Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 29

electrons and perpetual motion

To start off, I am a 17 year old high school student that has just completed his first year of high school-level physics. I'm pretty smart (at least I like to think so), but if this question can't be answered with vocabulary and ideas that someone of my edjucation level will be able to understand, that's ok. The answer to this question is probably in Wikipedia somewhere, but in my reading I've only seen equations and explanations that I don't think I'll ever understand until sometime through college.

Question: If there is no such thing as perpetual motion, how can electrons keep moving around the nucleus of an atom? My guess is that at the level we're talking about, there's not really anything like friction in the common sense, so there's nothing to act against the electrons after they are moving, but then where does the energy come from to move them in the first place?Hypershadow647 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The motion of electrons in an atom is perpetual motion in the ordinary English sense but not in the technical sense used in physics. A "perpetual motion machine" in physics is a system that violates the first law of thermodynamics (a "free energy machine" or "perpetual motion machine of the first kind") or the second law of thermodynamics (a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind"). The electrons in an atom don't gain or lose energy or entropy (at least not without interacting with the outside world), so they don't violate either of those laws. -- BenRG (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know that it's not a dumb question at all—in fact, it was a major objection to the original Rutherford atomic model, that the electrons seemed to whip around without losing energy, and if you imagine them behaving like any other gravitating object (like a planet) you'd expect that not to work out. Bohr's great insight, the insight which set off quantum mechanics (as distinct from the original quantum theory by Planck and Einstein), was that if you take for granted that the electrons can do that in specific orbitals, that they are not in "motion" in the same way that we understand it to be on a macroscopic level, then it all works out perfectly well mathematically and according to experiment, even if it doesn't make as much conceptual sense (this is the kernel of what would become the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and Heisenberg). Einstein thought this approach to physics was repulsive—to come up with answers that didn't make any intuitive sense, as he saw it—but Bohr's method won out in the end, and much of quantum mechanics is about taking for granted certain properties of the quantum world which are not shared by the macroscopic world. Why don't electrons behave like billiard balls, is essentially your question, and the answer is simply because the laws that govern billiard balls don't apply on that scale. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Bohr's atomic model did help inspire quantum theory, but it was completely wrong. Real electrons are nothing like the electrons in Bohr's model. They don't even have the angular momenta that Bohr thought they did. Bohr thought the angular momenta were 1, 2, 3, ..., but in fact they're 0, ${\sqrt {2}}$, ${\sqrt {6}}$, .... I think it was little more than dumb luck that his model gave the right values for the hydrogen spectrum (which could be measured to confirm it) despite having the wrong values for the angular momenta (which couldn't be measured). And quantum mechanics does explain the quantization of the orbits, it doesn't simply assume it the way Bohr's model did. Schroedinger's equation doesn't have any quantization built in; you have to solve it before you discover that the electron orbits are quantized.

There are two things that keep the electrons from dropping into a state of zero energy: the uncertainty principle and the exclusion principle. They're both hard to explain. The electron can't just fall into the nucleus because the nucleus is very small; that would give the electron a well defined position, which would mean that it would have to have a very uncertain momentum, which would quickly propel it out of the nucleus again. The "ground state" is a compromise between position uncertainty and momentum uncertainty. The exclusion principle comes into play when there's more than one electron in the atom. Without the exclusion principle they would all fall into the ground state, since systems "like" to have the lowest energy possible. With the exclusion principle you can only have one electron in each state, so some of them have to be in higher-energy states with larger angular momenta (meaning they're actually orbiting the atom, unlike the ground state electrons which have an angular momentum of zero and could be said to not be moving at all). -- BenRG (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bohr's approach was but one little way down the path of quantum mechanics and marked a distinct break with how things were done previously. That's the entire point I was making—not that the Bohr model ended up being exactly correct, but that the question is tried to answer was exactly the same one, and the methodological approaches used started QM down its rabbit hole. You don't get Copenhagen without the Bohr atom. You will note that I spoke specifically of Bohr's method. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If the electron were a ball bearing circling inside a hemispherical bowl, or a weight tied to a string circling around the point of suspension, friction and air resistance would cause it to drop gradually to lower and lower levels. The reason electrons do not show such a gradual decay of energy level, as it was explained to me back when, is that even taking it as a sort of standing wave, it might be expected to bleed off energy like an electromagnetic wave circling on a loop of conductor. The quantum effect is the theory or observation that it cannot drop gradually to imperceptibly lower energy energy levels as the circling weights could in the mechanical analogies. Only a quantum of energy can be absorbed or emitted, changing it to a higher or lower energy level, thus no slight gradual decay of energy level is possible.Edison (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that only a quantum of energy (a photon) can be absorbed or emitted, but the energy of a photon can be arbitrarily small, so in effect the energy that can be emitted isn't quantized at all. So this can't explain why the electron orbit doesn't decay. -- BenRG (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

However, the stable energy states around a nucleus are quantized as well, and this imposes the appropriate restriction on the possible photons that can be emitted. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about our 17 year old OP, but reading through this thread I'd feel confused (and not just in manifestation). So can we explain it in understandable terms without sacrificing enough to run into my favorite Feynman quote?--71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful to the OP that a "perpetual motion machine" is essentially something that can perform work indefinitely without an external source of power. Electrons moving around a nucleus, or moons orbiting a planet orbiting a sun, are perpetually in motion, although there is no energy expenditure to maintain that motion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

antioxidants to delay ageing and damage of cells

what combinations work and do they¿ i know you cant give medical advice, but what does science say so far about the effectivity of them¨¿thnx guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.26.8 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The empirical evidence to date has been quite disappointing; the benefits are largely theoretical rather than demonstrated. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While antioxidants are great at scavenging damaging free radicals generated via metabolism, which can denature proteins and injury other macromolecules such as nucleic acids and lipids, there is no conclusive evidence that they prevent general cellular senescence. See telomeres. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Career

What jobs and career options are there in relation with animation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.94 (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I had to surmise, I'd say a viable option would be 3D video game development. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of video animation companies for everything from bad car commercials to popular children's movies. -- kainaw™ 12:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few unique ones, too. If you like kids you can run animation workshops at museums or fair events, for one. What job you can find and end up in might not be the same as the "standard" job description. And even that can differ from one place to another. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thermo Pond Epoxy

Hi. I saw a '3rd Rock From the Sun' episode where mary albright puts this chemical on dick solomon's desk, because earlier they had been playing impractical jokes on one another. Dick comes in and sits at his desk. as soon as he puts his hands on the desk, they are instantly stuck. Then he uses too much force to get his hands off and he accidently puts his head on the desk and then is stuck to this position. My question is: Can this chemical really do that sort of thing, paste objects together that quickly?Jwking (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some types of superglue can. There are loads of documented cases of people putting it on toilet seats, glasses etc. Not a very sociable think to do. If you put it on a non-porous surface skin will bond almost instantly. There have also been eyeball to eyelid and similar in accidents. I'd stick to clingfilm for jokes... --BozMo talk 06:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since detaching the stuck human can require medical assistance this way exceeds funny. The doctors and lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank, though. (Neither legal nor medical advice)--71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Brain + Sex

What part of the brain becomes more active during sexual arousal? Or at least, what part controls that. --68.90.143.120 (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Raphe nucleus and serotonin are thought to be involved. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a guy, it's pretty clear your entire brain goes on vacation. Gzuckier (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Under a burning night sky

I'm curious why the sky is orange during nighttime. First of all it was 10 pm so I discount the sun. It is relatively cloudy and rainy during the night and the clouds are actually the ones that is a dull orange. I live in Manila so the air pollution is strong but I can't account fo r the orange hue as we use fluorescent lamps here rather than oil or fires.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sodium street lamps? (See the section on light pollution) 81.174.226.229 (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the article on Light pollution Jdrewitt (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

hmm... I think you're right. It is Skyglow. No wonder this never happens when I'm in the provinces. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This happens here too, where I live in Southern Ontario. The streetlights cause the clouds to turn orange, and this can cause it to reflect into my bedroom window, where there are no nearby streetlights, so much so that I can see penumbral shadows of objects and even read printed text in the dark (but just barely and only with night vision adaptation caused by pupil expansion). When there are no clouds, or when the clouds are high, the light isn't strong enough to be reflected. However, if there is say a snowstorm, the light will illuminate the nearby snowflakes the way the sun illuminates dandelion seeds flying on a cool, windy, clear spring day. I've also noticed that the far away cloud bases sometimes appear darker than the nearby clouds, perhaps escaping the light pollution. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Power Generators

