 calories/gram. Maybe if, somehow, 80%-90% of bacon was indigestible, this would work out; otherwise it's off by quite a bit. --Tardis06:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to use a brain as a computer hardware? If yes, is it currently researched?
Impossible. Will be for a long while. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
In principle any nontrivial information-processing device can emulate any other (given enough storage), but the structure of an organic brain is so different from that of a digital computer that it's hard to imagine circumstances in which anyone but an extremely mad scientist would ever try it. —Tamfang06:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the reverse to be much more interesting, a human brain that could instantly access info from a computer. For example, think about what could be accomplished by combining the creativity of the human brain with all the misinformation in Wikipedia ! StuRat07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a terrible idea, but it wouldn't really be all that interesting, you wouldn't really be connected, you'd just be using your mind to do the equivalent of clicking a mouse, I imagine it would work a bit like Hawking's blink control. Wouldn't have to be much more sophisticated than a Cochlear implant. Of course the only thing that would do is turn your brain into a glorified tracking ball, which might just cut down on the instances of carpal tunnel syndrome--71.247.125.14416:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I picture something far more ambitious, many years from now, where you would think of a question ("What's the capital of Sri Lanka ?"), and instantly know the answer, much like AskJeeves worked, when it worked. On the other hand, if it doesn't work, maybe you would instantly see a Columbo movie, LOL. StuRat19:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some kinds of information could be expressed as new senses, e.g. you might feel the state of your bank account as you feel that of your stomach. Me, I'm hoping for a four-dimensional virtual eye. —Tamfang01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A brain in a computer or a computer in a brain - both come down to the same problem of useful information exchange. 'Reading' a brain is very crude at the moment. And 'writing', afaik, hasn't gone beyond giving a stimulus to a part of the brain to elicit a response of some muscle. Also very crude. That is getting info out of (or into) a brain, next is making sense of it. So far, all we can say is that 'there is some activity' in some part of the brain when certain functions are performed. We first need to understand the brain, and we're not quite there yet.
Scientists currently have an implant into the visual cortex which allows the blind to "see" with a grid of points. It's a very small grid right now, so only allows them to see if a person is in front of them, not actually identify the person, but this could be improved to the point where complete images of either the real world or a computer generated world could be supplied to the brain. StuRat19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if this were possible, it would open up a path to one of the most desired things, namely eternal life. The machine and the brain would merge. The sum of the two would hold the personality. But the machine can expand indefinitely (in principle) and live forever (and be easily repaired and such). So if the brain would die, that would be like a minor stroke and we would live on inside a computer happily ever after. Also, since we could then interconnect, we would merge more and more and eventually all become one. Cool! Or boring? DirkvdM09:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The machine and the brain would merge. The sum of the two would hold the personality." That supposes that one's personality resides in the brain. I will grant that one's intellect is most likely in the brain, but personality encompasses far more than intellect. Emotion, physiology, one's soul and countless other factors make up a personality. Does anyone know exactly where these qualities exist? Can anyone know? Do they even exist in a physical place at all, or are they trans-physical? I believe merging a computer and a brain might preserve a person's knowledge, but the actual person would not be merged. — Michael J18:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
electric shock abdominator
Oh, does anyone know about those late nite TV ads for those 'abdominator' style muscle toners that you wear like a cummerbund and it gives you electric shocks to induce muscle twitch and supposedly then get you in shape from all the 'exercise' youve been doing?
What is that device called?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.93 (talk • contribs)
There's also one that shocks your face to exercise facial muscles. Sounds dangerous to me. And if you find it difficult to exercise now, just wait until it requires repeated electrical shocks. StuRat07:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A mobile version could chase you around and you'd be running for your life - plenty exercise. So once again, StuRat, don't knock it until you've thought it through. :) DirkvdM09:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And some plants have proteases. Eg. pawpaw has something like 50% dry w/w papain which is thought to be a defence mechanism against microbes and burrowing insects. Aaadddaaammm09:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the latest on woad
[2] Woad really produces this chemical if you scrunch up some leaves. Perhaps grazing animals and insects don't like blue tongues? --Zeizmic12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly answering the question, but plants are often in close proximity to fungi in the soil, some of which have antibiotic properties, which creates a somewhat safer environment for the plants.B00P21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gravity
If the Sun was to suddenly disappear, light would take so many minutes to reach earth, but would the gravity take affect at the exact time or at the speed of light or slower. I guess what i'm asking is what speed dose gravity travel at?
Please don't make your answer too hasty. We don't really know. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Well, general relativity and string theory both say it travels at exactly the speed of light. If fact I don't think there are any theories of quantum gravity that say anything different and the only theory that does say something different it Newtonian gravity.
Remember to sign your posts, people! And I can't remember what it the answer was, but i think this has been asked before - check through the archives - i think the title was "speed of gravity". Aaadddaaammm09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to take into account the cause and effect of this sudden disappearance. It is difficult to see how this could happen without an accompanying explosion so big that it would render your question irrelevant. (In other words, hypothetical questions are almost impossible to answer without a lot more detail of various other factors. And even then...)--Shantavira17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, is it possible for the sun to leave faster than the speed of light? I am not expert but I do not know if that scenerio can even happen under the current model of the universe. HighInBC21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography on Wikipedia
I am writing a scientific literature overview in the subfield of AI and will have a compilation of several hundred article titles available, sorted by year of publication/alphabetically. It is often a serious problem to find references to all the work that has been done in a specific scientific field and I think that a list of scientific papers published on a particular topic would be very useful to the scientific community. Authors could add references to their own papers once published etc. and people could contribute missing information, e.g., sometimes the title of the article/paper is known but it is impossible to find out where it has been published or whether it is publicly accessible. Googling for every single publication ever published is a nightmare and in the scientific community we depend on people who are willing to do just that and write a good survey for a widely accessible journal. I think that having a wiki list of published work would be very helpful as it would make surveying the area a bit less obscure and make it easier for young researchers as well.
I am wondering whether this is an acceptable idea for Wikipedia and if anyone else thinks it would be helpful.
I agree that it would be a good idea, maybe with papers sorted by keywords; although I find the majority of (physics) papers don't list keywords in the abstracts.
I think the most useful structure would eventually evolve through common effort. If several people knowledgable in the field start contributing, it shouldn't take long before we get a useful database. Lots of research topics are already covered in Wikipedia and one could just attach relevant bibliographies to those.
microbiology
what are the micro organisms useful in controlling air pollution?and in what way?
what are the microbes that produce light?and in what way they are useful?--hima 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)vedula.himaja
Please take a short amount of time to familiarize yourself with the instructions at the top of the page. We're pleased to help out with most questions, but I'm afraid that we have to ask you to Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is not at all a home work question....it is asked in one of my descriptive exams...ive been searching it from hours on net so ive kept it here
A PRBS can be generated by a linear feedback shift register. It's a kind of pseudorandom noise. It has statistical properties similar to random data--for example, different run lengths of 1's and 0's occur with the expected frequencies, and the autocorrelation of a PRBS with a delayed version of itself is 0 (unless the delay is a whole number of periods). The number usually refers to the length of the shift register. The length of a PRBSn pattern is . Xilinx has some good application notes on how to setup the LFSR to generate different lengths of PRBS pattern.-- The Photon02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leuconostoc and Weissella
These microorganism are useful for what purpose ? Thanks
Knowing nothing about the genera in question, and with the risk of seeming a smartass, I'd say the obvious answer is "making more of themselves". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I once read a very interesting book about the apparently very clever things insects can do being due to the following very simple and ingenious rules, things that could be encoded onto only a few neurons I imagine. Sorry, I've forgotten the title and author. Humans, on the other hand, have the overheads of language, and a model of the world enabling them to reason. They need a big brain to code things into language and also maintain a model of the world. (They have a much more complicated software programme than ants - ants are just machine code.) Without these overheads ants can do similarly clever things by instinct which can be encoded compactly into a small brain.
Then there is the "hive mind", where the modest brainpower of each individual combines to do things collectively, which no individual could do alone. In humans, for example, no human could go to the moon alone, but collectively, we can do it together. StuRat23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think in ants at least, the ants are again just blindly following simple but ingenoius rules. I have been thinking that a statistical software program is smarter than humans, but because it does not encode things into language or reason then it does not seem so.
New Pollen?
I live in the commonwealth of massachusetts. Ive never had allergy problems before. However, just recently, Ive been displaying symptoms of allergic reactions. Nasal congestion, swollen face, etc. So Ive looked at differnt pollen websites and cant find any info to help me. SO my question is what, if any new pollen comes out around this time of year in the northeast. Ive been fine all summer so it must be some plant/weed that gets release mid to late summer. Of course there is always the chance that I just recently became allergic to something. I know the whole deal how none of your are doctors and I should seek medical attention for real help, so lets just get past that.
THanks!!!
There is a section on the weather page of the Globe that gives a pollen count for the next day or two, maybe you should see if your discomfort follows a trend that parallels this count. For what it's worth, people develop new allergies all the time. Isn't IgE a bitch?Tuckerekcut00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take as read all the precautions etc about this kind of medical advice.
I saw a dermatologist today and she noticed that I had a erythrasma infection in my armpits. It did not seem to be harmful but it can spread. It is, according to my internet research, caused by Corynebacterium minutissimum, a bacteria. She told me to spray it twice a day for a fortnight with Daktarin, which is a UK trade name for a spray powder that contains "miconazole nitrate Ph Eur 0.16% w/w" and which is usually used for the fungal infection known as athlete's foot and other names.
I wondered afterwards why a treatment for fungus would be used with a bacterial infection, and reading the miconazole article suggests that it does have a mild anti-bacterial action also.
But I wonder if I could instead just use an antibacterial spray, as this should be more powerful in zapping the germs. I'm also aware of the nitrates and remember that these are carcinogenic - or is that nitrites?
My question is - is there such a thing as an antibacterial spray that is safe to be used regularly on the skin? I do have some antibacterial creams, but sprays are quicker and more convenient to use. One of them contains chlorhexidine gluconate, which according to the article you should not get near your ears or eyes. The other is based on cetrimide. I want to know more about this before speaking to a pharmacist so I don't end up with something only designed to be used once on wounds. Thank you.
According to the Merck Manuals, "Topical drugs such as clindamycin and miconazole cream are also effective" [for the treatment of Erythrasma]. For the rest, you should really ask your dermatologist. --LambiamTalk00:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly use just about any antiseptic to reduce skin fauna (Clorhexidine and Betadine soaps work well, many spreays and ointments are available), but you don't necesserily want to. Natural microbial fauna might be more effective in keeping out pathological strains than you could be even with diligent cleaning. It may have been that your doctor told you to use the antifungal to reduce the chance of a new infection with fungus, assuming that your body can fight off the erythrasma itself. I would strongly suggest you take the advice of your physician, maybe call her office if you want more answers. If you do decide to go against her advice, though, I would stick to plain old soap and water.Tuckerekcut00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what's the best way to defend against terrorism weapons made out of soda or other soft drinks? =
>?
Prohibit production of soda and soft drinks. You can also kill all the terrorists. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
on a plane, banning them is the best option. People can buy a $1 soft drink on the other side if they want to, or a $2 one guaranteed by the manufacturer on of the plane.
C'mon guys, be serious. It is just plain stupid if you wanted to ban soft drink transportation onto a plane. That is moronic. How would that save lives? All that would do is prove that once again, we give in a little bit more. We sacrifice more of our liberties. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
lets see you come up with an effective, efficient, cheap detection system to verify that soft drink cans don't actually contain explosives. The simplest solution is to travel light, and buy what you need on the airplane itself or before/after your trip. Wjlkgnsfb23:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by no means... never mix the two together. The deadly combination may just take off a hand or an arm. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
From the terrorism article: "Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government...". Nobody even has to get hurt for terrorism to work: it becomes terrorism when the populace is scared. Thousands of people might have died over the course of this era of terrorism, but hundreds of millions of people have to change the way they go about their lives. That is the true effect of terrorism, and they (the instigators) couldn't have done it without us.Tuckerekcut23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People change how they live because they care about living and/or the lifes of others. If that is a "win" for terrorism, the only way to defeat terrorism is to stop caring what happens. No matter how many are kidnapped or killed, just stop caring and terrorism will fail in the end. It is my opinion that not caring if people live or die is terrible, so I feel that is a win for terrorism too. Apparently, terrorism wins no matter what. --Kainaw(talk)00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, but well said. I think the only way to stop terrorism is to eliminate all the terrorists. And for all you folks following the news out there, I'll give you a hint - the correct answer is not "kill all the terrorists". See hydra for more details. --Bmk01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about special planes for people from Muslims countries ? The terrorists wouldn't see much point in blowing up those planes (that would actually be bad PR for them), and would have a hard time getting onto the other planes. This may seem extreme, but I, and I assume many others, are to the point of just not wanting to fly anymore. I can't bring any carrry-on luggage, and the airlines feel free to lose my luggage and serve me a tiny portion of contaminated water, if any, while keeping me in a hot plane for hours, after waiting in security lines for hours, and they still can't seem to protect us. StuRat02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I once heard that most muslim (and other) terrorist actions take place in the home country of the terrorists and kill mostly muslims. Anyway the question was about terrorists, not muslims. DirkvdM12:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And has your fevered brain imagined there is some huge threat from non-Muslim terrorists ? Most people would be entirely satisfied if we could stop Muslim terrorists. All those Buddhist terrorists will just have to wait. :-) StuRat20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My (fevered or not) brain doesn't see much of a threat in terrorism. The attacks, that is, what politicians and the media do is a different matter - they're the real terrorists. I think I have made that clear enough in previous discussions. The total worldwide deathtoll is negligible compared to real threats, like malaria and cars. And the 'war on terrorism', of course. The fact that recently most attacks have been by muslims is at least in part a result of the narrow statistical basis. It may well be that just a few years ago most terrorists were catholics. It takes just a few attacks to tip the balance. Of course the war on terrorism 'helps' here, too. I f you keep on attacking muslims they will keep on counterattacking and you've got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy. DirkvdM07:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, by your def, the Chechens who blew up the Russian school, children included, are "not real terrorists" and we should just ignore this type of thing ? The facts don't support your argument, attacks on US civilians have dropped off dramatically since the war on terrorism began. Prior to that, they were spiraling ever upwards. And you can't just ignore something due to the current death toll, the potential death toll is much greater. Using your logic, AIDS should have been ignored in the 1980's, because the death toll, at the time, was small, even though it was entirely predictable that it would spread and kill millions, just like unopposed terrorism will. StuRat18:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're very clear about how terrible the above suggestion is, the people arrested in the recent 'liquid explosives' plot were mostly British. Those arrested in the Canadian terrorist conspiracy were mostly Canadian. Or are you suggesting that British and Canadians should only be allowed to fly on their own airlines. BA and Air Canada would really like that - they would make a huge profit. DJ Clayworth17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about special planes for muslims and people who won't eat pork? The pork hating terrorist will be very happy to kill their sworned pork hating enemies (the joos) and leave the rest of us alone. We can call the new airline No Pork Airways.Ohanian04:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a view around here that terrorist = Muslim = terrorist. That may be someone's idea of a sick joke, but it just incites hatred for all Muslims, the vast majority of whom have nothing but abhorrence for terrorism. JackofOz10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only terrorists I fear are those who don't eat pork. I propose a new airline where the interior of the planes are laced with lard. And all the drinks contains traces of lard. I feel safer in the plane this way. Ohanian14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, that is not just 'around here'. After the end of the USSR, the US (and other western countries) needed another enemy (to distract from interior problems). The attacks on the WTC and the pentagon were a godsend. The only problem was that it's an enemy you can't point out easily. So first Al Qaeda was invented (the term is a US invention), but that was too small and hard to fight, so it changed to 'muslims in general'. Nice and identifiable. DirkvdM12:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a more general note, and this was in a way already said above, the best defence against terrorism is to ignore it. I understand that that was a method used by Thatcher against the IRA (if so, for once she got something right). The point of terrorism is to instill fear. If the media ignore everything you do, there's not point in doing it, so it will stop. So the media and the politicians telling us to be afraid of something that barely kills anyone (if you look at the big picture) are the real terrorists. DirkvdM12:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The US tried ignoring it; they ignored the first attack (bomb) on the World Trade Center, they ignored the attacks on the US embassies in Africa, and they ignored the attack on the USS Cole. If they had also ignored the 9-11 attacks, the next attacks likely would have been with WMD. StuRat20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the US arrested, tried and convicted those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the WTC. They are sitting in a maximum security prison even now. That was before the US just imprisoned suspected terrorists without trials.Edison17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By ignored, I don't mean "took no action whatsoever", that would be beyond stupid. What I meant was "took no action capable of preventing further attacks". Those actions include, but are not limited to, removing the terrorists and their Taliban supporters from their base in Afghanistan. After that was done, terrorist attacks against US civilians dropped off dramatically. StuRat21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we only got peace with the IRA by talking to them. And I don't think the current threat is organised enough for there to be anyone worth talking to about it. And to the 'hilarious' suggestions of all-muslim-country airlines, the problem is 'home-grown' terrorists. Skittle13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Home-grown terrorists may be the problem in the UK, but not in the US. I don't think any of the 9-11 attackers were born in the US. The UK needs to arrest all the clerics who preach terrorism, and keep them locked up, to stop the home-grown thing. StuRat20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Right to Free Speech most definitely does not include the right to advocate murdering civilians, as I'm sure the voters would agree in any referendum. StuRat19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more on the IRA broadcast ban. That was also aimed at Sinn Féin, a law that forbade tv and radio (not newspapers) to air comments by Sinn Féin members, so it was more of a political thing. They could be shown, however, so the BBC decided to show the interviews and have the voices dubbed over, thus circumventing the law. So een though the basic idea made sense, it was halfharted, misdirected and done to hastily, not in cooperation with the media, which only pissed them off. Don't ever do that to the media. It will always backfire - they're too powerful, which is a central issue here. There's a little bit on this way at the bottom of Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland). Could do with some expansion (maybe a separate article even), but I know too little to write that.
But most importantly, the ban drew so much attention that it actually hepled the IRA get more attention. Just as the whole war on terrorism now is a godsend for terrorists all over the world. They only need to plan a terrorist attack and make sure they are found out. I wonder if that is what was done here. DirkvdM13:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between group velocity and phase velocity?
Despite reading the articles I am still not clear what the difference is between Group velocity and Phase velocity, relating to waves and sound. Could anyone explain it in simpler laymen's terms please?
The phase velocity is the velocity at which a wave of a single frequency will propagate. The phase velocity is the velocity with which most people are innately familiar; "wave velocity" or "velocity of propagation," really means "phase velocity." When you combine waves of several different frequencies, something different happens: you get interference. In an extreme example, you can combine several waves such that they cancel out everywhere except in a small area of space. This destructive wave interference is by the way, how active noise-cancelling headphones work. The envelope of the resulting "wave packet" is not really a proper wave—it's the result of the interference of several component waves. The envelope of the wave packet, the peak of constructive interference, can travel at a different speed from the phase velocity, the velocity of each of its individual component waves. Group velocity. Get it? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
So if I use an analogy of a long line of cars moving slowly along on a congested road, then would the phase velocity would be the speed the cars are moving at? If one of the cars leaves the road, then the car behind will quickly move up, then the one behind that and so on, so that this gap moves like a travelling wave (or sp? traveling wave) along the line of cars. Would the speed at which this gap moves be the wave velocity?
The analogy of a line of cars might work, but not as you stated it; it is sort of a complicated analogy since it is a longitudinal wave (i.e. compression wave). Really, the best way to think of group and phase velocity is that the shape of the wavelet changes. The group velocity is sort of the "average" speed of the whole little pulse. The phase-velocity is how fast each frequency component moves. Phase-velocity is different for each frequency component; and it determines how different the pulse will look at the other end. Perhaps even with your physics background, you never got as much Fourier analysis as your colleague electrical engineers; wavelet analysis must use some rigorous mathematical Fourier transforms to get numerical results. Nimur22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt realise that different frequencies had different speeds. Now it makes more sense. If this is the case, then why is the speed of sound given as (as far as I recall) 330 metres per second, and not a different speed for specific frequencies? And would it be possible to construct a sound-prism?
So let me see if I get this right please - on an AM radio broadcast, the carrier signal is moving at one speed (the speed of light presumably), but the modulated sound signal is moving at another speed. Is that correct?
And if you drop a pebble into the middle of a large pond and watch the ripples spread out, is it correct that the ripples are moving at phase velocity, not group velocity?
Yes, yes, and yes... The trick here is that in most materials (i.e., in air, for example), the group and phase velocities are nearly equal. So, when you say that the speed of sound is 330 m/s, you mean that is the average, rough approximation. When the phase and group velocities are not equal, the packet changes shape - this can be detected as distortion. Yes, your AM radio broadcast carrier gets distorted; remember, the speed of light in AIR is less than the speed of light in vacuum (how much less? Depends on the frequency); and if you were unlucky enough to be transmitting through certain types of glass you probably would not be able to recover the original signal. But, for most "normal circumstances" (...if normal means anything in science...) the phase and group velocities are close or equal. Nimur13:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give an example of when phase and group velocities are very different: waveguides (image). They are pipes through which you feed electromagnetic waves. A waveguide has a "cutoff frequency" – waves with frequencys lower than that will die out as they try to propagate along the guide. Frequencys above the cutoff do all propagate, but with different phase velocities. If you start at a high frequency and decrease it, the phase velocity will increase. Actually, as you approach the cutoff frequency, the phase velocity will increase to infinity (yes, much higher than the speed of light in vacuum). An infinite phase velocity means that whenever, at one point along the guide, the field has a maximum, it will have its maximum at all other points aswell. The group velocity, however, will always be less than or equal to the speed of light in vacuum. (Otherwise you could send information faster than the speed of light in vacuum, which, as we know, isn't possible.) —Bromskloss01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. StuRat01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? Black Carrot05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. StuRat07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --Zeizmic11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. Black Carrot16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polycarbonate is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --Serie23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. Black Carrot05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the thing to do is to ask your friend where he got them from, and then see if they are marketed there as safety glasses. In Britain I expect they would be marked with something that indicated that they complied with a British standard for safety glasses - but I'm only guessing.
I did ask him for details, but he couldn't remember any, and I don't remember any obvious markings on the glasses themselves. I've also asked him to see if he can get me a pair, which may or may not happen. I actually posted the question right after I first talked to him, figuring I could get a quick answer and perhaps order them online. Black Carrot22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bananas inducing gag reflex
I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.
When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?
Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical mouthfeel of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of broccoli but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) Weregerbil12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --Kainaw(talk)13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) -- DLL .. T19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --Ginkgo100talk · e@20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an allergist. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- C. S. Joiner (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two suggestions:
1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.
2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. StuRat21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) StuRat21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. JackofOz01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. StuRat03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, it seems you're not eating the same variety of bananas as I'm eating. Or maybe they use some sort of pesticide or ripening agent over there that affects the taste/texture. I've never had that problem with Australian bananas, and I eat lots of them. JackofOz09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we eat Cavendish here too. I still reckon there must be something in the way they're treated before they get to the mouths of the American consumer that makes them that way. Australian bananas are just not like that. JackofOz23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --Zeizmic15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time course of evolution
Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks!24.5.103.16617:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott[reply]
Modern humans are not under as strict selective pressures as other species (due to healthcare, the welfare state, and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. Founder effects precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the CCR5-Δ32 allele during a global HIV/AIDS pandemic, for example. Rockpocket17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --Kainaw(talk)17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for natural evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). DirkvdM19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Charles Darwin's grandfather, not his father (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of natural selection in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection by itself is not the idea of evolution, per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --Fastfission00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs Kainaw refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see chromatophore), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring albinos demonstrates.
Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --Kainaw(talk)20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Kainaw, i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change per se. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. Rockpocket20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --Serie23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high altitude training to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the Moken sea gypsies. This remarkable study showed that Moken children have underwater visual acuity that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [7]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations demonstrate that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. Rockpocket01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --Kainaw(talk)01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is genetic: that's why a flatlander will react in one way to high altitude, a Andean will react in another, simliar way, and a Himalyan will react in a third, entirely different way. --Serie21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fastfission, you say that "It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations." Technical terminology aside, isn't it more likely to be the other way around? People started breeding animals for certain traits because they understood that could be possible. So they had some idea of selection. Extending that to natural selection does require some intelligence, but until not too long ago, intelligence was no guarantee to become a 'scholar', so there must have been quite a few highly intelligent farmers. Over thousands of years quite a few of those must have figured this out. Of course, lack of means to spread the knowledge meant the insight was probably lost when they died, so we won't know about them. But they must have existed. DirkvdM06:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two things here. There are examples of Microevolution around, in which the balence of some population of a creature changes because of 'survival of the fittest' events. Examples to look at here might include The Beak of the Finch and the Peppered Moth. As for Macroevolution, the form of evolution in which new species of creature or wholly new characteristics arise, these tend to occur on a hugely longer timescale, mostly longer than we've been studying these things. One exception might be drug-resistant bacteria. DJ Clayworth17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue
i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --LambiamTalk18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it is superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on Klokhuis (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. DirkvdM19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
living rocks
While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden
Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - this PDF file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says why it is using that term. --LarryMac19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" OED, e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--Shantavira19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. StuRat21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [9] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--Zeizmic23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In its simple form, a crystal radio does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --LambiamTalk22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really hard to do this to a crystal radio set with truly old-fashioned components, as the components would be pretty large and durable.
A "modern" Crystal radio receiver contains a germanium diode, which would probably be ruined by an EMP. An antique crystal radio might contain a crystal of carborundum or galena, which has sensitive spots found by placing a fine metal "cats'whisker" on various places until a signal is detected. These sensitive spots or improvised diodes, deteriorate over time under the best of circunstances, so I would expect that an EMP would also render such a set inoperative, but it should be possible to find another spot unaffected by the EMP. I would not expect that an EMP would change the crystal structure of all galena found in nature. A good plan for survivalists would be to keep a small transistor radio (am and short wave) inside a steel container which would act as a Faraday cage to provide electromagnetic shielding. The steel would be unlikely to allow sufficient energy to reach the radio to harm it, if it has no external connections such as an antenna, earphone, or power cord.Edison17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you're using a crystal diode, it's still not possible to make a radio without wires or a speaker, both of which would be fried by an EMP. Also, keep in mind radios generally have antennae ... which are designed to absorb normally faint radiation. Blast them with an EMP and I think it'd be like a lightning rod. --Cyde Weys19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the thin wire in a speaker or inductance coil is tens of thousands of times thicker than the junction in a diode, and millions of times thicker than the components of a modern integrated circuit. An EMP capable of burning out a speaker will be powerful enough to electrocute you through the voltage differential it builds up between your arms. --Serie21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cellphones......and the jammers there of
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--152.163.100.7419:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --Kainaw(talk)20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. Martinp2320:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use CDMA, or Code Division Multiple Access, which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt sine wave transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for electronic warfare; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency sidebands where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, digitally controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic analog circuit design to include software, radio frequency electronics, and other areas of expertise. Nimur22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. User:Martinp23 mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. Nimur22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember as a young schoolboy being told about a simple device made out of turns of wire and a spark gap, that would send out strong radio noise, and also being told not to make one - although I think I did once. I forget the details - but it was like a transformer plus a spark. It required no electronics and worked off batteries. I do wonder though if discussions like this and about explosives are not playing into the hands of terrorists and crank, many of whom must also read Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.12.10 (talk • contribs)
Eh - terrorists are getting plenty of practice in the nationwide terrorist training camp we (America) set up over there in Iraq. --Bmk02:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?
Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006
Not necessarily - it all depends on:
the length of the ring tone (recieving)
the length of the ring tone (sending)
The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. Martinp2320:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. BenC702:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hair bleaching question
I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --Kurt Shaped Box23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D Hyenaste(tell)23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) StuRat03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Only your hairdresser knows for sure." I have heard horror stories of abused hair falling out when over-bleached. Be careful with do-it yourself. See Suicidegirls (They "dyed by their own hand"). Probably easiest to dye it to about your natural hair color and wait for it to grow out.Edison17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
August 17
Where is the center of earth's land?
Hello,
I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?
This is how I would define it :
Consider earth as a ball with radius R. Let the origin be its center.
Let A be that part of the surface where there is land.
Define
where is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.
Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --Bmk02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --Bmk03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length R, so that is not inside. --LambiamTalk03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for the confusion. I changed the question, so that it is clear the origin is the center (as I said, assume that earth is a ball)
There are other ways to go about this... you could find the centre of the largest connected piece of land, for instance. If you wanted to work with lattitude and longitude coordinates, you might have trouble as both coordinate systems wrap around... should the average be adjusted up or down when you add a point? (I can't think of a way to resolve this at the moment.) The one you've suggested sounds good. - Rainwarrior19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a small program in C to calculate this. I used the black pixels in http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=8392, translating the pixels to X,Y,Z coordinates, and taking a weighted average of them (proportional to , with 0 on the equator, and + or - on the poles). The result is 4228.65km beneath the surface, 43°29'41.29" N, 28°7'51.02" E. Here is a link on google maps - sipa102423:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain this process more? most importantly how you got a result at a distance below the earth's surface, given the information available. --Jmeden200015:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The program iterates over all pixels in the image, transforming them to spherical coordinates (r=1,phi & theta in function of row/column in the image), and those spherical coordinates to cartesian coordinates x,y,z. These x,y,z are averaged over all black pixels (by summing them together multiplied with cos(phi), which is proportional to the surface size corresponding with the pixel, en dividing this sum by the sum of all cos(phi)'s). The result is an average x,y,z, which is transformed back to spherical coordinates, and the N & E degrees are calculated from phi and theta, and the depth is earth_radius*(1-R). In the mean time have runned the program again on data from here (43200x21600 image), and the result is 42°22'27.87" N, 29°10'35.38" E, 4244.33 km depth. By the way, evilbu's original question normalised the vector from the center to the average so it was on the earth's surface. I didn't do this, but it's trivial that answer is the same but just at 0km depth :) -- sipa1024 2:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--Milboage00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual Basque people are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? Hyenaste(tell)00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --Kainaw(talk)01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't math a simplification of English? One equation of medium complexity = a paragraph of english, to use an equation.
Math and english can mesh perfectly if you use the right words, but physics professors sometimes lack in that area.
If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
But achieving an understanding of "some of the motivations and some of the consequences", by a large portion of the population, is infinitely better than the majority of the population having absolutely no clue what relativity means, whatsoever, isn't it ? StuRat07:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In addition, it would be impossible to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's not presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material shouldn't be there. --Trovatore01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Math is of extreme importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he was. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well real mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all integrals, differentials, partial derivatives, and summations and deltas and dot products. The last time I checked M-theory they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I don't think implying that laymen aren't smart is justified. They may very well have higher IQ's than the experts, but just lack experience on this particular topic. StuRat21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --Bmk02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. StuRat02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--71.247.125.14403:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". StuRat03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a simplification at all, it's simply an older theory that really doesn't mesh well with much of anything any more. Electrons don't orbit around at atom at all, why teach something that's false just because it's easier? If anything, this just makes it harder for people to understand concepts like this once they get to a more advanced level. Hence all the questions from people who think that "spin" is describing the act of an electron physically spinning around an atom..--71.247.125.14412:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a version which can actually be shown visually, and is all that's needed for basic chemistry, using the outer circular orbit as the valence shell, for example. For most people, this is all they need. For those who go on to theoretical physics, they can learn the more difficult to understand models. For an analogy, globes of the Earth are also "wrong", in that the Earth isn't a hollow cardboard sphere with countries in different colors, but they are still quite useful. StuRat15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. To have an article on, say, the exterior derivative without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article can be edited by everyone, not every article should be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.
Then how would you like to try to read an article on Hindi phonology which is only understandable by those with a phD in the subject ? StuRat07:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on relativity do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --George05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The need for simple explanations also varies by topic. Those which are terms known to the layman, like "atomic theory" or "relativity", are likely to be viewed by laymen, and should thus have at least a portion which is simplified enough to be understandable by the layman. The simple part should come first, with all the equations coming later. On the other hand, topics which are of no interest to anyone but academics can be as needlessly complicated as they choose to make them, it's of no concern to me. StuRat07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn't he explain this in simple language.’ He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in A Canticle for Leibowitz
There are much more fields than science and maths. So you don't need to edit those if you don't get them. While some may need some edits to make them more accessible, I think it's pretty much impossible to write maths articles and articles on some science issues without equations. And some articles will be hard to access to lay men no matter what you do. You can't expect someone without a degree to go indepth into quantum physics, for example. For articles like that you should stick to the intros. - Mgm|(talk)07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with StuRat again for a change (?). Articles should (initially) be written by people who know much about the subject, but they tend to have too little understanding of how little understanding the non-initiated have. So after they are 'done' (which they never are af course - problem) others should copy-edit at least the intro to make that understandable to laymen.
But this is not restricted to scientific subjects. I've got an ongoing issue over this at British Isles (terminology). I started that article to give people who are confused by the whole terminology (like I was) a simple overview, thus:
Britain = Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland (politically) = the largest island (geographically)
The United Kingdom (political) = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland
The British Isles (geographical) = Great Britain (the island) + Ireland (the island) + many smaller surrounding islands
This may not be entirely correct, but it will instantly clear up a lot of issues for those who haven't a clue. Exceptions to this can then follow. At the moment it's relatively ok because I recently changed it, but over time people will start adding stuff, clogging up the intro, which goes against the purpose of the article.
More in general, I think an article should start with a simple explanation for the non-initiated and then go ever deeper, so that people can read from the top down until they have reached the point where it goes to deep for them. Of course this is an ideal that is difficult to realise, partly because there also has to be a division in differnt sub-subjects (although that can be largely somved by referring to more specialised articles), but one should try to come as close as possible to that ideal as possible. By the way, the simple English Wikipedia is meant for people who are less proficient at the language, not the subject.
That said, something that slightly irritates me is writing entities out, like 'kilometres per hour'. Why not 'km/h'? Or can we not assume people to know what that means? But then that's what we have links for. DirkvdM07:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Music cannot be translated into words without loss of content. Reading the lyrics is not the same as hearing the song. Why should we expect mathematics to be any less rich and deep ? Gandalf6111:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using the music analogy, imagine we are in a world where most people are deaf. Should we say "you can't really understand music, so go away, this article is only for those who can hear". Most people can't understand math formulae either, so an article which only contains those, and no simple explanation, says the same thing to them: "get lost !". StuRat15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would have completely killed the soundless music industry, and prevented deaf music from growing into the multimillion dollar business that it is today o: --152.163.100.7417:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deaf can appreciate many aspects of music, like the poetry in good lyrics. They can also "hear" virbations, and have even been known to dance to them. StuRat18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely true that articles should be made at least someone comprehensible to people without advanced degrees. Encyclopedias are meant to be general reference works, not specialized subjects. That being said, one does not have to re-explain the wheel each time if you edit carefully. If I wanted to explain how a nuclear bomb worked, I wouldn't go over all of the details of nuclear fission, what an atomic nucleus was, and so forth, each and every time I brought it up. The linking system makes it easy to reference other topics and allow the reader to go investigate if they are stumped.
Unfortunately many of our technical/math/science articles are not written with the slightest idea that a non-expert would be wanting to read the subject. Articles are supposed to have introductions which provide context and explain in layman's terms what the rest of the article is to be about. Even something like, "This is useful for solving these sorts of problems," (the latter being linked) is valueable, since it allows one to get someone of an idea of what the point is.
Obviously you can't re-write all articles to make perfect sense to someone who understands nothing about the subject. But you should be able to make it so that by clicking around, they can get at least a passing understanding of where a given topic fits within a larger field. Many of our articles do this, because people have taken the effort to make them do that. Many unfortunately do not. I am surprised at the stubbornness of some of those who have commented here. The entire point is to share knowledge, and sometimes that means finding ways to explain it that are clear and can be readable by all. Put the general description first ("This principle relates to X and Y, and is useful for Z problems.") and the technical description only after that ("Expressed as the following dozen equations..."). And people who argue that math is clearer than English are obviously and clearly missing the point. Generally speaking our articles should be comprehensible by someone with a little college education. That doesn't mean they should understand the entire article or the details, but they should understand what the article is basically about. --Fastfission15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Expanding on your note about articles that are missing a simplified explanation - even a simplified introduction. It isn't that nobody is trying to write a simplified section. The math elite are deleting the simplified sections with comments like, "That is already expressed in the formula." The rule should be that even if it is already expressed as a formula, if someone wants to simplify or generalize the topic for the non-formula-reading public, they should be allowed to do so. As it is right now, the math elite are hijacking all math-related articles and fighting hard to keep non-math people out of their private playground with comments like, "If you can't read the formula, you won't understand it anyway." Well, I feel they should all stop using Wikipedia. If you don't know PHP (the scripting language behind Wikipedia) and you don't know the algorithm used to handle diff/patch functions and you don't know server load balancing techniques and you don't know how to create your own TCP/IP packets... you won't understand anything on Wikipedia. So, just go away. --Kainaw(talk)15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kainaw, as it happens, recently, before your intervention on this page, I happened to be looking at your user page and saw your strongly expressed opinion, and I took a look back through your contrib history to see if I could figure out what prompted it. Couldn't find it. Could you please point me to the example(s) you have in mind, so I can see what you're talking about? It's certainly possible that your characterizations are accurate, for that example (or three); I'm not saying this sort of thing doesn't go on. On the other hand, if you're rephrasing equations literally in English (say, annotating "E=mc2" with "that is, energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light"), well, that's just silly. So I'd really like to see the example. --Trovatore16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I just don't see it, most wikipedia articles are written well below university level, in terms of the math that they use, if you take an article on something like QED and drop it from a freshman university level, down to a high school level, it loses all meaning--152.163.100.7417:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(inserted above next post after edit conflict)
Look at Zipf's Law - specifically the last paragraph in the introduction. I had to fight for that. Everyone involved kept saying "It's in the equations - just look further down the article, stupid." I said that it is easy to explain in English - without a formula (I don't consider 1/f a "formula"). This went back and forth - even including people telling me that what I wrote is entirely incorrect (though it is a paraphrasing of Zipf's own work). Finally, the paragraph remains and anyone who doesn't understand the "simple" formula has a shot at understanding the 1/f relationship. I ran into the same issue on a statistics page (standard deviation, I believe). Do you need a degree to understand standard deviation? No. Just go through it step by step: Calculate the mean. Subtract each value from the mean and square the result. Average the results. Take the square root of that. I haven't checked the article lately, but I am certain that the clear English description of how to calculate StdDev has been replaced by formulas. I avoid the math articles now because I find the elitist attitude of the math geeks annoying. --Kainaw(talk)17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the tuple article and it is written in a way that I like. The intro is clear and easy to understand. Then, there is a Formal Definition section that is heavily laden with math-speak. After that is a Computer Science section heavily laden with pseudo-code. If you don't know squat about math or computers, you can still read the intro and have a firm grasp on the concept of a tuple. --Kainaw(talk)19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any scientific concept can be explained both at a complex mathematical level, such as in a refereed journal or an advanced college textbook, at the lesser level of Scientific American, and at an introductory level such as in TV science programs or illustrated books for scientifically-inclined children. If a practicioner of a field cannot explain the principles of something in words, at various levels of specialized terminology, I question that he really understands it. Electromagnetic wave theory was first laid out by Michael Faraday, who had zero algebra and no ability to write or solve equations. The equations were set down by Maxwell, who discussed the underlying experiments, findings, and predictions with Faraday and wrote that their conceptions agreed in every detail. In a college class in engineering, one student told the professor she could solve the equations and get the right answer, but she did not have an understanding of the phenomena. He said that getting the right answer was all there was to understanding. I beg to differ. A verbal or a physical understanding of the phenomena described by equations contributes meaning beyond symbol manipulation. The calculus equation is often developed long after the laboratory phenomena have been studied. Perhaps the break here is between theoretical physics, say, and experimental physics. I am amused when I read a physics textbook which asserts that Joseph Henry or other 19th century physicists stated thus and such, then the text shows a differential equation Henry never wrote, never saw, and might not have been able to comprehend. Edison17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the goal of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, it's ironic that many of the academics here seem to have the opposite effect (restricting access to knowledge by removing all simplified explanations). StuRat18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought of making the same complain myself. Many articles seem written by mathematicians for mathematicians. While its good to have the maths stuff for those who can understand it, please could people try to include a simpler layman's description at the beginning of the article. After all, an encycopaedia should be about explaining things to people, not just providing a [[precis] of knowledge.
I still don't understand the complaint, wikipedia articles are already written below the level that they would be taught in a university. Would you suggest an article on spin states that was written for a grade 7 or 8 audience? Most articles are already written at a high school level, and suffer for it. I'll never understand people who are so put off by even having one or two equantions at the bottom of a page that they'll just give up--205.188.116.7421:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement with Edison's comments above. The article should not be limited to either the layman or expert level. All descriptions should be heirarchical, proceeding from the general and "plain english" description, all the way up to the necessary technical details. One does not negate the other. - Rainwarrior00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would add the following to refocus on the issue: A plain english - even an extremely generalized almost correct description - should be allowed even though it is also repeated in the equations. The complaint continually comes back to the refusal of math-focused editors deleting English descriptions of topics because "it is in the equation". This is not an attempt to remove the equations. It is an attempt to allow non-equation-reading people to get an ounce of insight into math topics and, possibly, take enough interest in them to learn to read the equations. --Kainaw(talk)13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I've never seen anyone do that, ever. The only time people remove 'simplified' text, is when the 'simplification' comes as the result of a severe misunderstanding of the material, where people tend add things like 'common knowledge' to an article. For instance, suppose that a cat, the biological organism, exists only as a mathematical abstraction, now suppose that someone with no knowledge of cats comes along and then tries to add some 'common knowledge' in a factual way, such as, "..It is commonly understood that cats, if they were real, have 9 lives, and can come back to life whenever they feel like it, much like timelords" That's not being removed because it's not an equation, it's being removed because, while simple, is written from the perspective of someone who obviously doesn't understand the topic of the article. And while in the case of cats it would be pretty easy to explain the error to the person in question, but supposing that 'cats' were purely theoretical, and no one had ever seen one in person, then such an explanation would probably degenerate into a philosophical debate on whether you could really prove that cats don't literally have 9 lives. "No, cats may be theoretical, but my model shows that they can't come back from the dead", "no, but you model is all in math, i'm just trying to simplify it, most people don't know math and shouldn't have to", "yes, but cats don't actually have the ability to defy death", "it's close enough, it's just so people can understand cats without having math", "yes, but that's just plain wrong, cats don't literally have 9 lives", etc.....--71.247.125.14413:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation.