I was wondering how efficient generators are at converting mechanical energy from the rotating magnet to electrical energy? 61.69.132.119 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's about 80-85%, which is from actual, but half-remembered, research. If someone doesn't give the definitive answer, I'll try and get back to you. It's definitely quite high, because the overall efficiency is about 40%, with most of the losses at an early stage, I think in the production of steam. 130.95.106.128 (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the 80-85%, but can't quote a good source either. I know the figure from adding up losses for overall systems in which case it would be stated as a 15-20% loss. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely it is higher than 80 to 85%, given that in 1879 Thomas Edison's "Long legged Mary Ann" generator achieved 82% mechanical to electrical efficiency, a sizeable increase from the 40% of earlier generators, with his reasearch team over the next decade achieving 90% efficiency [1] . If present day 1000 megawatt utility baseload generator were 15% to 80 20 % inefficient, it would get heated up by 150 to 200 megawatts, which seems unlikely. [2] cites 93% to 97% efficiency for small hydro generators. [3] says a wind generator has achieved 98% efficiency. [4] cites an 800 megawatt generator's efficiency being increased from 98.93% to 99.01% efficiency via stator rewinding and other improvements. I wonder if the lower efficiency deducts the auxiliary equipment such as coal handling, plant lighting, pumps etc? Edison (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess not all your losses are heat. You lose quite a bit to vibration. I've seen the 80-85% ballpark used in wind turbine and cogeneration setups. (And I've usually seen those come out on the low end rather than overshoot the target.) It should be straightforward enough Joules in Watt out, but there's a lot of leeway in who measures what where as usual. If you look at steam temperature/wind energy to power output you get a different number than if you look at torque to output. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I (130.95) will probably have to take back what I wrote. My notes, based on the rather old (1970s) book Man, Energy, Society by Earl Cook, tell me that the steam generator (in combination, called a furnace, boiler and superheater) is about 85% efficient, not at all what I thought, and the generator is 46% efficient. The figure of 46% refers to the steam energy going in (187 G Cal per hour) and the electrical energy coming out (86 G Cal per hour), so 86/187 is about 0.46. This means I know virtually nothing about the efficiency of the generator magnet itself, which is a small part of the whole contraption, so the other guesses are more reliable, and more relevant. In short, the answer I gave, "quite high," seems to stand up well :). 203.221.127.63 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mortality rates expressed as hazard rates

Does anyone know where I could find mortality rates calculated as hazard rates? I'm trying to answer questions like, if a Canadian man makes it to the age of 93, what are his odds of surviving to 94? If an American baby reaches the age of 6 months, what are the odds of her surviving the remainder of her childhood? Thanks. moink (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I once did a similar analysis on South African mortality rates and I used Statistics South Africa for the data so I would presume that the United States Census Bureau would be able to help you for US data. Do you know how to calculate the probabilities you need from actuarial tables? Also, see force of mortality which is the hazard rate in survival analysis with respect to mortality. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I just needed the term to search for. moink (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. All the best with your work. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Horrible plastic smell!

I bought some plimsolls online from River Island, but they stink of plastic like they're from some crappy discount shoe warehouse.. I've put them outside to air but they still smell awful. I thought I'd ask you clever lot for some advice. Whack on the Febreze? Air tight container with some Bicarbonate of soda? Thanks in advance! 79.78.46.84 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You bought some "lines painted on the hull of a ship to help determine displacement and draft"? Where are you planning on using them? There has got to be another definition for that word.... -SandyJax (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Um yes? plimsolls Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Plimsoll shoes have a very pungent smell of rubber, I've always found, but not plastic which doesn't really smell much. Theres not much you can do about it. It fades with with time, I find. Fribbler (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also see wiktionary:plimsoll Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that this is the culprit Thiourea. Vulcanization makes rubber usable, but sulfur is known to combine into truly stinky substances. The thing is that you want to avoid the rubber drying out (which would ruin it.) So the baking soda will eat the smell, but in an airtight container will also desiccate the rubber which will make it brittle. Fragrance oil might cover the smell, and you could use some activated charcoal insoles. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your posh expensive plimsolls from River island were made in a sweatshop just like the ones from a "crappy discount shoe warehouse"? Astronaut (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A doubt

How does one cite matter from a chapter in a book that has contributors that are different from the editors mentioned on the cover and elsewhere? Which all authors are to be included in the citation?

Kindly help me with this doubt.

Thanks in advance.

Regards.

PS: Have posted the same query on the talk page of citations, but am not expecting a quick reply. Thanks.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would err on the side of more information, listing both the chapter's editors as well as the editors of the entire book. Roughly working from the MLA guidelines, "Works with Multiple Authors" should list the individual author first, followed by the group:

Heller, Steven, ed. The Education of an E-Designer.
Heller, Steven and Karen Pomeroy. Design Literacy: Understanding Graphic Design.

Hopefully this example helps. Nimur (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, that's not how you cite chapter authors. Chapters are cited separately and then in the same citation you cite the main work and note the editors. E.g. Paul, Diane B. (2003), "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics", in Hodge, Jonathan and Radick, Gregory, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, Cambridge University Press, 214–239--98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nimur, for your reply. But, my doubt was more about the technical aspect since I'd never seen the {{cite book}} in its expanded form, had only seen its abbreviated form at WP:Citation templates. Surprisingly, I got my doubt cleared at the talk page of citations itself! Bye. Take care. —KetanPanchal^taLK 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Optimal nap/sleep time

I've read somewhere that if you're not having a full night's sleep, or if you're just taking a nap, certain sleep durations are better than others because you'll not be waking up during the "wrong" part of the sleep cycle. I think two recommended durations were given in the article I read, one for short naps and the other for longer sleep.

I can't find the article and don't remember what the recommended durations are. Can someone point me to some good articles/resources on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.242.15 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Power nap doesn't state a duration, but you might get that in the original NIMH study cited. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Shindo earthquake scale

When measuring earthquakes there are different sclaes, like Mercalli intensity scale and Richter magnitude scale. Why did the Japanese invent their own scale "shindo" (Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale) (In Japanese called 震度)? Moberg (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As the article's lede notes, the Japanese scale serves a function distinct from that of the Richter scale (and, for that matter, it predates the Richter). The Mercalli scale serves a similar purpose, but again postdates the Japanese scale (1902 vs 1884). — Lomn 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

("lede", what does it mean?) Ah okey, predates, thanks! But why is the Japanese the ones who made their own scale and not China or Australia or some other country? Moberg (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(lede is an alternative spelling of lead and refers to the beginning of an article) --Tango (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ok! :)) Follow-up-question: I think that Taiwan uses this scale or a similar one. Is there any other other countries that uses the shindo- (or a from the shindo-scale derived) scale? And if so, why? Moberg (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Original rotation of solar system.

Under the Nebular Hypothesis, the rotation of the solar system is caused by the contraction of the original cloud and, as it condensed, the rotation went from perhaps once every million years to that which it is today. The principle of the conservation of angular momentum is applied. The question is, however, what caused the original rotation? Any generally accepted reasons for the cause under this hypothesis, or are we still guessing?Boblaw1 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need anything to cause it - chances are, when you add together the angular momenta of all the particles in the cloud, you're going to get something non-zero, the chance of all the random movements cancelling out exactly is vanishingly small. That tiny, but non-zero, value is then increased dramatically when the cloud collapses. --Tango (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in the nature of gravitational capture for things to orbit around each other. Even if the whole cloud were to magically stop spinning, the next thing to wander close enough to start orbiting it would make the system be rotating again. --Sean 13:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a slight rotation was imparted on the solar system by the rotation of the galaxy. So, the next question will be where that came from. There must have been some initial rotation right after the Big Bang (or perhaps even before), just like the dispersal of matter couldn't be exactly equal or we never would have gotten galaxies and solar system forming in the first place. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear reactors and fissile materials

What distinguishes the following technologies?

• Uranium enrichment
• Plutonium reprocessing
• Graphite reactor
• Light water reactor
• Heavy water reactor

--141.161.98.180 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Might they all be distinguished by being the subject of homework questions? Edison (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia articles on each of those. Uranium enrichment, nuclear reprocessing, graphite moderated reactor, light water reactor, heavy water reactor. The different reactor types use different neutron moderators (which has different implications for what type of fuel you put in them and what types of products you get out in the end), uranium enrichment is about increasing the percentage of U-235 in a given sample of uranium, reprocessing is about taking spent fuel and getting out certain materials created by the fission reactions (such as plutonium). For more details, read the articles. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Diodes

what exactly will happen when we short two terminals of a common type of diode ,does there be any charge movement and a resulting effect on depletion region202.125.143.75 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Presuming that the diode was not connected to a circuit then probably nothing since unlike say a capacitor, I'm pretty sure a diode doesn't keep a charge. If the diode is connected to a circuit, then I believe shorting it will basically remove any potential affect the diode may have Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A reverse-biased diode does effectively act like a small capacitor, storing a tiny amount of charge. I don't suppose most diodes have enough capacitance for it to have any measurable effect in practice, but apparently some do: see varicap. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that the questioner is thinking that shorting the ends of a diode together will have some effect of connecting the P-type side of the diode to the N-type side. However, they are already connected in the P-N junction inside the diode. Connecting them again will have no effect. By bringing up the depletion region, the questioner is implying that the diode is in a circuit and has current passing through it. Shorting out the terminals in that case will mean that you have a parallel circuit. The short has a resistance of nearly 0 ohms. The diode is commonly treated as having 0 ohm resistance, but that is not true. The good ones are 300 ohms (if my memory from circuit design 15 years ago is correct). So, until the current surpasses the capability of the short, there will be basically no current in the diode. The depletion region will quickly dissipate. If you take a good electronics course, this is the type of problem you'll see on a final: At 0.02 seconds after shorting out the diode, what is the potential difference between the terminals? -- kainaw™ 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Electronics home project

Well I would like to build a switch which is switched on and off by clapping your hands twice. What do I need, and how do I do it? Bastard Soap (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You can order a kit to build a sound-activated switch (which seems to cost exactly the same as The Clapper). This page also has a link to a PDF version of the assembly manual which includes a theory of operation section. --LarryMac | Talk 20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Or order everything separately [5] (This doesn't have to be cheaper in the end. I've had a couple of DIY projects that added up to more in parts than the thing off the shelf. Less fun buying it, though.) Be sure to follow local code in all projects involving home installations! Have a licensed electrician check any circuit before connecting to your house electricity. (No advice, but if you burn down the house your insurance won't pay and your spouse will never shut up about it.)--71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Power Plant on "automatic mode"

In the event of a hypothetical doomsday scenario how long would a modern nuclear power plant be able to supply electricity before it shuts down? I know an that nuclear power plant's have some kind of dead man's handle mechanism as a failsafe but let's assume that it was turned off. How long could a modern nuclear power plant work on it's own? For hours, days, weeks or years? Mieciu K (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hours would be easy, and days would be likely. Weeks would be a stretch. This assumes that the system has some sort of automatic load following, or that the load on the generator remains constant. so it just has to do steady-state operation. If "doomsday" meant that the load dropped abruptly or that it dropped gradually and there was no load following, the generator would trip followed by the shutdown of the reactor. Edison (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Caveat: I'm only an expert on US Navy nuclear propulsion systems) Think of your car's engine. Things happen inside the engine too fast for a human to contol, so we automate things like lubrication, fuel and air intake, and valve timing. Whether controlled by a carburetor or an electronic fuel injection system, there is an automated control system that looks at system outputs like speed, exhaust temperature, and exhaust chemistry, and adjusts system inputs like fuel and air to maintain whatever it was preset to. Completely separate from that, there is a system that looks at lube oil pressure, and adjusts oil flow to keep that constant (that system is pretty simple; it's just a dump valve attached to a spring, so if oil pressure rises the valve opens more, dumping more oil back to the sump, etc). If you walk away from your car after you start the engine, what happens? It stays running until something goes wrong beyond the capacity of the control system. The engine will shut down when the fuel tank runs empty and fuel pressure drops to the point where the injectors or carburetors can't compensate. The engine will shut down if the car is in an enclosed space like a garage, and the oxygen concentration goes down to the point that it won't support combustion any more. The engine will shut down if a part breaks. The engine will shut down badly if it runs out of oil. Etc, etc, etc.

Now, with that in mind, let's look at a reactor plant. Again, nuclear reactions happen too fast for a human to control, so there are completely automated systems that make minor adjustments to keep the plant running at whatever settings the operators decide. Of course, there are very stringent limits on what the operators are allowed to decide. Some limits are set by the physicists who designed the reactor, some are set by the engineers who designed the steam plant the reactor is there to drive, some limits are set by government safety analysts who want to prevent accidents, and some limits are set by the Navy's operational needs.

However, if started up within those limits, a reactor plant will run on it's own until something happens that the control system can't handle. To the best of my knowledge, there is no "Dead man switch" that would make the plant shut down - and cause a regional blackout - just because there's a flu bug going around and all the operators had to run to the bathroom at the same time. That's the whole point of the automated systems - the humans look for trends, while the machinery runs itself.

Running out of fuel isn't a problem for several years, perhaps decades, depending upon fuel level. Fuel poison buildup shouldn't be a problem for a plant designed to run at full capacity for years at a time, as an electric generator plant would be; that would be factored into the design and the control system would compensate. Leakage shouldn't be a problem, either, as the nuclear side is designed to not leak, and minor leaks would be compensated for by an automated makeup system.

Any reason for the plant to shut down if the operators "just walked away" would come from the steam plant and electric generator side. Again, an electric generator plant would be designed to automatically compensate for changes in load, because they happen too fast for humans to follow. And, if we assume that nothing breaks, and no turbines run out of lube oil, and the river keeps providing cooling water, the reactor plant will keep providing electricity until the electric load on the grid drops to below minimum power. Another point. These plants generally have more than one of everything. More than one core, more than one turbine, more than one oil pump for each turbine, etc, simply because we are aware that things break, and we don't want to have a blackout just because an oil pump broke.

We can figure that the coal-fired and oil-fired plants will fail first, because no one refilled the coal hoppers and fuel tanks. Still, the hydro-electric plants and nuclear plants will have no problem with the remaining load, because there's no people left anymore, so there's not much using electricity. Major system loads will be automated lights for cities and highways and other things like that that turn themselves on. And, if a plant that is fueled for, say, five years at full power finds itself only running at ten percent power, well, then, it has enough fuel to run for 50 years at THAT power level.

Eventually, though, some random storm will down some power lines, and the transformer farm will isolate itself from the grid to protect itself, and _then_ the power plant will find itself running with no load. The steam plant can run at idle, just waiting for someone to shut the breakers again. but the reactor can't. Those fission by-product poisons we dismissed earlier DO have an effect. It's minor compared to the rest of the reactor running under full load, but when running at idle they have an effect that adds up. They will continue to contribute heat, and the control system will throttle back the fission process, until it is forced to shut the plant down. Safely, automatically, with no people involved. At least, that's the way US Navy plants are designed. When will that happen? Who knows? A day, a month, 5 years? Can't tell. But the nuclear and hydro plants will stay running until some outside factor makes them shutdown. -SandyJax (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a straight dope "staff report" on this subject as well. [6] APL (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all the answers. Mieciu K (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Physics equations

We have a page which lists lots of trigonmetric equations. Is there a similar page for physics equations. In particular "v = u + at", "s = ut + 0.5at^2", "F = ma", etc. Maybe also for electrical equations "V = IR" "Q = VC" etc. If it does exist you can't find it by searching for "v=u+at". -- SGBailey (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We have list of equations (not all Physics), list of relativistic equations and list of equations in classical mechanics (this one has the constant acceleration equations, but I think the TeX stops search working). Algebraist 22:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Logic gates