In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - star trek, when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at accretion disc, but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; ejecta is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. 88.144.1.6302:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --Bmk02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. StuRat02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --Bmk
When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - Rainwarrior04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is widely beleived that supernova explosions are one way to produce the transient relativistic jets we see as gamma ray bursts in addition to a general blowing apart in all directions. So instead of a blast along the equator, these would be localized pulses, possibly aligned with the axis of rotation. Dragons flight07:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're both spherical, it's just harder to see a thin spherical shell when viewed straight on (in the middle) than when viewed edge-on. StuRat15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. The fiery ring might just be the edge of a sphere which shows up only because it's thicker from that angle. - Rainwarrior19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get sick from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using homous and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce (tzatziki, although it has a different name) is a bit off. Anchoress06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones round here (UK) are mutton, salad and garlic mayo in a pita bread. I always feel bloated and usually wake up early the next morning with heartburn. I know, I should probably just stop eating the damn things. --Kurt Shaped Box06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be the raw onions (some places use them) or maybe cuz they're so greasy? Some people get upset stomachs from that. Anchoress06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always reserve tables under that name at restaurants, I find they don't want to keep you waiting long enough to get hungry, with a name like that. :-) StuRat17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know why. Recently I walked past a Donner Kebab establishment, and I saw the cook with part of the grill literally in the gutter of the road next to a rainwater drain where he was 'cleaning' it. I thought at the time that what he was doing must have been illegal as well as being very unhygenic. Even in the UK I suspect such places are not inspected very often and they could have very bad hygiene.
I feel the same after a doner kebab. However, i have come to realise that it is the copious alcohol imbibed earlier in the evening - a pre-requisit to finding kebaba an attractive proposition - that leads to me feeling sick the following day. Rockpocket01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why does water boil at low pressure?
Why does water boil at low pressure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mearom (talk • contribs) 06:17, August 17, 2006 (UTC).
I assume you are asking why water boils at lower temps, when under lower pressure. This is also true of other liquids. Basically, pressure "pushes" the water molecules together to form a liquid. With less pressure, you reduce this effect. High temps cause rapid movement of water molecules, which makes them "break free" from the bonds that hold the water together as a liquid. So, temp and pressure both interact with each other to determine the boiling point of any substance. StuRat06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Figured that, never could find any reference on it, though
So pressure and temperature determine the state. Rock melts (becomes a liquid) at high temperatures. The lowest pressure you can get is vacuum. However, rocks in space aren't liquid. Neither an answer nor a question, just playing with some thoughts. DirkvdM08:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as far as i know melting point isn't too effected by pressure, since neither phase is in equilibrium with a gas. but i could be missing something obvious... Xcomradex09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The density of a gas is quite different from a liquid, under normal conditions, while the density of solids and liquids are usually similar. In the case of water, the density of the liquid is actually higher, meaning pressurized water freezes at a lower temp. StuRat15:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Phase diagram is a good way to see how the phase varies with temperature and pressure, and how changing those conditions affects the melting/boiling/sublimation point. DMacks16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
poltergiests are in my water!
Sometimes when water is cold and in a bottle, un opened, it rapidly turns to slush upon opening
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mearom (talk • contribs) 06:52, August 17, 2006 (UTC).
If it's below the freezing temp (at normal air pressure), the higher pressure in a sealed container may keep it from freezing, until the bottle is opened, then the lower pressure allows it to freeze. StuRat06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The water is supercooled, and agitation initiated nucleation. I've seen this question asked three times before, although it has never happened to me. I am still waiting! — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I seem to remember at one time not long ago that there wasa type of beer available that was cooled to such anextent that it came out as slush. Very nice on a hot day. I havent seen it around lately.--Light current16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
biochemistry
can anyone say why ATP is called high energy component compared to ttp ,gtp,ctp??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.163.146.11 (talk • contribs) 08:11, August 17, 2006 (UTC).
atp is used quite a bit, but some enzymes specifically use gtp instead. i'm not sure (other than rna/dna synthesis) what the pyrimidine triphosphates are used for. Xcomradex08:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to why this is, it appears to simply be an arbitrary "decision" that was made early in the history of like. I once asked my biochemistry professor the same question, and have since posted his reply to Talk:ATP. It's somewhat lengthy, and has a user reply attached to it that I think you might find illuminating. – ClockworkSoul19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FOOD SCIENCE
CAN ANYONE SAY ?WE CONSUME PROTEINS , VITAMINS, CARBOHYDRATES,FATS....DO ALL OF THEM NECESSARY...WE CAN GET ALL OF THEM FROM PROTEINS THEN WHATS THE NEED OF TAKING THEM INDIVIDUALLY???
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.163.146.11 (talk • contribs) 08:15, August 17, 2006 (UTC).
You cannot live on protein. If you are asking about the Atkin's Diet, than I would like to mention the idea behind that is not that you can live on only protein. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Underwater Communication
In underwater, for example like in oceans...can the electro magnetic waves be used for communication?...For example.,submarines...If so, then Is UltraSonic wave used only for navigation and detecting of depth?..Can ultrasonic wave be used to send data too?...Also is there any UltraSonic Image procesing system available to detect the object under sea?...
Yes, electromagnetic waves travel slightly slower in a water medium, but they are used. Ultrasonic waves I do not think can be used for telecommunication although, they do contain information. That is how SONAR works after all... — [Mac Davis] (talk)
How much more complex could you get? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
See Extremely low frequency. Electromagnetic waves of high frequency are absorbed by water. The deeper the receiver, the more absorption. The higher the frequency, the more absorption, IIRC. Dep in the ocean, no light penetrates, and light is just high frequency electromagnetic waves. The U.S. at one time had an extremely low frequency transmitter, 50 hertz or so, to send messages to submerged ballistic missile submarines worldwide.Edison17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do electromagnetic waves really slow down in water? I had always thought that they travel at the speed of light? (What about light? Does light slow down in water as well? Wouldn't it change colour?) - Rainwarrior19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for changing color, sort of. Light is composed of all colors, and by blocking all colors but blue (in freshwater) and blue-green (in seawater), the color does "change" to become blue or blue-green. Technically, it isn't really a change, though, but rather removing everything else. Compare this to if you had a bowl of M&M's then removed all except the blue ones. It isn't really right to say you changed the color of the M&M's to blue, but, nonetheless, when you look into the bowl, you do see just blue. StuRat19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I didn't mean "sunlight", and that's not what I meant be colour change. Absorbtion I understand. What I was asking is whether EM waves slow down in water, and if they do, shouldn't their wavelength change (thus changing their colour)? - Rainwarrior19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does travel at the speed of light; the speed of light, that is, in water. Light also slows down in air but not by much. See refraction. I think it only changes color at changes of velocity. AEuSoes120:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All EM waves (including light, of course) slow down in water (or most any other substance, including air), and their wavelengths do change. But, of course, the wavelength will change again when they exit that medium (possibly into your eye), and so it doesn't affect their perceived color. Put another way, the frequency doesn't change as a ray passes through different media, so we can associate the color with the frequency instead for conceptual clarity. It's also worth noting that not all frequencies are slowed by the same amount, and so the wavelengths get bunched up and the light of different frequencies is split into different directions. This is known as dispersion, and is the operating principle of a common prism. Finally, the speed of light is properly the speed of light in a vacuum only; its modern significance comes from its invariance as viewed by various observers rather than its constancy in all environments. However, it is possible to view transparency as an interference effect between waves (or photons) that are in fact propagating at c, so in that sense the waves are travelling at the "true" speed of light, just with some congestion along the way that slows down the actual transfer of energy. Hope this helps. --Tardis20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so even if you are underwater, because the light has to leave the water and enter your eye, the colour does not change to your perception! Interesting. This is a good answer, thankyou. (I think my confusion was not understanding that they speed up again when leaving the medium.) - Rainwarrior23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Friends..That was indeed helpful.I'm doing an Underwater Autonomous Robot project..It's gonna aid me lot..One more from this discussion is that if Deep water absorbs light and from your saying if it absorbs much of high frequency light waves,then wouldn't the color be appearing as Redish?..<VIBGYOR>.If it absorbs high frequency of light wave, then I presume that the red light having the lower frequency shouldn't get absorbed and hence it should be visible,while Blue color gets absorbed..But why this doesn't happen?..I maybe wrong but I have this doubt for a long while..Plz Help me clear my doubts
Becuase 152.163.100.72 (talk·contribs), one of the 3 proxies AOL gives to the RD/h, keeps spamming that page full of trollish questions, and even inspired a 15 minute block, which of course impacts any other AOL people trying to edit the same page--205.188.116.7422:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we can be a bit more helpful than that.. I think we can assume he/she means "are the levels of radioactivity there still highly elevated from the nuclear testing which took place there in the 1940s and 1950s?" I assume they mean the entire Pacific Proving Grounds site, not just the Bikini atoll (the Rongerick and Tongelap Atolls were also exposed as a result of testing at Bikini, and testing took place at Enewetak too).
The water around the atoll is not radioactive anymore. On some islands, though, there are radioactive isotopes (specifically cesium-127) in the soil and plants because of the fallout from the tests. Whether these elevated levels of radiation are dangerous is a matter of dispute, since even elevated they are low levels (and the effects of low level radiation have been disputed for a lonnng time). See this page for a discussion of the different findings. Even if the levels are dangerous, they pose a risk only to people who would inhabit the islands over the long term and who would be eating things grown there. To remove the cesium you'd have to take off the top foot of topsoil or so, or to spread a chemical which will prevent the re-uptake of the cesium. This page goes into some of the options currently discussed. This site has a lot of information on the US radiation assessment program for the Marshall Islands. --Fastfission17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the dangerousness of different strengths of radiation? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I don't know enough about the medical effects to have an informed answer in general. I do know though that depending on how you tweak the models you end up with very different responses. For example, if I only consider the radioactive effects of being near cesium-137, then there is really almost no danger at all. If cesium-137 is still around then it must be very weakly radioactive (i.e. have a very long half-life). However if we start thinking about injesting cesium-137, then we have to wonder if it is attracted to bones or other organs in particular. I believe, though I wouldn't put money on it, that cesium-137 will bind with bone marrow easily. That's bad, because then you have a weak emmitter sitting inside you in one place for a long time, and over the long run that can lead to cancer. This is why plutonium is dangerous too. It's not that being around plutonium will necessarily make you sick, but if you get it into your lungs it will just sit there and radiate for a decade or so and eventually you will have a much higher chance of developing cancer. So you'd have to know a lot about the specific path of exposure to know for sure what the long term effects are likely to be, because something which is completely innocuous in one situation (i.e. you can eat plutonium without much ill effect, as it will just pass through you, and holding it will do no damage, since your skin can stop the alpha rays) can be very bad in another (i.e. if you breath plutonium, then you could have a real long-term health problem). I think visiting the Marshall Islands is perfectly safe, radiation wise. If I lived there, though, I wouldn't eat the plants on a regular basis, even though the UN/DOE/etc. have assured that they think it is safe. They might be right, but it seems like an unnecessary risk, especially since the effects of low level radiation are, despite decades of research, still very controversial among experts. --Fastfission19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to see a galaxy (or any other object with a large apparent diameter) if the sky is brighter than its maximum surface brightness?
Also, how much does one's visual acuity affect their limiting magnitude? For example, if I have 20/13 vision and the faintest star I can see is magnitude 4.2, what's the faintest star a person with 20/20 vision can see under the same conditions? How about someone with 20/30 vision? 20/10? --Bowlhover19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand how anyone could see something less bright than the sky, at the time, no. On a bright day, it's even hard to see a full moon. And visually acuity makes a huge diff, too. An extremely near-sighted person would also find it impossible to see anything less bright than the moon. StuRat21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if the object's surface brightness is very close to, but just lower than the brightness of the sky - then surely you'll receive (roughly) twice the number of photons from the region of sky with the galaxy, than in the surrounding sky-glow - if you have a sensitive enough telescope/eyes/photon detector, then it's surely going to be possible to measure the extra photons (and hence "see" the galaxy), even though the surface brightness of the galaxy is lower than the background skyglow. Of course the brighter the sky and fainter the surface brightness of the galaxy, then the difference in the overall brightness of the region with the galaxy than the region without is going to become very small and your instruments (or eyes) are not going to be able to pick it out of the background glare. Richard B20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something that emits twice as many photons doesn't appear twice as bright, however, but only slightly brighter. That's just how our eyes work. StuRat00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it should appear brighter and therefore (theoretically) visible. If you have some sort of photon counter (say, a decent ccd camera), then, provided you get a long enough exposure, then it should be possible to see galaxies with surface brightnesses much lower than the general skyglow.Richard B12:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of different kinds of generators, but probably the most common works like an electric motor. If you move a magnet next to a wire, its magnetic field will generate a little bit of electricity in that wire (see Electromagnetic induction). In the generator, usually you have large coils of wire, thus allowing the magnet to stimulate many wires at once. So, some magnets are rotated around next to some coils, and electricity comes out of the coils. Electrical generator will probably explain this better. - Rainwarrior20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, in order for a moving magnet to cause a current in a wire, there must be a circuit - i.e. the wire must be in a loop of some kind - the requirement according to Maxwell is that the magnetic flux be changing over time. There is only magnetic flux if there is a bounded surface (I'm sure Rainwarrior knew this - just clarifying). Basically the magnet creates a non-uniform magnetic field in space, so as the magnet is rotated or moved near a circuit, the magnetic flux changes through the circuit, and an electric current is induced. --Bmk01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that unoxygenated veinous blood isn't blue/purple, but a dark maroon. When a person gets a mid-sized cut on a vein, how long will the blood take to absorb the oxygen in the air and turn a bright red oxygenated color? Please only answer if you have a source or are completely sure. Thanks! Reywas9220:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is immediate. Otherwise, you would at some time have had the fortune of observing blood turn red. You might have cut yourself on a vein that you can see is greenish. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Though it should be noted that blood oozing from a wound is still a considerably darker red than arterial blood. In fact, I'm not sure blood from a wound is a noticably different color than blood drawn from a vein (even though the former is exposed to oxygen in the air, and the latter is not). - Nunh-huh21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a little time, maybe a few seconds, it kind of depends on what vein. If the vein is bringing back blood from a well-used muscle that needs oxygen it will look different than if only some of the oxygen is used. This is partially due to the fact that, and read carefully: Hb binds oxygen less actively if it has less oxygen in it. This sounds counterintuitive, but when O2 is put into a red blood cell, it makes that cell want to absorb more O2. So if the blood is deoxygenated, it resists being oxygenated again, so it actually turns from maroon to dark red rather slowly. Once it has a little oxygen, it absorbs more readily, and so it very quickly goes from dark red to bright red. To summarize, as with most things, "it depends..."Tuckerekcut22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about the diffusion of oxygen into a volume of blood, there's no physical way it can be immediate. Also, venous blood never looks the same bright red as well-oxygenated arterial blood - I suppose that the blood begins to separate and clot before it is fully oxygenated. And deoxygenated blood can look purplish/bluish - you see this quite often in codes. InvictaHOG05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second Color of Blood Question
My teacher said that when an early doctor sailed to the very hot tropics and took a venous blood sample, he found that it was already red, not dark maroon. My teacher said that it is because the heat of the tropics caused the cells to not accept the oxygen from the red blood cells, causing the red blood cells to go back through the veins still carrying the oxygen, so they are still red. I disagree and say the blood reacted with the air and absorbed the oxygen, turning them red. Who is right? Please only answer if you have a source or are completely sure. Thanks! Reywas9221:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What an early doctor said is not necessarily the case. Perhaps there is no need to explain an observation that cannot be replicated! Maybe you should ask your teacher which doctor that was. In any case, here in the 21st century, if we are going to be talking about the oxygen content of blood, it should be measured directly instead of inferred from blood color. Can your teacher provide information about studies on O2 content of blood in the tropics vs temperate climes? - Nunh-huh21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your teacher sounds wrong to me. If the cells "didn't accept the oxygen", they would die, and so would the person. StuRat21:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the teacher, his argument would seem to be that the cells' need for oxygen is more than adequately met by the O2 in the blood (which is generally true: blood is not completely desaturated when it returns to the lungs), and that tissue needs less oxygen in the tropics, so the blood is less desaturated there (it is this latter part that seems most dubious). - Nunh-huh22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At higher temps, chemical reaction rates increase, including organic reactions, meaning even more oxygen would likely be needed, not less. This is the opposite of hypothermia, where reduced oxygen usage has been recorded. StuRat23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The early doctors were usually good observers, and this one was probably right with his observation. The explanation given by the teacher is not that clear, but in a way the heat, the tissue cells and the return of O2 rich blood could be related. I can conceive of severe heat causing an unusual begree of vasodilatation in an effort to increase heat loss. If the gentleman's peripheral circulation was so rapid that the O2 supply to the limb was greatly in excess of the cellular O2 use, this would lead to a raised venous O2 saturation. This effect would be called arterio-venous shunting (of oxygenated blood), meaning that the arterial blood never gets close to the capillaries and surroundings anyway. If the subject were able to maintain an adequate blood volume (i.e. the circulation could be increased without blood volume being a limiting factor), the rise in venous O2 content would be expected, because much more O2 was going to the limb than the cells in the limb needed, and was coming back to the heart unabsorbed by the cells. Note though, that this has nothing to do with the cells not getting enough O2, or somehow being prevented from absorbing the O2. --Seejyb23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Article Request: Hemocromotosis
Hello:
I'm wondering if it would be possible to request an article on the topic of Hemocromotosis (a genetic condition which results in excess iron in the blood.)
Information does exist on the web, however, contradictory information exists even between credible sites such as www.mayoclinic.com AND http://www.cdnhemochromatosis.ca/.
My apologies for the spelling error. That's just how confusing it gets. (The British spell it HaEmochromatosis, further "muddying the waters.") I just can't understand the contradictory information out there between respected peer-reviewed medical journals, and institutions like the Mayo Clinic. ((I have found condtradictions concerning symptoms, genetic prevelance in the population, treatment--other than phlebotomy, and what were the acceptable levels of iron in the blood.))
No, the root was always haemo. What "mudded the waters" was the Americans dropping the "a" from "ae" dipthongs and the "o" from "oe" dipthongs (eg. encyclopaedia, foetus, faeces, ...) JackofOz22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
while there should be rough agreement between lists of symptoms, you shouldn't expect to find identical lists (as we point out, there are a maddening variety of symptoms), or uniformity of opinion on indications for phlebotomy. And prevalence will differ with different populations (and no two studies manage to study identical populations). Some sites may combine more than one mutation in one figure, adding to confusion. For information, you should probably prefer peer reviewed journals over nearly any web site. - Nunh-huh00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Engine braking
When driving on a steep downhill road in my home town, I see the following road sign saying:
ENGINE BRAKES PROHIBITED
USE LOWER GEAR
According to the Engine braking article, engine braking means turning to a lower gear so that kinetic energy of the car is transferred to faster turning of the engine, and thus slowing car down instead of having to use regular brakes.
I understand that both methods have their advantages and disadvantages - engine braking may mean more noise, but regular braking wears down the brakes.
But as for the sign, in my perception, it contracits itself. The first line says they don't want drivers to use lower gear, and second line says they DO want drivers to use a lower gear. So how should I understand it? - GeNe, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What the sign is calling "engine braking" sounds like the use of the jake brake to me. Our article on engine braking is rather vague, and seems to include both the jake brake and using a lower gear, which might be more properly called "transmission braking", and is also a technique advised to use on cars where the regular brakes have failed. StuRat22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article was quite clear. In my car I can slow down on a hill by throwing the automatic into second or low. It works because of the design. Apparently a diesel doesn't have the same physics, so it doesn't slow down quickly just by down-shifting. If you throw the switch to modify the valves, then it can slow down with an enormous noise. So I suppose the 'quiet' way is to approach the slope slowly, rather than rapid downshifting, and then use a low gear. I suppose that keeps the truck slower using rpm-friction. --Zeizmic23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As StuRat has said, the sign is most likely referring to jake brakes, and therefore addressed to drivers of large trucks who would have such equipment on their vehicle. Notice that it does not say "Engine braking prohibited", but "Engine brakes prohibited." The main reason for this is that engine brakes make a lot of noise. This is addressed in the jake brake article. The average automobile driver should feel free to downshift at will. --LarryMac13:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A diesel does experience engine braking from just moving to a lower gear just like a regular car. The braking provided by the engine by doing this is not sufficient for steep slopes while carrying heavy loads, though. So an engine brake or Jake brake (a specific brand of engine brake) is used, where the momentum of the truck drives the engine which then compresses air (without fuel) in the cylinder and instead of the compressed air "bouncing" the cylinder back on the down-stroke (using little energy), the air is released through the exhaust valve. This release of the compressed air into the exhaust system is far noisier than the normal operation of the engine. The Jake brake is preferred because over-use of the brakes can cause them to overheat and lose effectiveness or fail entirely. —Bradley14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what kind of transmission you have in mind. Attach two wires to a battery, scratch the wires against a nail file, will generate a mess of radio frequencies (perform the experiment near a radio to confirm). To send an actual signal see transmitter for a circuit diagram. For a licensable (legal) transmitter see amateur radio operator and the links in there; also visit your local library and book shop for radio amateur books. To set up a SW radio station... uh, I'm out of ideas. What kind of transmitter do you want to build? Weregerbil06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I don't actually recommend you do the battery + nail file experiment. Too many ways things can go wrong: too powerful a battery (the nail file could explode), the experiment shorts the battery which can destroy it (not smart using an expensive cell phone battery), the battery could heat up and do damage, or you could get sparks that hurt you, ... Weregerbil06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of nail file did you have in mind that could explode?! Anyway, connecting one of the wires to the battery via a resistor could save the battery (or would the power loss ruin the transmission?), and I wouldn't worry to much about sparks. —Bromskloss01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When is a bird 'born'?
Quick question - help to settle a debate for me (about the date of birth of one of my pet birds, as it goes). When would you guys consider a baby bird to have been 'born' - when the mother bird first laid the egg, or when the baby bird eventually emerged from the egg? I believe the latter - my associate believes the former. --Kurt Shaped Box22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with the hatch date, too, as a bird is about as developed when it hatches as a person is when born. Need I ask what species of bird we're talking about ? (I'm picturing you wanting to know when to serve the birthday cake, LOL). StuRat23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki article says: "Birth is the process in animals by which an offspring is expelled from the body of its mother." Under this definition, your friend is right. However, this is not always the way things work. If I was counting the birthday of a bird, I would count from it hatching. With my frogs, I count from metamorphosis (when they first leave the water), as the tadpole duration can vary a huge amount. Just use what is most convenient. --liquidGhoul06:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you called the laying of the egg "birth", I would think you would call an fertilized but dead egg "stillborn". Regardless, "birth" isn't the correct term in the first place. The correct terms for laying and hatching are, respectively, laying and hatching, which could well answer your question right there. But, if you're using analogy anyway, just pick whichever you think fits best. There are aspects of both that would make "birth" an acceptable metaphor, most of which have already been described. I would, personally, lean towards the date of hatching as a bird's birthday, since the main feature of a birthday to me is that, for the first time ever, a particular being has entered the world of air and openness. I've heard, incidentally, that there are eastern cultures that celebrate the anniversary of a person's conception instead (something to do with astrological significance), so I wonder which one they'd go for. I could certainly see taking the moment a bird's full genetic code assembled as the moment they came into the world, and hence possibly their "birthday". It's not really a biology or vocabulary question, and the right answer is whichever one you think captures the spirit of the thing more. Black Carrot21:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phelp's Box
I'm editing an article that talks about a Phelp's Box. It says, "At her birth a host of physical abnormalities were present, including a severe curvature of the spine. As a result, she was forced to spend hours each day and night in what was then called a Phelp's Box, a device that resembled a shallow coffin. Earlier in the century children with severe curvature of the spine were placed in a Phelp's Box and strapped as flatly as possible. The only part of the body that could be moved was the head. It was not only physically confining, but extremely painful as well."
"Phelp's Box" is not in Webster's Third New International Dictionary. It is not in Merriam-Webster's collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition. Google was not helpful either. It had one link that talked about an article similar to the one I'm editing, but the link was no longer active (freegroups.net/groups/pastormail/read/?0::3578 - 13k - Supplemental Result ).
So ... is or was there ever such a device? Does it have a different name now? I'm assuming "earlier in the century" refers to 20th century, not 21st. I do appreciate your help in verifying the facts.
I found one (unhelpful) hit which manages to use two different spellings: I read the story of an invalid girl. One of her several sicknesses was a tendency to for her spine to curve. She laid strapped in a Phelps box. (Philip's box looks something like a coffin.) Possible the story this pastor read draws upon the same source as your article. --LambiamTalk05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a Phelps brace (not box), named after Winthrop Morgan Phelps, an orthopedic surgeon who focused on bracing as a treatment for things such as scoliosis - he had an interest in cerebral palsy. InvictaHOG05:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one idea which I thought up, and have never tested, which I'll give you as long as you understand that reading the following represents an agreement that you will never actually do this and if you do it is completely at your own risk and that you understand that you will probably die or blow up your cat or your friends, and you will be arrested and sent to Guantanamo bay and kept there forever: pipe + lots of big gauge wire + bomb + big magnet. Cap the pipe on one end, wrap the heavy wire around the pipe as many times as possible, then connect the two ends, put a fuse in it, pour in a lot of gunpowder, drop in the magnet, light the fuse, and run like heck. The heavier the wire gauge, the better, because it will survive for more of the explosion, and will make a better pulse. Also, note that the idea is not to actually blow up the pipe, just to blow the magnet through the pipe at high speeds. I think that's kind of how the air force does it. I seem to remember they disabled one of Saddam's propaganda TV stations with a similar EMP. And by the way, see the article electromagnetic pulse for more info, and electromagnetic bomb. --Bmk02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure that whatever you are planning to do with the device, make sure you don't bring a liquid on the plane with you because, as we all know, tomato sauce or cologne never gets out of carpet, being a terrorist weapon, while computers and communications are totally replaceable~
don't ask why you would bring tomato sauce on a plane, unless you want to be a terrorist~
Can a photon be called a virtual particle,as it only acquires mass during interaction,but not during transit?
The photons that make up light are called "real" or "on-shell" particles; they obey the energy-momentum relation for having zero mass, in that their energy and momentum are equal. "Virtual" or "off-shell" photons are Fourier components of the electromagnetic field with differing energy and momentum; they don't really propagate, but they do cause the Coulomb interaction... at least in the formalism of quantum field theory. I'm not sure what you're asking, but the short answer is that a photon can be either real or virtual. Melchoir21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping process instruments, particularly in oil refineries, calibrated and online presents numerous obstacles in our country. Does this problem exist in Japan, as well. Thank you for your reply.--202.4.4.2309:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear anonymous user, in case you are not clear on what this page is, it is part of the English-language Wikipedia, a general online encyclopedia. The people who answer questions on this page are English speakers from all over the world who volunteer to answer questions because of an interest, and usually some expertise, in general scientific topics. The odds of one of them being a petroleum engineer from Japan is probably not all that high, however, so your chances of getting an opinion from such a person by asking on here are not good.
I've tried to dig up some possible contacts who might be able to put you in touch with people who are able to help you. One relevant web link I was able to find through google was JEMIMA, the Japanese association for electric measuring instrument manufacturers. Also, you might try contacting people connected with petroleum engineering in Japan, for instance, the Petroleum Engineering Laboratory at the University of Tokyo.
Thanks for your kind advice. You are probably right, no reply from our Japanese colleagues. I had actually thought they might have the most sophisticated experience in Asia as we are based in the Philippines. --202.4.4.2306:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
negative energy and paul davies
I was reading a book called "how to make your own time travel machine" by paul davies who is a respected physicist[ i read on the book cover anyway i have never heard of him" but in the book he claims that we have the capacity to create an anti-gravity force from the quantum vacuum and an exapmple of this is the casimir effect, apparently it produces negative energy so therfore anti-gravity. what puzzles me is that if gravity is an attractive force and anti-gravity is a repulsive force, then how come the casimir effect produces an attractive force between the two plates?
is it something to do with the setup?
bernard haicsh and paul davies claim that the casimir effect can be engineered to be repulsive and there could be other effects that are casimir like that produce negative energy and there for repulsivve antigravity, paul davies even cites one which is a single vibrating mirror. is this true?
Robinresearch
Well have been on those no mention of why the casimir effect produces atractive force from what should be an anti-gravitational reaction because it produces negative energy. Looked up paul davies and he is not a controversial physicist, and have gone on NASA website and read that indeed negative energy can produce propulsive force. So it stands to reason that it is possible that if negative energy can be produced by the quantum vacuum there could be an effect that produces more negative energy and therefore more anti-gravity correct? Apparently NASA are looking into this.
However still no mention of why the casimir effect produces attractive rather than repulsive force. Teh casimir effect page says that it is possible for the casimir effect to be repulsive in theory, so that question is answered.
So in summery, negative energy can be produced by the quantum vacuum [zero-point energy], negative energy creates repulsive anti-gravity, the casimir effect can produce repulsive and attractive forces and the casimir effect only produces a small amount of negative energy but theoritically only for now but other reactions that could produce more negative energy from the vacuum and therefore more pronounced anti-gravitational effects are possible. This is not however a free energy source as the activation of enough negative matter would take at least a small bit of energy to cause the reaction that would effect macro-objects. Is all of this correct?
But i still need an answer as to why the casimir effect produces attractive force if it produces negative energy that means it should produce repulsive force. Is it something to do with the mirrors themselves?
Robin research
DVD ram camcorder video movie creation problem
When I try to transmit video from my hitachi dvdcam camcorder(model dzmv550a) from a dvd ram disc to my pc using movie album se software It wont transmit and a flashing hourglass and arrow cursor come up on the screen. What can I do to fix this problem? Thanks Erich
Rubix cube
If you had to design a liquid rubic cube, that would be at least 1x103 orders of magnitude more difficult than a solid state rubix cube, how would you do it? Keep in mind, the only restrictions on this exercise are that it must be liquid, and must also resemble a normal rubix cube in either form or function--71.247.125.14413:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say less than 1020, otherwise you could just make the thing out of glass, and that wouldn't be any fun, now would it, so probably anything more viscous than a syrup just wouldn't be sporting--71.247.125.14415:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, glass comes in two varieties, glass crystal (like leaded glass crystal) is actually a solid, and doesn't flow, while regular amorphous glass is a supercooled fluid, and does flow (although so slowly that it can be ignored). Glass isn't the only thing with that characteristic, however. Metals are similar. Only crystals are really solid. StuRat17:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article's source says it could be considered a solid or a liquid, although it also says there is no evidence for any measurable flow: [11]StuRat03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy. Just suspend several colors of sand in a bottle of water. The challenge would be to get the sand to settle in recognizably stratified layers. Solving the puzzle would involve shaking the bottle a lot and hoping for the best, which is remarkably similar to how I solve a regular Rubik's Cube, with the one exception that, as specified, it would be astronomically less successful. Not that I've ever succeeded that way on a normal cube. Black Carrot02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you want to get pissy about the "must be liquid" rule, you can go ahead and change the sand bit to something else. I'm sure we could find something that has the requisite characteristics. Black Carrot02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have a bunch of hollow glass cubes or bubbles connected to each other by valves. In each bubble you could have a different colored liquid which is not miscible with any of the other liquids, and the challenge could be to move the liquids to fit some pattern or something. I think you'd be limited by the number of mutually non-miscible liquids you could find, though. --Bmk15:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Run a block as fast as you can and run back. Compare yourself to your identical twin. He will have aged more than you by a very tiny bit. Edison15:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SERIOUSLY you could get two atomic clocks synchonized together. One is left on the ground and one is put on an aircraft which travels around the world. When the clocks are compared after the flight there is a discrepancy. One has travelled in time relative to the other. It was done in 1971 [12] .Also the perehelion shift of the planet mercury is proof that Einsteins theory of relativity works. So I guess you have the last laugh and HAVE asked a relevent question!!
I forgot who the scientist was, but I remember an article in my newspaper about how it may be possible to take an extremly massive object, an put it in a circular path at high velocity and the space inside the circle time will travel slower, so, in say 50 years in the circle 500 years passed. Not sure on reason69.29.78.22918:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it is possible for a kid to get an airline to allow him to leave a rather accurate clock on a plane for a year. Of course, a kid can't afford an atomic clock, but having a few rather accurate ones is fine. Then, have a few rather accurate ones in his room. In the end, compare the microseconds. That leads to the question that I don't know... how many years of average air travel does it take to lose a single microsecond? --Kainaw(talk)20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MIT student, Amal Dorai, came up with a very elegant way of proving time travel will be possible. He organised the first (and possibly only) Time Traveler Convention. Sadly, as of yet, no traveller has found a slot in their busy schedule to attend. Rockpocket22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could listen to late night radio, I tuned in at 2:30 a.m. once, and it was "Time Traveler Night." Most of the people who called in said that time travel involed reaching 88 m.p.h. or getting struck by lightning while drinking large quantities of beer.
There is a web site available now on the internet that, once you are logged into it, propels you quite quickly into the future. Again it doesnt work the other way round. Its called wikipedia or something.--Light current06:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If i recall correctly, the actual experiment was done of flying an atomic clock on a jetliner, and showing that it "aged" less than the identical synchronized atomic clock who remained on the groung. Edison03:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need a computer and a programming language that allows you to dump the state of the whole running program to a file and continue execution. Then, experiment with loading older images after the program has continued. Now that's time travel. If you even find a way for the program to reinvoke the older image but pass an object back to the older image, that's moving objects back in time. A particularly fine variation on this is the call/cc function which saves the call stack (which is called a continuation) but not the object space (the content of existing objects). Call/cc can go not only forward in time but backwards, when you save the exit procedure until when the call/cc call has already returned. Call/cc has a very interesting application when you are programming in a side-effectless manner so call/cc saves almost every aspect of the program, except that you can pass an object back from the future as the return value of call/cc: this is McCarthy's ambiguous operator.[13] (Thanks for David Madore who gave me the idea by describing call/cc as being able to travel backwards in time.[14]) – b_jonas20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Standard error
No-one seems to be around on the Mathematics desk and I'm sure you scientists are equally capable of helping me with the question I recently posted there about standard error. Sorry for (almost) cross-posting, but there's an element of time pressure on me. Help gratefully received. --Dweller14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
error function (erf) Its related to a gaussian curve isnt it?
The fish and pigs use the same biotechnology. GFP and its varients can been seen in certain tissues without the need for a UV source. Its much more dramatic under UV, of course. Rockpocket23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Sorry, rereading your answer i now realise your "no" was in response to the refrigerator question. I thought you were commenting on the fact that the the pigs were different from the fish. Rockpocket05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could any other animals other than humans evolve to be as smart as humans. Would it happen, as in, could chimps get smarter and eventually be as smart. Also, could humans stimulate animals like birds through enviroment modification to spur evolution in that area?69.29.78.22918:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could happen, yes, but humans most likely prevented this from happening by outcompeting other intelligent animals, like Neanderthals. Think of "intelligent animal" as one ecological niche, which we humans have totally taken over, leaving no room for any competitors. StuRat18:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although, in the Uplift Universe, every intergalactic species (except for humans) was artificially bred for intelligence. The rest of the intelligent species in the universe look down on humans for being the only species which had ever done it on their own. Humans are in the process of uplifting chimps and dolphins in the books. Very good series, by the way. User:Zoe|(talk)23:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence is subjective. If I put you in the airport and asked you to tell me which bags had cocaine in them without opening them, could you do it? Humans have selectively bred dogs that have the olfactory sense to do it and the intelligence to use the sense in an intelligent manner. --Kainaw(talk)20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but if I had a nose as big as a dog, I might stand a better chance. I wouldnt say that was intellingence. THe intelligence comes in knowing that dogs are better at sniffing that almost any other animal.--Light current17:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It took more than 200 million years from the emergence of mammals to the genus Homo. So even if all humans were to disappear overnight, it might take some time before some other species picks up on editing Wikipedia again. As to using modified environments, what do you think: Could we stimulate spiders to develop flight through environmental modification? It is not at all clear how we could even start approaching it. And we understand the mechanisms of and pathways to flight a lot better than intelligence. --LambiamTalk20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we already have effected the evolution of other species in many ways:
1) Several species have evolved to live with people. Cats, for example, may have evolved purring as a way to seem cuter than non-purring cats, and thus get more food and shelter from humans.
2) Other species, which seemed like a threat to people, were driven to extinction, such as saber-toothed tigers.
3) Other species, which were easy prey for humans, such as the dodo bird, were also driven to extinction.
4) Human caused global warming, has, and will continue to, favor some species at the cost of others.
5) Pollution favors some species over others.
6) Humans have introduced non-native species to many areas, allowing some species to flourish and move into new ecological niches, at the cost of the native species.
I imagine some version of purring existed in many cat species prior to humans, and probably served a social purpose (making the purrers seem less threatening to other pumas, etc.). However, once humans showed up, purring became a very important skill to feline survival, so rapidly evolved from barely audible to quite loud. StuRat22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cats purr to each other, audibly and probably have done so for a long time. They purr when intereacting with other cat "friends" and most commony when nursing or being nursed on. Since cats likely see humans as a mother or friend substitute, their purring makes complete sense in that context and is probably not affected by humans or an example of evolution. The whole "cats only purr to humans" is a common misconception floating around. Also, evolution is notoriously slow, and the small time domestic cats have been with humans is not enough to make that change. Besides, other small cat species purr. The large cats are however, physically incapable. pschemp | talk02:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
pschemp, please don't modify what I write, that's inappropriate Wikipedia behavior. You can add your comments, but you shouldn't change mine. I've undone your edits to what I wrote. StuRat15:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that cats only "Meow" to humans, never to other cats. That noise may sound to a cat like human speech. just as humans think that cows say "MOO!."Edison03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "meow" cats use on humans to get attention is very similar to the "mew" used by kittens to their mother — in fact, it's probably the exact same sound, except for the trivial pitch change caused by the cat growing in size. Adult cats do meow to each other for various reasons, but those are generally different sounds; the word "meow" can cover a very broad range of feline vocalizations. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Would it happen, as in, could chimps get smarter and eventually be as smart." If chimpanzees were specifically bred for intelligence—either by humans or by the needs of nature—then maybe. But it would take many, many, many generations for a chimpanzee to become anywhere near as intelligent as a human being (i.e. it would take a loooong time and you'd need to breed a lot of chimpanzees). It's also highly likely that we'd do it in an inefficient manner—i.e. work really hard to breed chimpanzees who were good at playing chess and then realize that being able to just play chess is not exactly what we meant by intelligence (but perhaps I allude too much to the history of artificial intelligence?).
"Also, could humans stimulate animals like birds through enviroment modification to spur evolution in that area." Well in intelligence, maybe but the odds are that there are quicker ways for birds to evolve to fit into an ecological niche created by humans, i.e. the way that the common rock pigeon has become such a well-adapted being for living in urban areas in comparison to, say, a hawk. With rapid change to environments on the scale done by humans, though, you'd probably just get a lot of extinction and only a little bit of adaptation, and I'm not sure that adaptation would favor general intelligence in particular. General intelligence is not, as should be clear by the more-or-less lack of it in the animal kingdom, always the best adaptation. If you already know how to fly, the species will probably just become better at that. It takes a lot of specific jumps for general intelligence to be a really powerful adaptation (i.e. the ability to manipulate tools is no doubt up there as a very useful prerequisite—it is something which more general intelligence can be directly applied to with devastatingly powerful results). I'm not sure that sparrow which is only incrementally smarter than other sparrows is unlikely to be able to translate that brainpower into a real reproductive difference. --Fastfission23:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mad scientists have already inserted human brain tissue into rats. In time, they will likely do the same with chimps. Edison03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to define intelligence? Us? Then the question becomes if other animals would be able to become like humans. Sounds unlikely. Then again, there's the phenomenon that very different animals can evolve to be very similar if the conditions are similar enough (like dolphins looking rather like fish) (I forgot the term for this). But such animals would never really have our inteligence, and for us we are the ones who define the meaning of 'intelligence'. By their standards, we would probably look silly, having some intelligence, but not quite enough. Imagine what a cow thinks of us when we say 'moo' to it. Or a cat when we meow to it. If it tries to imitate our speech and we respond by saying 'meow' back, then it probably thinks it got it right and thinks it's pretty smart. Or maybe it is trying to communicate something and we reply with some weird answer. It would probably think us fairly intelligent (can talk) but somehow lacking (talks nonsense). DirkvdM08:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gold and Silver
I need to find a table or chart that shows the optical density and emissivity of Gold and Silver. Thanks for any help!
matweb will give you the emissivity, at least. Apparently the term optical density is ambiguous. You ought to be able to estimate the absorbance from the electrical resistivity given in matweb. That's left as an excercise for the reader. -- The Photon02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nystagmus upon waking
Is it common to have nystagmus upon waking from a vivid dream? It happened to me the other night when I woke suddenly from a nightmare. It had a semicircular pattern with the fast phase to the left. It only lasted a few seconds. In the dream there were a lot of video screens with images flashing rapidly up and down. --Joelmills22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that it is relatively common, although I've never read anything about association with dreams or waking up before. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Changing DNA on the fly
In Star Trek, every other episode you get a case of characters devolving into monkeys or growing giant brains or turning into spiders because they've had their DNA changed. Presumably, the idea behind this is that if you change a individual's DNA (genotype, I suppose) you can almost immediately affect their phenotype, their outside characteristics. So to use a simple example, if I could somehow change the allele for brown eyes to blue eyes in a human's DNA, at some point (instantly? in days? weeks? years?) the human's eyes would turn blue. I assume the science is that as the iris cells die and are replaced, the new DNA is used to code for the iris colour, resulting in a different colour.