I was mulling over how to make demonstration logic gates using many different technologies. Obviously a mechanical AND gate can be made with two input levers which can be up or down pushing on opposite ends of a floating pivoted beam where the central pivot holds a flagpole. If both are down, the pole is down, if only one is up the the beam pivots and the pole is down, if both are up then the beam itself is raised and hence the pole is up. What other technologies are there and how might they be demonstrated? Hydraulic (liquid pressure?); Pneumatic (flow (or not)); electromechanical (relays); electronic (transistors and voltages); Pure optical (no idea how); Magnetic (how?), etc etc. Suggestions and advice on a postcard please... -- SGBailey (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Our school used to have a cool board with chutes, marbles and switches that switched LEDs on/off. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea for an optical OR gate. Light shines down both tubes, but each one may be blocked by a piece of cardboard. Where the tubes combine is some sort of prism/two-way mirror set-up that combines the two beams together and sends it down the bottom tube. If one tube or the other is open, or if both are, then there will be light coming out the bottom.

     |    |         |    |
     |    |         |    |
    -+----+-       -+----+-
     |    |         |    |
     |    |_________|    |
      \     *     *     /
       \    *     *    /
        \   *     *   /
         \  *     *  /
          \ *     * /
           \*     */
            |     |
            |     |

I think that perhaps to make a XOR gate you could consider how to make a NOT XNOR gate first - pick a medium that involves something flowing (like water, or sand), and let each switch divert the flow in opposite directions somehow. So having neither, or both on, lets the flow continue as it was, while having just one diverts it (into a secondary channel, say). You can then turn that all around, and make that secondary channel the primary one, and you've got a XOR. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. Remember that all logic operations can be built from NAND or NOR if you are really desperate. --Prestidigitator (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be sure to see fluidics. Also, Tinkertoy computer [7] [8].

Atlant (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How to calculate minimum wind speed to cause white caps on ocean

Wiklearn (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)How is wind speed related to the height of ocean waves? At what wind speed would white caps appear? Wiklearn (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You might try looking at Beaufort scale—in particular, the table that relates Beaufort numbers to wind speeds and to surface conditions on the open ocean. Deor (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition for trompe on wikipedia please

Trompes are simple devices that use the power of falling water to compress air. Trompes were used widely in the 19th century. They were used to provide the air for mines, blast furnaces pneumatic tools for alpine tunnel making, etc. The town of Cobalt in Ontario, Canada claims to have the only hydraulic air compressor (Trompe) left in the world http://www.cobalt.ca/ragged_chutes.htm Researchers in England have tried to use low pressure trompes (attached to an enclosed wind turbine and electric generator) to extract energy from the water running over weirs in a cost effective way. (Pdf is available if required). I believe that a dedfinition of trompe would help show people in poor countrys that energy is available from low grade (low head) hydro sources without the huge investment in machinery that is currently a barrier to using these (often high volume) sources of energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiatechnician (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Gaiatechnician (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're driving at, but have you looked at "Trompe"? --Milkbreath (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you but at the top it says "This article does not cite any references or sources. (November 2006)

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed". I actually wrote it and my poor effort has been sitting there with that proviso (and doubt) over it for a long time. Just hoping to get it fixed. My sources are long ago photocopys from engineering manuals. I have made some so I know they exist. Gaiatechnician (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see. That message about sources is just Wikipedia houskeeping. It serves two purposes, basically, the way I understand it: to warn the reader that there is no proof of the accuracy of the information, and to flag the article for possible deletion if it sits like that too long. Your concern is jusatified, I think. This is the Reference Desk, I'm sure you know, and it is not the right place for announcements of this type (though I think you will have gotten the attention of people who have the knowledge to fix the article). You should try the talk pages of whatever WikiProjects are concerned with things like trompes, for instance, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Engineering and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Such devices have existed. Within the last year there was an article in New Scientist showing methods of using low-head flow to compress air. The water flowed in the shape of a U taking air bubbles down to the submerged air reservoir in the middle. The water leaves at a lower level.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May 30

Adipocere smell

Hello, My question is about Adipocere aka, grave wax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocere

A friend of mine sent me a hunk of it, part of a woodchuck that had been trapped in an old well. It was in a zip-lock bag, which sat on a of table of hats and gloves waiting to be put away after a long Alaskan winter.

The smell of the Adipocers seeped out of the zip-lock bag, and stuck to the hat and gloves. It washed out, but how/why can it get though plastic. And stick to anything, including my hands, and some how I could not get the smell of it out of my nose for a long time. Why? Thank you for your time.

Art4u (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The larger question is why a "friend" would send someone a hunk of dead woodchuck. It seems of little use, other than for pranks I described then thought better of per WP:BEANS and did not post. Serial killers have had similar problems when they leave their victims in the crawlspace of their home. Perhaps you should have covered the plastic bag of dead woodchuck with six feet of earth or a layer of concrete. If you had left it outside during the Alaskan winter, would it have more likely attracted or repelled Grizzly bears when they emerged from hibernation? Crime novels and some forensicsources[9] describe police and pathologists placing a bit of Vicks#VapoRub under theis nostrils when dealing with stinky corpses, and some sources also say it helps with adipocere [10] [11] but we do not offer medical advice. Edison (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, where's is the medical problem that requires medical advice? I would postulate that the apodocere has a fat based intense odour that produces some sort of particularly persistent and/or adherent molecules that have lodged in the nose and continue to cause the smell. Yes, I realise that individual molecules are required to stimulate the olfactory plate but show me another possibility. With regard to the seeping of odour through a plastic bag this is a well known phenomenon in certain plastics, the actual mechanism of the migration of the smell at molecular level is not known to me. Richard Avery (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

COOLING TOWER EVAPORATION

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF EVAPORATION CALCULATION IN COUNTER FLOW COOLING TOWERS ? WHAT ARE THE UNITS USED FOR LATENT HEAT OF EVAPORATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.38.14 (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't do your homework here. Chris M. (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. True, we don't do others' homework here, but we can at least help the asker by posting some links to help. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

CHEMISTRY

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE INDUSTRIAL PREPARATION OF THE FOLLOWING ORGANIC COMPOUND (a). Ethene (b). Propene —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankdinero (talk • contribs) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out Ethene and Propene. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Burning stomach fat with an ab machine

I recently saw a commercial for one of those ab machines, the kind that facilitates crunches. Naturally, it included before-and-after pictures of people who lost lots of fat around their stomachs in "just 30 days!"

Of course doing crunches would strengthen and define one's abdominal muscles. But in regard to burning fat in specifically the area around the stomach—does the body burn fat stored in a certain area faster if the muscles around that area are exercised? In other words, say that two identical people each expended a certain amount of energy during workouts, but one did crunches and one did, say, cardio. Would the first person's body burn more fat around the stomach than the second person's, or does the body have its own set order as to which fat deposits it burns? --zenohockey (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Theres no such thing as spot fat reduction unfortunately. So the only way to get abs is have a really low body fat % (for most people). 61.69.132.119 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is liposuction for "spot fat reduction"...

Atlant (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at this [[12]], particularly at the "Battling the Bulge" section where they describe that walking a mile burns 120 calories. What you can lose in 30 days is water. You also might find this article interesting [13] Crash exercising isn't that great, because you tear your muscles if you subject them to a lot more work all of a sudden. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting...Thanks all. --zenohockey (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Battery question, part II

Thanks to everyone who answered my question earlier, your comments were very helpful. So (in summary) the main consideration with batteries, in terms of the electronics that use them, is the voltage they produce. And now, operating on this premise, I am going to raise a few eyebrows. What would be the feasibility of using a series of common batteries (e.g., C or AA) to power my laptop? Bare question there, again hypothetical. For reference, the power adapter for my laptop says it gives the laptop 20v at 3.5A and 70W. 63.224.79.202 (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but not really feasible. Let's take AAs. It'll take 13 in series to make 20v. The AAs I have sitting around list at just under 3000 mAh, which means those batteries will run that laptop (at peak power) for about an hour. Supposing that the laptop's standard battery lasts 4 hours, that means you need 52 AAs to duplicate its functionality. Those are the single-use ones. Go to rechargeables and the mAh rating drops to about 2000, which means you're looking at about 75 AAs to replace the laptop battery. Larger batteries (say, D cells) will have a higher mAh rating -- about 10000 mAh for rechargeables, or 16000 for single-use. That means you'd only need 13 single-use D-cells instead of the 52 AAs, though Ds cost about 4 times as much (if not more) per battery. — Lomn 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so it would actually work. How would one hook that up? (Now I'm asking for trouble) 63.224.79.202 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Connect them in series, you will also need the same type plug (which plugs into laptop) as for laptops power supply (in worst case it could be connected directly, but it would require disassembly of device). -Yyy (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

NB: Doing this could easily void your warranty - especially if you have to take the laptop apart to get it connected up. While it's a nice theoretical idea, I advise against actually attempting it. --Tango (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If device is not taken apart, then only problem with this would be undervoltage, when batteries will run out (i am not sure if computers is able to accept reduced voltages from power supply). If power plug is taken from pawer supply, it might void warranty for power supply. This method probably will not be efficient, because laptop computers usually consumes considerable amount of electricity, and batteries are expensive (if you have unlimited access to free batteries, then this is not an issue). -Yyy (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if batteries are connected in place of original laptop battery, these would need nome sort of smart battery chip emulation (it might be complicated). Laptop batteries usually have lower voltages (11-14V) and this power interface should be able to deal with reduced voltages better (when batteries are running out). -Yyy (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've seen such a device for laptops, but for mobile phones, iPods, and the like, you can definitely buy commercial devices that let you use one-time-use (primary) batteries to power the gadget. And years and years ago, I had a flat-pack external lead-acid battery that connected to the power-inlet jack of my PowerBook 170 laptop computer. That battery was sized to match the outline of the laptop and added (maybe) a 1/4" to the thickness of the laptop, but doubled (+/-) the run-time of the laptop. Another gadget I had for the laptop allowed you to connect an external 9V rectangular-cell battery to the laptop's power-inlet jack. This wasn't enough to operate the laptop, but it allowed the laptop to keep sleeping even while you exchanged the laptop's discharged main battery for a fresh one. (Later, Apple built a small NiCd cell into their laptops to perform the same function: sleeping through a battery change.)

Atlant (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You can simply take a 4AA battery pack and an USB extension cord, connect the two terminals to the two power cables in the USB cord and charge your iPod off that. The iPod has quite a big tolerance on input voltage so you can charge it with car batteries, lantern batteries etc. as well. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

hens eggs

is it possible to freeze eggsand for how long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.90.44 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

if we can freeze human eggs we can freeze chicken eggs i'm sure. now are you talking about fertilized eggs or unfertilized eggs or are you talking about chicken ova for the purpose of later insemination. if the former two, for what purpose, eating or breeding? if its for food yes you can freeze eggs, they just don't taste very well when you thaw them out. i would suggest you only boil them afterwards.` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not possible to freeze them in their shells, but for commercial use, restaurants commonly buy plastic bags containing the frozen, scrambled contents of a hundred eggs. That's the quickest way to crank out omelettes by the dozens. I'd imagine the same process (on a smaller scale) could be done at home. (This has come up on the Reference Desk before, BTW.)

Atlant (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

abreva for genital hsv2 treatment

can you somebody use a product such as abreva to alleviate or quicken the healing of genital (HSV1 not HSV2) fever blisters/cold sores? If not abreva then what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we can't give medical advice.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a medical inquiry, its a research one for my human sexuality class. and also out of curiousity. the articles on abreva and genital herpes didn't answer my question neither did web searches or a call to a health center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm no expert, but "abreva" redirects to Docosanol quote used mainly as an antiviral agent, specifically for treatment of "cold sores" caused by the herpes simplex virus. unquote An here's the wikipedia magic: click on herpes simplex virus and it will get you to an article that starts out with Herpes simplex virus 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2) I have no clue what you were looking for, but this seems to cover what you asked about. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

again does anyone know if abreve is used on the genitals?Myheartinchile (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

chemistry - material science

1.How pH affects the particle size in a chemical reaction ?

2. Explain the properties of Polyethylene glycol (PEG) ?

3.Give the actual definitions of Acid and Base ( Not basing on theories ) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auap (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

3 media of amplitude can be expressed in keyboards, per Keyboard_expression. Are there any others, and if so, could you list them all?

Also, for all possible, probable and theoretical instruments, can you list and explain all forms of amplitude expression?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not do your homework, we can only point you in the right directions on Wikipedia and, assuming you make an attempt at solving them yourself, help you out where you may be wrong or stuck. Scaller (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some weired homework that would be! I think this is genuine.

1) As far as I know it doesn't, How could PH change the size of a particle?

2) See our article Polyethylene glycol

3) I don't know what you want here. What do you mean by "not based on theories"? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"An acid (often represented by the generic formula HA [H+A-]) is traditionally considered any chemical compound that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a hydrogen ion activity greater than in pure water, i.e. a pH less than 7.0."

"In chemistry, a base is most commonly thought of as a substance that can accept protons. This refers to the Brønsted-Lowry theory of acids and bases. Alternate definitions of bases include electron pair donors (Lewis), as sources of hydroxide anions (Arrhenius) and can be (commonly) thought of as any chemical compound that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a pH higher than 7.0. Examples of simple bases are sodium hydroxide and ammonia."

Hope that helps. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

An acid can coagulate a colloid, due to the charge changing on the colloidal particles. For example, add acid to milk and it will go thick and lumpy, onthe road to cheese. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SPACE

WHY DO OBJECTS GET SMALL WHEN TRAVELING NEAR THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN SPACE 59.88.65.80 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Those objects that get smaller are most likely moving away from you. They occupy less and less of your field of vision. Was this a clever troll, meant to inspire the questions of many a confused theoretician not aware of the most logical and sound explanation? I will assume good intent. Scaller (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is regarding Length contraction also known as Lorentz contraction. It is for the same reason as time slows down relative to an outside observer in order to maintain the constancy of the speed of light. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(Scaller) Oh, then the impression of decreasing size (versus lengthening, that seems an increase) mislead me. Thank you. :) 81.93.102.185 (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The core tenet of Special Relativity is that the speed of light will always been measured as constant by any observers (it is invariant), but all other things will be measured relatively based on the reference frame of the observer (they are relative). As a result, when you start doing talking about things which move at or near light speed, the only way for the very large speed of light to be measured as constant by other observers is you start seeing both time and space as being relative, as actually changing. You don't have to see things as getting small at the speed of light; you can see them as occurring at very different times than what the person inside that fast-moving frame would say. The reason why time and space seem relative is due to how we measure both time and space—how we define what length is, what an interval of time is, both are dependent on measurements of the speed of light. Make any sense? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There once was a fencer named Fisk

Whose stroke was exceedingly brisk.

So fast was his action

the Fitzgerald contraction

reduced his rapier to a disk.

Atlant (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Canthaxanthin concentration in Cantharellus cinnabarinus

What is the concentration of canthaxanthin in Cantharellus cinnabarinus (Wikipedia currently doesn't have an article on it, but on the genus Cantharellus)? The answer can probably found in the original paper of the discovery of canthaxanthin, but I don't have fulltext access - maybe some of you have? Thanks in advance! Icek (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't provide a concentration figure. Also, they don't provide a good figure for the amount of canthaxanthin recovered, saying only that they got 0.9 mg, plus "a lesser amount" by recrystallization. They also mention "small amounts" of what they think was an isomer of canthaxanthin. I guess the total amount was in the neighborhood of 1 mg. They started with 75 g of mushrooms, so a rough figure for the concentration would be 13 μg/g. I had no idea that a pigment could color something at such a low concentration, but that shows what I know, I guess. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You can ask for fulltext versions of pretty much anything at the Resource Exchange so you can read it yourself. Hint to Milkbreath, are you signed up there? ;) Franamax (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Milkbreath, and thanks for the hint, Franamax! Icek (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and upon reflection I guess the stuff is mostly in one tissue or another. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

animal colouration

why do so many mammals(dog,horses,cats for instance)have a flash of a different colour on their chests?---Jo. Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.210.32 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why questions are always hairy (if you'll excuse the pun :-) Animal colouration gives 3 main uses for color: concealment, signaling and mimicry. Although it may seem odd, a different color spot can actually help hide an animal. On top of your carpet a tabby cat like the one in Camouflage would stand out, but look how well the stripes hide it. So the spot could help "break up the pattern" of the animal. It might also signal that "this is the end with the head". To prey it would be useful to know what end of an predator it's facing and a predator would find it useful to know where an animals neck to bite is. (That would however not serve your own survival, so maybe not a likely scenario) It may also just be attractive to mates. (After all an animal can't just throw on a cool T or sassy skirt, but ^o.o^ have you SEEN the one with that spot?) I can't think of a model for mimicry. Having all those very sensible possible reasons, it's unfortunately just as likely that it's just a bit of gene left over from an ancient ancestor or pure coincidence and doesn't serve any purpose at all. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Countershading? --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this bird?