This has always seemed rather dodgy science to me, but it has a spark of believability about it. So the question is: if I change a person's DNA, will it ever change their appearance, etc.? Sum022:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Of course it will, it just won't turn you into another organism, transcription errors happen all the time, but rather than changing a phenotype in any noticable way, they usually just wind up killing a cell, or even worse, leading to uncontrolled cell growth, aka, tumor formation(David D. beat me to it)--71.247.125.14422:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could change the gene in all cells then you could change the appearance. Cancer cells are an example of mutations that change the genotype and phenotype. Except in this case only a single cell is involved. In star trek i think they usually invoke a virus whivch presumably infects (and changes) all cells. Or maybe only the brain cells in your " giant brains " example. David D.(Talk)22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some changes, yes, for others, no. Some changes that take place in our bodies are not reversible. Your height, for example, can't decrease by much (it can a little, due to osteoporosis), since there is no biological process in place to remove large bones and replace them with smaller bones. Some changes, however, can take place "on the fly", and don't even require DNA changes, such as changes caused by testosterone injections. StuRat22:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from your brain, your a totally new you ever 7 years due to cells dying and being replaced. Some cells, like red blood cells, are replaced faster tahn, say, bone.69.29.78.229 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's important to always take into consideration how DNA works when thinking about stuff like this. Your DNA becomes RNA which becomes a protein (more or less—there are more complications of course). These proteins have big phenotypic effects, some of which are fast (formation of new cells with specific characteristics) and some of which are not. Some things only happen at specific times in your life (i.e. puberty) and will not happen again. It seems unlikely to me that changing the DNA of an already fairly well-developed organism (even if you had a way of changing all of the DNA in all of the cells at the same time) would ever make it able to grow into a super-sized organism. You might be able to, however, change a gene which encourages a never-ending appetite and make them very fat. But even that would be pure speculation that a simple full-organism knock-out would have phenotypic effects which would alter those which had already gone through a long period of development to get to where they were. --Fastfission04:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eyes rolling to the back of the head
Why is it that people's eyes sometime roll to the back of their eyes? Also, why do some people's eyes roll back when they die and some don't? 63.23.82.5322:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-ones eyes do, it would detach the nerve, plus the muscle arrangement means nothing over 90 degree rotation in any direction from straight forward is possible. PhilcTECI22:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its just something you see on television. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
when you are in non-rem sleep, your eyes will roll slightly so that the apperance of your pupils are in your skull, which, for most people, doesn't happen just some of the pupil is, there are anomolies out there, though, but nobody's eyes are even somewhat capable of even looking towards "the back of the eyes"69.29.78.22923:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard stories of people who, while witnessing atomic testing, have held their hand in front of x-ray film, and gotten a clear picture. It sounds sketchy to me, but I suppose it could be true. Is it?--67.172.248.20723:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what an x-ray film is, but if you took an x-ray of somebody's hand, no matter how much nuclear testing they witnessed, it would not be clear picture, that's not how it works. An x-ray works, because bones absorb more of the xray region of the electromagnetic spectrum than surrounding skin, fat, muscle, etc. See the radiation article. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
It's the "hand over the eyes and see your bones" tale that is usually given. A large part of a nuclear explosion does come in the form of X-rays (which is what drives the compression in a hydrogen bomb), but I have no idea about how true the story is, except that a lot of people have told it, though that hardly makes it true. It strikes me as a little fishy as I think about it, since the human eye can't see X-rays unaided (i.e. without film or a fluorescing screen). A lot of different things are released during a nuclear explosion though so something else could be going on there as well. --Fastfission04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, flesh is translucent to visible light, just not very. Hold your hand over the end of a torch (or, better, a white LED) to see. (Of course, some of that's just subsurface scattering.) EdC23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hand over the eyes story is absolute bullshit, since the eyes are not especially sensitive to x-rays, and the lens and cornea are not remotely capable of focussing xrays on the retina. If you were close enough to a nuclear explosion to absorb about 100 millirems, and you held your hand over an x-ray film or other photographic film in a lightproof paper wrapper oriented so the hand was normal to the vector between the film and the explosion, you could hardly help but take a fine x-ray.Edison03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
August 19
bee B-gone
I have bees in the top of my house. My exterminator is not successful in killing them. I have sprayed them with cheep store bought spray to no avail. I live in Dallas Tx. I dont know what kind of bees they are. I am too old and scaired of them to get close to them on a ladder. I dont want to use my bug man again. What can I do? Thanks 24.0.47.18403:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT RUN INTO THEM SCREAMING. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Perhaps try another, different exterminator? Are you sure they are bees and not hornets or yellowjackets? If they are either of the latter then I definitely do not recommend trying it yourself if you have any doubts because they can be very aggressive (bees are not very aggressive in general, but hornets/yellowjackets are and are very territorial, and unlike a bee can sting many times). --Fastfission04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend poison. However, depending on the type of bee, wasp, or hornet, a different poison may be indicated. If you can manage to kill one, look at it up close and compare with pics online or in a book to identify the type. A good exterminator should have identified the species, too, but it sounds like you had a lousy exterminator (perhaps literally), so he may not have done that, either. Once you've identified the species, go online and do a Google search for the best poison. Ideally, they should take it back to the hive and kill the queen, too. StuRat05:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smoke makes them leave without becoming angry, since they don't blame anyone for a fire. But they would just return once the smoke clears. You need them dead. StuRat07:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call your local fire department. Sometimes, they'll come to spray them with soapy water. At least, that's what they did one time in my house. Titoxd(?!?)07:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that it! Found on bee keeping page. Smoke em out but make sure you have a new hive readyand waiting at the bottom of the garden. THen when theyre all out, remove the old hive and destroy it.(after removing any XS honey)--Light current09:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a nice recipe for napalm here. Shotgun shells can also destroy the hive. Hydrofluoric acid too. We could write a book! "99 ways to kill bees." — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Small, locally-generated EMP? I hear that putting one of those plastic Elizabethan collars around your neck to act as a reflector, then getting down on all fours, as close to the bees as possible and blowing a whistle *really* hard works. --Kurt Shaped Box05:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I usually get them out of my house (attic) by creating smoke using charcoal tablet and olibanum then throw away the nest. They usually dont come back. helohe(talk)15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if sheep and goats have been bred together in the past to give the modern breeds of sheep and goat? I know that the sheep-goat hybrid page pretty much says it's impossible, but it'd be great if they have been.
Um no. but modern sheep are a mix of many breeds of sheep, though goats aren't as mixed. Still, they don't generally hybridise, they have different numbers of chromosomes. pschemp | talk06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding a Phenomenon which occured yesterday(18/08/2006) around 10 p.m. in one of the areas in Mumbai in India. One of the guys who was having a bath in the sea, accidentally drank the seawater and to his surprise it tasted sweet. And the news spread like anything and in hours thousands of people gathered at this place to collect the sweet sea water. People started drinking the water thinking it as a holy thing, forgetting the fact that it is highly contaminated by domestic sewage and industrial effluents. They all think without exception that it was a miracle that would cure them of every known ill on the planet.
So My question is why this happened? Were there any incidents similar to this occured ever before in any part of the world? what would be the scientific reason behind this?
If anybody can answer these questions it will be appreciated.
Thank You
When you say sweet, do you mean not salty? If so, is it possible there had been a big outflow of fresh water into the sea at that point after heavy rains. Which part of Mumbai did this happen in. Is Mumbai near the mouth of a river?--Light current06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Mumbai and the incident happened near the dargah of Makhdoom Ali Mahimi in Mahim. People have been attributing it to miraculous powers but from my knowledge of the geology of Mumbai, the city is known to have many underground springs just metres away from the sea shore. Prominent examples are the Bhika Behram Well at Churchgate, the underground springs that used to feed the now-filled up Dhobitalao (the springs were rediscovered when the subway construction started last May) [I have a pic of them], Banganga Tank (50 m from the shoreline), and an underground stream that is used to water Priyadarshini Park. I'm discounting water sources in the suburbs as there are plenty of lakes and rivers. So I don't think it's a miracle. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=08:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see this scientifically proven, but I doubt it. Didn't terrorists bomb a sugar company yesterday? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
It might have been a large amount of ethylene glycol, the chief component in antifreeze, or a similar chemical washed out from the sewers. It tastes sweet, but is also quite toxic. If so, I only hope it was diluted enough so that nobody dies. StuRat18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some out-of-control diabetics were bathing there and peed in the water.Their urine would have been high in sugar. Edison03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No glare using UV
Why is it that when illuminating paper thro a plastic sleeve by UV, you get no glare, but you get glare from the sleeve when using visible light?--Light current07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the visible light that reflects off the plastic, but you can't see the UV light that reflects off because it's invisible UV. The only reason you can see the paper under UV is because the paper fluoresces, which means it absorbs UV and emits visible light. The plastic doesn't fluoresce because it's transparent and doesn't absorb the light. —Keenan Pepper09:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Why didnt I think of that? THanks alot! Any way it seems a good method of illuminating music to read without illuminating anything else! Not sure of any hazards tho!--Light current10:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno havent researched it yet. But a musician friend if mine has made one. It uses a bulb shaped like a normal incandescent. Not sure where he got it but its not a germicidal one-- its probably a longer wavelength 'blacklight' bulb--Light current14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A minor note of caution—while there isn't much evidence (at this time) to support a link between long wave ultraviolet (from the 'black' lights) and skin cancer or cataracts, this type of UV is definitely energetic enough to damage collagen in the skin. This sort of damage is associated with premature aging and the formation of wrinkles. I'm not sure how much of a dose you'd get from one of those little lights, but it's something to bear in mind if you intend to sit in front of one for hours at a time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the brain of the zygote/fetus come from?
Since we came into existence when the sperm hits the egg, it becomes a zygote! So the zygote developes into a fetus. Someone could say "I was a sperm once." Or, "I was an egg once," when someone else could say "No, you're really when the sperm and the egg hit to become a zygote."
Well, I really consider myself to be my brain, so I'm curios: Did the sperm have 1 hemisphere of the brain and the egg the other hemisphere, and the 2 brain hemispheres merged to become our current brain when the sperm hit the egg? (I'm thinking not, so I'm assuming maybe the brain, or what became of the brain, is 100% from either the sperm or the egg)... But which one? User:NealIRC 19 August 9:17 (UT)
Light current is right; an initial cell is formed from the fusion of the sperm and the egg. That cell divides into many and differentiates into different structures, including the embryo and the placenta. The placentaembryo also divides into many structures, one of which becomes the brain and spinal cord. You may find Fetal development an interesting article. If you're really keen, look at Neurulation, but that's rather a technical article.-gadfium09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, typo on my part. I meant the embryo, and I was trying to simplify. I've adjusted it above, since it's such a grievous error. Amazing no one picked up on it until now.-gadfium04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a pretty straightforward conclusion, other than the details on how the development takes place. The sperm and the egg, being single-celled, have no brains whatsoever, and not even something that resembles a brain. Neither does the initial embryo. The brain develops much later. The instructions on how to build the brain, though, naturally come from both halves of the genetic code, as do most other things. Black Carrot14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For most, the right hemisphere is feminine and imaginative, the left one being masculine and logical. But this has not necessarily a link with your parents' capacities :) -- DLL .. T18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If, however, you are interested in where the molecules to construct the brain came from, those were first eaten by the mother, absorbed into her bloodstream, then delivered, via the umbilical cord, to the embryo/fetus. StuRat18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Symbols on electrical appliances
Some electrical appliances have symbols on them, like an inverted triangle with an F inside, or a circle with an S, N, or D, and other symbols. I looked for a site that explains what these symbols mean but surprisingly I couldn't find any. Maybe you can help.
S Sepp13:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The circle with the N inside means that it has been authorized for use in Norway. I would guess that the S and D work the same way for Sweden and Denmark, respectively. Have'nt seen the F in an inverted triangle. -N·Bluetalk14:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On cleaning my combination microwave-convection oven, I noticed that one of it's internal seals is cracked. The seal is an 120x100x0.3 mm mica plate covering the site of entry of the microwaves into the oven cavity, sited in the top wall (ceiling?) of the oven. Its function seems to be to prevent vapours from the oven from reaching the magnetron workings. The crack was probably caused during cleaning, and runs about halfway through the plate from one side to the other. The oven itself is a standard 900W microwave, and it has a convection heating element and fan situated in one of the side oven walls, with halogen grilling tubes in the ceiling. The convection temperature can be set up to 240°C. So the mica seal would be exposed to microwave energy coming through it into the oven, as well as to hot air, water vapour and hot oil droplets from the convection heating and the food. It would not be directly exposed to the infrared from the halogen tubes. My question is, can anyone suggest a bonding material which would keep the crack from spreading? It would have to be microwave-safe once cured, able to tolerate pretty hot, humid and oily conditions, and obviously not highly toxic. It need only last for as long as it takes to get a replacement seal, a week or two. Any ideas? --Seejyb15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend trying to fix it, especially if you are getting a replacement in the near future. Is there a functional reason that you can't operate the device without this sheild? If so, perhaps removing it and using a temporary shield of waxed cardboard (if you are worried about steam and spattering on the magnetron housing) would work.Tuckerekcut17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't risk using it until you get the replacement seal. Two weeks of stove-top food, take out, and sandwiches won't hurt you, but leaking microwaves could. StuRat18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inexpensive microwave ovens often use waxed cardboard on the superior wall, perhaps the manufacturers don't think you will clean the ceiling very often. I had a sharp brand microwave in my dormitory with one, and one of the student lounges at my school has a panasonic microwave with a waxed-cardboard ceiling. If you are concerned about cardboard in the microwave, consider that most crisping sleeves and pizza boxes (on the brands that suggest you use the packaging to elevate a cooking pizza) are made of cardboard.Tuckerekcut19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Waxed cardboard with a reflective metallic surface maybe. But what is required is something thats transparent to micro waves and wont ignite here isnt it? So I reiterate waxed cardboard is not a good idea (any way didnt you read the question? Halogen grilling tubes in the ceiling. The convection temperature can be set up to 240°C.--Light current19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks,I wasn't expecting so many replies. I'd have "instinctively" used cyanoacrylate, because the break is clean and sharp, and it "looks like the kind of job" that c-a would do nicely. I should say I was going to use it but decided to ask first! So now I won't. As to the Araldite: the 2-part epoxies soften -- I once lovingly made an epoxy turntable for my mom, when her glass turntable broke (and the replacement turntable was found to cost almost as much as a new oven -- I wonder what my seal is going to cost!). It was cast in the lid of a cake tin, and signed "from your son" on the back. After being test-microwaved for a while, the thing softened and sagged, and was palced underneath a potplant on her patio. In her case we found a ceramic pizza plate that fitted well, moulded the drive fittings from pottery clay, and it is still working. The cardboard solution bothers me in as far as using the convection oven at say 200°C, and then microwaving the stuff - I'm not sure at what stage it could decide to ignite. While pondering the issue, I have decided to try drilling small holes thru the mica, and fixing the sides together with 3 ordinary paper staples, inserted and bent by tweezers. This should prevent progression of the crack (he says optimistically!), the small mass of steel shouldn't obstruct the microwaves much, rust over such a short time shouldn't be a problem, and I'd be keeping the inner workings clean. If I manage to break the mica, I'll cut and grind a piece of glass to jam inside the duct that carries the microwaves, and hope it stays put. And if that doesn't work I'll put in cardboard and unplug the wires going to the convection and radiant heating elements (I know about working inside: "No 1: first discharge the capacitor"), using microwaves only. I'd be watching the cardboard closely, though. I'll let you know what happens. But if someone does know of a safe bonding substance, please post. (I've just thought: what about a high heat silicone sealing paste, or the stuff they use to make car engine gaskets from, or the stuff for sealing exhaust pipes? I have them all in my garage, and it need not be a strong bond, since the mica plate carries no stress - are these things toxic?)--Seejyb20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, little corona sparks all over - I was thinking of accidentally making a Faraday cage if I used steel, but forgot about the arcing. I've checked in the oven now with the room lights off, and yes indeed, they do spark a bit. The mica is not much affected, fortunately. So I'll take my staples out and seal the crack with pottery clay. The clay I have should do it - the cups and plates I made turned out to be quite microwave safe. Thanks. --Seejyb02:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh you didnt say you had clay. THat sounds like it might heat up with the water in it. THat may tend to either fire the clay or set fire to the oven! Who can tell?--Light current03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Airplane's low oxygen
I was just watching on "Discoveries this Week", on The Science Channel flight attendants training. I wondered how long could somebody like Lance Armstrong or Greg LeMond with a VO2 max of 80-95 last in normal conditions of a plane losing pressure or oxygen concentration or whatever it was. Could they just sit there? If not, how long would it take? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Not really any more than diving two or three meters causes people to implode (also a 1 ATM pressure difference). See explosive decompression and the external link at the bottom of that article. Also on the subject: cabin pressurization, altitude sickness. How a person reacts depends on what he tries to do, what the pressure is (i.e. altitude), does he have time to acclimatise, ... Weregerbil16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think thats quite right Weregerbil. I think the human body can stand more inward force that outward because the internal blood and fluid pressures can balance inward forces more easily. If you put a sucker on any part of your body ( 8-)) the blood pressure will tend to forse the tissues out and maybe rupture some blood vessels. Didnt yoo see that film Total Recall (Arnie Schwarzeneggar) and the bit where he was ejected onto the zero pressure surface of Mars. Nasty! --Light current16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw Total Recall. Hollywood is unique in that it is the only place in the universe where people explode in vacuum. See explosive decompression and the external link at the bottom of that article. The external article in particular lists real world cases of people having been exposed to hard vacuum. Weregerbil17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That movie completely fell apart at the end. Terraforming would likely take thousands of years to complete, but our Martian friends apparently spent the extra money to do it in 30 seconds flat, LOL. Then they just "forgot" to turn it on ? Apparently 4 year olds have been running Hollywood for quite some time now. StuRat20:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I wouldnt recommend it : I didnt say they would explode. Arnie didnt explode but he didnt look to well with bulging eyes, veins etc.
During this time, water vapor will form rapidly in the soft tissues and somewhat less rapidly in the venous blood. This evolution of water vapor will cause marked swelling of the body to perhaps twice its normal volume unless it is restrained by a pressure suit. (It has been demonstrated that a properly fitted elastic garment can entirely prevent ebullism at pressures as low as 15 mm Hg absolute [Webb, 1969, 1970].) Heart rate may rise initially, but will fall rapidly thereafter. Arterial blood pressure will also fall over a period of 30 to 60 seconds, while venous pressure rises due to distention of the venous system by gas and vapor. Venous pressure will meet or exceed arterial pressure within one minute. There will be virtually no effective circulation of blood. After an initial rush of gas from the lungs during decompression, gas and water vapor will continue to flow outward through the airways. This continual evaporation of water will cool the mouth and nose to near-freezing temperatures; the remainder of the body will also become cooled, but more slowly.
Hi all! I've tried as hard as I can to look for a Wikipedia article which talks about the time it takes for different types of organs and tissues to replace their cells completely with new ones (processes which I'm sure you've heard about, since people love saying that 'we all become completely new persons every X months' because of this...-.-), but I haven't been able to find anything remotely like that! (I don't know if this even has a name of some sort...)
I hope I'm clear about what I'm talking about: as far as I know, it takes a certain amount of time for, say, bones to replace all its old cells with new ones, and of course there are different time periods for different tissues to 'become completely new', from hours to months! (Not ALL tissues do this of course, but you'd be impressed by how many actually do!) I hope this subject isn't just spread around the articles for each organ or cell type, because this'd make for a pretty good and informative article all by itself!
I'd be grateful if you could point me to an article which talks about this, or simply check if there is indeed no article about this, so the right thing is done and it is written. Thanks in advance! Kreachure17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like there is a specific article on the subject, probably because its pretty difficult to know (in humans at least) how long it takes. However, it does say that the Olfactory receptor neurons of the nose are entirely replaced every 40 days or so in humans. Rockpocket19:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on an article related to time measurement (Indian Standard Time) before the advent of the atomic clock. The best information I could find on wikipedia is the article Tempometer. My question is: Before the atomic clock came into existence, how did people accurately measure the precise time? (I'm interested in the era between 1800 to 1955). Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=17:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, and the best mention there was the H4 chronometer. I'm specifically looking for an official device (if any) that the governments used to keep the time. =Nichalp«Talk»=17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pages on timekeeping at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology are well done, not too technically detailed, and a good place to find the search item names for your favourite search engine. The British National Maritime Museum is another remarkable site, with photographs of the beautful timepieces that were made in the past. The British specifically would have made a large scientific and technological contribution to what you are researching in India, and I have no doubt that the men and women a the NMM would be glad to help you with any information you need. --Seejyb02:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the 19th century the Greenwich observatory was the center for accurate time measurement in the world. A telescope was set along the Airy meridian (once the zero of longitude.) Observers would press a button as each designated star passed exactly through the crosshars, recording electrically on a paper chart the time. This would be compared to the expected time of traverse. The master clocks were so regulated, and electrical time signals were transmitted to the UK, to Europe, and via the transAtlantic cable to America. There was a master Time Desk, which must have inspired H.G Wells for his book "The Time Machine." The same office regulated marine chronometers.(on edit: the marine chronometers were dropped off, not remotely set!) Paris time was defined as Greenwich Time less so many minutes and seconds. Devices for sunchronizing chronometers may have inspired Einstein when he was a clerk at the Swiss patent odffice. This process was replaced in the 20th century by atomic clocks. In a great tragedy, the actual zero meridian established at Greenwich by Airy, was moved a bit, detectable by GPS devices, apparently to placate the French.Edison03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vacuum propulsion
i am writing a short sci-fi story and it includes a ship i want to fly by zero-point energy propulsion but based on actual theories that are being looked at for future use in real life. I would like to know some of the theories for zero-point energy propulsion, non are mentioned specifically in the zero-point energy section of this site. Through talking to a physics student i have come across two. but dont worry he made sure to stress that these theories would require technology beyond what we have today, so no crackpot stuff
Firstly was the theory that somehow you could change the waves of zero-point to a lorentz variable form, because apparently its nature normally is lorentz invariable so we cannot full its effects, and through the loretz force that would carry the ship like a sail
The second and best i have heard so far is the theory that zero-point energy could make negative mass or energy that can repulse stuff, so maybe an negative matter jet that repels the ship.
yea vacuum energy, the zero point field, apparently its a huge source of electromagnetism and energy in general but we only know its there according to mainstream science, there is not that i know of any method of harnessing it yet, all we know is that its huge and its there and it arises from 3 of the four fundamental force so if we could get at it, or make its waves tangibel, we could move spaceships easily, saw something on your site about it having enough energy to bend space-time and on another site about enough to boil the oceons of the world. but the problem is that up till now we cant, but there are theories, i named a few i have heard, got anymore?
-Jamie olins
Really, it would be stupid to try to "harness" zero-point energy, because it takes so much energy to try to use it. We're better off using anti-matter or nuclear fusion if we get that advanced. Check zero-point energy. You'll have to read some science fiction to get ideas for how to use it, because we don't have any ideas yet. The closest thing we have now, in physics, would be the Casimir effect. Let me correct a few things. Zero-point energy does not "arise from 3 forces," it is just the lowest energy state. Negative matter does repels things because gravity is "opposite." — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Well we cant harness it now, because we dont have the technology, but it is there and large so maybe in the future we will be able too, and according to vacuum energy section it does arise from 3 of the fundamental forces at least [we are not sure about gravity] so there are no theories even i know we have no actual method yet, non at all?
Jamie
no need for anymore replies, found a site with some theories that fit my needs on the NASA website
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/ideachev.html, the first one is the first one i mentioned, but there are other ones there, they are in the the millis hypothetical drives section
Well feel free, if you can come up with something better than a differentual pressure sail, [cohering zpe behind the sail to push it] feel free. will check back.
Jamie
I keep having two dreams. THe first is where I need to get a couple of teeth filled (big holes). The second is where I still have to finish my degree and I can never quite make it.
Do these dreams mean anything? You may refer to my User page to dtermine my personality if this helps.--Light current00:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I just had a dream where I, and some freinds from high school who I haven't seen in a year, had a reenactment of early Australia. For some reason we were in a huge library, and we would fight to Beatles songs. If the Beatles song changed to an upbeat one, we would all go and sit down. I don't like this idea of dreams meaning something, and even if they do, how would anyone know? --liquidGhoul00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just sounds to me like you're just afraid of cavities/dentists and not being able to finish college. Now give me a dream full of cigars and then we will have some real analysis to do. :-) StuRat02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but I have finished (about 30 yrs ago) and yeah Im still scared of dentists. Do you think it indicates ther may be big holes in my life?--Light current02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page says you edited Tap Changers. Some of my best days were spent fixing tap changers. Perhaps you are worried about the cavities seen in the copper or bronze contacts of the tap changer mechanisms. Or maybe Freud was right and puns are used in creating dream images. Edison03:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a dream about a liquid rubik's cube, and it spawned an entire discussion on the viscosity of glass, and possible crystalline structures there of, someone even thought it was some sort of 'homework'--71.247.125.14414:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, dreams always mean the opposite of what they appear to be saying on the face of them (because they have to disguise themselves to slip past the censor, of course). So maybe he would say that your dream about college is actually a fear of what will happen when you do finish college. I don't even want to touch the part about the "filling big holes", but rest assured Freud would have a most objectionable reading, as all dreams are forms of wish-fulfillment. ;-) (I think Freud's dream theory is pretty silly, by the way, but sometimes the act of thinking through dreams, like thinking through anything else, can be a therapeutic form of self-examination.) --Fastfission15:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you guys. Dreams don't "mean" anything. This is totally evident for somebody who controls their dreams. Dreams are just something made up by your mind while you sleep. We don't know why, we don't know how. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
It is currently unknown where dreams originate in the brain and why, and there are theories ranging from "they are meaningless" (which I find more than little suspicious, given that the proximity of dreams to conscious anxieties and desires seems more than coincidental), to "they are some form of processing" (which strikes me as being more than little vague). While I doubt the psychoanalytic approach to dreams is very sound (it is more literary than it is scientific), the idea that dreams may be the result of unconscious processes is not primae faciae absurd, nor is there a good scientific understanding of them at the moment. The way I figure, if talking about them brings up insights that are helpful, then it's not a bad activity, whether or not one can actually describe the "meaning" of dreams in any literal sense. --Fastfission19:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of dreams about my teeth rotting and crumbling out of my skull. I know that this is 'supposed' to mean something significant but I have no idea what... --Kurt Shaped Box16:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You secretly want to be a seagull bagel, which, of course, requires losing all your teeth as a first step in the transformation. :-) StuRat01:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's your subconscious' subtle, convoluted way of telling you...your teeth are rotting out of your skull. go see a dentist :) --Bmk00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe to the idea that a dream is the post-processing for your day. What would be the evolutionary advantage to a primate, dog etc. having dreams so they can psychoanalyse themselves? It has to be something to do with your brains ability to stay fit or useful, otherwise it wouldn't occur. Also, Freud is an idiot, I haven't heard of one of his hypothesise which have been rational. All women secretly want to be men? What an idiot.--liquidGhoul00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside that Freud is to psychology what alchemy is to chemistry, dreams seem likely to be something that the brain is trying to rehearse in case the scenario arises. But there can be many, many reasons that a particular situation would be subject of a dream. Peter Grey01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but my point is, these are recurrent dreams (not every night but say one a week or so). so is my subconcious trying to tell me something?--Light current01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are any number of books out there that purport to interpret the meanings of dreams. Given that dreams are messages from the subconscious to the conscious mind using symbolic representation, these interpretations might have some validity in a general sense, because societies tend to agree on the broad meanings of certain symbols. But be very wary of assuming that such an interpretation is true for a particular dream or series of dreams, experienced by a particular person. Only the person themself can really know what the symbol means for themself, and it might be a different meaning this time compared to the same symbol in a different dream at another time. To answer your last question, yes, your subconscious is trying to tell you something. But for anybody else to tell you what it means is to assume intimate knowledge of your psyche, which only you have. JackofOz02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not even an analyst. They might have a bit more of an insight into some of the possibilities, but only you know the answer. And you do know. JackofOz03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. I operate on the basis that people always have their own answers within them. They might need a counsellor or a therapist in some cases to help them sort it out from all the other stuff that's inside, but it's there. The very fact that Light current is asking questions about the meaning displays a level of self-awareness. It means that he knows the dream is not just some random meaningless visual rubbish, but something of significance. Ask and you will receive (but not necessarily from the person you asked). JackofOz03:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be tangential to the current discussion (who am I to say) but I have heard that dreaming about teeth problems (as I do quite often) is an indicator of physical self-consciousness (which I do suffer from at times in the waking world) and dreaming about being at school/work in a hopeless situation is indicative of fear of failure (vague, I know). Of course, I don't claim that dreams correlate well to real life, but they sure are fun to ponder. --Jmeden200015:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey you could be right JM. I am physically self conscious ( but incredibly handsome 9-)) nad I do have a fear of failure because it happens so often. So i think you have cracked it!--Light current15:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
August 20
What happens if the sun stops shining?
If the sun suddenly stopped giving out light and heat, what would happen? I assume that everything else about it is the same - that we still orbit around it and so on.
Damn cold very quick. Think how cold it is at night in winter with no cloud. Much Colder than that. Not very long at all for extinction (unless you had a heater)--Light current00:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what would kill most humans and animal species first. Would it be hypothermia or starvation as plant food sources died. Would plants die from the frosts or the lack of sunlight. I wonder how long in practice humans could keep themselves alive. Heat would be less of a problem than growing food.
I expect those shrimps and other novel species who were discovered living next to very hot water vents in the deep ocean would survive perhaps until the whole earth cooled, since they are already in the dark. I think the heat from the earths core would be little affected by the sun closing down, since the earth is large and as far as I recall the heat comes from radioactivity and perhaps eddy currants.
Yeah, I'd imagine it could take tens of thousands of years for the undersea life to die off, or maybe longer. I think some undersea life depends on detritus drifting down from surface ecosystems - any life that depended on that interaction would probably disappear. However, it could take a long time for some undersea geothermal ecosystems to be destroyed. It's one of my fondest hopes for science that we may discover life under the ice of Europa when we eventually send a probe there. It is thought that tidal heating of Europa's crust by Jupiter's gravitational field may maintain a significant liquid ocean in which recognizeable lifeforms might have developed. --Bmk19:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah possibly! I think there were good bits in both. Presumably Jupiter was turned into a sun just in case the other one stopped. Is that right? But wouldnt Europa be far too close not to burn all life there?--Light current00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See brown dwarf. Jupiter is nowhere near the critical mass needed to form a star (one that emits heat through nuclear fusion). I assume that all the mass in the solar system (excluding the Sun) wouldn't be enough to get form a star. However, if it were possible to make a red dwarf, it would emit just a fraction of the energy of the Sun, so Europa might be safe. DirkvdM08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have forgotten to consider oxygen. With no light, no photosynthesis, no oxygen production. Humans, animals, and shrimps would eventually suffocate. I wonder how long this would take before the oxygen was used up or the levels of CO2 became toxic?
Even if humans could rig up lamps to grow plants under, we would need to live in hermatically sealed environments. Soon the earths atmosphere would be like some alien world's.
Any practical method for calibrating a bathroom scale?
Is there a practical method, using only easy-to-find items, that would allow one to determine the approximate error of a bathroom scale in a given range of nominal measured values?
If you have the info that came with the scale, it might have those in the specs. Then again, an old and mistreated scale might no longer fall within the specs. Comparing it with a much more accurate scale would work. But then again, if you have a much more accurate scale, you'd likely just toss out the less accurate one. If you have a weight-lifting set, you could also use those to do the check. StuRat01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, get a bucket, put it on the scale, note the weight, then put a liter of water in the bucket, as measured by some trusted measuring device, and make sure the scale increases by 1 kg. Or more water, if you can't accurately measure 1 kg on the scale. --Bmk02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! "A pints a pound the world round" so a gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds. Or use the relation that the latest U.S. quarter coins weigh = 5.670g and count out 10 lbs, 20 lbs, 50 lbs, 100 lbs, and 200 lbs worth. then put them in a bucket and weigh them (being careful to tare the bucket).Edison04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the UK its not. A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter. US and UK pints are different. See this from our article:
In 1824 the British parliament replaced all its variant gallons with a new "imperial" gallon based on ten pounds of distilled water at 62 °F (277.42 cubic inches), from which the UK pint is derived.
The thing people have missed is that weighing a human and weighing inanimate weights is different. When I was dieting, I soon noticed that slightly moving my position on the scales, such as positioning my feet half-an-inch forward or back, and also slightly leaning forward or back, would make several pounds difference to my weight. I solved this by recording both my maximum and my minimum weight at each weighing. If anyone knows of an inexpensive pair of bathroom scales that do not have this problem, please leave their brand-name here.
Weighing animate objects isn't different as long as they aren't moving. You just have a poorly constructed scale that is apparently sensitive to changes of the weight's position. - Rainwarrior16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Digital scales using load cell or strain gauge technology tend to be more accurate and repeatable than spring scales. The early ('90s) models however, using a single load cell and a suspension system to transfer the weight on the platform to it, were susceptible to shifting positions on the platform. Most of today's digital home scales use four load cells to support the platform and are accurate and repeatable to well under one pound. --hydnjotalk15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a wierd question!!
who was the first person to commit a suicide??thanks
Anne Ty
Nobody knows. Mankind has existed for 200,000 years (longer if you count precursors of H.Sapiens) while recorded history goes back only about 5,000-6,000 years. After a quick search the earliest recorded suicide I found on Wikipedia is Aegeus in the 1230s BC though fact and fiction are hard to tell apart there. There is probably an ancient Egyptian stone tablet fragment somewhere that mentions in passing some non-notable guy killing himself. Weregerbil11:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gilgamesh is the oldest surviving literary work, and was carved into a clay tablet. And I'm pretty sure it was a "legend" (ie, made up), so I don't think that really counts. Black Carrot03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have had chronic tendinitis in both elbows (inner side, epicondilitis, golfer's elbow colloquially speaking), but with drugs, weight training and patience, tendinitis has completely disappeared. But I still have a problem... a problem that I already had during my injury period and which appeared in the early stages of my tendinitis, probably due to it or just in parallel to it.
The thing is that, whenever I perform an eccentric exercise with my right triceps with heavy weight there's a perfectly defined point in the flexion of the arm where I get acute and strong pain. To give you an idea, exercises that cause me the pain I have mentioned are, among others, doing push-ups with weight in my back while I descend my body slowly to the floor. There's no problem while I lift the weight, just when I go down again (I've said push-ups with weight in my back because push-ups using only my body weight aren't enough to cause me pain, since I'm quite strong for my bodyweight).
It is quite uncomfortable in some situations. What can cause this? How can I cure myself? Any ideas? Thanks in advance.
The obvious advice is to cut back on the workouts, you're just wearing out your elbows from overuse. How about concentrating on your legs for a while and giving your arms a rest ? Then, once you get severe knee pain, you can switch back :-) StuRat03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a zipper that will not come apart. The large (when compared to the teeth) parts of the zipper that go together at the bottom have corroded together it seems. They appear to be made of aluminum but that's just a guess. Is there a solution that I might soak them in to break up the corrosion but not ruin the cloth around them? Dismas|(talk)14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the OP's description, I don't think the parts can be moved to do that. Personally, I'd give it a good squirt of WD40, making sure to get it well into the gaps not just on the surface. I can't promise that it'll not do anything to the cloth, but it's fairly light and volatile so I doubt it would stain. PeteVerdon13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd try is, using two pairs of pliers (that is, two instances of the same kind of instrument), to grip each of the two zipper "teeth" firmly between the teeth of the pliers (using one for each "tooth"), and to wiggle those gently in the hope the teeth will come apart from each other (without coming individually apart). --LambiamTalk01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
aromatic plants-distillation
I desire to install distillation machinary of aromatic plants. would you please guide me some books/reading material as i will be totally new in this field.Or some popular feasibility reports in installing ditillaries.
In an episode of Food Jammers, the fellas built a smallish version of such a machine. You can see a cartoon of their setup here. So... just build something like that :) When trying to start out in a new field, it's generally best to find a local person who does a similar thing so you can learn from them... you'll learn faster and probably better than you would from a book. Try, e.g., the chemistry department at a local university. You could also ask your favorite search engine for something like "essential oil distillation". digfarenough (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like fairly specialised machinery. Probably the manufacturer would provide a technician to show you how to use it. BTW if you're looking for a line on those 'aromatic plants', we've got a bumper crop up here in BC :wink wink: Anchoress01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bowel movements
recently ive found myself passing stools quite frequently (about 3 or 4 times a day), only they`re not very big (i mean big enough to sit on for sure..... oh i'm so funny!!) anyway, seriously, is there are an Optimum Poo Frequency (OPF)? and is the fact that not alot's coming out a bad thing? thanks! (p.s. i`ll leave it to wikipedians to make sure that OPF catches on. i`m quite proud of it!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.18.237.154 (talk)
Have you recently changed your diet? I once heard, many years ago, that the thing that varies most among humans is defecation rate. According to defecation, "Humans remove waste anywhere from several times daily to a few times weekly", so it looks as though it is true. I used only to go once every few days, but since a change of diet it is now once a day. More frequently certainly feels better to me. --Shantavira17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that's with a normal diet. If you fast you may stop going altogether. You could also get all the calories you need in a very small mass of food, if eating some dense calorie source, like very fatty meat. While not a very healthy diet, this would lead to infrequent defecation. Eat lots of salads, on the other hand, and you may find yourself closer to the 3 times a day limit. StuRat03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my trip to Australia, that was probably the longest I ever went. It must have been four days. I ate normally. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
That was probably due to the change in environment,climate, food,water, travel and your excitement at being on holiday.-- not normal tho!--Light current16:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think if its that infrequent you just aint getting enough fibre! Studies amongst tribes in Africa showed that the low incidence of many Western diseases was probably due to the 'speed of processing' of food. It only took 12 hrs from mouth to.. other end in those people!--Light current14:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has several, uh, bowel issues, I'd like you to make sure that the type of your excretion has not changed. If it's become frequently very soupy or very firm, or if you vary from soupy to firm within a 24-36 hour span, please search WebMD.com forUlcerative Colitis, Crohn's disease, amd Irritable Bowel Syndrome to see if you may have other symptoms. It's very important to diagnose these afflictions as early as possible. Srose(talk)14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats good advice. Of course drinking copious quantities of amber nectar or other alchoholic libation the night before can loosen the uhh.. stools quite effectively?--Light current14:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. ;) Speaking from personal experience, I'd also like to note that the process of being diagnosed with any of those diseases (particularly Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis) is a long process, sometimes rather disgusting. Srose(talk)14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the ref desk, but I read the article tempometer, mentioned in a post a few days ago, and at least part of it seems unsupported, and smells distinctly hoaxy to me, especially the part about it being "fixed to the luminiferous aether". Perhaps some of you could take a look and weigh in one way or the other? Thanks --Bmk16:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough moral support that I think I can escape the appearance of picking on the author. The article is now up for AfD. Melchoir19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is theoretically impossible to be sure of that; all we know, and all we need to know, is that there isa reasonable good-faith search has found no evidence. As with any deletion, if a reliable source is uncovered in the future, it can be used to write a new article that is verified and free of original research. Melchoir19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proper way to deal with an article like that is to separate accepted scientific/historical facts from unjustified claims, and remove the latter. If tempomemter is not a recent invention of whoever created the article, and is part of history, I would recommend leaving the article there. If, at some point in the past, people had mistaken/unjustified/superstitious beliefs about the device, the existence of those beliefs is part of history, but they should labeled as such (and not be given a false appearance of a modern scientific description of the workings of the device). I have no idea if any of the historical descriptions is correct, but the Lorentz quote is arguably out of context (in the sense that a reader seeing more of the context will get quite a different impression of what the quote is about). I see no reason to accept the implied claim that a tempometer is "fixed to the classical ether", even when one adopts Lorentz's view about the obsolete hypothetical concept of ether. --71.123.61.11222:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion page. From what I can tell, it's a word made up by the creator of the page for the software s/he created and links to there. So I think there are no scientific/historical facts, those are covered at the astrarium page, which is what a "tempometer" is a new name for as far as I can tell (I am not an expert on these things). digfarenough (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
male/female speaking rates
Is the a study comparing the verbal speaking rates of men and women in different languages?
Don't change the subject. (If that was the joke - this was clarification for those confused men who dind't get it :) ). DirkvdM09:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to search for "discourse analysis" and "conversation analysis" together with "gender." Also, if you can borrow a linguistics textbook from your library, check if it has a chapter on "Language and Gender." --Kjoonlee16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, there's a liguist who wrote some books on gender differences in language. I can't remember her name, but one of her books is titled You Just Don't Understand. --Kjoonlee16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most fractures of the skull heal. Some more complicated fractures may need insertion of a protective plate; contact sports are sometimes forbidden is the skull does not heal to its original condition. However, the major problem after a skull fracture isn't the harm to the skull, but that trauma severe enough to fracture the skull may injure the brain below. Obviously the range of such damage is wide, from a concussion with no permanent effects to death from brain swelling. In between is every neurologic disability you can imagine as a possible consequence of fracture and brain injury. alteripse00:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at times skull fragments from the fracture can be pushed into the brain. When a fracture this severe occurs, there is also a risk of infection to the brain. StuRat03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously someone who has suffered a skull fracture needs the advice of a physician, not postings by random persons of unknown qualifications on the internet. That said, with regard to the previous post about CSF leakage, cerebrospinal fluid is a clear liquid which may be tinted pink by blood if the leak is due to injury. It may be mistaken for ordinary sinus drainage, even by physicians. One test is the "bulleye test" wherein the fluid is allowed to drain into a piece of white gauze. The blood cells will produce a ring or halo on the gauze. This test does not work in the absence of a certain amount of blood in the CSF so it may produce a false negative. A more modern test see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8818499&dopt=Abstract is to collect a sample of the fluid in a sterile sample bottle and have it analyzed for Beta-2-transferrin . This is pretty much unique to CSF. A middle ground is to use a diabetic's blood sugar meter to determine the glucose concentration in the fluid. Nasal secretions will generally test negative for glucose, while CSF may have concentrations close to the concentration in the blood. Anyone with chronic CSF leakage (it can go on benignly for months) is at high risk for meningitis a potentially fatal and often damaging infection of the brain and central nervous system. Signs of meningitis are 10 intense headache, 2) sensitivity to light, and 3) pain when the head is tilted down to the chest, 4)fever, and/or 5) vomiting. Immediate treatment is required. Edison14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Photosynthesis limit
Everybody knows plants make photosynthesis during the light time hours. In the nights, the plants "breath" oxygene as the rest of the animals do.