http://pets.webshots.com/photo/1101444074041514092KxzdCz Thanks. :) 99.245.92.47 (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the Crested Coua (Coua cristata), native to Madagascar. Most of the few images that I can find are greyer than shown in your photograph, but the patch of bare blue skin around the eye and the untidy crest seem to match. Here are a few links: [14] [15] [16] [17]. There is a Blue Coua (Coua caerulea), but it doesn't seem to have much of a crest [18] [19]. Also, the patch of blue skin around the eye doesn't seem quite right in the Blue Coua--Eriastrum (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncontacted Tribes in Brazil

[[20]]

From what I think I understand, no one from the outside contacted these remote tribes but does that also mean that they don't know that another world exists from their jungle homes? --Vincebosma (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the context you mean. Take, for example, the ancient Greeks. Eratosthenes estimated the size of the Earth some 2200 years ago. In that sense, the Greeks were quite aware that far more world existed than they had explored. On the other hand, they would not have been able to imagine the details of, for instance, the Maya civilization. Similarly, uncontacted peoples may vary in the degree of knowledge of the rest of the world. — Lomn 13:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say they would all have some inkling something else is out there, by seeing airplanes passing overhead. They may not figure out that people are on the planes, however. Also, they may have heard by word-of-mouth (from another nearby tribe that has had contact with the outside world). StuRat (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, we dind't know about their world. It's just that 'our' world is bigger. :) But if they have contact with neighbouring peoples (which may be very limited), then, as StuRat says, they will probably have heard of peoples still further away. Including us. But that info is likely to be very distorted. Think of the pictures mediaeval Europeans made of distant peoples. Absolutely weird, some of them, and mostly scary. We 'knew' about them, but not really. And it's likely to be the same with them now. Imagine how their possible perception of us as something weird and scary may have been reinforced when they saw the helicopter hover over their vilage. They must have been scared shitless, and if they could make out the (white?) people inside, they any attempts at overland contact is likely to have become much more risky. DirkvdM (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hologram monitors?

Are there any emerging technologies that replace monitors or TV's with holograms? 65.41.95.198 (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing very promising, no. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The bandwidth required for a true "holographic" (volume-filling) display is much, much larger than the bandwidth required for a 2D display. If you need a million pixels for a given 2D display, you'd need a billion voxels for the equivalent space-filling display. We also don't yet have a good, cheap mechanism for creating visible voxels in free space. On the other hand, stereoscopic displays are quite practical today and are often used in scientific applications. Because they only represent the stereoscopic view seen from one point in space, they only require about twice the data as a 2D display.

Atlant (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Feb. 7 issue of Nature has a letter on "An updatable holographic three-dimensional display" described in that issue as "a breakthrough". It is a 102-mm square photorefractive polymer that can be rewritten and has a 45-degree horizontal viewing angle, meaning you could walk one-quarter of the way "around" the object. This is the first one ever, and it takes 3 minutes to update the screen, but it's there. I'm not sure if the bandwidth comparison is exactly right, since a holograph encodes the image in a completely different way, but the overview mentions military, medical and video-gamer markets, who are presumably willing to pay for bandwidth. It certainly won't be on the shelves for Christmas though. Franamax (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article on volumetric display? it's not exactly holography but fairly close -russ (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's not terribly promising, at least for commercial usage. I don't think any of the methods mentioned on that page have much promise. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Orgasms

I am 17 years old and I have not orgasmed yet... I just had sex for the second time yesterday... And I still can not bring myself to orgasm I masturbate regulary it feels good but I cant bring myself to climax. Even when I cum I don't get that enormous satifactation I hear about from others. What can I do? JenJenAndAway (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you qualify "enormous satisfaction"? It's impossible to know what feeling another person gets from something beyond their expression/descriptions of it. Are your peers over-exaggerating? Are you expecting too much? Generally 'cumming' is a way of describing the act of orgasm (certainly for males), so in the second part it suggests you have already orgasmed before. The obvious options open to you are to experiment and try different ways to get yourself in that state. It sounds more like a mental, rather than physical issue from what you've said. If in doubt then see a doctor/medical professional who may be able to help you further. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you stop worrying about it. If it feels good, your doing it right! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We're bordering on medical advice here, really. I'd advise you to visit appropriate professionals for advice. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Get a copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and read it. --BenBurch (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"... and read it"? Aren't you being a little too demanding? :) DirkvdM (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the Avril troll [21] Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a legitimate question, though. I think it's best to respond to questions here on their own merits, regardless of who asks them. It's certainly easier that way. --Tango (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this question doesn't make much sense anyway. While there's a possibility a 17 year old will not realise that particularly for males, 'cumming' is an orgasm/climax, it's rather unlikely IMHO. (There's a big difference between saying I don't seem to get much satisfaction from my orgasm and saying I cummed but didn't orgasm.) This combined with the fact the question seems to be coming from a male, but the name sounds female made the question somewhat suspicious. Now that there's evidence this person is the Avril troll, I personally don't see any point responding to this question since this users repeated bad faith questions make me suspect he or she does not really have a genuine question and so there's a good chance no benefit will come from my answer so I don't see any point wasting my time further on someone who's already wasted enough of my time. Of course, others are free to respond how they see fit, but I think it's worth letting them know who that this comes from a known troll. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack

Re definition of 'jack' as used in electronics:

Editors: please view the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS_connector

Suggest that the author/s was/were confused.

A 'jack' is a socket, as in the slang 'up your jack'. Therefore a 'plug' cannot possibly be a jack.

Cheers, bwegz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwegz (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can be either plug or socket - see jack (connector). I would assume "jack" by default meant a plug, but that may be a Britishism. Reminds me of the time when we pretended innocent puzzlement and made our physics teacher explain the origin of the terms "male connector" and "female connector" ... "Gosh, sir, isn't that a bit rude ?". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I've always thought using the word "jack" to refer to to connectors, is an americanism, while the british would prefer the words "plug" or "socket". Astronaut (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A jack is the socket and a plug is the plug. "Jack" alone has never, to my knowledge, referred to a plug in a reliable source such as a standards guide, a handbook for professionals or a textbook. See [22] from 2006 for phone plug and phone jack. A manufacturer's site [23] shows an adapter with two RCA jacks and one RCA plug. The terms are not interchangeable. Somehow the possible British usage is used in TRS connector with the redundant term "jack plug" to refer to what the references from the article call simply a "plug." It would be interesting to add a historical paragraph showning the development of this redundant terminology in popular British usage. Edison (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See [24] & [25] & [26] & [27]. From what I can tell, jack means connector or more specifically TRS connector in the UK. It does not generally mean socket so jack jack makes no sense Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some books [28] which use "jack plug" to refer to a plug. Perhaps this was to make it clear they were not referring to a "mains plug." Logically they should call the female part a "jack jack." Older books such as this 1917 one [29] just call them a plug and a jack (referring to 1/4 inch telephone plugs and jacks). Edison (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else ever encountered "Jill"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.32.200 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Boticide would be sweet--76.111.32.200 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED (2nd ed. 1989), a jack is specifically a socket with one or more pairs of normally closed contacts that open when the plug is inserted, so that the plug becomes part of the circuit (earliest def. 1891). Thus (OR alert) the term 'jack plug' makes sense if you define it as the type of plug that is designed to be inserted into a jack. I also looked on answers.com, which consists mainly if not entirely of US sources, but it also says that a jack is a socket. So I agree with the OP. --Heron (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is news to me that 'jack' refers to a socket. I am used to 'jack' and 'jack plug' used interchangeably to mean the male connector described here as TRS connector (a term not only unknown to me but positively misleading, because 'TRS' to me is heat-resistant mains cable). If I needed to refer to the female connector I would say 'jack socket'. I am familiar with the phrase 'phone jack', and now I think of it I recognise that it often means the socket; but I would have taken this to be a transference from what I thought of as the primary meaning of a particular kind of plug.