I always wondered what happend between day and night. There is a light point in which the plant is not doing any kind of biological proccess, neither taking co2 nor oxygene? Can a plant change from doing the first thing into the other just in a second? It is possible that a part of a plant is making photosynthesis while the other is taking oxygene? (Sorry for the badspelling, I am not used to English and thank you for you help!)
Actually, the plant is always doing respiration, which is the metabolism of sugars, which as you say uses oxygen and releases CO2 and water. The plant always needs a supply of energy to maintain itself (homeostasis) and grow, and respiration is the mechanism by which it releases stored energy for use. You are also correct that photosynthesis only happens during periods of exposure to light, as photosynthesis requires light to synthesize sugars. I believe that photosynthesis rates vary proportionally to the variation in light. Since both of these processes occur on the cellular level, it is certainly possible that one part of the plant is photosynthesizing while another is not, but all living parts of the plant are always respiring (taking in oxygen) to some degree. For instance the roots of the plant do not photosynthesize, but they do respire. I hope that helps. And don't worry about your english - it's better than most questions around here! --Bmk00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your complete answer, sounds logical. When both processes can happen simultaneously, then is not so complicated. I think my teacher didn't emphasized on that. Good work!
Glad to be of help :) and thanks for replying - it gets discouraging to throw answers into a void that doesn't answer back. --Bmk00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
working with dams for dummies (and choosing to build them in the first place!)
Hello,
after some consideration I thought it might still be best to post this in the "Science" reference desk.
Dams are often considered vital for supplying a nation with (fresh) water. Suppose I have a country and a huge river runs through it. Let us take China and the Yangtze for instance.
When I finish the dam and I close the gates, no water comes out. So the river behind it swells up and becomes a lake. I have to watch out and close my dam in time so it doesn't get destroyed!
But now what? If my lake is stable in height, that means there goes just as much water through the dam as passed at that point before I ever built the dam?
I'm not supplying my country with any more cubic meters per day, am I?
A good portion of the water that was flowing down the river originally ends up flowing to houses and farms, now, via pipes, with, perhaps, only a trickle going down the river. The Colorado River, for example, used to flow to the ocean via Mexico, but, due to the Hoover Dam, now has such a small trickle that it evaporates in Mexico before reaching the ocean. StuRat03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but you have a big reserve of water you can use even if its not raining! Also you are actually capturing all the water that falls in the catchment area. Previously you were propably collecting only a fraction of it.--Light current23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, would it be that much of a difference. It the lake filled up in a gorge, wouldn't most of the rainfall have ended up in the original river as well? Good point though. But for the rest, it seems all I am doing is preparing myself for some fluctuations in my needs for water. But in the end the amount of cubic meters I receive each year is pretty much the same.Evilbu01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You cant get any more water than falls as rain over the country. But you can store it in times of plenty, release it it times of drought and stop it going to waste in the sea. Hence the usefulness of the dam.--Light current01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A second advantage is that you are preventing some of the water from dropping to the original height. This higher water has more gravitational potential energy, which may be used to deliver the water. In layman's terms, the water is now high enough to flow thru pipes up near the top of the new lake, whereas before the water could only flow through pipes near the top of the river. Also, don't forget that as much as helping with water distribution, dams are also about generating electricity using hydroelectric turbines. StuRat03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A second question :
Yesterday I saw a British documentary about the Euphrates, and they visited the (well protected!) Ataturk dam. They said that this dam allowed Turkey to control the political behavior of Syria and Iraq. Well how exactly? If the lake behind the dam has been filled, can they really make any threats? For how many days would they be able to cut off the river without destroying their own dam or flooding valuable things alongside their own lake?
Maybe they could divert the water to their own lands. Or maybe they only need to stop the water for a couple of days. THat wouldnt burst the dam. --Light current23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would that impress their opponents that much, if it was only for a few days? One thing they could do is throw tons of poison in the Euphrates near the border with Syria. But I think the United Nations will immediately impose sanctions then.Evilbu01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They might very well be able to divert the entire flow into the river to some other location, perhaps even the Mediterranean Sea. Their farmers could also water all their crops more than the usual amount (but not so much as to kill them). This would be especially effective in the dry season, where there may be hardly any flow into the river to begin with. In the rainy season, however, they might not have much of an option of cutting off the water supply, but could make the flow very uneven, which would mess with boats trying to sail on the river. StuRat03:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A third question :
how bad would be the consequence of destroying such a dam? Would the flood generated by such an act be of significance in Syria and Iraq too?
Yes I agree, but if you consider how the Euphrates first goes through Syria, I find it hard to believe it would still cause major flooding in cities like Basra. Or would it?Evilbu01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on the geography and how full the river was to start with. If it was already at flood stage, and the river was in a deep canyon over the entire length, there would be no place for the additional water to go but further down the river. If, on the other hand, the river was low, then it could absorb a great volume of water before hitting flood stage. Also, if the land was quite flat, the water would spread out over a large area and be absorbed into the soil by flooding near the dam, and thus not flood much further downstream. StuRat03:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The British did this during WW2 in Germany using a specifically designed secret weapon. There was a well-known film made about it called The Dam Busters. The bomber crews were very brave - despite about half of them being killed, as far as I recall, the rest of them still continued cooly with the mission. There was another dam that could have been busted, but it was considered too much of a suicide mission to order people to undertake it.
Got given some new chickens today and I put them in the compound with the rest. The old cockerel started fighting with the new one almost straight away and I had to seperate them (hens get on fine). How do I stop them fighting?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.136.27 (talk)
Just wondering, but since this is the 3rd or 4th chicken related question that's popped up in the last few days, what exactly do you do with your chickens? Are they for eggs, or meat, or entertainment? Where do you keep them? what do you feed them? etc..--71.247.125.14400:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not surprised really. The old cock is defending his territory against the interloper.You'ld do the same! He doesnt mind his harem being extended but he doesnt want to share them with another cock. Would you?--Light current02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, to summarize, you've got to keep the two cocks separated. If that's too hard, I'd sell one, or maybe eat one. :-) StuRat03:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So my solution would be to have two separate flocks, with one cock each. THen there should be no jealousy! (Hey sounds like marriage guidance here!)--Light current03:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously not a farmer? Cockerels can't get along together. You need to have them seperated somehow, or they'll fight to the death. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Will a wave of given energy (e.g., an x-ray) travel equally through a thick piece of, say, wood and a thin piece of, say, lead, if there were the same number of atoms impeding its progress in both cases? BenC703:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, all atoms are not the same. Some are much more massive than others, some are ionized, some have complete electron shells, others do not. All these factors cause some atoms to block more of certain types of radiation than others. StuRat04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez guys, I never thought I would be the local physics guy when the normal guys were out. The transparency of an object is based on the atomic spacing Ben: The periodic potential well generated by the crystalline structure gives rise to electronic band-gaps. Essentially, band-gaps represent energies in which the electrons in the valence electrons will not be excited to a higher state. In crystalline metals and most semiconductors, light in the visible range will excite these electrons so this energy will be dissipated before it passes through the material. In some common crystalline insulators, the atoms have a larger atomic spacing which gives rise to a larger band gap. The band gap of such materials requires a larger energy than provided by visible light in order for electron excitation to take place. Therefore, the light passes through the material without interaction. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
You can get the ansower yourself - without getting into complicated physics. Just use visible radiation - light. Put some snow (or shaved ice) in a glass dish and observe the darkness of the shadow. Then melt it and repeat. — Sebastian(talk)15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly where I got the idea from, but it is my understanding that exercise helps the body's immune system. How? A reasonably detailed explanation would be good. BenC703:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exercise will help the immune system up to a point. People who exercise too much (and it has to be quite a bit) can experience a decrease in immune system function. IIRC one of the main points is that regular exercise, especially if it results in decreased inter-whatever fat (fat surrounding the organs) improves liver function, and since the liver is 'da bomb' as far as chemical regulation is concerned (it secretes, moderates or breaks down most of the body's chemicals) improved liver function = improved immune system function. Another thing that improves liver function is increased blood flow. That's what I remember anyway. Anchoress11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spinning wheels
I watched and noticed several things about the observation of certain spinning / objects in motion... I noticed that if they're moving fast enough, they seem like they're not moving at all or moving in the opposite direction they're spinning (i.e. wheels on a car). Why does this happen? Obviously the wheel is not spinning at / close to / faster than the speed of light! Thanks for feeding my knowledge! --Agester03:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is a little off topic but just wondering about a old kind pondering question. "If lightning strikes the ocean. How come all the fish don't die?" It's probably been answered before but i can't seem to find the answer. --Agester04:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just guessing, but... A lightning strike on the ocean probably only draws current across the surface of the water, where you would expect charge to build up. And even if it draws current through the bulk of the water, that current wouldn't have any particular reason to pass through fish any more than the saltwater surrounding them. Melchoir04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have made my tenses clearer: A lightning strike on the ocean probably only draws current across the surface of the water, where you would expect charge to have built up. Melchoir14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would fully expect it to kill fish in the immediate area of the strike, but then the charge would rapidly dissipate so that fish even a few meters away should be safe. StuRat04:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the above answwers (and to ckeck if I got this right): Lightning tries to follow the path of least resistance. If you're standing in a field the water in your body will conduct the current more easily than the surrounding air, so all of the current is concentrated in you. In water, it will spread evenly in all directions (unless it sticks to the surface - why would that be?), meaning in all three dimensions, so over twice as large a distance the power will have been reduced to 1/8 (there must be a clearer way to say this). And the fish may even repel it because its skin will conduct it less easily than the water. By the way, lightning isn't necessarily lethal. Some people have survived it, though they did not remain unaffected (the brains work differntly). DirkvdM09:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: Most of an electrical discharge follows the path of least resistance, true, but some also follows other paths. And since a good portion of the discharge changes to heat in a material with significant resistance, those items tend to have more damage, even if they carried less of the discharge. As for twice the distance meaning power is reduced to 1/8th, that would be described as "power varies with the inverse cube of the distance". StuRat15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I took my kids to the swimming pool, there was a rumble of thunder and the lifeguards made everyone get out of the water. Were all those wet kids standing outside the pool in more danger than they would have been in the pool? --Ed (Edgar181) 12:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pools conduct electricity much better than the ground, so tend to attract lightning strikes. And anyone in the pool is likely to be killed or seriously injured by the strike. StuRat15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think they were. They were certainly higher (and therfore at more risk) unless the life guards made them all lie down. I mean, if youre out side, the best place is a hole in the ground (preferably with a lid on it)-- you dont wand to send up any streamers (--Light current12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most outdoor pools should have some form of shelter (changerooms). Standard practice is to wait 20 min. after the last thunder rumble. --Zeizmic13:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the current indeed follows the surface of th water, then swimming at the surface would not be a good idea. But if the lightning strikes the ground, it apparently also follows the surface, so it is not a good idea to lie down. The best position would be to squat (with your head down I believe)- minimising both your height and the surface in contact with the ground. Lightning#Lightning_safety doesn't seem to say anything on this, which should really be fixed. DirkvdM19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you are only looking at the chances of surviving, assuming that a lightning strike is inevitable, and not looking at how to avoid being hit at all. It you are flat on the ground, far from water or trees, it's quite unlikely that you will be struck. The lightning will instead strike a higher point (tree) or better conductor (water). StuRat19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article in National Geographic, IIRC, shows supercooled air at 400% in
calm at Antartica. Also supersaturated sea water unfrozen well below
0% C.
Identify a spider
Dear fellow Wikipedians,
A few days ago, I found a spider in my basement. Sometime between yesterday and today, it laid eggs and started to weave a cocoon for the eggs. I would ask for your help in identifying the spider. Since I do not want to post pictures here, these are links to pictures of the spider:
As you can see, the net is highly irregular. The spider is about 5 by 10 millimeters large (without legs), I would estimate the legs to span about 20-30 millimeters. I am located in a town close to Vienna in Austria.
Information about, or proper name of, circular magnetic keys as used on tills and (less commonly) shared doors.
Does anybody have any information about the type of "key" consisting of a round metal disc that's pressed against a reader? In the UK they're commonly used on relatively high-tech tills/cash-registers (especially in bars) to "log in" the person about to use the device. The disc is usually attached to the end of a short plastic tag and carried on some kind of lanyard.
What I want to know is how these devices work. They're usually referred to as "magnetic keys", but they can clearly carry a certain amount of information (which member of the bar staff is using the till, at least) so there's more than a simple magnet in there. Are they perhaps some variant of RFID, and if so why does one have to press them quite accurately onto the reader?
If you don't know these details, at least the correct term for the device so that I can search for more myself would be useful.
I don't know much about them, but they seem similar to the key cards we used at one workplace. They were the size and shape of credit cards and made of plastic, but would open doors when waved in front of a reader. The common wisdom was that they contained "a chip," and it was known that if you bent one, it was ruined. --Ginkgo100talk · e@13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a straightforward RFID proximity card, as used at my University (my workplace uses cards with both mag stripe and chip-with-physical-contacts, for different purposes). I know how they work, more or less - and find the implications of [this article] very interesting - which is why I wondered in the question if the "magnetic" discs are actually some kind of RFID. But I'd like to know for sure. PeteVerdon14:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC) {NB Edit conflict with below}[reply]
RFID keys (keycards, reader cards, pass cards, pass IDs... there's a million names) work at a rangs based on the reader. In an area where you want it to pick up the RFID from a distance, the reader has more power. If you don't want a cashier to accidently trigger a register (till) just by walking past the counter, it is turned down. See RFID for a lot of information about how they work. You should focus on the passive (unpowered) version as I seriously doubt your RFID keys are powered. --Kainaw(talk)13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So they're just standard RFID tags in a metal button, with the exciter coil in the reader turned down so low that they have to be touching? I suppose that makes sense. PeteVerdon14:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they have to be pressed against the reader, then they could be the "1-wire" or "i-Button" devices from Dallas/Maxim. [20] These are serial ID devices packaged in a housing that looks like a watch battery or coin cell, and work by metallic contact with the reader. "1-wire" is just a marketing term - they have two contacts just like a normal coin cell. --Heron14:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Akbil is an instance? These are used on public transport in Istanbul for paying the fare; you have to "refill" them (at paying stations) when the balance is low. At the very least they need an internal memory like EEPROM, and a protocol for reading from and writing to it. --LambiamTalk01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hairs standing up when frightened: evolution
Do the hairs of humans really stand up when they are frightened? If so, how could proponents of ID explain this? God with a sense of humor?
Hedgehogs (which evolutionarily predate almost every mammal) stand their spines up when frightened. They are rather useless for defense when they lay flat. That hereditary anomoly appears again in felines, which raise the hairs on their back - assumably to make them appear larger. I'm sure you can find it showing up again and again throughout mammals - so it shouldn't be surprising that humans have the same reaction. As for "does it happen?" - it is more related to the "chilling" factor of being scared and not the fear factor. When humans get cold, the hair stands up also. --Kainaw(talk)13:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cats puff for two reasons. 1. They do it when confronting a possible predator to make their body appear bigger. They will also often turn sideways at the same time for the same reason. 2. They do it when it gets cold to trap more air in their fur, though this fluffing is not to the same extreme as in the other situation, so it is less often noticed. Obviously both of these behaviours have reproductive advantages that worked, otherwise they wouldn't be retained. Human erector pili muscles are really vestigal (though functional), but most likely had the same functions orginally. As for the ID people who knows. Maybe they'd just say that you shouldn't question the designs of an almighty deity. I'd be interested in how they explain it away though. pschemp | talk15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I doubt that many ID people would be hanging around this part of Wikipedia, but if there are, feel free to answer. Ooh wait, maybe that's our natural God detector system. When God speaks to you, the hair on your body stands up! ;) pschemp | talk16:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hair standing up when it's cold makes sense for most mammals because it thickens the fur. Humans are out of luck here because of our puny bodily hair. If there is some connection between cold and fear, then that might explain it. When you get a fright you may feel 'a shiver running down your spine' and I recall my skin reacting just like it would to cold when I had a fright. I don't know why there would be such a link, though. DirkvdM19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin himself devoted a lot of discussion to this in his The Expresion of the Emotions in Man and Animals—check out the section on "erection of hair" in this link if you're curious what he thought about it. --Fastfission19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attaching multiple speakers to my amplifier
In my external PC speakers there is a small, cheap amplifier. If I connect a couple of box speakers to the wires coming out of this, I get fairly good sound from them. Can I just keep adding speakers? Will the volume continue to increase as I add more speakers? The amplifier is powered from the mains, so there should be no power issue, but maybe there wont be enough voltage?
No, you can't keep adding more speakers, the amp won't be able to drive the speakers if you put to many, and it will be quieter and sound quality will go down. Keep in mind more does not equal better for speakers. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Mabye there will be too much current, for you amplifier. As you may have seen, amplifiers are often marked with a minimum input impedance the speakers need to have. The thing is that the amplifier will put out a certain voltage, and if the impedance of the speaker is too low, the current will be so high that it can harm the amplifier. So, if your amplifier says that 4 Ω is the minimum impedance and you connect two 4-Ω speakers in parallel, the amplifier will see only 2 Ω, and the current will be twice as high as the maximum. (I used to do this when I was younger, btw. I was lucky, nothing broke.) Connecting them in series works fine on the other hand. That only increases the impedance. —Bromskloss14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that throughout several consecutive posts the same point was being made, however with increasing attention to details. Could it really be that I am the sole person to have had this awakening, implying that less credibility should be ascribed to my observation? —Bromskloss19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was driving at night the other day, and an expensive car behind me had its headlights on. I noticed that the headlights were turning blue, and then back to white pretty randomly. When the car stopped, the lights would stay white the whole time. Is this caused by the wavelengths of the light being compressed by the moving car, or does the car have some kind of coloured, flashing headlights. They were really annoying. --liquidGhoul14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it was caused by relativistic effects arising from the speed difference between the cars, I'm sure that other driver has a hefty speeding ticket waiting for them somewhere! ;-) That is, no, the movement is not the reason. Actually, you are reasoning correctly, but it takes a much higher speed for the effect to be visible like that. —Bromskloss14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely NOT "caused by the wavelengths of the light being compressed by the moving car". That only happens to a noticeable extent at relativistic speeds. My guess(es):
This effect is caused by varying angles the headlights are making with your mirrors.
This effect is caused by varying voltages applied to the headlamps by the electrical system of the car in question.
My guess is that the light is only truly white on the optical axis of the lamp. Off axis you get artifacts of the lamp emission. Why this should be I cant say.--Light current14:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that car had two sets of headlights, one being high intensity discharge mercury vapor lamps (blue high beams), and the other being normal halogen lamps (white standard lights). Either they were turning their high beams on and off, or both the high beams and normal lights were on, and the different angles of the two lights cause you to see a different color depending on the bumps in the road, which change that car's angle relative to you. StuRat15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that, there was quite a bit of traffic and it is illegal to have high beams on. I think I would have noticed too, it is very bright when someone has their high beams on right behind you. --liquidGhoul15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will second the color-changes-with-angle theory. HID lights can be very intense and it's for the best that they aren't full brightness for the entire beam width. Why they (volvo?) chose to have the lights shift color this way is debatable, but they would probably tell you something like 'the color temperature of fringe areas is best skewed toward blue since it makes it easier for your eyes to pick up distant objects', or some such marketingspeak. Bottom line is, it was probably cheaper to use an optic that faded toward blue to dim the edges of the beam. --Jmeden200015:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some communities certain high-intensity blue-tinted lights (such as xenon, though mercury vapour may be popular too, I'm not sure) are popular in sports cars (which are often blue on the inside, and under the skirt, too), even though they illegal, and the more blue-ish, the more illegal (and easy to spot) they are. Some of the most expensive car modifications allow the lights to be easily switched back to plain ol' halogen from the dashboard, presumably whenever a cop passes by. The xenon lights I've seen are not known to last very long either, so it makes sense to use them only in very groovy situations. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The blue tint is caused by a sort of prism effect of the light bending around the bezel which limits the illuminated area. The blue photons bend around this very sharp and straight bezel at a different angle (and with a greater angular area) than do other wavelengths, and as a result, blue is the dominant color around the border. The reason the bulbs seem to change color is because you and the car behind you are going over bumps, putting you at different places in the beam's angle at different times.Tuckerekcut00:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WIKI "Methane Gas" article is DANGEROUSLY UN-Scientific & MISLEADING
Yes, they are. Stars in orther galaxies are way too far away to be seen with any but the most powerful of telescopes. In fact, from our perspective here on earth, the closest galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is barely visible to the naked eye, and only its dense center can be seen by the naked eye at all. – ClockworkSoul16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the previous response, you can't see individual stars in other galaxies without a telescope (although there may be an occasional exception for a supernova), but you can see stars from another galaxy "collectively", as a galaxy, without the aid of a telescope. StuRat16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Well, since the visible part of a galaxy is composed primarily of stars, if you can see the galaxy, you are seeing the stars. But I would agree that only stars within our galaxy can be distinguished as individual stars. You might (or might not) be further interested to know that according to the "acuity" section of the article on the eye, the average human can resolve distances of about .93 mm at a distance of 1 meter, which is a ratio of about 1:1000. Therefore, if then the stars cannot be resolved. The nearest galaxy, as Clockwork said, is the Andromeda galaxy, at about 2.5 million light years away. Since neighboring stars tend to be on the order of a lightyear apart at the closest, that's a ratio of 1:2500000, far smaller than the visual acuity of the human eye. By this measure, some of the stars across the galactic disk of our galaxy, at around 80,000 ly away, are also probably indistinguishable (not taking into acount the decreasing density of stars at the galactic rim), but the nearer ones, on the order of 1000 ly away, should be distinguishable (note that just because neighboring stars are indistinguishable by the naked eye doesn't mean that they are invisible - just that you can't tell them apart). Wow, that was way more long winded than I intended. Sorry! --Bmk16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a few people with good eyesight claim that they can see individual stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud under good conditions. Personally, I find this difficult to believe and I've never been to the southern hemisphere to check it out for myself. --Nebular11017:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the United Kingdom, if an intravenous preparation of itraconazole is needed, an alternative antifungal drug is recommended? Thanks very much. --208.65.245.193
Eeep. Even medical-students come to Wikipedia for homework help? I fear for the state of our children's healthcare system! Nimur19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Itraconazole is an inhbitor of Cytochrome P450s, including CYP3A4, the major drug-metabolizing enzyme in humans. I guess itraconazole is fine for topical application, but you want to minimize systemic exposure or you will have all kinds of interesting (and adverse) drug-drug interactions and hepatotoxicity. Ignoramibus01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question we need to know to give an appropriate answer is" "recommended" by who? Some "recommendations" are based on cost analysis rather than medical benefit. All IV antifungals have advantages and disadvantages, but they uniformly inhibit cytochrome oxidase (as do many useful drugs). Itraconazole is not even the prime offender. It's more easily tolerated than amphotericin, but more expensive (but less expensive if you calculate associated costs, including decreased hospital stay). Lipid amphotericin formulations are better tolerated but more expensive. Patterns of fungal resistance might also be the basis of the recommendation, but you'd have to know who's doing the recommending to say. There are so many different considerations (presense or absence of neutropenia in the patient, prior treatment with antifungal agents, etc.) that it's difficult to believe that a blanket recommendation has much validity. - Nunh-huh18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Memory Loss in Mental Illness
Relative has been diagnosed with a thought disorder, doctors vary on schizophrenia or bipolar but are not sure of precise diagnosis, this has been going on for almost two years with multiple "events-psychotic breaks". The latest symptom though is profound memory loss, the depth of which is concerning to his Psychiatrist and Psychologist. Has bot MRI's and EEG's are "normal", blood work is normal too. The memory loss includes some "semantic" loss like "who is the president" and long term "episodic" memory loss like not know where he went to school or if graduated and things that he did for a full year 5 years ago. short term loss is even worse, intra-week and intra-conversation is very poor. Only thing we're being asked to pursue in neuropsch testing which am pursuing. When you experince something like this you want a practitioner to say "seen dozens of these" but so far I've not found such a person. The person lives independently but can't hold a job due to memory issues but also has complete lack of insight to his illness, i.e. "what memory problem". He has been on meds but has refused them AGAIN. Suggestions to pursue are welcome.
(I am not a clinical psychologist or medical doctor) I'm surprised to hear that he has a normal EEG and MRI (presumably structural) but is having episodic memory loss, though you do say it's pretty recent so it might mean his hippocampus hasn't degenerated sufficiently for a loss of volume to show up. The "short-term memory" loss coupled with the episodic memory loss going back a few years suggests to me some sort of medial temporal lobe damage which is causing the "short-term memory" loss as a side-effect. That shouldn't cause much or any semantic memory problems though, which suggests a more global problem, perhaps schizophrenia, indeed. Personally I wouldn't assume it was bipolar disorder or Alzheimer's, unless he is very old, because semantic memory problems shouldn't be too bad in those cases unless his dementia is very bad (I think). Epilepsy comes to mind if the semantic memory impairments come and go, but that should be detectable in the EEG. Regarding his living situation, it sounds tough. To get him to take his medication you could always try bringing him a meal once a day with the medicine hidden in it or something. I hope things get better for you all. digfarenough (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also very sorry your relative is experiencing this. I won't waste time speculating on what it is (like Dfe I'm not an MD, and like Dfe all the things I'd guess at seem to have been ruled out by the normal scans), so I'll just say that I have several close friends/family/associates who are severely mentally ill (same diagnoses; schizo-affective disorder, bi-polar, paranoid schizophrenia, fast-cycling bi-polar with paranoid delusions... blah blah blah... it seems like maybe the old labels don't really fit anymore), and none of them seem to have similar memory problems, I'm afraid. The two who have the most profound 'breaks from reality', one in her early thirties and the other around 60, do sometimes fail to remember the worst episodes of their illnesses, and I'd say that overall their memories can have 'blanks', but truthfully (and un-educatedly) I attribute that to the fact that they have not pursued any course of treatment. All the people I know who are carefully caring for their illness (whether it's through conventional phrarmacology, therapy, or natural treatments) don't have any memory problems. Is your relative getting treatment? Is it possible that the treatment is causing the memory loss? Or that conversely the proper treatment might mitigate the problem? I don't think I helped but I wish you well. Anchoress09:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valentin Glushko's mystery killer rockets
In the BBC docu-drama series Space Race, (which is accurate to records of the time) there is a part of the story line where Valentin Glushko, tests a new rocket engine in the labs, and it performs well, and all of the people working with it have to be in suits similar to chemical warfare suits (fully covered in thick yellow plastic, with gas masks), and it is mentioned that the fuels are so toxic that on inhilation they imediately begin to dissolve the victims lungs (accomponied by a shot of a rather ill looking russian worker removing his mask and promptly coughing up a liquid that is presumably his lungs). Later in the same episode they are testing it on a launcher vehicle and an electrical fault triggers the launchers second stage, which promptly incenerates the top of the first stage, and ignites several hundred tonnes worth of highly toxic rocket fuel. Many are caught and die, even those who had time to run, are caught as the tarmac melts and traps them. Promptly Glusuhko recieves a cut in funding for killing a large portion of the USSRs top scientists and "top-brass", who decided not to retreat to a safe distance when prompted.
There is no mention of an event like this in the Valentin Glushko article, and I dont know where else to look.
So, two questions;
What were the fuels, I looked about and found that Tripropellant rocket mentions the use of a combination of lithium, hydrogen, and fluorine, could this account for the "lung melting" effects? are there any other records of this event?
What are the enviromental "fallout" effects of an event like this, once the fuels have been identified, how dangerous would the site have been due to the fuels everywhere after the fire had been tamed, and how long would it be dangerous, and what effects on local flora and fauna would there be, long and short term?
It looks to me like hydrogen fluoride and lithium fluoride may be the reaction products. Hydrogen fluoride is really, really nasty stuff (as is fluorine gas itself), but "lung melting" sounds like an exaggeration to me. Nevertheless, I can't image the sheer stupidity of being anywhere near a rocket filled with fluorine or a source of large amounts of hydrogen fluoride. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend said hermaphrodite is having both parts, male and female, which it is; so what is the term used when a species has absoloutely no male nor female parts? Thank you. 81.131.76.3418:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, I seem to recall that all plants reproduce sexually; while some algaes and unicellular organisms are asexual, they are properly classified in Kingdom Protista. Are you sure about asexual plants? Nimur19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many plants reproduce mainly via asexual means, such as with rhizomes or simply dropping leaves which can then grow into full "clones" (especially some succulents), and most are able to regenerate from small pieces - some have adapted to favor this as the primary means of reproduction - sorry I can't provide any sources or good examples, but perhaps someone else can. --Bmk21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - after following my own link, I found vegetative reproduction which describes the process. Also, I guess when a single organism is hermaphroditic and it reproduces with itself, it's kind of asexual, because it doesn't introduce any new alleles to the offspring. Although it still does undergo "crossing over" during meiosis. --Bmk21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm becoming increasingly vain and am considering using sunbeds to get a tan. Of course I've been told by everyone everywhere that this is bad for my skin's health, but I don't fully understand. What's the difference between the sun's UV radiation and a sunbed's UV? Is sunbed use only as bad as excessive natural sun-tanning or is it worse? Thanks! --87.194.21.17720:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sun also prematurely ages your skin, just like sunbeds, and sunburns have been linked to skin cancer. --Bmk21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UV radiation damages your skin, and you look older faster. Sure you may look better next week, but in a few decades you're going to be a raison. I went to Arizona and observed this one time. :yuck: — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Don't sunbathe either way! Its easy to get a fake tan - either something you rub on (including something that gradually builds up) or thats sprayed on. About 25 years ago I had a deep tan from both using sun lamps and the sun, and recently I had a mole removed which was found to have pre-cancerous cells - the sort that would have developed to the worst sort of deadly skin cancer. It was only by a string of luck that a dermatologist saw it. If it wasnt for the good old National Health Service and me wanting to get my moneys worth even if its free, then it wouldnt have been spotted and in a few more years it would have killed me.
Crotch sensation - strange question a
I am wondering if anyone can explain the strange sensation that one can start but not maintain in the testes by...and here comes the hard part...explaining how to create the sensation...it's sort of a sexual sensation, just like when you're about to climax...but not yet there and not as extreme...
It feels funny in the testes sort of...damn it's not like when you flex your buttocks or anything.
Well the question is when I do it and watch my eyes in a mirror the pupil starts to dilate...is there a connection between this sensation and the brains reward system? It's really strange...the pupil dilates while I do it and then shrinks afterwards.
Is it normal to be able to 'almost' voluntary control the size of your pupils, though I have to do this crotch thing to make them grow!? Have people researched this connection? And whats up with people on drugs...they've got these huge black pupils...same connection? Overload to the reward system? And what about depressive people...do they have needle pupils? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azalin (talk • contribs) 21:26, August 21, 2006.
This seagull bagel's crotch is not clearly visible, but his pupils may be dilated
Can you run a quick control experiment, and see if your pupils dilate even without doing your... thing? Looking in my mirror, my pupils appear to grow as I change from soaking up all ambient light to focusing on my eyes. Maybe your... thing... is unrelated. Hyenaste(tell)21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also look forward to "Crotch sensation - strange question b" and so on up to "Crotch sensation - strange question z" ? StuRat21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was using some library catalogue method to help keep the page in order, so really it would say "A strange question - Crotch sensation" Hyenaste(tell)21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys! Do not degrade the science desk with totally humorous answers. To answer the question, about pupils, which I am surprised hasn't been said: Yes, everybody's pupils dilate during sexual arousal, and even more when you climax. This is the reason some women use belladonna eye drops, because it dilates the pupils, and men love dilated pupils in women. Vice versa has been found to be false. Men probably like it because it is like the women is having sex. Pupils dilate presumably so you can see what is going on better, with a supercharged view. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
"People op drugs"? There's a gross overgeneralisation. Considering the wide variation of drugs, their effects can probably go either way. So ladies, make sure you take the right kind of drug if you want to turn a guy on. DirkvdM05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You asked if there is a connection , there is a very real physical connection of nerves between these areas, try autonomic_nervous_system.
Ok...so if you can control your autonomic nervous system which you cant' unless? you're a monk...or something with balls..not...it can be done? Rise and shine...grow and...look....hmm... what's up with the donut?
Crotch sensation - strange question b
Why is it that whenever I watch something on TV that looks painful (I dunno, someone getting their finger realistically cut off in a horror movie or something), I can feel my testicles rise upwards into my abdomen slightly? --Kurt Shaped Box21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered - the worst sort of scenes for making my balls shrink are those that involve the removal of skin, or pulling out of finger/toenails... --Kurt Shaped Box22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gull. For comparison, think of a life-sized goose or turkey, which is maybe only 2 or 3 feet (0.7 - 1.0 m) tall, and yet still vicious and dangerous to a human. If the gull is comparable in relative strength, AND scaled to a human's height - it's no contest. Nimur22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder though if the gull's bones would be too brittle for it's augmented size? And the gull certainly wouldn't be nearly as agile. There is a very important adaptation to scale that takes place in the body structures and material selection of organisms. For a famous example, just because ants are disproportionately strong for their size (compared to humans), an ant that had been simply scaled up to human size wouldn't even be able to stand up. I think I may have to vote human --Bmk23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, when scaling up, mass increases on a line of y=x³, wile bone support, which is measured in the cross section of the bone increases at y=x² (ie, every time the weight is cubed, the strength is only squared) thise goes for muscle and bone, soon it will be unable to support its own weight. PhilcTECI18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Human. To echo Bmk, a human is constructed for locomotion at human scales, and a gull is not. I'm no expert in aerodynamics, but I'm sure that a six-foot tall gull would be quite unable to fly. Without being able to effectively push on the air to balance, even its combat-mode hopping will be awkward. All you have to do is sidestep its jumps, knock away its legs, then go to town. Melchoir23:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, a gull vs scaled-down-human fight would be uncontested in favor of the seagull bagel. We'd be like big juicy floppy fish. --Bmk00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Light Current, I removed all your changes to other people's posts, and changed your post too. Notice how irritating that is? DirkvdM09:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Occurrences of 'seagul' were crossed out and replaced by 'bagel'. I thought you had done that. If not, I apologise. DirkvdM08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much is the average zoologist salary?
And how long do you stay in college for it?
I think both questions depend on for whom and where you work after your education. But i'm sure that wasn't very helpful. --Bmk23:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most gull experts do not have a degree in zoology; and they do not receive a salary either, since their chief employment is volunteering on the Science Reference Desk. Nimur00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must note that my four-year zoology degree never made me that much. In fact, the only job I have ever had that paid in that range didn't require a degree. If you want to work in a zoo or aquarium, you should be prepared to live below the poverty line, or else marry rich. If you pursue your eduction to the Ph.D. and post-doc level, however, a position at a university would pay more. --Ginkgo100talk · e@03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baygulls, seagull bagels, and bagels
Baygulls, seagull bagels, and bagels
So.. a pair of gulls were fighting over part of a bagel, and one of the gulls knocked it out of its grip in midair, causing the bagel to plumit to the ground, both gulls dove for the falling bagel, and after a lot of drops, near catches, and gull fighting, one of the gulls finally grabs the bagel, and gets away. But wait, just as it's escaped with bagel in tow, it deliberately drops the bagel into traffic right in front of a truck without even taking a bite.. bagel is destroyed, and neither gull gets to eat it. Was the victorious gull taunting the loser? That seems awefully mean for a gull. PS. this is a true story that has been haunting my dreams for several years now--71.247.125.14423:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would pretty much be a fair fight. The gull's aspect-ratio is not compromised; and if anything, the horse's bone-structure is now augmented. But, despite its stronger-than-needed bones (for its now reduced size), the horse still lacks in terrifying beak and wings. Who would win? Nimur00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am hereafter going to devote myself to changing every instance on this reference desk of the characters "seagull bagel" to "bagel". Not because this is a rational response, but because I have been driven to the edge of sanity by seagull bagel questions. --Bmk00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys.. honestly, answering serious questions with jokey answers (before real answers have been given) is already not-very-helpful, but to turn the reference desk into a series of endless in-jokes is really degrading to it. The creation of endless non-serious questions is additionally pointless and non-helpful. Perhaps we can leave this one by the wayside? It has really lost any humor it may have once had, and now is just getting distracting. A little fun now and then is fine, but this is becoming boring and is cluttering up an otherwise great resource. --Fastfission01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Universities start up again in about a week, I'm sure we'll get more serious questions again when that happens, in the mean time, we might just be over run by flying ratsseagull bagels--71.247.125.14401:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, speaking of universities... a creative professor might be able to teach a serious biology course with the motivating theme of an animal kingdom deathmatch. Perhaps a light seminar for non-specialists? Just think of the description in the course catalog! Melchoir01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I work in a care home of 20 residents and 2 of them suffer from 'Hydrophilia'. Because of this both are restricted to a maximum of 1,500 ml of fluid per day which seems insufficient to me especially during hot weather. I've searched and can find no record of 'Hydrophilia' as an identifiable condition. If anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful.
macthewrite
Of course, breaking the word into its Greek-roots, hydro means water, and philia means lover or attracted to. Hydrophilia in chemistry refers to chemical compounds that absorb water. I've never heard of it as a medical condition in humans. Nimur01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course possible that they may be restricted on fluids due to hypertension or other conditions! Hydrophilia may mean that they retain more water than is normal leading to edema?--Light current01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to a source I trust (but which you shouldn't, because this is a reference desk, not a doctor's office), some medications may cause people to drink much more than is recommended, so perhaps that is the reason for the water rationing. --Bmk02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's not a condition like this. The closest you can come is Psychogenic polydipsia, in which psychiatric illness causes a person to drink 10, 15 liters a day. It's rare and probably not what is going on here. Most likely these people have the Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone which is common and is treated with water restriction like that which you mention. Basically, the hormone which controls how much water their body retains is secreted in excess amounts (lung and brain disease are common causes) and their sodium drops as a result. The treatment is to limit their water intake. Other possible causes for a water restriction are kidney disease and heart disease, though sodium is more appropriately limited in those diseases - InvictaHOG02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasps
Are all species of wasps colorblind? If not all, then please specify which are and which are not.
Depending on how you define "wasp" there are from 15000 species in a more narrow sense (the family of Vespidae), to 75000 species in the widest sense (the suborder Apocrita of the order Hymenoptera, excluding the bees and ants). Most (and as far as I know all) have colour vision – at least I have been unable to find counterexamples. But it is quite possible that among all these species some are nocturnal, and then it is not unlikely they have lost the ability to see colours, trading it in for sensitivity to very low light intensity. --LambiamTalk07:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here know how long a hospital will typically tell you to go without food before having a general anesthetic? I may be facing this tomorow, but the hospital didn't give any instructions (it could be a lack of communication that they think I won't need any). It is now at least 7 hours before I go to the hospital, and I want to have a few pieces of toast before I get a bit of sleep. CG janitor07:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lack of food is to prevent nausea from the anesthetic, or, if you are nauseous, it will at least make vomiting less severe, which could otherwise be a serious problem due to the respirator. StuRat23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right Stu, though I could have had the toast last night because I ended up not getting anesthetic today. I was right that the hospital didn't know that I needed it, so now we will procede tomorow. They've now told me that I can't eat after midnight. - User:CG janitor, at the hospital. 142.233.100.22023:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to fully answer, the reason is because when you are anesthesia, they want your stomach to be empty so that you don't vomit. InvictaHOG02:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the magnetic north pole was once located near today's equator.
Q: Approximately when was this?
Ancillary Q: has the geophysical pole ever moved this much?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BartB (talk • contribs)
The rotation of the earth about its axis drives a liquid dynamo in the earth's molten iron-rich core - that process naturally creates a magnetic dipole oriented along the axis of rotation. Due to processes that are very poorly understood, they sometimes undergo, as macDavis noted, a reversal of polarity, probably due to complex phenomena involving chaotic turbulence and magnetohydrodynamic effects. During the reversals, it seems that the field becomes pretty mixed up before reforming into a reasonably nice dipole like the one we have today. The South Atlantic Anomaly may be a precursor to a pending magnetic reversal in the next few thousand years. Cool stuff. --Bmk21:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the land currently over the equator may well have been over the poles, and the land currently over the poles (well, the South Pole anyway) may well have once been over the equator, due to continental drift. StuRat22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the dumbest question we've had in a while. I'm adding it to my list of "dumbest questions in Science." Try searching for words that might be in it in google. For bittorrent, the question we get most often about generic downloading, you want to go to bittorrent.com, download that, go to a tracker site like thepiratebay[25] or torrentreactor[26] or mininova[27] or even the bittorrent site[28] now, and search for the file you want, download that, open the file in bittorrent, and click the start/play button. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
See download. Most of the time you don't need to do anything. If you can read this page, that means you successfully downloaded in onto your computer. If you want to download an application or some data, such as music or video, you can do so when there's a button somewhere on the screen that says "download". Just click on it and follow the instructions. But it would help if we knew just what it is you want to download. --Shantavira15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would be kinder to those who are communicating in what is to them a foriegn language. I've noticed that people who only speak rudimentary english are often made fun of. Learning a foriegn language (including english) is very difficult. I doubt if people here could do better trying to ask questions in for example malaysian or hindi or even just french. Try learning a foriegn language yourself before knocking others. I have the impression that the internet is available in rural indian villages, so the question may be a great achievement by someone who is perhaps uneducated (through no fault of their own), speaking in a very different language, and probably very young.
The market square in my home town has a seagull problem. Sh... er, guano everywhere, they steal your food right out of your hand, make a horrendous racket, disease & apocalypse feared by townfolk. Any JavaScript or other removal tools would be appreciated! Preferably non-deadly as some gulls belong in protected species. Also killing temporary solution only as the buggers breed like there's no tomorrow. Googling for gull scaring devices I find only little orange flags and such, will work only if gulls laugh themselves to death at them. Weregerbil13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do the cell lisis using a hyperosmotic alcaline solution of NaCl (2,5M), Tris, EDTA, Triton x-100, DMSO and mercaptoethanol, and a final digestion using proteinase K (100 micrograms per ml) in a overnight incubation, just like the protocols sugested by all authors that works with DNA ladder and Single Cell Gel Eletrophoresis.