Since words mean what people use them to mean, I assert that it is simply wrong to say that 'jack' does not mean 'plug', at least in the UK. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ants

I have read somewhere that if ants where scaled up to human size they would collapse under their own weight. Is this true? If so, what forces change over thw dimensions which are so relatively close to each other? Bastard Soap (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think we have an article on this somewhere, but it's simple to explain: if you scale up an ant by a factor r, then it will become r³ times heavier, and its legs will become r² times thicker (in terms of cross-sectional area, which is proportional to load-bearing ability). Thus the stress on the legs will go up by a factor of r, so for r large enough (up to human scale is plenty), they'll break. Algebraist 14:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The classic text here is On Being the Right Size. Algebraist 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Square-cube law. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

EPISTEMOLOGICAL UNITY:

DOES AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL UNITY AMIDST GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM EXIST, OR NOT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.3.103 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Which answer would be more satisfying to you, "YES" or "NO"? You need to more carefully define epistemology and unity to really enable a meaningful answer here. Nimur (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering epistemology refers to philosophy, perhaps the philosophy desk would be a better place for your question? Had you wanted to know something on a scientific basis, we may have been able to help.

Umm... there isn't one. the Humanities desk, perhaps (as cryptically linked to by Nimur above)? --ColinFine (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be cryptic. Sometimes I forget that users do not all have WP:POPUPS installed to allow for quick mouse-over skimming of wiki-links. I'll be more explicit! Nimur (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sky color with thicker atmosphere

If the Earth's atmosphere was thicker but of the same composition, what would the sky look like? How much thicker would the atmosphere have to be to make a difference that we could see with the naked eye? 69.111.189.55 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say a thinner atmosphere would scatter less light, so would look darker - possibly dark enough to see stars through it. Then, a thicker atmosphere would scatter more light and likely appear brighter and whiter. The extraterrestrial skies article may shed some light too. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I did any work on simulating atmospheric effects, but I don't believe there would be any major changes. Rayleigh scattering is already strong enough that outer space doesn't contribute much to the color of the sky. The most noticeable change would be that atmospheric bluing of distant objects would get stronger, and be visible on closer objects. Eventually you'd reach a point where the Moon is no longer visible (quick estimate: a 1000-fold increase in atmospheric pressure), but I don't think you'd lose sight of the Sun before the atmosphere got so thick it wouldn't be a gas anymore. --Carnildo (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the Sun part, as 1000 times more atmosphere would presumably mean 1000 times more and/or thicker clouds. Thick storm clouds can block out the Sun as is, but at 1000 times the normal density even light fluffy clouds would blot out the Sun. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on whether or not you increase the amount of water when you increase the pressure. It's a common problem with this kind of question - when you change one thing, you have to think carefully about what else you change and what you keep fixed. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ladybug diseases and breeds

I live in Topeka, Kansas at 39° N 95° W. We have had three dry summers in a row. Last summer I noticed none of the lady bugs had very good spots. Our local ladybugs have always been a bittersweet color, not bright red, and that has not changed. Very suddenly it became difficult to find a ladybug with spots. The ones that do have spots are "faded". It's like the spot disintegrated. The black is still a true black but the spots have become sort of granular, like the way a newspaper makes gray with black ink on white paper. In addition the ladybugs seem slow, they don't fly as often and they don't even discharge their poison very readily. My question is, could this be a disease like the colony collapse virus in bees, or is it an invasion of a slow and spotless species?

99.10.73.248 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, this sounds more like natural selection due to environmental pressures than diseases. According to the ladybug article, there are hundreds of species, presumably all with different combinations of colorations and spots. Because of the short breeding times, it is quite possible that environmental changes have, over successive generations, caused a different population of species to become more common than what you were observing a few years ago. Or the dominant species in your area have adapted to the new environment, and a consequence of this adaptation may include a different coloration. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

worm farms

I'm thinking of getting a worm farm, but I'm concerned about issues like smelliness. I've looked at the article, and indeed odours are a potential hazard, so can anyone tell me from theory or experience if this is a major problem, or if it is easy to avoid? I live in a block of flats, and my gardening ventures have turned out poorly, like if I try to preserve a plant, it soon turns into compost, so I'm not sure how I'll go at maintaining compost itself. The indicators are that I have no skill whatsoever at this kind of thing, so I need it to be easy. thanks, 203.221.127.63 (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't say if you are restricted to gardening indoors. Assuming you must do it indoors, you would have similar problems with odors as a pet owner. If it were me, I'd put my worm farm in a terrarium with a tight lid, with sufficient water, sunlight, and plant matter growing to provide oxygen to the worms. The odor should then be fairly well contained. I can't imagine why you'd want a worm farm indoors, though.

Also, if you have no skill whatsoever at gardening and related activities, perhaps you should try another hobby? Raising goldfish or something? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you wish to have a worm-farm for the sake of breeding worms, or as a means of producing compost or in order to compost your kitchen waste (rather than disposing of it in the trash.) All these choices have different answers. In general if compost gets smelly, something is going wrong. You either added something that killed "the right kind" of bacteria or your compost isn't getting enough air. You might consider using a tumbler. But read the reviews. (Don't trust anyone who says something about 2-4 weeks!) Some types aren't as convenient as they look. I remember seeing DIY instructions somewhere, but couldn't find them just now. If you don't trust your abilities, start small. Good luck.76.111.32.200 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? ----Seans Potato Business 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have chickens or like going line fishing you might want to have the worms. (There are even people who maintain a small business by selling them.) If you have a garden you want the compost and if you want to pamper your "green conscience" you can recycle your biodegradable waste that way. (Warning: The average person produces more of that than is good for an ordinary sized vermicompost!)--76.111.32.200 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sciences

How are the 3 branches of sciences, Chemistry, Biology and physics linked. Many physicists say that chemistry and biology are just subsets of physics. However physics seems to be the most theoretical science as it revolves around theories while Biology and chemistry seem to be less theoretical with clearer evidence. Chemistry and biology also seem less quantitative. Are chemistry and Biology just looking at the same thing as physics from a different perspective? Clover345 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've heard it said "without physics, there would be no chemistry, and without chemistry, there would be no biology." Yes, they are linked. There are even entire disciplines that consist of overlaps between physics, chemistry, and biology: biophysics, biochemistry, physical chemistry, chemical physics, and solid state physics, for example. Physics isn't necessarily more theoretical; we have applied physics as well as theoretical chemistry as disciplines of study. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically all sciences should be linked as describing different levels and aspects of the same reality. In practice, though, the linkages are not easy to make. Part of it is a problem of scale—there's a limit to how many different elements you can describe in a physical system before the calculations produce chaotic and unstable outcomes, much less the computational difficulties. But beyond that, it's often the case that concepts developed within one context don't easily translate into another context—they're incommensurable, in the terminology of philosophy of science Thomas Kuhn. In any case, we wouldn't necessarily expect all current theories to mesh together perfectly, since a good number of them are probably wrong, incomplete, or just rough abstractions of how nature actually works anyway. You'd have to assume they were all correct to expect they all fit together perfectly, and at the moment nobody even thinks that holy-of-holies subject, physics, is entirely complete or correct (cf. the commonly cited problem that General Relativity and the Standard Model are incompatible).

And then, on top of everything else, there are also the problems you mentioned: the different branches of science, the different disciplines, have evolved very differently over time, some being more quantitative, some being more qualitative, some focusing on a rather strict empiricism, some putting emphasis on mathematical theorizing, etc. Theoretically, again, if they were all describing the same reality accurately and with the same degree of precision, they'd all find ways to translate, but they aren't necessarily doing that (accurately, anyway).

There's no historical or philosophical reason to think that many of the currently mature sub-fields of science should easily reduce to one another. Some do; some don't. In any case, reductionism has its limits. Technically quantum physics should correspond in some way to molecular biology and from there to cellular biology and organismic biology. But quantum physics doesn't really tell us anything useful about organisms. It's not a useful way to think about them and it's not going to give you an insights into them. Can everything be reduced to it? Maybe, maybe not. Would it help us understand very much if we knew how to reduce things to that? Not necessarily. At some level we can consider all of the different levels of nature to be somewhat autonomous, somewhat unconnected, because it simplifies things even more than reductionism does—even though reductionism appears to simplify things, it really complicates them, because you start having to talk in terms of emergent effects and other things that are pretty hard to express either mathematically or conceptually, and are far beyond our computational abilities.