Unfortunally these cells do not lised. I would like to know what may be hapenning,if I missed any step. I would like to Know how can I stract the DNA from the rabbit spermatozoa.
Celia Badu
I'm not an expert. but that sounds a lot like the protocol for bacterial lysis. Are you sure you're using the correct manual? Also, are you positive that the cells haven't lysed? Or have you just not recovered any DNA from the process? have you considered that it may have been denatured? But that the lysis might have still been successful? --BagelCarr13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A person I have reason to believe said that lymphoma isn't actually cancer even though it is often said to be. Wikipedia says it is, for example. Let's review the Wikipedia definition of cancer:
Cancer is a class of diseases or disorders characterized by uncontrolled division of cells and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue through invasion or by implantation into distant sites by metastasis.
Arguing that lymphoma isn't cancer, they pointed at the lack of metastasis (but did not mention invasion). What can be made of all this? Should lymphoma be called cancer? —Bromskloss14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a cancer. There are lots of times someone does not want to use a specific label for a disease because it means something worse to the person than to the doctors who use it. Examples are seizure disorder for epilepsy, reactive airway disease for asthma, disorder of sexual development for intersex condition, congenital hypothyroidism for cretinism and many more. Doctors typically do not hit a patient over the head with a label the person finds frightening, misleading, or otherwise unpleasant. alteripse16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but according to the definition, it must have the ability to spread (possibly not the right word). Does it really? Btw, your examples remind me of the adoption of magnetic resonance in place of nuclear magnetic resonance. :-) —Bromskloss19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lymphoma spreads everywhere. It is cancer by any definition of the word. Part of the staging of Hodgkin's lymphoma is where it has spread. InvictaHOG20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have this problem. This is the third day, and it hasn't let up. Every morning I can hardly hear anything out of my right ear, but it gets better as time passes on until I go to sleep. Can I wait it out? Anything I can do before I go to the doctor? The only bad thing is music is not as good because I hear less in my right ear, no negative effects yet, other than lack of positive. I generally try and stay away from cleaning my ears because word around the New England Journal of Medicine is that you shouldn't really stick anything in your ear bigger than your fist (don't stick that in either), and I do not clean my ears out very much. I believe the problem came from me sleeping on my ear all night, because that is the only option I have to think about. When I woke up I noted that my ear was so compressed against the side of my head, I must have been in that position for hours—then I noticed I couldnt' hear out of it. Thanks — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Well your know our advice Mac! Could be congestion in the eustachian tubes but.. Go see (an ear) doctor! What you could do is put a few drops of olive oil in each ear at night. THat tends to clean them out and is a :rcommended traetment for wax.--Light current16:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not the eustachians, I can open and close them voluntarily. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
You havent been using your mobile phone whilst asleep again, have you?
You can also get ear drops - intended for cleaning out the ears and not for coating a pan before nicely searing a ripe red pepper before topping it with anchovies and gargonzola cheese (like olive oil). --Kainaw(talk)17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but you can keep on using it with no side effects (except it dripping down your neck). Its the thing recommended by doctors etc over here now for ear cleaning. Ear drops are taboo--Light current18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's most likely ear wax buildup. However, my advice is to use a cotton swab to clean it out. Of course you can damage your ear if your jam a filthy Q-tip in so far that you puncture the eardrum. My advice, don't do that, use a clean one, and use it properly. BTW, wouldn't the residual olive oil in the ear turn rancid ? StuRat22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly NOT stick anything solid into your ear. You risk pushing any obstruction further in and can damage the eardrum. Olive oil does not turn any more rancid than your earwax (which it will gently dissolve")--Light current22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Earwax has evolved to stay in the ear, so, like beeswax, I doubt if it would go rancid. Olive oil, however, definitely did not evolve to be left in the ear. StuRat23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are Q-tips really that dangerous, or is it just the makers' method of covering all bases to prevent some idiot who stabs himself in their ear from suing them? Hyenaste(tell)22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like outer ear trauma, middle ear trauma most often comes from blast injuries and insertion of foreign objects into the ear. Skull fractures that go through the part of the skull containing the ear structures (the temporal bone) can also cause damage to the middle ear. Small perforations of the tympanic membrane usually heal on their own, but large perforations may require grafting. Displacement of the ossicles will cause a conductive hearing loss that can only be corrected with surgery. Forcible displacement of the stapes into the inner ear can cause a sensory neural hearing loss that can not be corrected even if the ossicles are put back into proper position. Because human skin has a top waterproof layer of dead skin cells that are constantly shedding, displacement of portions of the tympanic membrane or ear canal into the middle ear or deeper areas by trauma can be particularly traumatic. If the displaced skin lives within a closed area, the shed surface builds up over months and years and forms a cholesteatoma. The -oma ending of that word indicates a tumour in medical terminology, and although cholesteatoma is NOT a neoplasm (but a skin cyst), it can expand and erode the ear structures. The treatment for cholesteatoma is surgical.
Yes, as I said, jamming a filthy Q-tip as far as you possibly can in your ear will definitely cause a problem. That doesn't mean, however, that the proper use of a clean Q-tip is dangerous. Using your argument, people should avoid eating altogether, and get their nutrition intravenously, because a great deal of disease is caused by what is ingested. StuRat06:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, as long as hearing malfunctions and cell phones have been mentioned on the science desk, I'm going to advertise a newbie's article for improvement. Rinxiety has a lot of science to be added, mostly from the NYT article, and if you're quick it can appear in WP:DYK. Melchoir17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To MacDavis, if you're still watching this topic. I have the exact same problem as you, and recently it's started happening to me more frequently. I guess I may have started producing wax at a higher rate? Or perhaps the smog in the city I live is getting to me. Sleeping on my side I also often find that my ears (usually my right) get blocked up, and I've tried a lot of things (starting with delicate Q-tip application, then ignoring the warnings and moving on to vigorous Q-tip application and folded tissue application, I've also tried mineral and vegetable oils and crooked-nozzle syringe-style apparati) but I've never been to a doctor... partly because I don't trust them here. Nothing I have done has ever worked, I assume simply because the ear cavity is too small for anything to be shoved into it without pushing the clump of wax further. My right ear was blocked for almost a month this spring, but after loads of jaw excercizes, and being rather careful with it for a long time (even limiting the amount of water that entered while showering) it eventually cleared up, and now I can listen to music with headphones properly again.
I don't believe all the hype about Q-tips being dangerous, though it would be a good idea to tell most of the world's population that, who don't have as much control over their Q-tips as they think they do, but I have managed to make my wax problem considerably worse on more than one occasion, and I stay away from Q-tips now. Putting oil in my ear was probably one of the worst things I ever did, and though I know that it is recommended as a home remedy in a few places, all it ever did for me was declump the ready-to-fall-out dried pieces of wax and blocked my ears even worse. I would guess that you have a "wet wax" problem as well.
I won't recommend anything, because I tend to be stupid when it comes to my own security, but maybe you'll learn something useful from my experiences. 220.146.214.14912:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure, but there is a slight different sensation when the wax is dry or wet, and after I put in a few drops, all I got was the wet sensation. I do actually have a fitted syringe, but it hasn't helped me very much, so I'm not sure what's up with that home-remedy. Actually, I'd like to bring that up because I could never figure it out before. How is oil expected to soften up wax? I seem to remember something related to water solubility that I learned in high school... but it's not coming out properly. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks everybody. I think the topic has had its round here. I think it is nice you guys are saying there is nothing wrong with q-tips cleaning around the ear canal, but no evidence has been posted. I can't wiggle my ears. Never figured that one out, that facial muscle group (they really all move in groups, unless you can isolate them) is pretty tough for me. I can however dilate my nostrils pretty largely. If the last guy is still here I'd like to ask "how frequently?" — [Mac Davis] (talk)
That guy was actually me, I forgot to log in. I can't wiggle my ears either, but I've read that the act of sticking your jaw out (and moving it around, I guess) helps wax progress out of the ear, and the ear may even rely on that action to assist in the process. I can't really tell if it helps or not, because it's supposedly a slow process; all I know is that it cleared up a few days after I started paying attention to my jaw motions (like, a couple times a day?), so it at least didn't make the problem any worse. It can be pretty stressful when all you can think about is the fact that one of your ears doesn't work, and your audible sense of direction and ability to isolate sounds disappears, but if it's just wax, it's a natural bodily fluid so it shouldn't be doing any damage to your inner ear as long as it's the only thing in there. Let me know if it gets better, I'm still trying to think of ways to stop it from happening again (as I speak I can feel the wax in my ears, seemingly as a reaction to the smog and humidity of the city). freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before (and Ill say it one last time) the current medical recommenation for keeping your ears clean and stopping wax build up is a couple of drops of olive oil in each ear once or twice a week. I know this becuase it is on a medical advice leaflet I got from the doctors when I thought had trouble with my ears.
"The annex includes a global cap of 4.5% m/m on the sulphur content of fuel oil and calls on IMO to monitor the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel."
The above sentence is an extract from IMO annex VI. Can anyone please let me know what the term m/m stand for?
Thanks
Dhirendra210.214.75.1216:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, check out Crude Oil#Classification to learn about sulphur in oil. When crude is called sweet it means there is very little sulphur in the un-refined oil, making it cheaper to process. This does not mean it would be a good idea to coat a baking pan with sweet crude, top it off with a seared red-pepper and anchovies. That would be olive oil. Nimur18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not the usual use of the reference desk, but I was looking over T-Z in this category and thought that people here could help clear up the accuracy of these specific articles.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting aural information as visual sensation
I'm trying to find the psychiatric or neurological term for a particular disorder: the translation of aural input (like a sudden, loud noise) to a visual experience("seeing" a blue field, or even a specific object), typically when the subject's eyes are closed. My searches for various combinations of aural, audio, translates, visual, brain, psychiatry, etc. didn't hit upon it. -- JHunterJ19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every ingestable substance is a poison. Substances just vary in the harmful dose. This is true for water, oxygen, sugar, vitamins, and everything else. alteripse21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the rhetorical question was that just because methane can asphyxiate does not mean it is toxic. In general we do not regard water as toxic but clearly it can asphyxiate.
I had not intended it to be posted here so sorry to waste your time light current and alteripse. i do appreciate the answers nonetheless. I will add to alteripse answer that by drinking too much water one can go into a coma. Too much water leads to a salt inbalance such that action potentials can not occur and neurons can no longer function correctly. So in massive doeses even water is toxic. And as alteripse points out this principle is true for most substances. David D.(Talk)22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toxins inhibit the normal function of vital enzymes or organs. You cannot only drown in water, but an excess of water in your body unbalances concentration of proteins, hormones and other substances leading to either hyper= or hypotension and the death of cells. signal transduction in the brain depends on the difference in sodium and potassium concentrations inside and outside neuron cells. - Mgm|(talk)11:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Increased exposure to charged particles thrown of from the sun, as a result of a loss of the magnetosphere, possibly raising cancer risks, dramatically. Among other things, im not sure what the effects would be, but I know whenever there would be a solar storm people would have to hide for safety. PhilcTECI22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last reversal was 780,000 years ago, and there were some hominids around then, sure. Also, no mass extinctions are associated with reversals, so anything other animals can survive, we could likely survive, too. StuRat23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK then weed get more of the suns particles hitting us broad side. Wouldnt that do more damage than them spiralling towad the poles?--Light current22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Earth's magnetic fieldTrajectory of an electron in Earth's magnetic field
You mean because people usually don't live near the poles? I guess so. But I'm actually not sure how many of the incoming particles actually reach the surface of Earth even as it is today. You know, when a charged particle travels (spirals) along a magnetic field toward a region where the field is stronger (the field lines are closer together), it slows down and can even start going in the other direction. (In that image, the particle initially comes from the right.) As can be seen on a drawing of Earth's magnetic field, this is the situation at the poles. —Bromskloss23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long term effect, but it is possible that eventually the earth would lose its atmosphere if it permanently lost its magnetic field. The solar wind, undeflected by any planetary field, could slowly drag at the outer layers of the atmosphere and rarify the atmosphere. It is speculated that this is why Mars has such a rarified atmosphere - at one point Mars had a strong planetary magnetic field, but when the field shut off, possibly due to cooling of the core, the atmosphere was slowly stripped away. Note also that many animals like sea turtles and birds probably have used the magnetic field to migrate for thousands of years, and significant disturbances, including extinctions could occur. --Bmk02:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, the Earth would definitely not lose it's atmosphere if it is just a reversal. There have been many File:Lowrie.gifBlack means current polarity, white means opposite. geomagnetic reversals recorded in the history of the Earth from magnetic dating. We still seem to have an atmosphere. Even if some of it was lopped off (or even added, who knows?), it happens very... lethargically... excruciatingly slowly—humans and other life would not be affected by that. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
However, as I said, if the earth permanently lost its magnetic field, and it will eventually, as did Mars, then the atmosphere may be stripped away, which would significantly affect life eventually. --Bmk15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) melt and cause intense interference to electronics and radio signals, therefore, humans could only communicate by continuously making new electronics from scratch, to replenish those destroyed. The public internet would be a lot smaller, because all the satellites would be vulnerable due to the temporary collapsing of the field. When the poles flip, and during, magnetic field dependent gyroscopes wouldn’t work well, because they rely on the earth’s magnetic field to function. A plane uses about ten gyroscopes to navigate, ships use them to stabilize, and all spacecraft rely on gyroscopes to stay in orbit and to get up to space. Furthermore, geoelectromagnetothermodynamisists (say that two times fast) hold the possibility that the magnetic poles could even divide into four, which then the magnetic field would be “quadrupolar,” having four poles, and theoretically even eight. That would make compasses obsolete and navigation by the stars would once again become the simplest way to navigate. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
...Yeah. If you see anything wrong in my post you can edit if you want. It took longer to type that and your sig in. :) — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Surely if say the effect was world wide and all computers where trashed we have a slight problem (other than the fact we would find it hard to acces wikipedia) that there would be no computers to make new ones? --Colsmeghead22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of magnetic excursions and reversals are typically 6000-10000 years but in those periods strong departures of the dipole have been recorded with erratic changes within few years. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Persactly. Now if one of those quick reversals took place in the near future, there would be a considerably amount of time during which we were not protected from the solar wind!.--Light current13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Physicians
I would like to see a sub cat. for Physicians of color and/or Contributors to Sci. from men or women of color. I am thinking of writing a book on the subject and it would help me alot.--Ghost writer 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Ghost writer01:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, our category system has rejected the notion of binary (yes/no) data in favor of complex, combined categories. If physicians were characterized by race, sex, nationality, etc., you could select out what you needed (the equivalent of a database "and" query), while at present unless there is an exact category that corresponds to your query, you are out of luck. (And if you want to know what sex someone is, you generally won't find out from the categories.) In order to find out if Christian Baarnard is a physician, you would have to look for "South African surgeons", and you will not find his ethnicity or race mentioned anywhere: not terribly useful. - Nunh-huh04:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but pulling out of a steep dive causes multiple g forces, which are unpleasant at the least and quite possibly dangerous. Astronauts do train under multiple g forces on the ground, using essentially a large centrifuge. There they can be monitored closely so the tests can be stopped and medical attention given immediately, if needed. StuRat01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this here; a deeper web search might find more complete "how it works" (like, what's the physics that makes the parabola cause the zero net gravity thing?) Or, I guess it might be here on Wikipedia somewhere.
To create the maximum period of weightlessness, the aircraft is accelerated to maximum speed just prior to the start of parabolic flight. Its nose is then pulled up suddenly and the engines power is lowered to allow the aircraft to follow a parabolic trajectory. To ensure safe recovery of normal flight, the engines power is increased before the nose is oriented below 40 degrees, and the nose is pulled up to resume normal flight. This action is repeated.
Let's presume the goal of "zero g" is that an unattached object remains motionless with respect to the airplane cabin. That suggests two key conditions: the plane is moving vertically to match free-fall (accelerating down at a rate equal to gravity) and the plane is moving horizontally at a constant rate. From a given starting point and assuming an initial non-zero horizontal motion, the graph of those conditions over time is a parabola, same as any object in free-fall. The logical extreme--no horizontal motion--is going straight down, but there's no need to do that, and during the time you're pitching forward to go from "flying straight across" to "flying straight down", you're not floating, and you're wasting precious altitude. DMacks02:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple. In order you to experience "zero g", you must be in free fall. In other words, the plane must be falling at the same rate as you would be without the plane (not counting air resistance, from which you are sheltered in the plane). That is, during the dives, you are falling as if the plane didn't exist. Luckily for you, at the end of the dive, the plane does exist, and it can gently bring you out of free fall (or not so gently, as its name suggests). As for the parabolic path, it's just a complicated way of looking at the fact that the plane must be accelerating downward at a constant rate, and going in the transverse direction with zero acceleration - just like you. You are falling with a constant acceleration downward, and traveling transversely at some constant velocity (i.e. with zero transverse acceleration). --Bmk02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite right. The above answers imply that you must be diving to experience free fall. This isn't correct. You can be in free fall while climbing. It's just that your rate of climb must decrease as you climb at roughly 32'/sec/sec. This will happen as you enter the rising part of the parabolic path with engines off.Bunthorne05:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ICP-AES safety
Is there any danger associated with direct exposure to the plasma from an ICP-AES?
(Excluding the RF from the coil.) Maybe X-rays or charged particles? JohnDoe9
would have thought this was a bit of a no-brainer if you were in a position to know about ICP-based methods. 1)enormous voltage 2) enormous temperature 3) enormous RF fields... given the ICP device can create large populations of excited individual atoms, and you're made of atoms, i think you'll work it out. Xcomradex07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my fence today I saw what looks like a giant cocoon with a giant caterpillar in it, it's about 4 1/2 inches long and 2 inches wide, does anybody have any idea what it is? Thanks in advance. 69.179.103.17701:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators. Some people can't handle the fact some try to uphold policy, but if you just upload a self-made picture to get a picture answered and follow the rules on the upload page you're very unlikely to even have to worry about policy. - Mgm|(talk)11:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no I don't mind when people uphold policies, like when you blocked me I deserved it, but what I hate is when people twist those policies to hurt others, which I have seen far too many times. I tried to follow the rules and be a good little boy but that didn't work, I still was attacked by policies day and night. 69.179.103.17712:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That caterpillar looks to be about 4.5 inches long, but only about 0.75 inches wide. Come to think of it, a 4.5 inch long caterpillar wouldn't be 2 inches wide, that's just not a normal caterpillar length/width ratio. The question poster might want to check the width dimension again. StuRat06:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is being treated badly here. This sounds like a very big... whatever it is. Is it possible that the width of the caterpillar has been somehow expanded due to the conditions within the cocoon you mentioned it was in? Perhaps it is wrapped up, or the outer layers of skin are being pushed outwards by what's inside. I can't say I remember hearing of or seeing a catepillar that's barely twice it's length either, so there must be some reason. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, now that's random. I'm just reading a random reference page and my name pops up. Am I that famous? Oh yeah, and this little anon troll is going to have a bit of trouble responding to any questions on here for .. oh ... 48 hours. --Cyde Weys18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have genes that make you metabolize and excrete in the urine some of the compounds in asparagus that are not normally treated as such. Something like 30% of people fall in this category. I think heritage has to do with it. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
There are (at least) two issues involved in "asparagus urine": the ability to produce/excrete methyl mercaptan, which gives the urine the aroma, present in about 40% of the population, and the ability to smell methyl mercaptan, also present in about 40% of the population (but not necessarily the same people: there's no relation between the ability to produce and the ability to smell). So there are 4 basic groups of people: those who excrete methyl mercaptan, and smell it; those who excrete methyl mercaptan, and don't smell it; those who don't excrete methyl mercaptan, and wouldn't have smelled it anyway, and those who don't excrete methyl mercaptan, but can smell it in other people's urine.
I've noticed 2 odors in addition to asparagus:
1) Sweet odor: seems to result from eating too much sugar.
2) Bacon odor: I believe this is the smell you get when protein is broken down to amino acids, either in the frying pan or the human body. So, this is sign that I've eaten too much protein.
I may well be pre-diabetic, since my Dad is diabetic and my brother is pre-diabetic. I don't notice that smell normally, only when I eat more sugar than my body can handle. So, the moral is to take it easy on the sugar, and hopefully delay, or even prevent, the onset of diabetes. StuRat06:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About a year ago I decided that eating fish every now and then would be a good addition to my normal diet. Recently, my urine has started to smell fishy every now and then. Before anyone asks, no, I'm not turning into a woman. DirkvdM09:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can buy a bottle of urine test strips at any pharmacy, which allow you to test for sugar in urine. You can also get strips which test for ketones, another chemical sometimes found in urine of diabetics. Various kidney conditions can result in protein in urine. You doctor can order acccurate urinalysis and remove all doubts. Edison14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From an evolutionary perspective, why can't humans eat grass? ("Because we are descended from animals that couldn't eat grass" is not a sufficient answer.) BenC703:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because our ancestors didn't need to. Grasses are tough and not especially nutritious, so it was much more efficient to simply eat something else. – ClockworkSoul04:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the appendix, which is now a vestigial organ, is believed by many to be the remnant of a more developed organ (in conjunction with the cecum) which was able to digest plant matter, or cellulose. Today we are unable to digest cellulose, but as evidence may suggest, our ancestors may have indeed been able to digest cellulose. - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 04:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Digesting grass takes quite an effort; ruminants like cows have up to 4 stomachs and must eat constantly to survive. That's just not our ecological niche. From an evolutionary perspective, the cost of being able to digest grass isn't worth the benefit, especially as we are capable of finding/growing/raising many other more easily digested foods. StuRat05:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Animals much smaller than cows, like chickens, can also eat grass, as can various arthropods. So I don't buy the explanation that the cost isn't worth the benefit, if animals smaller and simpler than us can do it. If, as R_Lee_E said, our ancestors could, what fitness improvement would there be in losing the ability? Clearly the ability to eat grass would offer a survivial advantage, because if there was no food around, grass would at least keep you alive. BenC707:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other animals may "eat" grass, but don't get much of any nutritional benefit from it. Cats, for example, seem to eat grass to induce vomiting when they have a furball. I've never heard of chickens eating grass, are you sure about they aren't just eating bugs in the grass ? StuRat07:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bamboo is grass, and bamboo shoots are edible. As for that other type of grass, I prefer to smoke it. To eat it, you'd first have to cook it. Having said that, I now wonder if lawn-grass could be made edible by cooking it. Grass soup ayone? DirkvdM10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eating grass takes a hell of a lot of energy, and doesn't give much back in return. You have to be continually eating and digesting to get enough nutrients and energy to survive from grass. So, if a human is to do something other than eat and breed (which they do), then they shouldn't be eating grass, they should eat meat. Also, the difference in the digestive tract of a herbivorous and a carnivorous mammal is huge, and there are problems associated with a herbivore eating meat. So, if humans had adapted to eat grass, then we probably wouldn't be able to eat meat, and probably wouldn't have time to build society. --liquidGhoul10:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple, kids. If we ate grass, we'd be competing with all the other animals that ate grass. It's much more efficient and productive for us to be competing for the animals who eat grass. Anchoress16:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If humans ate grass we'd be herbivores, and if we were that, we wouldn't have a lot of the traits that make us human today, including intelligence. All of the most intelligent animals are necessarily at the top or near the top of their food chains. See dolphins, humans, predator mammals, etc. Herbivores are generally dumb (like cows). Carnivores are generally smart (like cats). Can anyone come up with an animal that gets a non-trivial part of its diet from meat that also eats grass? Hrrmmm ... do elephants eat grass? For that matter, elephants might be herbivores, but they're more an exception than the rule. And they aren't as smart as people give them credit for. --Cyde Weys18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Herbivore" just means plant eater, and some of them, like the elephants mentioned, are pretty smart (elephants seem to recognize the bones of their dead, for example). I don't know if there is a "fillintheblankavore" name for an exclusive grass eater. They do tend to be rather stupid, however. StuRat20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Us herbivores are not stupid. Apparently "Cows are individuals and all have their own characteristics. They are curious creatures" as well as "They are curious, clever animals who have been known to go to amazing lengths to escape from slaughterhouses."[30] "Stupid" doesn't seem to be in the correct place here. Iolakana•T20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cows are stupid. They may have personalities, I have cows that I love and others that are angry bastards, but that doesn't mean they are intelligent. Some, are also great escape artists (either they know how to jump, or know how to ram through fences) and getting out of a slaughter house is instinct because they just want to get back to their herd. I have pet frogs, and they have personality, but that doesn't mean they are intelligent. If I open the terrarium in the afternoon when the sun no longer reaches them, one of them will climb out and sit in the sun. Instinct doesn't equal intelligence, and character or personality is something humans use to relate to them. Again, it doesn't eqate to intelligence. --liquidGhoul00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LiquidGhoul, please explain what you mean by "there are problems associated with a herbivore eating meat". Especially considering some animals are omnivorous. Like whales, for example. BenC7
I understand what people are saying about grass not providing much energy, yet it would provide a fitness advantage if we could at least eat it to stay alive. Especially considering that a lot of food needs to be grown before it can be eaten, being able to eat grass could at least prevent a person from dying of starvation. BenC703:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this took so long, I didn't notice you had replied. Omnivorous animals don't eat the same plants for energy as herbivores. Whales eat plankton, which are completely different to grasses and leaves. Humans are omnivores, and we eat fruit, nuts and roots (potatoes, carrot etc.). The cellulose we do eat is not digested, but used for other things, like keeping you regular ;). If a herbivore such as a cow eats meat, the meat is kept in a bacteria rich region of the digestive tract for a long time because the digestive tract is so long. If the bacteria present in the meat begins to build up, it will compete with the flora of the gut, and cause illness and bad digestion of food. Also, the teeth of an animal are very specialised towards their diet. Our teeth are omnivorous, but are badly designed for grass. We have molars, but they are small and don't grow back. They would be worn down too fast if we were to eat grass.
You must remember that although something would be convenient, doesn't mean it's going to evolve. It is much easier for a carnivore to further evolve carnivorous traits which make it more successful in its ecological niche, than to undergo the massive change in the digestive tract to change its ecological niche, or have a back-up plan of being able to eat grass. Humans are basically as generalist as possible. You need to become very specialist to eat certain foods such as grass. Why not eat heaps of dirt, absorb the nutrients, and crap the rest out like worms? That would be really convenient :) --liquidGhoul15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Think I would need some tomato sauce on my dirt. But I don't remember using the word "convenient". I am trying in my mind to reconcile the fact that humans being able to eat grass would not offer a sufficient fitness advantage (I'm sure some way could be found), but having hair in one's armpits is. BenC707:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a stomach which could digest meat, grasses, dirt, and everything else, then every animal would have it. That would be an innovation in evolutionary development that would spread pretty quickly. However, there is always a trade-off with these things. You choose one or the other (herbivore or carnivore), and if you choose both, you will be restricted on both sides of the scale. We can't eat rancid meat, yet carnivores can and we can't eat grass, yet herbivores can. Again, there would be a huge fitness advantage to being truely omnivorous, but it just hasn't evolved yet. It is too complicated for something so unneccesary. --liquidGhoul09:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(clear indenting) Just to add on to my above statement. The world has far exceeded overpopulation of humans. When we evolved, we evolved in an area of Africa which had a lot of large animals for eating, and lots of fruit, vegetalbes etc. People also had few children, and fewer children which survived, so the population wasn't growing much. However, something happened which caused high reproductive success and high lifespans. The population density of humans in most areas is far too large, and this causes shortages in resources. It is called super-fecundidty, and has happened throughout the history of evolution, and usually must occur to populations for natural selection to occur. We would still have starvation problems if we could eat grass, there would be no grassland left in areas of high density. Humans, as a speices, don't understand sustainability. --liquidGhoul04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery of Uranus and Pluto
Uranus and Pluto were both discovered on March 13. Did Pluto's discoverer (Clyde Tombaugh) wait until the 13th to announce his discovery, because he knew that it's the 149th anniversary of the discovery of Uranus? Or is March 13 simply a very lucky day? --Bowlhover05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 18 February 1930 is usually considered to be the date of the discovery of Pluto. That was when Tombaugh knew he had discovered something significant, even if he had to wait till 13 March for confirmation. JackofOz05:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discovery was announced on March 13th by Slipher, the director of the observatory, but this was often mistaken at the time for the date of discovery - indeed, I've a book claiming Slipher himself discovered it that day. They needed to wait for confirmatory photographs, which explains a delay of about a month. Shimgray | talk | 09:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you're obviously waiting for my comment, here it is: "After you discover Uranus, be sure to wash your hands." :-) StuRat06:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must be seeing things that aren't there again, because I thought the title of the thread was 'discovery of Uranus ON Pluto', which really would be something. Anchoress09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes youre quite right! Apologies. We are all only 14 after all! Seriously though, we do try to answer all questions to the best of our ability. You must not deny us our little bit of fun tho'. We dont get paid you know!--Light current19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're 14? Never knew that--I thought you guys were much older. Also, you can have a little fun, but let's try not to be disgusting. --Bowlhover20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well User:Mac Davis is 15 with an IQ of 165. I am slightly older (with a slightly lower IQ!). User:StuRat seems to be an adult!! We dont know how old User:Anchoress is but she has an IQ of 156 (far too clever for me)
(actually, I am fourteen for another week, I just changed it ahead of time while I was editing my page so I didn't have to make an edit just to change the four to a five) Then again, IQ really doesn't matter, I decided to take that dumb box off last week but I forgot. I guess it helps my "authority?" Having credentials on a subject is a positive, but I don't really believe lack of credentials is a negative. I'm glad Wikipedia is one place where what I say is taken for what I say, without my age coming into play even before I say something. I guess you read, and if you are compelled, you click on the name. Or just because of my pervasive presence on the Desks. Cheers! — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Disgust is in the mind of the beholder. That is, whats disgusting to some is merely amusing or not even funny at all to others. You may be thinking Uranus is something other than a planet. What is that other thing. Did we mention it? If we didnt, its in your mind!--Light current20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Poullerier de la Salle discovered cholesterol from gall stones (and bile?) in 1769, and I want to find the original 'article' although they probably didn't have journals back then. Can you suggest how I might track it down to quote from it?
The first step would be to check JSTOR, which has journals dating back to 1665. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have this one.
Checking Google Books, I found that The discovery of this crystalline matter was simply announced in the ‘Dictionnaire de Chimie,’ but Macquer gave no further information about the nature of this singular substance. Poulletier, however, gave some further information to Fourcroy, which this chemist recorded in his paper, that paper being Fourcroy, Antoine François (1789). "Chemical Examination of the foliated and crystalline substance contained in Gall-stones, and of the nature of the cystic crystallized concretions". Annales de Chimie. 3: 242. I suppose you'd be able to get your hands on that at a university library. --Ptcamn10:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a slightly different reference: Examen des expériences et des observations nouvelles de M.G. PEARSON, sur les concrétions urinaires de l'homme; et comparaison des résultats obtenus par ce chimiste, avec ceux de Scheele, de Bergman, et de quelques chimistes français. In Annales de chimie, An VI, Tome 27, p.225–293. Poulletier is supposed to be mentioned on pages 259 and 260. Poulletier was an amateur scientist, who did his work on urinary stones in collaboration with Fourcroy. As far as I can check, Annales de chimie was founded in 1789.[31][32] --LambiamTalk21:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm allergic to my dog's toenails; why would that be?
I have a big dog, I've had her for six years. I'm not allergic to her saliva, her fur, her dander (what little there is of it), or anything else about her except her nails. When she scratches me (which is fairly often) I get these big, supremely itchy, raised welts for a couple of hours. They never get infected, they just itch like hives even if the skin isn't broken. What could that be? Anchoress09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's your body's natural reaction to the scratching rather than a allergic reaction (see Welt (medicine)). When I'm severely scratched by anything or anyone I have similar symptoms although not as severe as show in the picture. But remember, I'm not a doctor. :) - Mgm|(talk)11:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yeah. Well I'm pretty clumsy, I get all kinds of scratches little and big, and I have never in my life had this reaction, except to my dog's nails (and I've had lots of other animals, it's not that). You have to understand, if she scratches my arm and doesn't even break the skin, there's no mark, and I get these big itchy raised welts like big burn scars, and they go away after a couple of hours. Anchoress14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your dog obviously walks with her claws on the floor and out side can pick up all sorts of things. Before you let her scratch you next time, give her paws and claws a good scrub with anti bacterial agent and then see if it happens. THe other solution is to have her declawed or buy her some little boots. If she gets suspicious, you could say they were a birthday present!8-)--Light current14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One way to tell if it is an allergic reaction is to try tking some antihistamines afterwards and see if that noticibly decreases the welt and/or itching. You could go to an allergist and get tested if it is really bothering you, though I don't know whether one would be able to stop it from happening even with the information. Don't get the dog declawed, they need those things. --Fastfission23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally get a similar reaction to my cat's scratches. The fact that it happens infrequently shows that it's probably dirt or litter or even urine on her claws that are getting to me (and probably putting me at risk to cat scratch fever) and not her actual claws. AEuSoes100:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Fastfission, I won't be getting her de-clawed. The thing is, a) I am absolutely positive it isn't something on her claws; b) it is definitely an allergic reaction; and c) it doesn't really bother me, I just think it's strange. The reasons why I know it isn't something on her claws are: a) it never happened with any of the cats I had even though they were outdoor cats; b) it's happened right after my dog's been bathed and had her nails clipped (right at the groomers); c) it is always consistent in scope; and d) I know my own body. I never swell, even when I get injuries that are heavily contaminated. I get a bad case of road rash at least once a year, sometimes from sidewalks, sometimes from roads, and they never swell even if they're filthy. I mean not at all'. Anchoress00:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My question is simple. I just wanted to know what exactly QTP does. Appreciate if you could please revert back in a lay mans language
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.183.69 (talk)
You clean your ears with them, although it is not recommended by medics (yes we're in World War II (under dispute)) (under dispute). See our article at Q-tips. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
If you mean the Powerhouse program, then it stands for Quantity Transaction Processor. It is the file update program.
Genetic Engineering
Hello sir/madam
I am a student of microbiology and want to do my further studies in Genetic Engineering.Though I have searched much on net I couldnot arrive at a conclusion.My question is how can I do genetic engineering?How long does the courswe take?Is it a branch of Biotechnology or Genetics?After completing the course will I be called Genetic Engineer?On asverage how much does a Gen.eng. earns? Please help me.Thank you
If you dont mind it, I've fixed the format of the question a bit as it was a little hard to read. You could start by read the article Genetic Engineering. Follow the external links for more information. By the way, if you could mention where you are from, it'll be easier for us to help you. Good Luck! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Masters course in this subject would probably take two years. How you go about applying to begin such a course depends on where you are now and where you intend to study. I would say it would come under 'Genetics' but different institutions may classify things differently. You would be called a 'genetic engineer' when you get a job in the field of genetic engineering and I would expect to earn between 12 (PhD) - 30 pounds (UK) but this depends on where we're talking about and how high up the ladder you climb. If you're studying Microbiology at a University, perhaps your course leader/tutor or career-development services can be of further assistance. --Username132 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biochemistry, microbiology, genetics, plant biotechnology etc all use genetic engineering to some degree. A degree in any of those (maybe microbiology is less good) would get you a foot in the door into genetic engineering, IMHO. Where I come from (Noo Zealand), you'd do 3 years for a BSc, then 1 year for BSc (hons) OR 2 years for masters. Then you'd probably have to do a PhD (3,4,5 years?) if you're serious about researching genetic engineering. Go for it! Aaadddaaammm00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume women are the ones that need nipples? Well, that was a dumb question. Anyway, they are vestigial, because in the womb we all start out the same. No, we don't have a "women's brain" (if it is you again), we have a "human brain" it is not male or female yet. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
The short answer is, women and men share almost all their genetic material, so they are almost identical. Mostly a few hormonal differences - everything else is quite similar. Therefore one should expect everything to be the same, with small differences. --69.207.115.13414:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Male breasts are fully functional, and equivalent to pre-adolescent female breasts. The breasts of a 9 year old girl are likewise not vestigial. When a man develops a prolactin secreting microadenoma of the pituitary, his breasts may produce milk. If he develops gynecomastia his breasts may produce milk, without generalized feminization. Edison14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prolactin would initiate milk production. IIRC males normally have some female hormone in the circulatory system in addition to the male hormone, with the liver absorbing the excess. Liver damage, such as from alcoholism could impair liver function and cause the unusual hormonal results. Tumors can secrete hormones. Hormones can be administered by injection. Many medicines may produce gynecomastia, but that is a different issue from lactation.Edison16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Male" and "female" hormones are just called so because in each sex there is a lot more of it than in the other. All women have testosterone, and all men have estrogen. It isn't like we're all transvestites. Male breasts are not fully functional. It is a rare occurance that you would find a man who lactates. If you ask me, 9-year-old girl breasts are not fully-functional. You can't even feel them and get anything out of it. Well, I guess that depends on you. :P — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Male breasts are equivalent to preadolescent female breasts. Do we agree on that? In the presence of hormonal stimulation or other factors they can grow like female breasts (gynecomastia) and they can even lactate. Do we agree on that? Now go milk the bull!Edison01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think he was talking about the bull. I am really not interested in zoophilia — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Yeah, but that kinda throws the kick out of it. Of course with proper hormonal stimulation they will grow like female breasts, and/or lactate, but the stimulation isn't there. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
How come nobody's yet mentioned the sexual function of nipples (both women's and men's)? For men, that function beats lactation hands down. JackofOz03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway when I suck on my girlfriends nipples...I'. like...a strange crotch sensation question c
The chromosomal crossover article says (first paragraph) that if chromosomes break and rejoin on opposite sides of the centromere, the result can be one chromosome being lost during cell division. When I follow this situation in my mind, I can understand the loss of all genes on one side of the centromere but how does an entire chromosome become lost? --Username132 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The centromere is the chromosomal site that organises and regulates the machinery responsible for chromosome segregation to daughter cells. Its functions include kinetochore assembly, tethering sister chromatids by cohesin until anaphase, monitoring attachment of sister kinetochores to microtubules via the spindle checkpoint, and, via kinetochore associated motor proteins, are responsible for the movement of chromosomes along microtubules towards the spindle poles. If the centomere becomes separated from its chromosome, it can no longer control the segregation of the normally-associated genetic material, and so that material is lost in the daughter cells. - Nunh-huh13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can a spacecraft alter the direction in which it's travelling without using an external factor such as the gravity of a planet? Excluding gravity, when something changes direction on Earth it's always because it's pushing against something (e.g. water, air, road surface). With nothing to push against, wouldn't sideways thrust on the nose of a spacecraft simply make it rotate around its centre of mass while continuing to travel in the same direction?
PaulStephens15:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to realize that in space, aerodynamic considerations are moot, so changing the orientation of the spacecraft has no effect on its trajectory, but I think you understand that. If a spacecraft wishes to accelerate itself in some direction, possible a different direction from one in which it is currently travelling, then it must apply a thrust along a line which passes through the spacecraft's center of mass. You are correct in your intuition that applying a thrust somewhere off-axis (off any line through the center of mass) would result mostly in rotation. However, assuming some simple design of the spacecraft, the craft could turn using "sideways nose thrusters", then stop turning using the opposite "sideways nose thrusters", then fire the "forward thrusters", which would change the course of the craft. --Bmk15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it just sounds so exciting and scientific doesnt it! Ive always had a penchant for the word 'thrust' nad 'vectored' makes it sound quite Star Trekkie. Actually I might change my user name to VectoredThrust- sounds powerful!--Light current18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand! I too like when stuff sound that scientific and spectacular. It's nice to see you're of the same kind – the kind that wouldn't mind running a space station with lots of meters and blinking lights. Am I not right? ;-) I think your username is already cool, though. Btw, what's up with your indentation? —Bromskloss20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on there. You don't have to apply thrust aimed at the center of mass to get moving, even though that probably is how you want to do it. (Mabye you didn't mean that either.) Actually, we can compare a body (spacecraft) with a particle of the same mass. When we apply some forces to the particle, it will follow some trajectory. Applying the same forces (equal in direction and magnitude) to the spacecraft will cause its center of mass to move the same way the particle did, regardless of where on the spacecraft we applied the forces. On top of that, of course, the spacecraft may start to rotate, depending on where we apply the forces.
For an example of this, consider a particle (such as a little ball) thrown here at earth. Disregarding air resistance, the only force that acts on it is gravity, and so it will follow a parabola. Compare this to a high jumper who throws themselves over the bar, with the same initial direction and speed as the particle. The only external force acting on them is gravity, so their center of mass will follow the same arc. The fact that the jumper's muscles exerts forces on different parts of the body does not spoil this argument since every muscle that pulls in some part of the body also pulls in the opposite direction in its other end. The same goes for spacecrafts – only external forces are of interest. —Bromskloss15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that you want to be careful with the above thought experiment. Applying thrust on a vector that passes far from the center of mass will not produce the same acceleration as applying the same thrust along a vector passing through the center of mass. When your thrust vector is far from the center of mass, you'll end up delivering a lot of angular momentum, without changing the velocity vector of the center of mass much. Picture a rod-shaped spacecraft. If you poke the side of the rod near the middle, you'll increase its velocity; if you poke the rod near the end, you'll set the rod rotating. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You note that there is nothing out in space to push against. Well, consider two people floating together in empty space. If they push against each other, they will start going in opposite directions, right? Now, the same thing happens with spacecraft – one person is the spacecraft and the other is the exhaus gas. So, yes, a spacecraft can change direction on its own. However, it should be noted that doing more than small course corrections isn't a good idea – it consumes a lot of fuel. —Bromskloss15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a good idea if you want to actually get anywhere, like, say, the Moon or Mars. Otherwise you'd just be stuck in an Earth orbit and that'd be it. --Cyde Weys18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we may be missing the point of the question. The questioner didn't simply ask how a change in direction can be initiated, but also how it can be stopped once the change is achieved, without the object simply spinning on and on due to inertia. Say a spacecraft would like to change its direction 10 degrees to port. I would imagine that the starboard thruster would burn for a certain amount of time to initiate the change in course, and some time thereafter, the port thruster would burn for a precicely equal amount of time (assuming the two burners are of equal force) to stop the craft from further rotating, and leave it heading exactly 10 degrees to port as was initially intended. Loomis19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Loomis, On the science ref desk you make even less sense than on the humanities ref desk (or is it just more obvious here?). Port and starboard in space?? Also, the questioner didn't ask anything about stopping the change in direction. DirkvdM09:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk? What's up with the completely uncalled for, unprovoked, childish personal attack? I'd thought we'd gotten beyond that. Well at least I have, I still don't intend to personally attack you, no matter how immature you may behave.
My answer was pretty much a rewording of Bmk's, (although I suppose my mistake was in not reading his first,) otherwise, our answers are pretty much identical: 1) Initiate side thrust towards the new direction you'd like to be heading, and 2) Initiate opposite side thrust (to keep the craft from spinning continuously due to intertia, and to stop the nose of the craft once it's pointing directly at where you'd like to go). I had assumed that the forward trusters were burning, so I didn't mention the obvious last step: 3)If your forward thrusters aren't burning, press that "big button" that says "forward thrusters" and bingo, the course adjustment has been made.
"Also, the questioner didn't ask anything about stopping the change in direction". Well of course the change in direction must be stopped, otherwise you'd have a spacecraft spinning aimlessly for no apparent purpose. If you only want the craft to change direction by , say 10°, you'd have to find a way to stop it before it reaches 11°, or 12° etc.
So now please explain it in a more "sensible" way than I just did (if you indeed have any clue as to what myself or Bmk are talking about). Loomis19:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly unrelated item: A person in zero g can turn to face in any direction and wind up facing backward/upside down/sideways etc without any kind of thruster, without throwing anything, grabbing anything, etc, via "cat twists." This is not immediately obvious, but cats do it, skaters do something like it, and divers do something like it. Scientif American IIRC had a st of maneuvers for rotating in zero g several decades ago. I have always found it amusing when space opera such as Star Trek or Star Wars shows spacecraft in vacuum having WW1 type dogfights, doing aerobatic maneuvers such as barrel rolls, Immelman turns, etc rather than changing orientation and firing the main thruster in the direction they wish to go. They must carry ample fuel/reaction mass. Edison01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it often gets rather ridiculous. Not to mention the screaming sound of an X-wing zooming by...across the vacuum? Eh. On a related note, i think this is an appropriate time for the rigorous attention to detail that 2001: a space odyssey contains? I mean - it's amazing - everything is beautifully realistic (not counting the alien monoliths, I mean). How the heck did they get all that stuff so right, before the space race had even really gotten started? It's amazing! --Bmk03:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do all that arbitrary turning in empty space, you need the air! If, in empty space, you turn your head left, the rest of your body will turn right. —Bromskloss07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Air plays no more role in these "cat turns" than it does in the operation of a gyroscope. A person in vacuum, in a suit way more flexible than our space suits, could reoriente himself to face in any vertical or horizontal rotation by body movements. It is about conservation of angular momentum.Edison18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was a discussion here a little while ago. I will put forth my idea again. Suppose an extravehicular astronaut stretches out his arms, sways them to one side, thus causing his body to rotate in the other direction. This move wil end with his arms wrapped around his body (at which point he stops rotating). If he then moves his arms back close to his body, that will partly reverse the effect, but only partly because the mass of his arms is the same but the distance to the body is smaller, so there will be less rotational momentum. So he ends up in the same position, but slightly turned. This can then be repeated. And something similar could be done for rotations in other directions. Right? DirkvdM09:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled! Without really thinking too much about it, I thought this would be impossible due to the conservation of angular momentum. Now I don't really know what to make of it, which is a bit embarassing. :-/ I think I'll just go cover myself under a thick layer of snow and sort things out. Well, I could've, if it was winter. —Bromskloss21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
handset splitter/adapter
I know this is barely an electronic question, but science is the best place I can think to put it...
I have a telephone and I want to plug a headset into it. I would like a splitter where the handset plugs into the main phone unit that lets me plug in the handset and lets me plug in a standard headset (1/8" stereo plug if I remember correctly). I've been searching and searching, but I don't know what this device is called, so I keep getting all kinds of things for recording phone calls. Does anyone know if this exists and what the proper name of it is? --Kainaw(talk)16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried Headset Plus? I googled 'switchboard headset' because I think that's the idea of what you want, although they are actually the same for individual lines. There seems to be an adaptor on the left side of the screen on the homepage. You might need to hunt around a bit on there, or email/phone. Anchoress17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) For a landline, if you're in the UK, www.maplin.co.uk do one, just search for "telephone headset". Presumably Radio Shack do something similar. They can only be used with certain types of phone.--Shantavira18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a trip to Radio Shack and a good 30 minutes explaining this to a pimple-faced idiot, I found that Radio Shack carries nothing like what I want. What they have is a telephone that has a headset that replaces your phone. Since my phone has a speaker-phone that I never ever use, I'm going to wire the speaker and mic to a 1/8" plug and do it the hacker way. --Kainaw(talk)13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Methadone Clinics
To the Excellent Editors of Wikipedia,
Your clip on Methadone was very helpful. I'm doing a nationwide study on Methadone clinics and I'm trying to find out the best methods to answer the following:
1.) How many methadone patients are treated per year per state?
2.) Who's the largest clinic in the state?
So far I've had little success contacting each state individually. Similarly, I also look for published data on the each state website. Would you have any other recommendations for collecting this data?
If you use words like 'nationwide', you should also state which nation you're talking about because else the question becomes unanswerable (or you might get replies for every country). That said, you're probably from the US because people from other countries have a tendency to realise this and be more forthcoming. Still, I have to ask, one can never know. DirkvdM10:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people's arms move when they walk?
When people walk, their arms generally move back and forth. In fact, the left arm tends to move forward when the right leg moves forward, and the right arm tends to move with the left leg. Is this an involuntary reflex involving muscle action? If so, is it a vestige of quadrupedal locomotion? Or do the arms simply swing without muscle action due to the force of gravity? Thanks. Marco polo17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...that's an interesting one. I wouldn't be surprised if it's, at least in part, a hard-wired vistigial trait (I have to deliberately relax my arms to not do it). But I think it also serves a useful purpose, providing a counter-balance to leg movement that can improve overall balance, and a simple source of additive forward momentum during the step process to perhaps increase the overall efficiency of the walking motion. Just my guesses, though. -- Scientizzle17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An easy way to check this is to obtain a dummies arm (or a hinged peice of wood say), attach it to the shoulder and walk whilst keeping your real arm in your pocket. If the dummy arm swings like your real one did, its due to gravity/the way we walk.--Light current17:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has something to do with balance. Try walking with your arms bound at your side. You're more unsteady. Especially try jogging or running with your arms straight at your side. It's difficult. --Cyde Weys18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try running with your hands in your pockets, and without twisting your shoulders, hopefully youll realise its neccesary to move your arms before your face hits the tarmac! hehe PhilcTECI18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the results of a study a year or so ago that found people who swing their arms more when they walk tend to be happier than those who swing them very little or not at all. Perhaps it is a self-inducing happiness technique. --Kainaw(talk)18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the inverse is more likely, that depressed people tend to put their hands in their pockets, and hanging your head, another sign of depression, moves your shoulders, in such a way that your arms swing naturally swing less when you walk. PhilcTECI20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that it helps with balancing and correcting for the various twisting forces you create when you move your legs. Additionally the human center of gravity is relatively high off the ground compared to other primates. My rough guess would that anything which has mammalian hips is going to need some sort of counter-balancing movements in the upper body for reliable bipedal locomotion, whereas something with bird hips probably does not. Just guesses, though. I doubt the motion is vestigial—it seems rather intimately connected to the motion of the legs and hips. --Fastfission20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also takes energy to keep them still, energy that's wasted since there's no practical purpose to it. Moving them in sympathetic motion is probably a form of conservation of energy. Anchoress01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Energy is the ability to do work; force is ther work done (in this instance). So Anchoress is right, and your comments is, well, like hundreds of your other comments on these reference desks: unhelpful. Here's a rule of thumb for you. If your contribution includes an exclamation mark, then it is probably better not made. --Tagishsimon(talk)
It's entirely about stabilizing your center of mass. I recall there being a subtle joke about Jack Webb from Dragnetnot swinging his arms, or perhaps it was Dan Aykroyd, eh? Anyway, watch your dog, cat or horse as they speed up or slow down, and the relative position of their limbs.
Although my question has some very obvious political implications, I'm asking it here on the Science RefDesk for now as for the time being I'm I'm only interested in a scientific answer.
My question is: Hypothetically, should a regime (hmmm...I wonder which one he's talking about!) :) possess large stockpiles of chemical weapons, for example, such chemicals as mustard gas, and such nerve agents as sarin, tabun and VX, and should such a regime wish to dispose of these weapons as safely and as harmlessly (and as secretively) as possible, how would one go about doing that? Is it even possible to begin with? I can't imagine "dumping it all ito the sea" as an option, as surely that would cause a great deal of the worst kind of pollution. Similarly I can't see how either gradually releasing it into the atmosphere in a totally unpopulated area, or just plain blowing the stuff up as being feasible. What I do know, although this is somewhat unrelated, is that nuclear radioactive waste can't be safely disposed of, and must be buried underground (or otherwise contained) with the hope that no one will ever inadvertently come into contact with it. I'm just wondering if the same holds true for such deadly chemicals as mentioned above, or if there is indeed a way by which they can be safely disposed of without anyone being the wiser. Loomis18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hussein wouldn't just "dipose" of them, are you crazy? I personally think he gave them to all his cronies—sold them. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
It depends on the chemical in question. Some chemical weapons can be "neutralized" by mixing them with other chemicals, i.e. using hydrolysis. See this chapter from a National Academy of Science report on chemical munitions disposal. This would require facilities though. If you wanted to really do it as quickly as possible, you could just bury it deep underground or even bury it at sea in sealed containers—it would be no different than burying nuclear waste or anything else you wouldn't want people to find. Depending on how you buried it you'd have different expectations of its safety and likelihood to be detected. In other words, burial itself can be considered a form of disposal. Eventually many (most?) chemical weapons will break down into less dangerous compounds as well. Releasing nerve agents into the air is probably the opposite of what you'd want to do in any situation. I don't think blowing them up would probably be a great idea either. It'd be a tough operation to pull off without anyone ever finding out, though. --Fastfission20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought here, but how about burning them? Sure, it would be polluting but the resulting substances generally would be less toxic to humans (especially the nerve agents), and not identifyable as chemical weapons would they? - Dammit20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since most chemical weapons are made of hydrocarbons, they can be burned in a high temperature incinerator which will break them down into harmless gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc. Note, however, that normal burning is not effective. StuRat20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this discussion should now be turned over to the humanities page. But since my good buddy Stu has responded (no sarcasm intended...I really enjoy our discussions and respect your perspectives, otherwise I wouldn't bother taking you seriously,) what, in your opinion happened to all those WMDs? They obviously didn't vanish into thin air, (Saddam would need an Iraqi David Copperfield to accomplish that,) and as I've just learned, they'd be pretty hard, if not impossible to destroy without leaving any trace. But you, as do many, many others, seem to argue that GWB "lied to the American people" in assuming they still existed. Mac seems to have suggested that they were shipped of to places like Syria. Fastfission seems to have suggested that they may be buried deep beneath the Iraqi soil, or perhaps even, deep below the seabed of the Persian Gulf. What do YOU believe happened to them? And do you believe that it was so far-fetched to believe that they still existed in Iraq that GWB, Cheney, the CIA et. al. must certainly have been knowingly lying when they came to conclusion that they must be somewhere, and that that somewhere would most likely be somewhere in Iraq? Loomis21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lying does not come from making wrong assumptions; it comes from saying something which you know isn't true. The problem is that the CIA itself knew the information they had on CBWs in Iraq was bunk. The "lying" comes from the fact that the administration took information which was known to be dubious or even outright false and presented it as a reason to go to war. If the assessments had just turned out to be wrong, that'd be an entirely different issue than them being known to be wrong ahead of time and used as a justification anyway. I'm fine with people just being wrong, but when they know ahead of time that they're wrong, or they ignore good advice because it goes against what they'd want the facts to look like, I find that pretty irresponsible in general and absolutely abominable when we are talking about things with tens of thousand of civilian deaths as a consequence. --Fastfission22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is where I disagree. I can't speak for myslef, but Stu is an intellectual, as you seem to be. I simply take issue with the argument "that the administration took information which was known to be dubious or even outright false and presented it as a reason to go to war". The CIA didn't ever say the information was "bunk". At most, they merely threw their hands in the air and admitted that their "proof" wasn't indeed "proof". But who really cares about the CIA? What I'm concerned with is reality. Though the community of intellectuals love more than anything else to paint GWB as some sort of Christian evangelical moron, I've yet to hear some alternative explanation as to what ever happened to those damned WMDs! Nobody seems to care anymore that there's a mystery out there yet to be solved. Why would you say the information was "known to be dubious or even outright false"? As I think I've just proven, the assumption that Saddam had WMDs is the least bit "dubious". In fact, it would seem to be the most logical explanation for the state of affairs. Further, I still don't know whatever happened to those damned WMD's! I still don't know whatever happenned to them, where they were buried, or where they were shipped off to. Until I hear a more intelligent explanation that GWB should have heeded, I can't help but agree with the conclusion he came to, that Saddam still had WMDs unaccounted for. Loomis00:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's why I'm here. I don't quite understand the "GWB lied" mentality. If he did, I'd be more than pleased to entertain any and every possible theory as to what really happened to those chemical weapons that we know Saddam, at least at some point, had considerable stockpiles of. Until then, the whole issue will remain, at the very least, a mystery to me. Loomis00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't understand it either. Just because the inspectors didn't find them, doesn't mean he didn't have them at some time (not ruling out at the same time). And chem/bio weapons were not the only reason allied military operations were done. "A threat to democracy anywhere, is a threat to democracy everwhere." If you know what I mean. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
They FOUND chemical weapons, but stuff left over from the First Gulf War. google 'Saddam chemical weapons found':
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq Thursday, June 22, 2006 WASHINGTON ? The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html "Well, we knew that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and we knew he used chemical weapons against Iranians. But it's clear, or it seems to be clear, that these weapons were not available to Saddam in 2003 when we were going to war. They seem to have been available to him in the early '90s. ... "One thing I would like to add, though, is I do believe what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said is inaccurate. The inspectors started with a declaration by Iraq that it had over 100,000 chemical weapons either filled or unfilled. And Iraq tried to explain what it had done with those weapons. The inspectors investigated extensively what happened to, again, over 100,000 filled and unfilled chemical weapons. ... Iraq said, very clearly, we don't know where all of them are. They even gave a case of 550 that they could not find after the Gulf War. So... ... COLMES: So we already knew, Dan Senor, that this was the case. And also, let me show you what else was reported today in The Washington Post. Put it up on the screen. "Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion."
1) At one time, Saddam had lots of chemical weapons.
2) Some, but not all, of these weapons were "used up" against Iran and the Kurds.
3) Saddam claimed to have destroyed the rest (as required by the UN following Gulf War 1), but offered no proof.
4) After the Gulf War 2 invasion, hardly any were found.
I would guess that they were destroyed, most likely by just detonating them in open fields and then letting them dissipate (very bad way to destroy them, BTW). His reason for not offering any proof (like videotapes, shell fragments, etc.) was apparently to make his neighbors assume he still had them. He was betting he could thus intimidate his neighbors without suffering an invasion by the US/UN. He thought his claim to having destroyed them along with a lack of proof to the contrary would be enough to keep him safe. However, this ambiguity, combined with lies coming from the Iraqi National Congress and other sources, and the desire of the Bush administration to find any pretext for invasion, made Saddam's calculations completely wrong. StuRat02:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Bush administration lying, the "African yellowcake" (uranium) claim was the most absurd. It had been completely discredited, but the Bush admin, and Cheney in particular, chose to continue to use it as "evidence" of a covert Iraqi nuclear program, despite knowing it was untrue. They then moved toward retaliation against anyone who told the truth, like Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. StuRat03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the nukes. Saddam never had any (although he was working on some back in the '80s but Israel bombed that whole idea). As for the rest, though, what you're offering is pure speculation. When push came to shove, though, back in December '02, when the UN DEMANDED for some sort of explanation for what ever happened to the chemical WMD's or face a UN invasion (he couldn't be sure at that point that the French would put up such a hissy-fit, not to mention having the US and a few others go it alone), don't you think it would have been time for him to 'fess up and explain what he did with them? Don't you think that by offering a tonne of nonsense, in the form of thousands and thousands of nonsensical documents to the UN, he was pretty much asking for an invasion?
How can I, GWB, and the rest of us morons have ever concocted such a theory that he indeed destroyed them but hid that fact to keep his neighbours scared? Saddam "secretly" destroying his WMDs? You know of the man, now who's going on with absurd speculation? Even if that were so, it would seem too far fetched to bet a few million lives on. The most likely scenario to me, given all the above is that WMD's are buried somewhere in some desert in Iraq, only to be found at some time in the future when all of us are dead and gone, by our children, thinking, "how could they all have been such fools, thinking that a madman would destroy his own weapons? Of course he hid them! GWB was onto him all along!" Loomis05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm forgetting, but I don't remember anybody saying he had nuclear missiles. Wasn't that just a dumb domestic rumor? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
If that had been the case, I would have expected Saddam to use the chemical weapons during the invasion to try to win. After all, the US couldn't very well respond with chemical weapons, so Saddam would have a weapon the US couldn't match. Also, why wouldn't insurgents who knew of their location (those who helped bury them, for example), go and dig them up and use them ? StuRat07:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, you say that he didn't have them in '03 because if he did, he would have used them. But you also say that he was only required to destroy them after Gulf War I. It would appear, then, that pretty much everyone was in agreement that he had them during the first Gulf War, and yet, for whatever reason, he didn't use them then either. If your assumption is: "if he had them, he would have used them", why didn't he use them back in '92? It's still quite the mystery to me. Loomis21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of the First Gulf War was just to evict Iraq from Kuwait, not to overthrow Saddam, and he was fully aware of this. If, however, he had used chemical weapons on American troops, then the US would likely have escalated and removed him back then. In the Second Gulf War, however, the goal WAS to remove him, so using the weapons then couldn't hurt him any. Thus, he would maximize his chances of staying in power by abstaining from using WMD in the first war and by using whatever WMD he had left in the second. StuRat10:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Loomis, with that theory, in a hundred years when the WMDs still haven't been discovered (because they were never there to being with), you'll still be saying "They're there, you just haven't looked in the right place yet". A bit like El Dorado, or Shangri-La, really. You are an unabashed supporter of GWB - not that there's anything wrong with that per se - and your biases are very apparent. I suspect you will find any way you can of making him look like a teller of the truth. Unfortunately, the principles of parsimony would tend to lead one to an alternative conclusion. (Say, how come this quest for "only scientific answers" turned into an ultra-political discussion?) JackofOz06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really tried, Jack, to get a pure scientific theory, but the first word of the first post was "Hussein"! Also, I don't recall El Dorado or Shangri-La to have ever been proven to have existed, only to have mysteriously disappeared a mere 10 years later. I only proposed my "theory", what in my opinion was "the most likely scenario" because it just appears to me to be the most logical. I also said that I don't believe there were nukes, because Saddam never had nukes. He never used them on Iran or on the Kurds, so no reason to believe they ever existed. But he did have chemical weapons! (Notice I didn't mention biological weapons, because there was no evidence of their existence either.) All I'm asking is how such volatile chemical substances such as the ones mentioned could have existed and then, just ten years later ceased to exist? Until I get some sort of proof or at least a reasonable hypothesis to how they seemed to have disappeared, I can't help but assume that they continue to exist. A blanket statement "because they were never there to begin with" doesn't seem to make any logical sense to me, unless it's your position that certain incidents like the Halabja poison gas attack was just another CIA hoax as well. But you're right, my little editorial rant didn't belong here, considering the purely scientific nature of my question. My apologies for that, I just couldn't help myself. Just one little comment if I may, perhaps you've got my position upside down. Perhaps I'm "an unabashed supporter of GWB" because I agree with him, and not the other way around, that I agree with him because I'm an unabashed supporter? Do you really think I'm of the mentality to blindly support some leader and then retroactively rationalize every ridiculous position he's taken? C'mon Jack! I thought you thought better of me than that! Bush has made some stupid mistakes, such as the assumption that the Iraqi people would embrace pluralism and democracy the moment that big ugly statue of Saddam was torn down. He was wrong there, I just think he was quite right and quite logical in assuming that what once existed, absent any proof or explanation for its mysterious disappearance, should, according to reason, continue to exist. Loomis09:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I'm still trying to avoid a political discussion. I don't want to argue about whether Bush was right or wrong, as that would be a completely political argument. I just can't help but see the whole thing as one enormous mystery. The only thing more mysterious than the "The Case of the Missing WMDs" is the fact that hardly anyone seems to be the least bit curious about it. To me, "The Case of the Missing WMDs" is no more or no less political than "The Case of Who Killed JFK". At the time, that mystery was an incredibly politically charged one: "Was it Castro?", "Was it the CIA"?, "Was it Johnson?", "Was it the Russians?", "Was it the FBI?", "Was it the Mob?" Was it just that 'Oswald' lunatic acting on his own?" At the time, I'm sure you would be considered rather biased one way or the other depending on your particular theory. If you said you believed it was the CIA or the FBI, there'd be people out there calling you a Commie. If you told people you thought it was the Cubans or the Russians, some would likely criticize you as being a right-wing McCarthyesque wacko. It's been almost 43 years and still nobody knows for sure, but still plenty are drooling with curiousity. One thing has changed though: After all this time most if not all of the politics behind this theory or that have long since been stripped away. It's now no more than a fascinating whodunnit. Perhaps "The Case of the Missing WMDs" is still too fresh in our minds and too enmeshed within present-day politics to be looked at as coldly and logically as I would have hoped. Oh well guys, maybe it's just best to leave this one alone until it's also 43 years old. See you all back at the RefDesk in 2046! :--) Loomis21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes in the history of science
Hello all - I'm looking for a collection of events in the history of science where scientists have made good faith errors (not scientific misconduct). In particular I would like cases where a result is widely accepted for a given time and widely cited/used/referenced during that time, but then later determined to be in error. Importantly, the cases need to be obviously in good faith and widely regarded as mistakes now. Controversy about either of these lowers the value of the case for me. Please take science broadly to include social sciences and mathematics. Don't be shy, the more examples the merrier I will be! If you can give me examples not covered in wikipedia, I will gladly research them and write the corresponding article. Thank you very much in advance. --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response! That's a nice list which I hadn't seen before, I'll give it a look. In general scientific theories are probably too grand for my purposes, because often times the failure of the theorist was not a simple mistake per se, but rather a failure in the theorist's imagination. Sometimes it's more complicated, but either way maybe too big. --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for the quick response, you folks are amazing. I'm afraid that psuedoscience really doesn't fit the bill either, because in those cases the mistakes are not obviously in good faith. Many people would say the mistake of a phrenologist was not simply getting bad data because of a faulty measurement device or something, but because they simply ignored good scientific practice. But perhaps there is a good example in politicized science that might fit, where someone interfered in a way that the scientist was unaware. If he wasn't so bumbling and the situation so abhorrent, the mistakes of the lab employed by Fred A. Leuchter when investigating Auschwitz might count in this vain. Do you know of a particular case that might fit here? --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein's Cosmological Constant
I thought the jury is still out on this one, with the current consensus being that the value best agreeing with observations is something like ΩΛ ≅ 0.7, which is definitely not zero. --LambiamTalk00:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one way or another, it was a scientific mistake. Either Einstein was wrong initially when he proposed it was nonzero, or he was wrong later when he thought it was zero. --Trovatore00:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I overheard an ER doctor a few years ago explaining to an aged gentlemen that the doctor was going to give the man something to get rid of the heliobacter germs causing his ulcers. The man explained that he appreciated the doctor's efforts, but he had had the ulcers for decades and many fine doctors had treated them, but they kept coming back. The young doctor repeated that he proposed to cure them once and for all. You would have thought from the man's reaction that the doctor was proposing to amputate a valued organ.Edison01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even get my thank yous in because you are too quick! The cosmological constant is a good suggestion that I'm looking into. I didn't know about ulcers, that sounds very interesting. I'll bet its perfect because a lot of people were mislead for a long time (Doctors, etc.). Do you know was there an experiment that "demonstrated" ulcers were caused by excess acid? I'm afraid our article on peptic ulcer doesn't appear to say. Thanks for the cases! --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As most anyone will tell you, Spinach is particularly high in iron. In fact it's not. In 1870, one Dr E. von Wolf made a decimal transposition error and reported spinach's iron content as being ten times its actual amount. This false feature of spinach made its way into the popular Popeye cartoons starting in 1929 and the myth was cemented ever after as a commonly known but wrong fact. It wasn't until 1937 that the mistake was even realized.--Fuhghettaboutit21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, I didn't know about this at all. Oddly enough Dr. E. von Wolf was just created three days ago. There is something about it in the Spinach article as well. I'll look it up. Thank you very much! --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One could maybe see the Michelson-Morley experiment as an error; Michelson and Morley sure didn't think that a null result was a likely possibility for the measurement they wanted. There are many instances of incorrect conclusions by some of the early human genetics people, i.e. Charles B. Davenport identifying pellagra as a Mendelian unit trait (it is caused by a deficiency in the diet). Linus Pauling put forward a very incorrect formulation of physical structure of DNA not long before Watson and Crick articulated the double helix (the latter got an advance copy of the paper through Pauling's son and realized it had a number of basic errors in it). Charles Darwin of course considered heredity of acquired characteristics to be valid and incorporated it into his theory of pangenesis. There was also Lord Kelvin's incorrect calculation of the age of the earth which was quite famous for being too short.P.M.S. Blackett had a theory of gravity that he eventually disproved in the course of his research which was meant to prove it. Those are just a few that come to mind. --Fastfission23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! A long list indeed! I will look into some of these in more detail. I knew about M-M, pangenesis, and Kelvin before, but not the others. I know about Kelvin's estimates of the age of the earth particularly in connection with its use against Darwin's theory. Do you know if it was used in other scientific work at the time? Is there perhaps a good book you could recommend detailing that bit of history? The pellagra bit sounds promising also, do you know a good reference for it? No problem if you don't, I have once before used the dreaded library. :) --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the years in which the psychoanalytic explanations of asthma and inflammatory bowel disease were considered scientifically valid? For several years after the discovery of chromosomes, humans were thought to have 48 rather than 46. alteripse00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cold fusion is not quite clean enough for me, because I don't think there is agreement regarding the intentions of pons and fleischmann (i.e. it doesn't clearly meet the "good faith" clause). Is there something else in Cold fusion you were thinking of? The other two might work well. Thank you for your suggestions! --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't disagree with me, they have a different opinion from me. But there were a lot of reviews on Amazon that do think the book is awesome, and the one editorial review was positive, and from a respected journalist. Of course people are going to disagree. If some anonymous user on Amazon says that Joyce's Ulysses is crap, does that mean that the person on WP who says it's 'awesome' is wrong? Do I really need to explain this? Anchoress03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, take it easy, will ya ? I'm just pointing out that most of the reviewers do not share your opinion that this is an "awesome" book. StuRat07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this book does look interesting. I'll eventually turn to primary sources regarding any of the cases which I find interesting, so I'll be able to justify the books veracity. Although, I do also appreciate knowing the book is controversial, so I can be careful. Thanks to you both! --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Pathological science re: N-rays, polywater, water memory, cold fusion. You might add Shroud Science (sindonology) although it still has its devout adherents. ESP experiments have been debunked, but again there are still true believers. Homeopathy still sells a lot of tapwater for curing all ails through the principle of opposites. "Facilitated communication" involved people (facilitators) attending classes with children who were rather nonresponsive (brain damage?) and moving the child's hands to respond to questions, The parents thought their vegetative children were getting a good education and would have a fine career. "Clever Hans" was a horse who could "solve" complex math problems by watching for unintentional clues from the questioner. Pyramid power. Phrenology. Also the discredited theory that autism was caused by mothers being cold toward their children. Blame game. Per Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" the true believers often go to their grave refusing to believe in the Germ Theory, evolution, or whatever. The scientif revo;lution often means new scientists replace the old ones. Edison01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, that's a great list of pseudoscience. Unfortunately, most of these won't work for my purposes, because they aren't clearly good faith mistakes by scientists. But, I'm impressed by the long list :) --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look. N rays were certainly a good-faith mistake, aswas cold fusion and as was polywater. Degreed scientists in a legitimate lab setting making and perpetuating errors, not unqualified charlatans trying to pry bucks from the gullible.Edison19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I'm pretty sure there isn't widespread agreement about Pons and Flieschmann. At least I know of a few people who believe that it was intentional misconduct. I will look into N rays and polywater. Our articles on both cite these as examples of pathological science which, if fair, put them on the border of good faith. But, of course, wikipedia is not a primary source :), and I will rely on other sources before dismissing them. Thanks for pointing these out! --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet this one is perfect too. Especially if the widespread use of lobotomies stood in the way of finding other cures. The only concern is if the first "demonstration" of the effectiveness of lobotomies was good science. Psychology during that time was sort of up in the air. I'll look into it. Thanks a lot! --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you can get such an effect by getting a straight piece and scoring along the inside of the intended curl with a blunt blade (ie, not so sharp it just digs in and takes out chunks), or by just using curly copper to make the wire. PhilcTECI22:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess the mandrel is then warmed. To make it straight I would stretch it then warm it. Maplin call it coiled cable, with the brand name StretchFlex.--Shantavira07:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Switching power supplies
The standard Apple power adapter for iBooks and PowerBooks is a switching power supply. I know it will work with either about 100 V or about 240 V AC. But it's labeled as being "100-240V". Does that mean that if I wanted, I could choose any voltage between 100 V and 240 V? Obviously, this isn't likely to happen, but I'd like to know anyway ;). --M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @)21:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Massive Object Collisions in Particle Accelerators
I was wondering whether or not it would be possible to acclerate a mass of 1 kilogram to near the speed of light in a large particle accelerator just as one does in any accelerator with particles. If possible, how much energy would be needed to charge the process, how big would the accelerator have to be, and how fast exactly or approximately would the mass go. Also, what type of energy is released in a collision of such objects? How much light and heat energy is released? Sorry to ask so many questions but please answer as many as you can. Thank you very much for your time.
If E=mc^2, you could work it out yourself! I think with the accelerators we have at preent, it would not be possible. You would have to go to Altair IV to perform this one!--Light current23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means an expert on this, but since the particles are accelerated magnetically, accelerating a mass of 1 kg would take such huge magnets that it wouldn't be realistically possible, not to mention the huge amounts of energy it would take. - Dammit23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably just repeating whatever's in the relativistic mechanics article says, but the energy of the block, as light current mentioned is given by
where m0 is the rest mass, and v is the velocity. So, the kinetic energy is given by
All you have to do is plug in the numbers. m_0 = 1 kg, and pick a value for v/c. On a side note, current particle accelerators are designed to accelerate particles on the order of 10^-27 kg - that's 27 orders of magnitude smaller than your hypothetical 1 kg block. That is, particle accelerator technology is really utterly unsuited to accelerating macroscopic objects. You'd need a completely different type of "accelerator". You'd have more luck with a rocket in space. Our ability to accelerate such a massive amount to such a high speed (v > .01c) in a distance comparable to the diameter of the earth is really far beyond our current technological capability. Cool idea, though. --Bmk00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I compute the energy needed to accelerate 1 kg of mass to 1/10th of the speed of light as about 266 TJ. Isn't that about the world energy consumption in one minute? Maybe we should read the question as "large-particle accelerator". --LambiamTalk01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the cyclotron radiation (or synchrotron radiation, if you get going that fast) is going to kill your energy budget if you use a conventional ring-shaped accelerator. Using magnets to push your big mass around a curve bleeds off energy (it gets radiated as photons tangentially to the object's path) at a rate that goes up as both the square of the objects velocity and the square of the magnetic field strength. Ouch. Perhaps a linear accelerator of some kind, but it's going to have to be awfully long.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not take the reverse approach, and use a rail gun or coil gun, both of which are designed to accelerate a sizable slug, rather than subatomic particles ? True, they are only designed for low speeds, but why couldn't you chain, say, 1000 together, end to end, in a vacuum, to accelerate the slug to 1000 times the speed ? I would expect that the electromagnetic forces would turn the slug into a ball of plasma, so you would need to magnetically contain it, but that sounds possible to me. StuRat02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, I cant think of any argument against this idea ATM (But give me time!) tick.. tock....tick. Ahh yes ..you would need a hell of a long railway!
The gigantic current passing thro the mass will turn it into plasma which may then diffuse uncontrollably. But maybe it has been tried. Who knows! I assume the required length could be worked out quite easily.--Light current03:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone ever considered constructing a zero G particle accelerator? I have no idea of the logistics of it, in fact it would probably require taking something the size of a small brownstone, and sending into orbit, so it might actually be impossible, but supposing that you had one anyway, wouldn't a low gravitation environment be superior to one at sea level? Or is 1 G so minimal an acceleration compared to that of the actual accelerator that it wouldn't make any difference--71.249.31.13513:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
August 24
Chemistry - Stoichiometry and Gas Laws at the Same Time
I have a set of chemistry problems that I have to do. Most of them involve a reaction and the amount of a product that is formed is asked for. I am unsure how to apply the gas laws to these types of problems. For example:
How many liters of product at 950 mmHg and 0 deg C is produced by the burning of three liters of acetylene at 5 atm and 20 deg C?
I would be fine doing this math without the gas laws, but can anyone explain how to use them in realtion to this concept?
Thanks
I'm not sure how one would do the math without applying the gas laws - they seem to be essential to the answer. Basically you need to apply the ideal gas law
(or = n R T if you're a chemist instead of a physicist)
twice - once to find the number of moles acetylene in a liter, and once to find the number of liters of the product in a certain number of moles. In the first case, you'll need to find a number of moles of acetylene. You are given the number of liters (V = 1 liter), the pressure (P = 5 atm), boltzmann's constant (K = look it up yourself), and the temperature (T = 20 deg). Then do the stoichiometry for the number of moles that you find by solving for n
Which should give you a number of moles of "product" - I assume this means total gas? Assuming all the gaseous products act as ideal gases, it won't matter what they are. Then apply the ideal gas law in reverse - this time you have P, n, K and T, and you need to find V. Hope that helped - good luck. --Bmk00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since IQ is defined as the outcome of a "standardized test", it can't come out higher than the test allows. Since there are many standards to choose from, which are further scaled differently, it depends. By the time the person doing the test is smarter than the dummies who created it, what you are measuring is their ability to guess what the dummies considered the right answer. Some people claim that Marilyn vos Savant with a score of 228 has the best papers. --LambiamTalk01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A certain type of intelligence, I suppose. But it also shows your willingness to state an incorrect answer, because you know that's what they want to see. Others will refuse, on principle, to state an incorrect answer. I had a test in an electronics class that asked "Are electricity and magnetism the same force ?". I answered yes, because they are viewed as manifestations of the same electromagnetic force by modern physicists. I also thought it unlikely that my stupid electronics teacher would know that. In the end, I picked the correct answer and had it marked wrong. Also, the "which one of these things doesn't belong" test is really testing whether you categorize things in the same way as the test maker. So, a genius, who views the world differently, will score poorly on such tests. StuRat01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah look the IQ papers over here are MUCH harder than in the US. Let me give you a typical example:
Which is the odd one out? a,b,c or d... See you cant do it can you? The answer is actually (a) because thats the first letter of the alphabet and the others arent!
Thats why it appears Americans are more intelligent. Also you must not show that you know more than yor teachers. To do so shows low intelligence!! 8-)--Light current01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the original question, this site is probably the best reference for the sort of thing. It is all estimations anyway, I am not sure how "accurate" they can get without having a psychologist test. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
"c" is the odd one out because the letter doesn't enclose a space... Now who knows more? Me, the teacher, or my (dumb) pupils?--G N Frykman08:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"a" is the odd one out, because you write "a" differently than a cdomputer would. Or "b" is the odd one out, because it's the first letter whose left-right mirror image is also a letter. Or d is the answer, because it's the only letter that contains another letter (if you take away the vertical line, you'll get c). --Bowlhover18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you can have any answer you want as long as you justify. That gets top marks in this test. So maybe thats what you should have done StuRat in your test question, state the answer , with reasons. THen you have somehting to argue with!--Light current10:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea: "Teacher, the correct answer is that electricity and magnetism, are, in fact, one force, called electromagnetism. However, since I'm aware of what a whopping moron you are, I am answering that they are separate forces, knowing, full well, that that's the best understanding a simpering idiot like you can ever hope to manage." :-) StuRat10:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite! It's up to us simpering idiots to ask better quality questions, so that the clever dicks out there can't accuse us of being whopping morons.--G N Frykman13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever gave you that idea? The phrase "me, the teacher" above? Or my reference to "dumb pupils"? We've certainly got smart people on this desk!--G N Frykman14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry. I didnt notice that till now. Also that could have been a rhetorical question by a non teacher! But anyway we now know from your user page that you are/were a teacher of chemistry. BTW I think StuRat was being a little hard on teachers just now! 8-)--Light current14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The extra comma in my item above could have caused confusion, I admit! I am very much still a teacher, and have just been in to see my pupils' GCSE results. Grade inflation is alive and well!--G N Frykman17:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I've been a teacher myself (adult education -> CAD systems), so have also seen my share of stupid students. I am still amazed that multiple students were unable to spell their own names on the sign in sheet, then complained when we used that spelling on the certificates. :-) StuRat01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes that rings a bell now. So altho Mac has 165 his raw score is only 2310. So when he gets to our age his IQ will have settled down to 42?? THat doesnt seem right!--Light current17:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the WISC was made. Lewis Terman at Stanford (1916) found that when the Simon-Binet scale was taken by US children, results were uneven screwed up—average scores of children of various ages were either higher or lower than chronological age of age group being tested! Terman revised Binet-Simon scale for US culture so that the average score of any sample of children was 100, no matter what their age, and it was called the Stanford-Binet. David Weschler (1958)
noticed observed that mental age does not keep developing forever, but we don’t get stupider with age. Therefore, IQ formula breaks down as we get older. So the test he designed, compares individual scores to the mean of peer group. The WISC is for 6-16 and the WAIS is for afterwards. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
By what their work, and their words (if you don't import them for an IQ test). But more of that really comes from who has "self-discipline"[33] — [Mac Davis] (talk)
OK but your test said you had 165. If you did it over here with a Mensa approved test, what would your score be?
Yeah, I figured because of the "s" in standardization. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
There is no 's' in 'standardization'. Oh hold on there is .... I wanted to ask you a smartarse question about your IQ, but I'll have to re-evaluate myself now. DirkvdM09:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The WISC (1949) and the Stanford-Binet (1916) are known to be the best IQ tests. Those are the standard for any age, at any time. They've undergone revisions to account for the Flynn effect. IQ testing isn't exactly a flourishing field with huge developments every ten years. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
No I meant becuase youre older and 'corrections' will not need to be applied to your score. THe mensa test is based on the Cattell scale and cannot be applied to those under 16 without correction. THis correction can lead to uncertainties. I believe test questions for all adults (over 15/16) are the same in most systems. (in contrast with the WCIS) and it will be more accurate!--Light current00:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read on the MENSA website in news that thre are 30 people under 10 in the society. What is that about than? — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I also find it notably interesting that a lot of high-IQ'd people have an I.Q. of 189. Not 188, or 190, but 189. Anyone ever notice that? Or is it just me? User:NealIRC 1:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have administered and scored IQ tests. Most tests do not have scoring norms for the absurdly high IQs some people like Marilyn Vos "Savant" claim. Sounds fishy. It is also possible for someone to obtain a scoring manual by devious means and memorize the correct answers. There was a news article a few years ago about a female psychologist who was coaching her children on the correct answers so they would score high and receive higher placement in school. She claimed that the coaching "actually increased their intelligence." My experience in graduate school was that once people are in the top 2% or so, personality factors other than IQ made the difference in academic success. Edison13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Laws in biology
Do laws exist in biology? As I understand it, biology can only advance up to the level of theory, as laws must be mathematically proven. All basic principles I see are considered theories, like Cell theory. If anyone could clarify, that would be great. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that can happen, will (eventually). Anything that cant probably wont (discounting quantum mechanics etc)! Is that a law, rule or theory?--Light current01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One problem that has been raised for this as a candidate law is that its violated. Myotic drive can result in violations because a trait will end of being expressed more often in the next generation than required by mendel's law. Most people think of laws of nature as holding at all times. --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]04:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, chemistry is just applied physics, and biology is just applied chemistry, so it's all the same anyhow. :) --Bmk02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the inflammatory properties of my last post? And if so, why would I need a box for self-defense? I guess I could trap my intellectual opponent after beating him to the ground... --Bmk03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you wear a biohazard suit with platinum armor on over it, as angry biologists and chemists are likely to throw anthrax and acid at you. :-) StuRat09:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one of those questions - in a fight to the death between a physicist, a chemist and a biologist, who would win? DirkvdM10:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the physicist cos its quicker to shoot some one than have them die of poison, acid or disease (probably). Mind you if the chemist had some explosive....8-)--Light current11:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could just mollify everyone by saying that the other way to look at my statement is that chemistry is extrememly complicated physics, and biology is extremely complicated chemistry :) Then no throwing of acid or anthrax required. --24.92.251.1113:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, even economists claim to have laws, like the 'law of supply and demand' and the 'law of diminishing returns'. If those are laws, then anything goes. DirkvdM10:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a topic of ongoing debate in the philosophy of biology. In particular see:
Beatty, John (1995) "The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis" in Concepts, Theories and Rationality in the Biological Sciences Ch. 2
Sober, Elliott (1996) "Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology" Philosophy of Science (64): S458-S467
Mitchell, Sandra (1996) "Pragmatic Laws" Philosophy of Science (64): S468-479
Kinetics of a Redox Reaction - Importance of Including [H+] in the Rate Law
I will be doing a kinetic study when high school resumes in september. It happens to a be a redox reaction.
The equation is the following:
2 MnO4-(aq) + 5 C2O42-(aq) + 16 H+(aq) --> 2Mn2+(aq) + 10 CO2(aq) + 8 H2O (l)
My question is the following: Does the effect of the proton (and its concentration) need to be studied? Put another way, would it be a factor in the rate equation and would I need to find out an order of reaction with respect to [H+]? Or is it sufficient that I recognize the reaction proceeds in acidic aqueous solution and I use some sulfuric acid (at a high enough concentration) to provide the protons?
Most journal articles I read have acid present since it is required to acidify the solution, yet do not mention anything with respect to studying it or its order in the rate law. However, I have seen a few places where they do include it, though unfortunately these sources do not actually provide the order with respect to the proton, they just suggest it could be studied.
And yet it is a perfectly acceptable question, as (s)he asks for help with a specific concept, rather than for a wholesale solution to a homework problem. --Bmk02:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At a high school level? You would probably not need to be concerned about the effect or concentration of the proton. It would be sufficient that you recognize that it occurs in acidic conditions. Unless you were being asked to find equilibrium constants, then you would need to know the concentration. It really depends on what is being asked. BenC703:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed this very reaction on this help desk earlier this summer. The problem (as regards a student investigation) is that it is autocatalytic. So any investigation into the dependence of rate upon acid concentration is bound to be an extremely complicated affair!--G N Frykman08:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alcoholism Disease a addiction rather than a disease
I am thinking about doina research paper on alcohol users. I find the theory a addiction much more than a disease. I do not know how
to find information on how this topic became a disease. If this needed to be phrased this way for federal funded programs or true medical
research. If anyone has good insight on information to where this theory began, I would appreciate the information.
Helen
To show it's a disease, there would need to be a gene, virus, or some other agent which makes people susceptible to alcoholism. Showing it's just an addiction is tougher, you need to prove there isn't a gene, virus, or other agent. Studying whether offspring of alcoholics raised by others inherit this trait would be some indication as to whether there's a genetic component, perhaps you could study that. StuRat05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could also take a look at the genes on OMIM Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM): 103780. Basically, it's pragmatic. It's easiest to cure if you treat it like a disease without the moral overlay of the addiction question. It acts like a disease and responds like a disease, so you treat it like a disease. Who cares about semantics? InvictaHOG09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's considered a disease has some big implications for public policy, like determining if medical insurance will cover treatment and whether drunk drivers are imprisoned. StuRat01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lokk for "AA (alcoholics anonymous)" "Big Book" "Bill Wilson" - it is an amateur theory waiting for proof (>60 years now). --Seejyb22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria and the like) don't have nuclei; basically their DNA doesn't have a membrane around it. I assume that you meant eukaryotic cells, however, like yours and mine. Some cells, like platelets and red blood cells, have no nuclei at all, and they "live" for a several weeks. However, because they have no DNA (because they have no nucleus) they aren't able to synthesize any new proteins to replace old ones or to adapt to changing conditions. The short answer is that if a eukaryotic cell were to have its nucleus removed, it would function for a time - maybe even a few days, or even weeks, depending on the cell type - but it wouldn't survive long term. Hope that helps. – ClockworkSoul04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clockworksoul has given a great answer here. To expand on the sieve tube example that I mentioned above. In this case the cells can live for a long time without a nucleus. Except they cheat. They are associated with other cells called companion cells. These cells do have a nucleus, and essential proteins can move from the companion cell to the sieve tube via plasmodesmata. David D.(Talk)04:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You honor me, sir. To be fair, it was only a matter of time until somebody asked a question concerning a subject I knew something about. ;) – ClockworkSoul04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution/Biogenesis Experiment Ideas
For a project at my high school, I am doing a paper on evolution and biogenesis. I need to have a "product" to go with my project, and I was thinking of doing some kind of experiment that is related to biogenesis/evolution. It could be anything...I was thinking of doing something where I synthesized organic materials from inorganic materials, but obviously my high school lab has very limited equiptment and chemicals and I haven't been able to find anything that are within my resource constraints. Any ideas?71.253.62.1205:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)PC[reply]
You could show people that all the chemicals and water can sit there but won't spontaneously become alive unless the Intelligent Designer breathes life into them . If you go to certain kinds of schools, that would be a guaranteed A+ project. alteripse16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a glass cruet with oil and vinegar in it as a metaphorical statement. Then you can do your paper on why abiogensis and evolution are really very wholly different subjects that do not mix well at all, though they are constantly addressed together, which misunderstanding is a derailing basis for almost every discussion between creationists and scientists about evolution.--Fuhghettaboutit05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking some type of a natural selection experiment. For example, you could have a frog in a box, with two colors of moths, one which matches the background, and one which doesn't. Then, presumably only the ones which match the background will be left, after a while. StuRat05:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you culture some bacteria in a petri dish to demonstrate that life begets after its own kind. You could say something like, "Notice how this dish contains only bacteria, and hasn't reproduced into any other life form, like protists, or even other types or shapes of bacteria. It has reproduced after its own kind". (Biogenesis = life from life) BenC710:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh common, labs use antibiotic resistance all the time, you intentionally combine the plasmid for antibiotic resistance(usually to something already harless, like ampi) and whatever other trait you're looking for, say a PGLO plasmid, that way you can select for the new strain of bacteria by exposing the entire culture to said antibiotic. You're not creating "superbacteria", you're just taking the resistance that already belongs to some other bacterium, and giving it to another.--71.249.31.13512:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One easy approach is to set up a simulation of natural selection. You can get creative as to how you would do it, whether with rolling a dice and little pieces of paper or something on the computer if you are capable of making something like that. I would personally nix the idea of doing something with chemistry, but that's mostly because I have the feeling that "lab chemistry is hard" especially in respects to something like this. If you're feeling particularly daring you could try an experiment with fruit flies (you can get a good amount of flies just by leaving a banana out on the corner for a few days—they looove bananas) but it would require being very careful about contamination of outside flies and paying very close attention to how you would keep track of different fly populations. I would personally just go with the simulation idea—natural selection experiments are hard even if you have a lot of experience in a lab, and abiogenesis experiments will no doubt require equipment you don't have, if only to confirm the results of the experiment (i.e. a spectrometer). Simulations are relatively easy to put together, though, and can be easily understood by others. --Fastfission12:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to do a demonstration, just set up some arbitrary selective criteria for your classmates in your classroom, then apply them, then show that if the surviving population all had sex, the child generation would be better adapted to survive the criteria than the parent generation was. For instance, designate someone a predator who can only see people with brown hair. Then run around for a while, and soon there will only be blond folks left, whose children would probably mostly be blond, and would be safe from predation. Tadaaa - natural selection - the driving force behind evolution. --bmk
As far as being short on reagents and other chemicals, I had a remarkably insightful organic chemistry professor once, who said that you more or less make just about any reagent you need starting with some very mundane starting materials. I mean, within reason of course, you're not really going to be able to turn a copper penny into a lump of inorganic phosphate, that would be alchemy. --71.249.31.13512:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Location/proximity. Substrates are handed rapidly from one enzyme to the next. Another example is the Ste5 scaffold protein in yeat mating signal transduction that holds al the kinases in the signal transduction pathweay together in one place. David D.(Talk)05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Butterflies - loners?
Do butterflies spend their lives alone? Do they interact other than for mating purposes?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.194.215 (talk)
Unless they are colony dwellers (like ants and honey bees, for example) insects tend to live solitary lives. There is no mention of social behaviour in the butterfly article. Therefore i would suggest the answers are, largely yes, and largely no, respectively. For more information, some of the external links in the aformentioned article will lead to you the websites of of experts, or you could always ask here. Rockpocket07:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody made my answer a link, which was a redirect to P-wave, one type of seismic wave. I took the link back out. StuRat07:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did, because I thought it was your intention. Sorry.--Patchouli
Sound waves are pressure (longitudinal; aka, compression) waves. They can propagate through solids, liquids, and gasses. Raul65406:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're at it, perhaps we even could say temperature waves? ;-) I guess this holds only provided that the medium reaches thermodynamic equilibrium in a time much shorter than the period, right? So, does it? —Bromskloss07:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not usually. (In fact, the standard derivation of the speed of sound works in the adiabatic limit.) Generally, if energy is allowed to flow across a temperature gradient, the entropy of the system increases and you lose free energy. At high enough frequencies, where heat flow across short wavelengths becomes important, sound is attentuated as it dumps heat into the medium, and it has a finite range. Now, since you can shout across the Grand Canyon, apparently this consideration isn't so important on everyday scales.
Another effect, speaking of thermodynamic equilibrium, is that if the relaxation time for internal excitations of a polyatomic gas matches the period of a sound wave, you again get attenuation. According to Kittel+Kroemer, "For CO2 gas at the relaxation frequency of 20 kHz under standard conditions the intensity is observed to decrease by 1/e in about 4 wavelengths -- a massive absorption, in agreement with theory."
So, one surprise is that the adiabatic approximation is actually the right one for long periods, but not necessarily short ones. But, to return to the original point, even though a medium usually doesn't reach thermodynamic equilibrium, sound waves still do modulate the temperature as they pass by. So in that sense, you could call them temperature waves. Whew! Melchoir08:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mention interesting things that which I have to read up on, but I have a question already at this point: How can we talk about temperature when we don't have thermodynamic equilibrium – the latter is required for the former to exist, right? Also, what does it really take to disturb a thermodynamic equilibrium? If I have a gas in a box and suddenly move one or more of the walls a bit, will the gas (momentarily) cease to be in thermodynamic equillibrium? —Bromskloss11:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'd forgotten about that. If the internal degrees of freedom in a population are out of whack with the translational kinetic energy of the molecules, I guess it doesn't make much sense to speak of an unqualified temperature. But if the various degrees of freedom of a gas are locally in thermodynamic equilibrium, then a local temperature (and hence a temperature wave) does make sense, whether or not distant parts of the gas are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other. Melchoir15:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pee waves? I believe boars pee in waves. Or is this about a bunch of people (peeple?) in a stadium taking turns pissing? Not that I'm taking the piss ... And before anyone asks, I don't have a P-brane. DirkvdM09:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. Let's be a bit more specific. In free space (or air), at a long distance from the source, electromagnetic waves are transverse in the sense that both the electric and magnetic field are perpendicular to the direction of propagation. Am I not right? —Bromskloss10:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of Chris Rock's famous (and *very* funny) 'Black people versus niggers' sketch, where he talks about the media. Raul65407:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you swallow something like a pen accidentally do you need to have surgery? not that i did anything like that, cause i'm just asking 64.229.14.20713:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you would. It would be very dangerous to have something that big in your intestine or stomach. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Depends how big it is. Small coins are ok. (dont do it on purpose) There will eventually be some change!. Im not really sure of the size limit! No doubt someone will tell us.--Light current13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I swallowed a pen cap (it was either that or choking) about 14 years ago and I had no major digestive problems since. So yes, it is possible, but don't go trying. - Mgm|(talk)07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BETTER JOKE: A boy swallowed a silver dollar and was sent to the hospital for observation. When his parents inquired as to his condition, the doctor responded "no change yet". StuRat23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BETTERER JOKE: A boy took a medical exam. To the last question he wrote "no change yet." He couldn't pass it, and died. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Check out this guy he ate an aircraft!! Michel_Lotito
I would say not possible. See hair#growth. If you pull on it does it disappear from on top? Either way it sounds like a sign of ageing. Still, if you wait a few weeks you'll have enough for a combover.--Shantavira16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you get old like me, this happens to ears, eyebrows and nose. At least you can see the ear hairs. Right now, there is probably a 2 foot nose hair, ready to pounce! --Zeizmic16:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some hairs, such as pubic hair, if shaved, the growth rate follows a ~logarithmic decay. They grow very quickly, then slower and slower. Based on weight of the hair, it can tell. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
The hair follicles respond to androgens, primarily testosterone and its derivatives. The rate of hair growth and the weight of the hairs increase. Different areas respond with different sensitivities. As testosterone level increases, the sequence of appearance of androgenic hair reflects the gradations of androgen sensitivity. The pubic area is most sensitive, and heavier hair usually grows there first in response to androgens.
Ooops. The length doesn't depend on the weight, just the weight is increased along with specific hormone concentration. Hee hee. 8-) — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Not after he learned to use moustache wax to train those pesky nose hairs into a fine toothbrush moustache. Having only one testicle, Der Fuhrer may have lacked sufficient testosterone to grow a true manly moustache. Edison13:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto: min distance to Earth
How many light years is it from Earth to Pluto - clearly it changes, so what was the approx distance in light-years between the two planets places at the time of Pluto's eviction from our solar system. --86.134.27.21519:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto hasn't been evicted from the solar system. It is still very much a part of the solar system, we just no longer call it a planet. As for its orbital characteristics, you can find those on the infobox on the right-hand side of the article Pluto. Note that its orbital radius is significantly smaller than one light-year. Light-years are used to measure distances between stars and larger ... individual solar systems aren't close to one light-year across, though. --Cyde Weys20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you reeaally want it in light years, there's a neat trick you can do with google - do a google search for "30.76 AU in light years", and you'll get your answer. BTW using Celestia, I get the same answer as Bowlhover (actually 30.78 AU). --24.92.251.1122:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the program - looks right! The perihelion, or shortest distance to the sun, of pluto can be found on the planet's article (linked <== over there) - the value is 29.7 AU, and since the earth is about 1 AU from the sun (with much less variation than pluto), that's 1 AU less, giving a "perigeon" (fictional term) value of 28.7 AU. --bmk
No, only objects which are actually in orbit around the earth can be said to have a "perigee". I made up "perigeon" as a parameter for the shortest distance to earth for objects not in orbit around the earth. --bmk
What you mean "we", kemo sabe? Some silly international board has decided it's not a planet; fine for them. They have no authority to decide what the rest of us should consider a planet. --Trovatore22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wouldn't it be great if everyone knew what everyone else is talking about when they say "planet"? That's only possible if we all accept the IAU definition. --Bowlhover03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And all the trains would run on time?
No, sorry, I don't accept the vote of some commission as a valid way to define words, not in English. Leave that sort of nonsense to the French, with their Academie Française, and the Germans, who made the use of the scharfe S a matter of statute. --Trovatore03:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about plain English. This is the science ref desk, so words should be used in their scientific sense. DirkvdM10:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that voting (or fiat, or other "official" methodologies) is an appropriate method to settle scientific usage, either. Scientific language is different from ordinary language in many respects, but not in that one: Its usage evolves, it isn't imposed. So this new sense of the word "planet" is not the "scientific sense", per se; it's just the "IAU sense". And with that understanding, it's fine. --Trovatore16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Self-Appointed Cabal of Oligarchic Astronomers have been watching too many TV reality shows: now they will likely be voting a planet out of the solar system each week leading up to the finale where the one True Planet is named. Edison13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people care so much about the IAU and such changing the definition. Does it really affect a broad array of people, or is this crowd phenomenon?
can skin cancer cause stomach cancer
I had a beautiful healthy 65kg, 8 year old purebred bull mastiff. he engaged in a small fight with my Saint Bernard. He came out with what appeared to be a sever case of acne on his right lower check. it was 2cm squared with a few smaller marks around it. all though it appeared dry and flakey on the outside it was pusey and bloody on the inside. (if squweed) The local vet said that it was some form of skin infection and was instructed to bath the area with a benediene soultion, and it would clear up. the wound didnt clear, he was then sent home with antihistimes to fight the infection. this did little. i noticed that he had now started to lose intrest in his food, he even vomited a few times, when i on his third trip back to the vet, i told the vet about it and was told just like humans he is just haveing a few off days and to give him a few asprin and with no explination as to the dyagnosis he was then sent home with some horse skin spray. this again did little. his weight dropped rapidly, as did his apitite drop. he was vomiting and dry reaching.
On his fourth trip back to the vet under new manaagment he was then blood tested, exrayed and opened up to find the entire stomach wall was lined with cancer.
it was advised that there was little they could do for him as it had traveld so far.
Please for any one that has had similare symptoms to there pets or can lighten me on the proffesional opion that i was given througth out the past 3 - 4 months please share what ever information you have.
Thankyou for taking the time to read through my final few months with not only my best mate but my shadow of life.
Regards Natalie
I don't think skin cancer can cause stomach cancer (the two are different types of cancer), however, a skin cancer could spread from the skin and start growing in the stomach (much like how many other types of cancer become fatal when they eventually enter the brain). --Cyde Weys20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to hear about your beloved mastiff, Natalie. In regards to your question, many forms of cancer can invade other tissues at sites distant from the original tumor by metastasis, where tumor cells detach from the primary tumor and spread via the bloodstream or lymphatic system. You should find the cancer article very helpful. – ClockworkSoul20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is just coincidence. Bites, even small ones, need to be taken seriously as they can result in very nasty infections. Your dog's stomach cancer was probably progressing along unnoticed in the mean time. To my understanding, stomach cancer is actually fairly common in dogs (and cats) as they get up in years. The result always seems to be a very sudden weight loss and by then it is usually too late. Their life and quality of life at this point can be extended somewhat through the use of a steroid and a pain killer, but that only seems to delay the inevitable at most a month or two. They do gain back some of their weight and energy in those months, though. You should note that I am not a vet and this is only my own limited experience. &mdash Bradley21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bradley that it is probably just a coincidence. Both skin cancer and stomach cancer in dogs can metastasize, but I've never heard of one spreading to the other. Lymphoma can uncommonly occur in either the skin or stomach, so it's possible that your dog was affected by both types, but it's rare to have multiple types of lymphoma (cutaneous and alimentary). Also, lymphoma is one of the less common forms of stomach cancer in dogs, with carcinoma and adenocarcinoma being much more common. --Joelmills23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry about your loss. There was a recent bit of science news (sorry, don't have the exact reference) noting that metasteses were not random. Cancers originating in different organs are not equally able to metastasize to all other organs; there are preferential paths. So lung and breast cancer are the most likely types to spread to the brain, while colon and stomach cancers are the most likely to spread to the liver. Couldn't find a specic article on spread from skin to stomach or vice versa. Blocking metastasis appears to be a very fruitful technique for cancer treatment: see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/06/000612084928.htmEdison13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for your loss. At first, I thought that you had an actual bull, since I did not know that a mastiff is a breed of dog. So it was confusing at first. For your question: Reading the cancer article may help. --Proficient03:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point-of-care documentation
In medicine and nursing, what is the recognized definition of point-of-care documentation?
I believe it means that the caregiver (nurse) documents the patient's condition during the patient encounter, rather than later; usually this means the nurse has a computer with them to take down notes while interacting with the patient. It is a better system than the nurse scribbling notes on a random piece of , or just relying on memory, then entering the data later into the patient data system. Now for the standard disclaimer: don't trust anything you read here, yadda yadda yadda. --bmk
Earth
Why does the earth tilt?
Earth rotates because some time in its very early history, a force set it rotating. This force could have come from any direction, only one of which will give Earth a non-zero tilt. So basically, Earth tilts because it's much more likely than not having a tilt. --Bowlhover22:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question - I assume you are referring to the axial tilt of the earth with respect to the ecliptic. The answer involves theories about the formation of planetary systems. Scientists are still trying to figure out how planets form around stars, and there are a lot of open questions. I believe in general it is accepted that planets form out of cloud of dust rotating around a new star. Irregularities in the disk of material make the rotating disk of dust lumpy, and gravitational interactions draw more and more dust into the lumps, which eventually compact and form into planets and other bodies. As they form, they tend to have angular momentum in the same direction of the orbit of the planet. The best answer for the reason for the tilt of the angular momentum of the planet about its axis is that random variations of position and speed of the dust that gathers to form the planet cause random variations in the tilt of the forming planet. Other effects, such as asteroid impacts could also alter the tilt of the planet (but I just made that part up - I don't know if such a thing is likely to have affected the tilt). Hope that helps. I would suggest you follow some of the links above for more information. --bmk
I wouldn't think it would require a Mars-sized object, but something much smaller, depending on the speed of the impact. StuRat22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that link was rather useful, causing me to now make a 180 (apology offered). Uranus is said to have an axial tilt of just over 90 degrees because it is 'supposed to' rotate in a certain direction. So saying Venus is tilted 180 degrees isn't all that silly and actually very relevant here. Then again, if you'll allow me a nitpick - the tilt is actually 177,36 degrees. So maybe you weren't being as serious as you might have been. (Apology withdrawn) DirkvdM10:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't joking, I knew that Venus had an almost 180 degree tilt from Geology last semester. But I would still like to know what causes its tilt. --liquidGhoul10:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
liquidGhoul, someone was pulling your leg. Venus's axial tilt is around 2 degrees. 180 degrees would mean that it was upside down, but that's irrelevant because there is no 'right side up'. So it's true what DirkvdM said, that the tilt is over 177 degrees, or in other words, just over 2 degrees. Anchoress10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is at 180 degrees, then the rotation would be in a different direction to the rest of the solar system, which I think it is. --liquidGhoul11:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that was my point. Venus either spins the wrong way around or is upside down, compared to (most) other planets (in our solar system). We would have to pick one and the first one makes more sense to me. Then again, how much of a 'rule' do we have here? excluding Pluto (which also moves in mysterius ways) We only have 8 planets to base our 'planet-laws' on and 2 of them don't do what the others do. A very small basis. So Venus and Uranus can't really be said to do anything 'wrong'. Is any of this known about the planets of other stars? DirkvdM09:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bailey's Liquor Commercial - Combustion
Has anyone seen a Bailey's liquor commercial airing in Canada/US where a group of people are sitting around a campfire roasting/eating marshmellows?
Well, in it the characters are roasting marshmellows like I said, but they seem to put them to close to the fire as some marshmellows catch fire. One of characters takes his ignited marshmellow and dips it into another characters glass of Baileys that they're holding. The Baileys then douses the flame while a silly message appears on screen like "a sense of play" or something. Disovering this, each member of group starts doing it while more messages roll across the screen.
I was under the impression that alcohol combusts? Sure it makes for a nice commercial I guess...
Alcoholic beverages can only be ignited if they contain a sufficient amount of fuel. For a mixture of water and pure ethanol (ethyl alcohol) there has to be at least 57% ethanol (by volume) present. It is possible to ignite beverages with a lower alcohol concentration if they contain other fuels, particularly sugars. In any case, there has to be enough combustible stuff present to boil off the water it's mixed in with. Baileys Irish Cream is 17% ethanol; it can't be ignited. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is very interesting, TenOfAllTrades, its always something i have wondered about. Could you possibly elaborate and explain why 57% is the magic number for ethanol? Is that empirically resolved, or can it be calculated? Rockpocket00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably an empiric result; also up for consideration is the fuel-air ratio. Oxygen is required for combustion; even dangerously flammable liquids such as gasoline will often douse a lit match. In such cases, the liquid itself cannot burn; only vapors that evaporate from the surface are able to catch fire, and even then, only if there is a correct ratio of gas-vapor to oxygen (air). I believe ethanol can burn in liquid form, but this effect may still come into play as oxygen is crucial to the burning process. Nimur01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From experience - ethanol does not burn in liquid form. When on top of a mountain in Norway in February, I had to use a makeshift carburetor to get it to combust so I could defrost my ass after using the - well, there aren't any bathrooms on top of those mountains. Once it started to combust, it warmed up enough to get the diesel fuel going. Once that started burning, nothing was going to stop it.
Other lessons: Mercury termometers only go to about -40 degrees F. Duct tape does not stick when it freezes. Norwegian beer does make American beer taste like rat piss. At 5'8", I'm a midget in Norway, but it isn't a terrible thing being chest height to all the women. --Kainaw(talk)01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sir Wally Herbert led the team that became the first to reach the North Geographic Pole by surface travel without the assistance of airlifts (1968-69).
2. Ralph Plaisted made the first surface conquest of the North Pole on April 19, 1968.
3. on March 17, 1959, the USS Skate (SSN-578) surfaced at the pole, becoming the first naval vessel to reach it.
4. The Soviet nuclear powered icebreaker Arktika on August 17, 1977, completed the first surface vessel journey to the North pole.
How did Sir Wally Herbert travel? If by land, then why is Ralph Plaisted credited with being the first ? If by water, then why is Arktika being credited as being the first ? Jay22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikipedia user said, there's always going to be the same number of planets. Only the definition of what a planet is might change. As for the question, the IAU definition is not likely to be changed for a long time (well, at least much longer than a week). --Bowlhover02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to make a decision was taken months ago (actually, I thought it was more than a year), so things don't change that fast in the scientific world. And anyway, there wasn't a proper definition before, so this is again (referring to a discussion above) a matter of difference between the use of words in plain English and scientific language. And the fact that there is now a proper scientific definition means the number of planets will only change throught the physical discovery of a large object orbiting the Sun. One we haven't noticed yet. So it would have to be extremely far away (unlikely). Or maybe a totally black surface (low albedo)? DirkvdM10:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are 130 000: everything b_jonas said, as well as Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, all the trans-neptunian objects, as well as all the asteroids. "Planet" literally means "wanderer", and all of these objects wander! --Bowlhover04:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
String/M Theory
We are told particles are replaced by vibrating strings and/or membranes but what vibrates ? Are they fluctuations in the shape of space ?
You can't possibly accuse me of being a snob, because I don't understand the first thing about String theory, but what I do understand is that it's really complicated. I would recommend one of those books written by physicists who do understand it and are writing for the layman, like "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. And also, who is telling you that? No one knows for sure whether or not string theory accurately describes reality or not, so withold your belief :) --bmk
To the best of my understanding, it is the strings (or membranes) themselves that vibrate and the ability to do so is just a fundemental property they are assummed to have. To go further, I suppose we would need a why-are-strings-able-to-vibrate theory. Dragons flight23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to (controversial) string theories and the more composite M-Theory, particles are actually vibrating p-branes, that can be responsible for the quantum fluctuations rumple the network of space-time, known as Wheeler foam. Like springs, the strings want to contract to minimize their potential energy, but conservation of energy prevents them from disappearing, and instead they oscillate. By applying the ideas of quantum mechanics to strings it is possible to deduce the different vibrational modes (excitation states) of strings, and that each vibrational state appears to be a different particle. The mass of each particle, and the fashion with which it can interact, are determined by the way the string vibrates — the string can vibrate in many different modes, just like a guitar string can produce different notes. The different modes, each corresponding to a different kind of particle, make up the "spectrum" of the theory. Loop quantum gravity (LQG) theories however, propose that all particles are actually "knots" in spacetime.[36] — [Mac Davis] (talk)
We had a similar such question a few weeks ago here at the Desk. That question prompted my crusade / jihad against poorly written String Theory articles such as Second Temporal Dimension. It is very important to understand that these theories are Mathematical models of the physical universe. The inventors of these theories can introduce mathematical terms and variables which may be called "dimensions." What physical significance, if any, is unclear - and at best, is highly disputed in the scientific community. Often times, mass market books put abstract concepts into "layman's terms" - which I find absolutely horrible.
This assumes that the layman cannot understand "abstraction"
Complex equations can be explained in plain english without sacrficing their mathematical precision
Such a "dumbed-down" approach distances the explanation from physical reality.
To make a blanket statement about String Theory is inappropriate, since there are so many versions and varieties. However, the large part of these the theories are nothing more than mathematical descriptions, and when no physical meaning is necessarily inherent. (i.e. "where are the strings vibrating?" is a question with no real answer). Nimur01:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Physics is mathematical descriptions. No body got credit for observing and recording gravity, although Galileo and Newton did for what? Describing it in mathematics. I don't think the layman can understand. Complex equations cannot be written in plain english, because it takes years of working your way up to the sholders, to be able to understand Bose-Einstein statistics, dot products, Poincaré groups. Even the Riemann integral takes years. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Experimentalists would disagree about the "nobody got credit"... there is a long history of people getting credit for making very precise measurements in physics, or for simply discovering things that others had never encountered, often by inventing some new device. Which isn't to say that mathematics and theory are not important in physics, but to reduce all physics to math really excludes a lot of what is called physics, and would relegate some of the greatest physicists of the last two or three centuries to some sort of janitorial role, which I don't think is a good way to understand the discipline now or historically. In any case, I think I agree with Nimur that there is a middle-ground between pure equations and much of the ridiculously dumbed-down crud that passes for popularization. --Fastfission03:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I don't fully understand what that image means, but if it is a visualisation of what lies at the basis of reality then God must do mushrooms. :) DirkvdM10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it isn't that hard to understand. It is just a three-dimensional polyhedron representation of a complex four-dimensional polychoron. It is like you put the polyhedron inside a bigger one, and connect each side to each side to make up for the lost dimensions. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
My ancestors in AD 1000
I am english. I have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Since the population in AD 1000 cannot have been very high, probably less than the number of my great great great great...whatever...grandparents at that time, does this mean I am descended from ALL the kings, queens, outlaws and peasants and everyone else who lived at that time, except those whose descendents did not continue to the present time?
(edit conflict)More likely that a bit of good ol inbreeding is more likely, if you count them all as family. Since assuming the average age of giving birth is 30, over the 33 generations that would span 1000 years, you have over 4.2 billion seperate ancestors, you may find, if you could trace such a family tree, the same faces would creep up deveral times along it, as the population only recently surpassed 4 billion. PhilcTECI23:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your number of ancestors n generations back is 2^n, assuming no inbreeding. In reality, the number will be smaller, a phenomenon known as Pedigree collapse. Imagine an isolated island with a constant 1000 inhabitants - an islander should have 1024 ancestors 10 generations back, but obviously can't.
Also, groups (class, wealth, faith, ethnic, trade, location) tend to encourage inbreeding among themselves, so you're more likely to be desceded from a subset of the population AD1000 rather than the whole population. Re 'location' above, I once heard it said that the bicycle had done more for human genetic diversity than anything else. Rentwa16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what causes breathing related pain in shoulders, neck ?
Hello,
I know medical advice is not something the people on this board like to give, and I understand their concerns. However, I have already consulted a doctor and taken the prescribed medication, but I feel the real cause hasn't been dealt with, not even discovered actually. So what I would ask is just proposals for the cause that I can explore on my own.
Some time ago I woke up unusually early with a pain in my right shoulder that wouldn't go away, even when not moving. It made me nauseous and hurt more every time I inhaled. The pain didn't seem to be coming from a specific point, it was like it was "hanging around there". Eventually I got some more rest and the pain became tolerable when remaining very calm and inhaling bit by bit. For a few days on I still had pain in my chest, shoulder and neck. A possible reason could have been working a few hours with an open window at night.
The strange thing is I had exactly the same thing two years ago : very sharp pain in the same arm when waking up, making me nauseous...that stabilized after a few hours and then kept lingering around for a few days.
My doctor prescribed some stuff that I have taken, but specified no cause. I'm not looking forward to the next time, so I would really like to know more about this.
So I repeat my request : suggestion that I can do inquiries about in trustworthy works. If not acceptable by this desk's rules, then I won't argue.
You should have asked your doctor. It could be delayed onset muscle soreness. You feel it only days after the offended muscle has been overexerted, which may make it hard to relate cause and effect. Or it can have been a passing cramp of some intercostal muscle, which can occasionally occur without discernible trigger. Test: is it only breathing in, or only breathing out, that causes discomfort? If both directions are painful, you can rule out the cramp theory. Another test is if there is a spot that is (more) painful when you stab it with a finger. --LambiamTalk00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it could be that when I had it in february 2004, I had been working with an open window for some evenings. When I had it this time, I slept with an open window in the aftermath of our heat wave, but it was actually rather cool. So it's hard to tell how soon effects pop up. Thing is, two days ago I opened a window for like ten minutes and started feeling very minor discomfort in the shoulder. Breathing in caused most pain, breathing out didn't really cause much pain. No, touching those place from the outside with a finger didn't hurt at all. Thanks! Evilbu12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: If requesting medical, dental, or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor, dentist, or lawyer instead. With free advice, you get what you pay for. - Cybergoth04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Variable freezing in identical solutions
I've been doing some molecular biology this week and twice i have noticed an interesting discrepancy that i can't explain. I had placed 4 tubes containing completed PCR reactions in a regular -20C freezer, for about 72 hours. They were in the centre of the feezer, where the temp was (i later checked) as it should be. When i went to remove them i noticed three were frozen but one remained in the liquid state. Now, all of these should contain exactly the same concentration of salts, DNA, enzymes and glycerol. I can think of no obvious reason why one did not freeze while the others did. Puzzled, i went through some of my other freezer boxes to see if i could find another example. I did - one liquid tube containing just DNA this time, in a rack of eight, way at the back of the freezer. They had been there for months.
Just in case i had somehow messed up the reaction in the tube by adding the wrong thing, i ran my PCR reactions on a gel. The liquid sample had a nice amplicon, just the same as the others. So... my question: does anyone find this happen to them or have any idea what the hell was going on? Rockpocket00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supercooling? Maybe the tubes and fluids in the recalcitrant cases had no impurities to serve as seed for the crystallization. --LambiamTalk 00:42, August 25, 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess that is the most likely mechanism. These are far from pure water solutions, however, and it just seems a bit odd to me that none of the crap in there would be sufficient to act as a seed for nucleation. And the liquid sample must have had the same reagents in there or else the reaction would not have proceeded. Rockpocket00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your lab is smart enough not to use a frost-free freezer. But, just in case they aren't, I should point out that the heating cycle used to melt the frost might very well thaw some of the contents, as well. Such a freezer dramatically shortens the life span of things stored within it, so should be replaced immediately. StuRat01:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can attest that this is well known among biology labs. Most of the labs at my university (including my own) host periodic defrosting parties. Bring your own hammers, screwdrivers, and hair driers! Good times. – ClockworkSoul04:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've spent many a productive afternoon chipping away at that mammoth block of ice at the back of the freezer with screwdrivers. It isn't a frost free freezer. Rockpocket04:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abdominal pain while running.
Yeah, it happens, while usually after I ate, but, even after a night's sleep, I can still wake up in the morning, not eat breakfast, and run at 6 a.m., and still have stomach pain. What can I do about it?
Is it because the stomach or intestines bounce too much when you run? And that the abdominal muscles do not strongly hold the organs compact? If so, could I do specific work outs, such as sit ups, to have stronger abdomen muscles and would that even help.
Usually I'm talking running a distance of a mile, but lately, I stopped weekly running when school finished so now it seems I will have stomach pain while only running 1/6th of a mile.. User:NealIRC 25 August 2006 1:22 (UTC)
Heh no, no cramps here. Male. Thanks Lambiam, exactly what I am looking for. So what are some things I should prepare for right before I start running? Hyperventilate "a little" to prepare my lungs for some fast running? -User:NealIRC.
Spasms or cramps, same difference. Cramps are painful spasms. They visit males and females alike. No, what you should do is practise breathing techniques till belly breathing comes natural (and then not forget to maintain it while running). It has nothing to do with the lungs, it's the muscles. If you Google "breathing exercises" you'll find plenty of sites with (mostly) good advice. --LambiamTalk01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If life expectancy were increased to 250 years, then what might be the social and ecological consequences? How might we cope with them?--Patchouli01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be a corresponding decrease in mating periodicity, or should we expect that the adult humans reach breeding age at the same time as our normal life expectancy? Nimur02:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A social or ecological consequence? That's simple. World overpopulation. User:NealIRC 5:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
We already have that. That was caused (at least in part) by the decline of infant mortality. People used to have many kids to compensate. The need disappeared, but the habit of having ten kids didn't. Only in the last decades have people adapted, but only in the west. People living longer will, however, not have such an explosive/cumulative/exponential effect. People living twice as long will only double the population (provided people have the same amount of kids per person, not per timespan). The ecological consequences might, however, be more than double, because there are some cumulative effects (and feedback) there. In a social sense, the most needed adaption will probably be to accept that being 100 is not old. We have to adapt to that now, accepting that 65 is not a pensioning age. But this realisation will also only creep in. Luckily, unlike with the decision how many kids to have, there are people who make this sort of decision for others and they will (at least to some degree) think this through. So the negative effect should be much less than with decreased infant mortality. What we should really fear (ironically) is that poor countries will follow rich countries in this development. So should they really remain poor for their own good? Or will they learn from out mistakes? DirkvdM11:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see two main possibilities. Either:
an increase of 130 years is not an increase on good years so we'll basically have a large population of old and decrepid humans living out their retirement and being a burden on the state, their families, and wal-mart. Or
slow social change. Think of all the prejudices associated with people living 100 years ago. The main reason we could have social change was because enough racists and sexists died off to give the more open-minded new generation a majority. So a society where people lived (and functioned) longer is one that would take much longer to end social injustice.
Hi there - I'm trying to find out more information about the scientific event in the 1990's when scientists grafted a replica of a human ear on a mouse's back, the team was led by Dr Jay Vacanti. Can't find any articles relating to this event in Wikipedia.
I don't see anything in Wikipedia on it. On the other hand, WP isn't the only source of info in the world, or even on the web:) Googling for Vacanti mouse finds a bunch of information that seems accessible to the general public. What specific info are you trying to find? DMacks07:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain to me the use of redefining the word planet thereby making Pluto a distant memory to those who won't learn what a dwarf planet is? The article definition of planet says that for most of the time there was no definition, while I thought it used to be "a heavenly body orbiting a sun which itself doesn't radiate any light". Thanks to the change, quiz cards, text books, encyclopedias and the like will have to be changed and old science fiction stories (Doctor Who, Star Trek, etc) will no doubt now contain errors as a result. All because Pluto's orbit isn't dominant. What exactly is the advantage the astronomers are getting from this definition. To me it looks like it creates more problems than it's solving. - Mgm|(talk)07:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're saying is that Doctor Who and Star Trek won't be scientifically accurate anymore? a few decades too late for that I think--71.249.31.13512:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If these "problems" increase the public's awareness of the ongoing nature of scientific inquiry into the Solar System, I say let's create more problems. Melchoir07:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It makes them aware, all right. Aware of the fact schools need to buy new books, that my Trivial Pursuit edition has yet another bunch of errors introduced. I bet that in a year's time most people will still answer 9 if you ask them about the number of planets in the solar system. - Mgm|(talk)08:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Science marches forward, and sometimes previously-accepted ideas need to be re-examined, modified, or wholely discarded when they are found to be insufficient or no-longer-workable. Also, science sometimes has very specific, hair-splitting definitions for terms that have broader or different meanings in conversational language. Well, progress progresses: there has to be a time "before" and a time "after" any such definition is written, or theory is accepted or discarded. I'm with Melchoir...people may as well learn that science involves rigorous definitions and progress can mean sacrificing even the sacredest of cows. Moo. DMacks
So why did the previous definition need modification? As far as I'm aware it worked fine. They could have left the definition in place and have subdivisions (instead of radically changing it). What wasn't working that this was needed according to the scientists involved? - Mgm|(talk)08:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page that mentioned in your original question, definition of planet, explains some of the reasoning: there wasn't a real, formal definition; commonly-considered definitions seemed to include things that were even less planet-like than Pluto; discovery of "things orbiting stars other than ours" meant better descriptors of those things were needed. Patience might be good here...I'd expect that after the dust has settled, there will be some good explanations of the actual thinking instead of non-participants rationalizing a 20-hour-old news release:) DMacks08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is far from the first time science has made textbooks, literature, and museums suddenly-incorrect. In elementary school I learned all about a dinosaur called a brontosaurus and science teachers taught that atoms were too small to ever be visualized individually. Heck, textbooks even taught me that Pluto was the most-distant of the (then-recognized:) planets, even though it had been closer than Neptune for several years at the time. DMacks08:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that was because we found out things that disproved earlier findings. This planet thing claims "Pluto isn't a planet" because people decided to change the meaning of a word. Not because we found it wasn't actually a planet like in the examples you mention. - Mgm|(talk)08:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may respond down here to a point far above: schools buying new books... To construct a purposefully unsymphathetic example, let's say a school uses a textbook that says "there are 9 planets", and it presents this as some kind of God-given Fact. Let's say it doesn't explain the wide differences between planets, the historical mistakes and coincidences that led to the 9-planet picture, and the existence of the Kuiper belt which has been known for some time now. Then that school already needs to buy a new book, regardless of whatever the IAU says or does.
If, on the other extreme, a textbook is cognizant of these points, and it says "As of 200X, there are commonly considered to be 9 planets, but this is merely a social convention that has changed in the past and may change in the future", then the school does not need to replace their book, regardless of whatever the IAU says or does.
The IAU is quick to point out that their definition does not affect science. If a science textbook sticks to teaching science, then it is unaffected. If a science textbook is affected, that means there was something wrong with it already. Melchoir09:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my real point is this: the IAU cannot be blamed for a textbook's pre-existing failures. Rather, it should be credited with forcing the issue. Melchoir09:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that to astronomers it isn't a big deal. Nothing has changed to their actual knowledge, just a redefinition of a term. Everyone using the same term in the same way means easier communication, less confusion. It's the general public (and the media) that make a big deal of it. For the rest, I totally agree with Melchior. He is a wise man. DirkvdM11:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm, the biggest factor is probably the discovery of 2003UB313 (nicknamed "Xena") in the outer solar system which is bigger than Pluto, and the expectation that there are probably at least several other objects (and possibly dozens) of comparable size lurking at the fringes of our solar system. It posed a conundrum of whether to call Pluto, 2003UB313 and all similar objects planets or to demote Pluto and hence keep the list of planets short and tidy. Dragons flight16:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would've expanded the list, but keeping the list of planets in our solar system short and tidy is a reason. A bad one, but at least it has some logic behind it. - Mgm|(talk)21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to consider is that Pluto was initially thought to be much more massive than it is today. So The whole scientific debate could go something like this:
"Aha! I have found the ninth planet."
"Okay, but it's not really as big as you think it is. Maybe we shouldn't call it a planet"
"Well there's no size definition of planet that would keep Pluto out."
As far as I'm concerned, Pluto will always be a planet in my heart. Poor lil' guy. First they name him after the god of the underworld, now they're saying he's just a dwarf. Ah well — at least they aren't changing the name of Plutonium to Dwarfonium or something like that. Personally I think the IAU should have had a second vote for whether Pluto would be considered "an honorary planet," which would have absolutely no scientific meaning. --Fastfission02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could go back to the original, classical definintion of a planet: an object that appears to move in the sky in relation to the stars. That puts Pluto back in, as well as restoring the Sun and Moon as planets, and makes the Earth not a planet. ... See, definitions change all the time — Michael J13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am from nepal.I want to study Genetic Engineering.I have already passed my Bachelors.But I can go to any length to do Genetic Engineering.I am even ready to repeat my Bachelor's.Though there are so many Biotechnology Colleges that offer Genetic engineering as subsidary subject.I want to study Genetic engineering as my major subject.Can you people help me by giving names and address of some colleges from USA,UK,INDIA where I can study Genetic engineering— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.130.4 (talk)
I'm not sure I can think of anywhere that you could select genetic engineering as a major, too specific for undergrad, and not specific enough for grad school. Have you taken many biology related courses before?or would you be starting a completly new field?--71.249.31.13512:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can any one explain this term to me "National FSP". its something related to U.S health care industry— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.8.214.174 (talk)
Which of these two would you consider more realistic:
Robby the Robot: The lumbering giant, straight out of the 1950s, complete with inelegant motion that make asimo look like a ballet dancer, stylized chrome cover, flashing lights, and a design so unnecessarily complex that it could only have come from 1950s scifi, and a simple Input/Output operating system.
"Realistic" could mean many things. HAL is unrealistic because the technology did not exist in 19981997. Robby is the product of Krell technology, so it can't be assessed by human standards. Peter Grey 15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC) But based on appearances Robby did seem to lack the dexterity necessary for its duties. Peter Grey18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ear update
Ah, my ear. I vistied a general practicioner today. I got syringed (with a squirt bottle) by a nurse. I thought my hearing was fixed. Its not. It is much better, but still not like the left ear. It different not having any ear wax in my right ear. Goddamit. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Shame, this place used to be a serious scientific reference desk. Please keep your arbituary conversations to the appropriate places. PhilcTECI15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, with the masturbating seagulls bagels, this place is a very serious scientific reference desk! — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I had to have my ears syringed, I live in the UK. The method used was that I had to put almond oil in each ear for 2 weeks to soften the wax. After the 2 weeks the nurse then gently and carefully used a kind of ear irrigation machine (not an old fashioned syringe). This removed most of the wax. I am very surprised that they used some kind of "squirt bottle" and that you didn't use some kind of oil for 2 weeks to soften the wax! The ear is a very delicate instrument and damage can be easily done, that is why such precautions SHOULD be taken. The fact that your hearing is still giving you problems is of some concern....is it the syringing they have just done causing you the problems now??
I'd like to say, if you had just ignored those silly warnings on the Q-tip box and used them to clean your ears out, this never would have gotten so bad that it required medical attention. StuRat22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in the world, a reference desk reader just stuck a Q-tip through his eardrum :) --bmk
Reminds me of a joke (true story?). A man walks into his doctor's office requesting a hearing aid. The doctor looks in his ears, and finds them full of wax, so he syringes them out. Three weeks later, the man returns. The doctor asks him, "how is your hearing?". He replies, "Great. I went home, but didn't tell anyone about the warwax. I've changed my will three times in the past week!". {paraphrased from "Stitches" magazine} - Cybergoth05:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbituary, Philc?? Great new word! Sounds like a death notice written for some member of the public chosen at random. :--) JackofOz04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Therapeutic gene modulation refers the practice of altering expression of a gene at one of various stages, with a view to alleviate some form of ailment. It differs from gene therapy in that gene modulation seeks to alter the expression of an endogenous gene (perhaps through the introduction of a gene encoding a novel modulatory protein) whereas gene therapy concerns the introduction of a gene whose product aids the recipient directly.
I intend to make two subcategories of the protein category, for novel proteins; proteins that have been designed and produced by the scientific community and naturally occuring proteins, since I feel the two should be distinguished. My question is what should the categories be entitled? Perhaps 'novel protein' and 'naturally occuring protein' or something similar? --Username132 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Synthetic proteins and Category:Natural proteins? Just an idea; there might be something wrong with those adjectives. Melchoir17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that the protein itself is newly designed, right? If that's not what you mean, I'd suggest 'recombinant proteins'; if that is what you mean, I'd suggest 'engineered proteins'. ike989820:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how they are made. I would go for "engineered proteins" and not make a difference between proteins made by recombinant techniques or organic chemistry. Make sure you discuss the idea with the relevant WikiProjects. They will probably have even better suggestions than we have. Mgm|(talk)21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I attended a talk where the lecturer spoke about "designer proteins". The meaning was pretty clear to us. Google gets about 1000 hits for that phrase, and some respected references at that. But I see it was used in 1992 already, so maybe it has not caught on. I hope this helps you. --Seejyb21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9/11 Pentagon Attack help
Sir/Madem,
I m student from Royal Bhutan Institute of Technology, would like to ask few question regarding the structural resistance to pentagon attack as i have chosen the topic "Case study on structural behaviour of Pentagon towards plane crash" for my seminar presentation.
The questions are as follows:
1. What are the reasons that caused less damage on Pentagon even though the attack was huge?
2. Why column remaind unharmed where the densest and longest parts of a 757 would have penetrated whereas the column in other parts got failed where the attack was not that severe?
Your favour will be highly appreciated.
Thank you,
Ugyen Dorji
Isn't the Pentagon built from reinforced steel-concrete? And it is "The Pentagon"—an extremely important building that is near the heart of the United States's defense. Same reason. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
less damage on (the) Pentagon - less compared to what? column remaind unharmed where ... penetrated I'm skeptical if that is actually true, but if so, very likely because force would have been applied at a different angle and/or the failed column was designed differently and was actually weaker. Peter Grey18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the main reason is that the Pentagon is short and wide, making it far more stable. Specifically, there was less weight from above bearing on the weakened portion of the structure and that weight could also be distributed to the remainder of the structure, which remained intact. StuRat20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple (but incorrect) answer: The Pentagon was not struck by a plane. Rather, a cruise missile was used to cover up the fact that the USAF had recently fired upon, and shot down a civilian aircraft as part of an 'ends justify the means' policy.
Aren't more crucial bits of the Pentagon deep underground? Or am I confusing it with something else? Maybe even some movie nonsense? DirkvdM09:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are several stories underground, as well. You might also be thinking of Cheyenne Mountain, which is an impressive military base carved out of a mountain, and was shown in many movies, but, alas, is due to be mothballed. StuRat09:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snake repelant
Hi I live on a farm and would like to know what I can use as a snke repellent as I have small children and pets. Please I need help urgently. Thank you
If you live on a working farm, you'll need the snakes more than the pets. Tell your kids not to bother the snakes and the snakes won't bother them. Problem solved. Matt Deres20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC) ps - why is this urgent?[reply]
The only thing you can do is teach your kids how to react to snakes, and how to treat a bite. There is no way to repel them, they aren't insects. If you actively go out looking to kill them, you are likely to get bitten. Leaving them alone is the best option. As for pets, don't get hunting dogs, and hope. Where do you live, are there many dangerous snakes? --liquidGhoul00:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Although, "Mythbusters" found the echo to actually be very difficult to find. There may be some exceptions, but I am not aware of any substance that completely absorbs sound if it is possible. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
There are substances which do better or worse jobs of absorbing sound, of course. The question is more about whether there are specific sounds which can be absorbed differently in the same substance, I'd imagine. --Fastfission02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do echos ever shift in frequency? If they did, one could imagine sounds very near to the edge of human hearing that would be hard to hear in an echo. But I don't see any of that on any of our echo-related pages so I imagine this isn't much of an issue. --Fastfission02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine a sound "not making an echo" for a specific observer at a specific distance from a reflecting curved wall, with this distance being dependent on the frequency of the sound. At some point the peaks and troughs of the sound wave and it's reflection would cancel each other and you couldn't hear either. However, I see no reason why a duck quack would behave any differently in this respect. StuRat09:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The duck's quack has an echo, but of a certain type which dies away very quickly. They had to put it in a soundchamber to hear it. —Daniel(‽)18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse rotaion of earth
Is it possible to estimate the time remaining in the event when the earth's rotation about its axis will reversse and sun will rise from west?
No it isn't possible, because Earth's rotation will never reverse. Currently, Earth's rotation is slowing down because the Moon's gravity is causing the Earth to slightly change shape (because the gravity affects the side of Earth closest to the Moon more, the opposite side less). But at the same time, this process is also causing the Moon to loose speed. Once the length of a day is exactly equal to the Moon's orbital period, the Moon won't move relative to any point on Earth, and therefore the Moon will not cause Earth to change shape. At this time, the length of a day will be fixed forever.
According to http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae695.cfm, it will be billions of years before Earth's rotation speed stops decreasing. When it does, Earth will take 47 current days to complete one rotation. The Sun would be gone by then, so nobody will be here to experience this event.
The tidal forces the Sun exerts on the Earth are causing its rotation to slow down. After a very long time (the billions of years suggested above is believeable) only one face of the Earth will be facing the Sun, just as only one face of the moon ever faces the Earth.
Earth's magnatic field
i heard from someone that the earth's magnetic field has reduced drastically in past few decades? can anyone confirm or refuse this fact by giving refernce?
Muhammad Hamza18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has. References are in the article mentioned. We also had a discussion about polar reversals and excursions found above. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Schizophrenics
what are the activities in which schizophrenics are more efficient than normal people? can anyone also refer to any psychology website which deals with all the braches of psychology and has articles for layman.
Have you found anything in the article on schizophrenia? A rather nice starting point for psychology information is the article on psychology; you can click on blue words, "main article" and "see also" material for additional information. Or just type suitable article titles to the Search box at the top left of this web page. Weregerbil20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any. Disassociative thinking, impairments in the perception and/or expression of reality, delusions and auditory hallucinations, socially inept. I don't think those could be good for anything. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Anything you might gain from schizophrenia would probably be offset by the negative aspects. It is common for people to mythologize schizophrenia and to feel that "madness" and "genius" are very similar, but in most cases people with severe mental illness suffer horribly, even if other people think their work is "genius". --Fastfission02:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are places where schizophrenics are considered enlightened. Madness and genius are not terms that can be used that easily anyway. Neither of them give a clear understanding of the situation. Both are relative to society and culture.
Red scrotum
For some reason lately I have been having a red scrotum, very wrinkly or bumpy it seems. I'm kinda worried I have testicular cancer, but I looked online and it doesn't seem that a very red scrotum is a symptom. But I'm still worried about what the cause of this might be and any help would be appreciated.
You need to go to the doctor man. Inflammation and swelling? If anything is ever wrong with your testicles, RUN. You don't want to lose them now do you? ;) — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Now this part of it has hardened, on the left testicle, the skin has hardened, and when I touch it it hurts. I think I may have epididymitis but I'm not sure but if I have testicular cancer then I'm not going to be able to handle it, I won't believe it!!!!!!!
The signs you describe are those of inflammation, of which cancer is not the most common cause. Try to force yourself to go see someone who can help no matter how shy or afraid you are. The chance are pretty good you'll be relieved of your worries. --Seejyb08:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frozen air
I just read A Pail of Air, an awesome short story about a family surviving after the Earth has been pulled away from the solar system by a passing brown dwarf. Most of the physics seemed completely plausible, but I have a couple of questions:
Wouldn't solid oxygen eat through a metal or wooden pail? How is liquid oxygen handled?
Doesn't solid nitrogen float on liquid oxygen, so the oxygen would end up buried beneath a thick layer of nitrogen? Or would they end up mixed together as frozen air? —Keenan Pepper21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At a chemical plant it was a standard demo for visiting groups to put some liquid oxygen in an ordinary galvanized iron trash can. It did not eat through the metal. The point of the demo was to heat a piece of iron rebar red hot with a torch and thrust it into the liquid oxygen. The iron bar would burn violently as it was inserted in to the liquid oxygen, much as steel can be cut with an oxyacetylene torch after becomeing red hot just by the application of oxygen. On one spectacular instance, the guide accidentally touched the side of the trash can with the red hot iron bar. The entire trash can violently burned up. So the answer is liquid oxygen can be kept for a considerable period in an iron or steel can, as long as it does not get heated to the temperature of ignition. Edison22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Liquid oxygen in small quantities is kept in glass "thermos" containers to keep it from evaporating - but it is not spectacularly reactive by itself. If you freeze a latex balloon you can keep a small amount of liquid oxygen in it. As to how it would settle out it would partially depend on how fast the temperature fell and how much wind was involved. Rmhermen22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reaqd the posting carefully: it is the IRON that burns! That is the whole point of HEATING THE END OF THE IRON BAR RED HOT! Edison15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the reactants in an oxidation reaction, which is commonly called "burning". But, linguistically, people typically say something "burns in oxygen", as opposed to saying that the oxygen itself burns. It's a subtle distinction, however. StuRat09:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thermoses would be dewar flasks. I don't see why O2(l) would "eat" through a bucket. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
I thought liquid oxygen was such a powerful oxidizing agent it would cause combustible things to ignite spontaneously. I guess you need a spark to start a liquid oxygen fire just like a regular fire, huh? Anyway, what about the second question? In the story, the frozen oxygen was on top of the frozen nitrogen. Why would that happen? —Keenan Pepper23:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, and haven't read the piece either, but the freezing point of nitrogen is a bit higher than the freezing point of oxygen. Is it conceivable that when the mixture was cooled to a temperature between the two freezing points, and the nitrogen simply froze and sank in the liquid oxygen? Isopropyl23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I guess I misread the question. I don't see why solid nitrogen would float on liquid oxygen; my guess is that it sinks? I have no clue. Isopropyl00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Liquid oxygen is a good oxidising agent, but not that great, and by no means the best. liquid oxygen would be worse than gaseous oxygen, as any energy introduced would be initially used to boil the oxygen, before breaking the covalent bonds, and allowing the O ions to oxidize other chemicals. PhilcTECI02:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this: the condensed phase is about three orders of magnitude denser than the gas. This far outweighs having to evaporate the liquid. Dr Zak05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this quote from Liquid Oxygen Barbecue Guy cleared things up for me: WARNING: an ignition source, such as a lit cigarette or one glowing coal, must be present before pouring on the LOX. If charcoal is PRESOAKED in LOX first, an explosion will result. One briquette presoaked in LOX is approx equiv to 1 stick of dynamite. —Keenan Pepper23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not quite true. Nothing soaked in LOX is equivalent to dynamite, though soaking dynamite in LOX may make it more explosive. You cannot compare them as LOX being an oxidising agent cannot burn, whereas thats all dynamite can do. The exolosive nature depends more on what it is oxidising. PhilcTECI02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used a Speed Vac (centifugal concentrator) in a really long time, so I can't tell if what I'm experiencing is normal. In a normal laboratory speed vac, if you put in two tubes, each with about 300 uL of aqueous solution, about how long would you expect the drying to take? What I'm really wondering is, if this takes 2 hours, does this indicate that it is not working right?? (this concentrator is equiped with a heating lamp, and I am using it) ike989821:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our speed vac drys at a rate of about 1uL per min (in the 10-50uL range) without heat (though it is ancient). Since yours appears to dry at twice this rate (albeit with heat), i would suggest that is not unreasonable. Rockpocket22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to identify a jumping spider. It was found indoors in southern California. Its body was about 10mm long and 5 or 6mm wide (not counting legs). We were able to get some images using a light microscope. Our best guess so far is Phidippus audax or Phidippus workmani. Could anyone offer an expert opinion? See also here for a black and white full body image. Thanks. Rockpocket23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robinow Syndrome
Hello,
I am the granddaughter of Meinhard Robinow, discover of the Robinow Syndrome. I would like to add some
information about Dr. Robinow himself. Please let me know if this is possible and how I may go about doing it(or if this is even the right place to make that request).
You can ask me if anytime arises in which you need any help with editing as well. I'm here except for the 8 hours in which I sleep. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
Although sleep is the poor man's doctor, and is good to do when you are of stress, I actually wish I didn't have to sleep at all. It's like I'm missing out on life doing nothing. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
Jennifer, an explanation would be in order. 1. The <e-mail removed> above indicates that we (routinely) delete e-mail addresses in Wikipedia, since a large amount of spam would be visited upon the address once it gets harvested by the robots wandering the internet, and most users do not know or want that. 2. As suggested, to make things easier for yourself, get yourself a user account: If you look at the top of the page on the right, there is a link that says "Sign in/Create account". Click on that, fill in a few fields, and a few minutes later you can have a name and a discussion space (the most difficult would be finding a name which has not been taken yet!). The account creation does not require that you give any personal information, and it enables you to get personalised replies on what we call your "User page", as well as to be able to get ideas, ask questions and make suggestions more directly related to what you are trying to achieve. As an example, I still have a number of articles that your grandfather authored, relating to research we did on a family member with problems. At the time the 1995 "Appreciation" struck me as unusually noteworthy, since this was a tribute written while he was still alive, by well-known persons in medical genetics. So I would be interested in helping, but there are "everyday" personal facts about which a reader of scientific articles would have no clue. --Seejyb10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
biomeidcal model
hi! I can't find any information about the benefits and the limitation of biomedical model!Can you help to find some information about it!
Thank you very much!
I have a Canon Powershot A620 camera. I want to use its continuous shooting function (which requires me to always have the shutter button depressed) for longer than I'm willing to stay with the camera. How do I jam the shutter button in the depressed position? (Of course, I need to be able to restore the button back to normal!) --Bowlhover06:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the photo on steve's digicams the shutter release doesn't stick out, so you could put a little ball of something (paper?) between the button and the gaffer tape. Don't use duct tape that leaves a sticky mess. Or use a rubber band. Maybe wedging a bit of wood in the side of the button would work, but that might damage it. DirkvdM09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did that once with my A70; I think I used a small piece of styrofoam and some masking tape. Just about any combination of a small object and tape should work, although some will obviously work better than others. If you have no adhesive tape, or just don't want to risk having adhesive residue on your camera, you could tie a strip of cloth around it instead. Or cut or tear a strip from a plastic bag and use that. Or a rubber band, as DirkvdM suggests above, though you'd need to stretch it pretty taut to make it hold the button all the way down. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is this possible to transform the energy of friction of shoes to our usable energy source to charge mobile or like that any other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.224.18 (talk)
Not friction, which only eats up energy, but yes, the walking motion should yield enough harvestable energy to charge your mobile phone. I'd be amazed if someone doesn't have a patent on this already. --LambiamTalk08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the heat differential produced by friction could allow for the generation of small amounts of electricity. However, it's also impractical with current technology. There are other ways to derive electricity from walking, however, as mentioned above. StuRat09:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading a while ago about some device that could be somehow incorporated into your pants legs, so that when you walked, a small electrical current was generated - possibly by inducing an electrical current (one leg) with a moving magnetic field (other leg). My memory's a bit scratchy on the details. BenC710:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using friction/forward motion would have an effect somewhat like those old dynamo-generator bicycle lights - as soon as the circuit is loaded, the work that needs to be done increases. So any tapping of energy from forward motion would increase the required effort. But what about gravity? Every time one pushes down on the soles of one's shoes, to elevate oneself in preparation for the drop forward, we work against gravity, and when the foot lands on the ground afterwards, energy is transmitted throught the feet to the ground again. That amount of work is related simply to our mass (and velocity, OK), not to what happens to the force between the soles of our feet and the ground or whatever we walking on. Or is it? If we tapped that energy, would it mean more work for the walker, or would he just be "walking more lightly"? Would a device that converts compression to electrical current work without increasing energy expenditure? At the extreme, would it be like walking on dry soft sand? --Seejyb11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recal reading about something like that a few years ago, it used a memory metal, coiled in the heal of a boot, and was supposed to be able to store enough energy to run hand held electronics, and they were even suggesting that soldiers could wear them in combat boots, and they could power all of their equipment. But again, nothing to do with friction--71.247.243.17312:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The heat produced by friction can be converted into other forms of energy, much as the heat produced from the Sun can be converted into other forms of energy. However, friction isn't a "source" of energy, but rather a way of converting energy from one form (kinetic energy) into another (heat). StuRat19:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Robert Heinlein said,"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). " Many clever persons have come up with ideas for creating "new energy sources" via such methods as installing generators in shoes to produce electricity by pressing down on piezoelectric material in the shoe sole, or some such. One inventor proposed having the sidewalk or stair treads be metal plates which were pressed down when someone stepped on them, spinning a generator. Others proposed hooking generators to turnstyles and revolving doors. Certainly any such device could produce electricity surely as by spinning a crank on a generator, but additional power out would require additional power in, and the effort of walking would increase. If one wanted to burn 400 calories per hour walking instead of 300 to lose weight or improve fitness, the additional effort would not a problem. I saw a jogger who was punping iron with handweights as he ran, and I have spent quality time jogging on a treadmill, so why not produce electricity but extra effort? But one would find walking while generating electricity more tiring than walking in conventional shoes, whether it is friction or vertical motion. The unstated premise of these proposals is that somehow the electricity would be produced without extra effort, which I do not believe. Edison15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To generalize that answer, if you want to increase the energy output of a system, you must increase the input. Therefore, nullifying the point of increasing the output in most cases. PhilcTECI17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For normal walking, the increment in energy expenditure per kg of extra load is about 3 W, the same as the power consumption of an operating cell phone. If the energy-harvesting apparatus is highly efficient, the burden on the walking person is about the same as for carrying an extra kg (about 2 lbs). --LambiamTalk18:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea is sound, and there are some good prototypes already working. This site says: SRI International of the US, for example, has developed a resin voltage conversion film, and used it in a prototype pair of shoes which generates electricity while walking. When the sole contacts the ground, pressure is applied to the voltage-conversion film in the heel. In the prototype, the film was mounted in a volume about 6cm in diameter and 2.5cm tall, and generated between 1 and 1.5W from normal walking. A source at SRI International explained that film material and shoe sole design could be altered to boost generation to about 5W. The Applied Physics Labs at Johns Hopkins seem to be keen on marketing something too. There is work on a pain-relieving TENS machine which not only uses your gait to adjust the stimulation, but also to charge itself. --Seejyb23:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optical effect
I've noticed something in the last few years: If my field of vision is dominated by one colour (say, blue) for a period of time and then if it stops being so dominated, I (temporarily) see everything with a tint that's around the opposite of the original colour; the strength depends on how long the domination went on for. What is this called, and is it something normal or should I have my eyes examined? CameoAppearance11:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The adults may only live for a day or two, but the nymphs and eggs are around for ages. Since they are still alive, they are still included in the lifespan. I have no idea to the answer of this question, and I doubt anybody does. --liquidGhoul15:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best guess from my knowledge would be Caenorhabditis elegans, which has a life span of 2-3 weeks, or a relative. Insects have such a complex life-cycle. They have to undergo a few molts or metamorphosis, and this takes up a lot of time. Also, they tend to live in environments which vary due to seasons. They therefore have to fit their lifecycles into a year. Whether this be achieved by living for a year, or laying an egg which lives for almost a year. The best guesses are simple animals which live in a constant environment. --liquidGhoul15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, in the case of mayflies, the above response only begs that extremely controversial question we've all had on our minds for so long about mayflies and ethics: When does life begin for a mayfly? At conception? When the egg is laid? When the egg hatches? If a mayfly is killed in its fetal state, (i.e. after the egg is laid but before it hatches,) does that constitute insecticide? A very difficult ethical dilemma indeed. Loomis15:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parasitic nematodeStrongyloides ratti (or at least the females) has an average lifespan of about 3 days. (Michael P. Gardner, David Gems, Mark E. Viney. 2004. Aging in a very short-lived nematode. Experimental Gerontology 39:1267–1276.) --LambiamTalk18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many single-celled plants and animals which reproduce by mitosis (splitting in two) are excluded from this question, because they don't have a defined "life span", for two reasons:
1) Since both "daughter cells" are identical to the parent (except in cases of mutation), reproduction doesn't appear to constitute death of the parent. Thus, one could argue that the age of any individual is the age of the entire species, or perhaps strain, of such single-celled organisms.
2) Simple one-celled plants and animals (and some multi-celled, as well) don't appear to have a programmed death age, unlike more complex organisms, like us.
If the melting point is 240°C (464°F), then the vaporizaion point would be considerably higher. Unless you want to cause some serious damage to your lungs, I would most definitely not recommend inhaling vaporized Salvinorin A. – ClockworkSoul18:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When using a vaporizer, you are not inhaling pure hot gas. You simply have to vaporize the chemical so that it can seperate from the plant matter and then it will be cooled by the air and form a mist that you inhale. For comparison, the end of a cigarette burns at about 1,000 degreens farenheit, and salvinorin A can be safely inhaled by smoking the plant. So it must vaporize at a temperature lower than the burning temperature of the salvia plant. So my question still stands --Crazy Wolf18:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I found a source stating that the temperature is around 300 C, and that others have had success vaporizing it. But it wasn't a particularly reputable sourec. If anyone sees anything reputable, I'd appreaciate them dropping a link. --Crazy Wolf19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can I remove packing tape adhesive from a piece of furniture that I don't want adhesive on? The tape has been ripped off, but it is still really sticky. I want this in science, not misc, becuase this is actually a chemistry question! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
You can try other solvents such as isopropanol (rubbing alcohol); but you might want to avoid solvents altogether. Both Isopropanol and propanone (acetone) can potentially remove the furniture's finish, damaging the surface. Try a mild soap-and-water solution. You can also use petroleum jelly such as vaseline or other lotions (try to avoid colored or fragrance-filled ones). Then, rub the surface vigorously until the sticky adhesive is removed. Finally, wipe off with a cloth. Nimur00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was asked a little while ago and the answer I gave there was that I found two things to work. One is turpentine, but that might damage the furniture. I suppose that whichever solvent is used in the glue will work best. Another is using (the same?) sticky tape - put it on and pull it off again, several times. That should remove at least part of it. Not a chemistry solution, this last one. Sorry. :) DirkvdM10:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the second technique, i.e. using the same type of tape and repeatedly putting it on remnants of adhesive and ripping it off, works very well. --71.123.61.11215:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Limonene spray removes all sticky adhesives and smells better than turps or whatever. Eh-Steve 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, lemon juice also has a tendency to clean thing. Whatever you try, try it on some spot that is out of sight first, to check if it doesn't damage the furniture. DirkvdM08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
August 27
NHS Eyecare voucher
I am a 17 year old in Full-time education in the UK. I have recieved free glasses on the NHS about 6 months ago but I feel 1) they are too weak and 2)that I don't suit them at all. Am I elligible for a new pair or do I have to wait a certain length of time?
Yours, Christopherx
Hello! Please note that wikipedia is international, and many of us don't know which "NHS" you mean... perhaps the Canadian system? More details will help us answer your question...Nimur00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically Nimur considering all the crap we give people who ask questions here about doing it, this time its you who should of searched for NHS before posting. PhilcTECI00:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he should HAVE searched. I can't stand it when people write phonetically. Please promise me to remember. :) There's cookies in it for you... - Mgm|(talk)10:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did search that, but I wasn't sure if there are other nations which have nationalized health systems also called NHS. Traceroute the poster's IP. It is debatable what .LND means; it could be London - but I don't see a transatlantic route from here... and it could be London, Ontario which would fit nicely with Niagara_Health_System... Nimur01:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This guy says in his question he is a student in the UK, I think it would be quite obvious he is talking about the “National Health Service” of the UK. I don’t know the answer but finding out would be simple enough, ring the NHS helpline (0845 46 47)
group of doves
What is the proper term for a group of doves? A group of quail is a covey. A gaggle of geese,
etc.
Do you have reason to believe there is some danger of infection from the plague where you live? If so, please contact the World Health Organization ASAP! --bmk
Reported human cases (yellow) and animal carriers (red) of plague.
There are occasional cases of the plague reported on all continents except for Australia and Europe. Any place there are marmots, rats, chipmunks, squirrels, or nearly any other large rodent in a temperate climate there is a (usually) small risk of plague infection—this includes the United States, which reports about a dozen cases per year of the plague. (The incidence is probably higher; some people may become infected with the plague bacterium – Yersinia pestis – without developing symptoms severe enough to require medical attention; it's also possible that they may be treated without the doctor recognizing the plague.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diptera on Board
What happens if I release a few diptera inside a moving aircraft? Will they hit the rear wall since they can not fly as fast as the airplane?--202.161.131.7605:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually do a similar experiment in a speeding car. (Please don't do it, or otherwise cause trouble, on an airplane!) The next time you see a fly around the house, chase it around a bit to see how fast it can fly, then catch it in a jar. Get someone to drive you around in a car with all the windows closed, release the fly and see what happens! Melchoir05:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I don't think that answered my question. Or, do you mean flies can actually travel faster than airplanes and that's why they will survive?--202.161.131.7606:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the fly's speed because, to be sure of mimicing the situation on an airplane, you should try driving faster than the fly can fly. But that's not the only observation worth making: for example, if you drive slowly, does the fly appear to struggle? How about if you drive just under its max speed?
No, the diptera won't hit the wall. They'll fly around the cabin annoying the passengers. Seriously though, at the beginning of the flight, when the airplane has finished lifting off, everything in the airplane will be moving at the exact same speed as the airplane. So any object in the plane will not be moving relative to any other object in the plane (including the floor and walls). If you release the diptera, they'll start flying around the cabin just as they would in your house.
Basically, there's no such thing as absolute speed. Who says the airplane is flying at a high speed? Who says the airplane is moving at all? People on the ground say it, but if I'm in the airplane, I don't care about what people on the ground say. I say that the airplane is not moving, because I don't see it moving. --Bowlhover06:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK folks. I am pretty convinced. Thanks a lot. And of course, I will experiment it in a speeding car ... when I'll manage to drive it faster than a fly ..... when I'll have a driving licence and ..........a car. :-) --202.161.131.7607:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but when you have a licence and a car, it becomes much harder to convince other people to drive you around while you perform experiments and take notes. And you have to worry about traffic laws, and not killing people... so enjoy your innocence while it lasts! Melchoir16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
any major application of heat,internal energy and work
i request you to send me informations about any major application of heat, internal energy & work for my mini project with the real chemistry behind the application.
If I remember my history correctly, these concepts were originally motivated by steam engines. Today thermodynamics has been applied to just about everything. If you have any particular interest within the physical world, you can probably find a way to build a project around it! Melchoir06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Melchoir these concepts belong to the realm of thermodynamics. In general no chemistry is involved. But an application is found in calorimetry, which is used in measuring the heat of chemical reactions. Basically any chemical reaction produces some heat, but the obvious ones to produce measurable amounts of heat are combustion. You could, for instance, burn charcoal, which is almost all carbon. If I'm not mistaken the reaction is something like C + O2 → CO2. You don't want to produce carbon monoxide, so make sure the air supply is sufficient. --LambiamTalk09:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theory of Relativity in Simple Terms
I know a little bit of high school physics at the most. I am a graduate, but of a different discipline. I have heard several times people, who do not have much to do with physics, talk about "Einstein's Theory of Relativity". I also want to join the talk. Can anyone explain to me, in simplest sentences, what this theory is all about? One paragraph will do. Why does this theory carry significance in areas other than physics? By the way, I have rummaged through the Internet but with no luck for me.--Mr. Inquisitive08:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute simplest explanations are something like this: Special Relativity says "c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is the speed limit for everything, and things like space, time, mass and energy will distort as you get faster and faster to accomodate this". General Relativity says "instead of masses causing spooky forces that attract each others like Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation says, the masses actually bend space and time, and in the absence of other forces objects moving close to those masses travel along paths which to them look like straight lines, but which to external observers appear like curves, and again space, time, mass and energy distort to accomodate the effects of this". Confusing Manifestation09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that on a cosmic scale the passage of time is not absolute, rather the experience of the passage of time is dependent upon the relative motion of objects. Also it posits that time is a dimension, and the way to picture that is to picture time as a coordinate, along with the three physical coordinates we are familiar with. General relativity suggests that time, mass and motion are inextricably linked, unlike here on Earth where they occur as discrete forces. Anchoress11:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, many years ago, someone offered a substantial reward for whoever could describe relativity in (I forget exactly how many) words. Einstein himself refused to enter the competition saying that it was impossible. The theory carries significance in areas other than physics because, at the most fundamental level, everything in based on physics (unless you're of a particularly religious belief). Its significance really comes about however, because it is not really a theory in itself, but a theory about other theories. I probably haven't been much help, have I?
Lol it reminds me of a joke I read somewhere (or at least I think it's a joke), that there are only three people who have ever really understood Relativity; Fermi, Rutherford and Dr Hawking. Anchoress23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand at least the challenge of putting such a vast theory (theory of theories, rather. Right!) in plain words in a summarized form. I'm sure you guys would have made the most potent candidates of "describe-relatiity-in-words" contest. However, these answers are still a little too abstract for me to grasp, perhaps partly because of my background and partly because of the intricacies of the theory itself. I am still waiting for some more answers to come as building blocks - this time with a few comprehensible examples, if possible. So far so good. Thanks a lot. --Mr. Inquisitive01:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, lol. But the main problem with Relativity is that there is no direct comparison from the world we know, so it is really difficult even to explain a tiny part of it. Like for instance, the Big Bang. We think of it as a starburst, like during fireworks. But it wasn't like that, because a starburst is a three-dimensional object. Spacetime has at least five dimensions, and because the universe is so massive, and because it was actually creating itself as it expanded (not getting woo-woo, it's just a good way of explaining it), it wasn't expanding into something like all our three-dimensional explosions, and the tremendous mass was curving it as it was expanding, and curving time. It's impossible to describe, because it doesn't exist on the planet Earth. It's kind of like a cross between a donut and a starburst, but... not. Imagine a vehicle creating the highway it's driving on, on an infinitely curved surface, both causing and resisting almost infinite gravity. And travelling close to the speed of light. Along with an infinite number of other vehicles doing the same in every direction. Every direction, including the two or three or more that we have no experience of in our lives. You see the challenge here, to describe it meaningfully? Especially since we have an imperfect understanding of it ourselves. :-) Anchoress01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try for a simple example in Special Relativity (or degenerate cases of General): the twins paradox. Suppose you have a pair of twin babies, just born, and you let one float about in space free from any major gravitational effects, and put the other on a spacecraft that accelerates to almost the speed of light, then turns around and comes back. Special relativity says that if you have an inertial frame of reference - one without any accelerations, like the first twin - then while time for you passes at the rate of one second per second, the clocks on things moving very fast relative to you appear to be going slower. So, in this case, the clock on the spaceship seems to have slowed down, to the point that when the twins meet again the one who didn't go anywhere has aged, say, 30 years, while the twin who was on the spaceship has experienced "slower" time, and is still only 1 year old. Confusing Manifestation02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the significance of a theory so far away from life - spacecrafts traveling at the speed of light, babies floating about in space, bending time and space and what not. My question is "Had Einstein not postulated this theory, would we have been living our lives differently? If yes, in what ways? If no, why study Relativity at all?" After all, science is meant to be applied some way, right? Shall we, in conceivable future (in any future for that matter), be able to develop a spaceship that travels at the speed of light and prolong our lives?(-: --Mr. Inquisitive04:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent question, but one I can't answer. If no one had come up with the Theory of Relativity, would anyone's life be different, other than physicists and astronomers? If no one had come up with quantum theory, then the electronics industry wouldn't exist, but relativity?-gadfium04:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmm another wierd question..
hi again,
I have heard that a dead animal weighs lesser than the same creature when it was alive..why and how?thanks
Anne Ty
At first it will weigh the same (ignoring the small weight of the air in the lungs). But it will weigh progressively less and less as it dries out, leaks, gets nibbled, and rots, until there is nothing left.--Shantavira11:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What of the way of "weighing". What would a beam balance show? According to our article it measures mass, and the dead animal - without lung air - should have less mass. And in "normal talk" a person would still talk of "weight". Would the balance show that? --Seejyb17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to carry out experiments on this subject by placing a living animal in one pan of a balance and the same individual, in a dead state, in the other pan. However, problems have arised every time, preventing me from completing the experiment. For some reason, when I look back at the first pan, that animal has died, jumped over to the second pan or (most often) both. —Bromskloss21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to the largest object ever transported over an ocean/sea. I'm assuming it would be on a large ship. I know large cranes are shipped around the globe, but I don't know any specifics. 202.180.120.22011:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too lazy to check, but read up on the Big dig. I know the concrete for the underwater portion was poured in a quarry somewhere and the huge pieces were submerged whole; at the time it was happening (according to Extreme Engineering or wherever I saw it), they were the largest objects ever transported. Anchoress11:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does iceberg towing / steering count? Not that I have numbers on the largest iceberg to be moved by humans... surely the info is out there if you look hard enough. Melchoir18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this counts as cargo, but the (one of the?) largest man-made object(s) ever transported is reputedly the Troll A platform which weighed 650,000 tonnes when it was towed but has a ballasted weight of 1.2 million tonnes. The Jahre Viking/Knock Nevis can carry 560,000 tonnes of cargo giving it a total (full) displacement of about 648,000 tonnes. --Yummifruitbat18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've got your kilos and tonnes mixed up on the Saturn, that's only ~3000 tonnes. The Fairfax has a deadweight of 442470 tonnes, that's the cargo/fuel/crew/etc. capacity, not the empty weight. Fully loaded displacement is apparently 509,000 tonnes... so the Knock Nevis beats it. --Yummifruitbat19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always mix up the different "-weight"s. Thanks. Kilos and tons? It said that many kilograms, do you mean to say I should have converted it to tonnes? I'm such a failure. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
Long-term Effects of Fasting On The Brain
How long must one fast in order to effect permanent damage to the brain, and what is the nature of such damage?
How much brain damage were you looking to cause? But seriously, unless there is an underlying health problem that fasting could exacerbate, brain damage would not be likely until one was seriously underweight, like perhaps 10 or 20% below normal. Many people starve themselves almost to death without ill effects to their brains (although damage to other organs like the kidneys and heart are common). Damage comes from the effects of dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, including thrombosis, seizures, edema, etc. Hope that helps. Anchoress23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telephone numbers
what is the purpose of the + sign in telephone numbers? explain in as much detail/background info as possible plz. 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
My mum had a minor stroke a few years back. Since then she's been on water tablets and blood pressure tablets. But on friday she ran out, and can't get any more till tuesday. She say's shes getting a "Thick head" like she used to when she climbs stairs. Is there much risk about her not getting her medication for these few days?
Unfortunately, that symptom is not very helpful without more clinical information. If she is not taking her blood pressure medications, she could certainly have a high enough blood pressure to cause some troubling neurologic symptoms - stopping some blood pressure medications can lead to severe withdrawal-related high blood pressure. If she's having symptoms, she should have her blood pressure checked. InvictaHOG00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
secondary dysmenorrhea
In 1999, I had very painful menses. I would often faint due to the pain (vaso vagal response). I had other symptoms as well. My breasts grew and were very painful. I had a very stong smell in my urine. An ultrasound performed in March 1999 showed what was believed to be a cyst. My gynecologist was not concerned and did not think it had anything due to my other sympoms. I had used Motrin previously for relief of cramps. I seemed to get the opposite effect. My bleeding slowed down and the pain increased. I thought that perhaps it slowed down the prostoglandins to the extent that I was not able to shed the lining of the uterus. My gynecologist prescribed narcotics for the pain which worked quite well. Of course when the narcotic wore off, I experienced excruciating pain again. This went on for months. I was cranky. I was nauseated. I kept dreaming that I was having a baby. I told my partner that I felt like I was pregnant.
In December of 1999, I adjusted a patient (I am a chiropractor). I had excruiating pain and fainted. I had bled through my pants and onto the carpet. I was taken to a hopsital by way of ambulance leaving a puddle of blood behind me. I was told that I had a mass on my follopian tube and as I adjusted the patient, my fallopian tube along with the mass was torqued causing the pain.
I had suregry to remove a dermoid cyst tat was larger than my uterus. My surgeon shared the photos with me. One of the doctors on my case said that he wished he had done a pregnancy test. The fowl smell in my urine was due to the Humane Growth Hormone.
My breasts slowly returned almost to their original size. My urine didn't have a fowl odor. The nausea was gone as was my crankiness. What an ordeal.
It is now August of 2006 and I am having the severe cramping along with the vasovagal effect. I took motrin which I had been taking for cramps. This time, like before, my pain has worsened. The bleeding has stopped. I don't seem to have any of the other symptoms that I had with the dermoid cyst.
What exactly causes my pain to worsen if I take motrin and why does it halt the shedding of the uterus?
I think to find that out, we'd need to be able to figure out why you have the cramps in the first place. It sounds like you need to revisit your gynecologist. Another ultrasound may be in order or at least a blood test (I'm not sure if it is human growth hormone or human chorionic gonadotropin you mean to refer to!) InvictaHOG00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody needed to jump from the 24th floor of a building (this building has no 13th floor) in an emergency, what type of parachute or other available technology should they use to ensure the safest landing on the pavement below?--Sonjaaa01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a parafoil? I think 22 floors is enough to inflate the parachute. And you need to have lots of control over the chute, in order to not crash into the building or land on the road. --Bowlhover02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can Solar Panels be called "Free Energy Device"? I asked this question because once the owner of the Solar Panel has paid for the device, they can obtain free energy forever without doing any work. Pity the amount of power (per square metre) of this device is limited. Ohanian03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar panels cannot work without sunlight, which is a form of energy. So they can't be called free energy devices, because they need energy to work. --Bowlhover03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that context, yes. It is free (as in costs no money) after the initial installation. Of course, this is not completely true as maintanance plays a role. Solar power is being researched quite a bit, and some interesting and efficient technologies are being created. This is a transcript of an episode of Catalyst I saw recently. It is based on Australia's problems mostly, but it is very good. --liquidGhoul06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the "per unit cost" may be zero for each kW hour, this isn't the best way to look at it. Instead, the purchase and installation price, plus any maintenance costs over the expected life of the solar panels, should be added up, then divided by the total kW hours expected, to find the cost of each kW hour. When this is done, solar energy is actually more expensive than other forms of energy, like fossil fuels. An exception exists in locations where fossil fuels can't easily be delivered, making them more expensive. StuRat08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Donnan effect"?
Hello all,
I'm a lost student. I found this word "Donnan Effect" in my notes but I failed to find any explaination. Can any kind souls pls enlighten me?
Thanks.
It is an effect in Membrane chemistry where charged ions on one side of a semipermeable membrane will create an osmotic pressure across the membrane because they are not able to come to an ionic equilibrium. Ansell 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
(talk, contribs) 04:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
![[36]](http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2564/25645802.jpg){kind=link}