One last, last comment. One of the most intense areas of research in the United States over the last 50 years has been nuclear weapons. The dream has always been to be able to have total computational understanding of all of the processes that go on inside the exploding weapons, from the quantum level up through the macroscopic turbulence effects. The largest supercomputers have been developed again and again to work on specifically this purpose. If any area should demonstrate a mature understanding of how various sciences reduce to one another, this should be it. But it doesn't quite work. They've never been able to design reliable nuclear weapons from purely first principles—they've always needed testing, test data, modeling on smaller systems. If they can't do it there, I doubt they can do it anywhere, just because this has been a major area in which they've tried to do it and have strong incentive to do it. Just my two (dozen) cents. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

World-class answer, .46. --Sean 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think *.46 was dancing around this issue, but let me say it anyway: even with a theory of everything and unlimited computational power, you can't derive biology from physics. People have, sometimes jokingly and sometimes seriously, proposed that the final theory of physics will be "all logically possible worlds exist". Imagine this is true for a second. Does physics reduce to it? Only if our world is the only logically possible world, which I find pretty implausible. Otherwise we still need general relativity and the standard model, not as a matter of practicality but as a matter of principle. And we still need physicists, doing the same things they do now, because "all logically possible worlds exist" doesn't tell us which extension of the Standard Model is the correct one in the world we find ourselves in. The same thing happens at every level of science. Physics can't predict penguins. -- BenRG (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Put simply: To predict an outcome, you need both the theory and the initial conditions. While biology could be perfectly predicted from a theory of everything, it would require an impractical amount of knowledge about the initial conditions. With those initial conditions, you could predict penguins (give or take quantum effects, anyway...). --Tango (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

According to one former physics department chair I know: The 19th century was the century of chemistry, the 20th century was the century of physics, and the 21st century will be the century of biology... This is meant to the reflect that person's opinion about when the most important discoveries in each discipline occured/will occur. Dragons flight (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, historically it doesn't quite work out that way. Biology started to eclipse physics as "the" hot thing as early as the mid-1950s, and by the 1970s it was clear that physics wasn't going to come up with anything as earth-shattering as it had in the past, not compared to biology. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, perhaps it could in a few months, though biology does need some more of a push to assert it's validity in the face of some silly doubts. Chris M. (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Amino acid substitutions in engineering; phosphorylation

There are certain amino acid substitutions that can be made in genetic engineering to maintain a protein's structural properties but prevent phosphorylation of residues or mimic constitutive phosphorylation. What are these substitutions? ----Seans Potato Business 22:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Typically single amino acid mutations to glutamic or aspartic acid will mimic the phosphorlyated state due to the net negative charge. Additionally a serine, threoine or tyrosine mutation to alanine is a good starting point for preventing phosphorylation at known sites. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Liquid

Do all liquids contain water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.24.1 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No. To be "liquid" is just a state of matter. If you heat anything up to its melting point it'll become a liquid. No water necessary. Some pure elements are even liquids at just room temperature, like mercury. Water is a specific molecule that happens to be a liquid at room temperature (and even it is not always a liquid—it doesn't need to be too hot to become a gas, or too cold to become a solid). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Also, some substances, such as Carbon dioxide, will go directly from a solid to a gas (or vice versa) at its evaporation/freezing point, in a process called sublimation, and the visible gas released does not have to contain water, but whether it usually does or not, I'm not sure, as the cold temperatures can condense water to become visible. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

May 31

Fermentation in eukaryotic cells

Where does fermentation or anaerobic respiration occur in eukaryotic cells. Is it the cytoplasm, the mitochondria, or what? I've been searching online, and I can't find any clear answer. Any help would be greatly appreciated. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the cytoplasm. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

EEG and epilepsy

Hi,

Does anyone knows if EEG data that are typical of epileptic seizures can be the sign of other illnesses than epilepsy?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.41.187 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Electroencephalogram#Comparison_table may be of some use to you. If you are seeking medical advise, however, it's advisable to see your physician. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Acceleration Due to Gravity

Hello. How is the following equation for acceleration due to gravity proved: $\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {d}}={\overrightarrow {v}}\vartriangle t+{\frac {1}{2}}{\overrightarrow {a}}(\vartriangle t)^{2}$? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In science there is no such thing as a proof, see Scientific method and Epistemology as well as the Science article. For example, for centuries Newton's law of gravitation was the widely accepted theory, but know we know that General relativity explains many things that Newton's theory did not. Jkasd 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Although Jkasd is right, this doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your equation just because it's newtonian. On that note, newton did derive it from somewhere, he didn't just pull it out of hat. It's just straight up calculus. One of the major ideas underlying newtonian physics is that when a force is applied to an object, it ACCELERATES in the direction of that force. $\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {a}}={\overrightarrow {a}}$ for a constant force (such as gravity). Accerleration is given in units of m/s^2, so $\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {v}}={\overrightarrow {a}}\vartriangle t+{\overrightarrow {v}}_{i}$ . If you've done calculus, you may have noticed that as speed is the first derivative of accerlation, similarly $\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {v}}={\overrightarrow {a}}\vartriangle t+{\overrightarrow {v}}_{i}$ is the first derivative of $\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {a}}={\overrightarrow {a}}$ . The equation you gave is just the second derivative:

$\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {a}}={\overrightarrow {a}}$ 
$\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {v}}={\overrightarrow {a}}\vartriangle t+{\overrightarrow {v}}_{i}$
$\vartriangle {\overrightarrow {d}}={\frac {1}{2}}{\overrightarrow {a}}(\vartriangle t)^{2}+{\overrightarrow {v}}\vartriangle t+{\overrightarrow {d}}_{i}$

Ta Da! That's how it's derived. Your equation is just a fancy way of saying "Displacement is the second derivative of acceleration." As Jkasd pointed out, the most you can do is verify it to a high degree of certainty via experimentation. PS: this was totally the first time I played with making equations in wikipedia, and I found it to be a huge pain in the ass. For the record. --Shaggorama (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you meant to say that the acceleration is the second derivative of the displacement function. What you did above was not differentiation, but integration. If you take the original definition of acceleration as the change in velocity over the change in time (valid only if acceleration is constant), and rearrange the equation you get the velocity equation above. If you integrate that with respect to time, you get the equation you originally asked about. PhySusie (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Except (on closer examination) that the second equation in the box should have final velocity on the left side of the equation (not change in velocity) and the third equation should have final position on the left side (not change in position). PhySusie (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there ${\frac {1}{2}}$? --Mayfare (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the standard result for integrating a polynomial of degree one; that is to say:

$\int (t)dt={\tfrac {1}{2}}t^{2}+C$

See integral. Very briefly, 1/2 is the result of calculating this integral from the definition of integration. Evidently you haven't had your first calculus class yet! All in good time; you will learn these tools if you continue your study of physics. For now, suffice to say that calculus is the mathematical tool developed by Isaac Newton while he was working on mechanics (physics). Calculus is essential to the study of physics, because it allows consideration of continuous quantities (smooth motion, for example). Integration and differentiation are not very difficult to learn if you already understand algebra; the twist is conceptual - applying limits, continuity, and functional analysis; and then practicing on a lot of sample problems. Nimur (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the 1/2 here has a very simple geometric interpretation: it comes from the fact that the area of a right triangle is half that of a rectangle with the same sides. To see the connection, plot speed (v) as a function of time (t): by the definition of acceleration, it's a straight line with slope a. Assuming you start at v = 0 when t = 0, the distance (d) travelled at time t > 0 will be equal to the area under the line and to the left of t (i.e. the integral of v with respect to t), which forms a right triangle with base length t and height at. This has 1/2 times the area of a rectangle with sides t and at, which of course has the area t·at = at². If you start at some non-zero initial velocity v = v₀ > 0, this moves the line upwards so that the area under it (and left of t) now also includes a rectangle with sides t and v₀. Putting these together, you get d(t) = 1/2 at² + v₀t. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it that may offer some insight is that the speed of the object at time t is at + v₀. Thus, d₁ = at² + v₀t = (at + v₀)t (without the 1/2) is the distance the object would've travelled if it had been moving at that speed all along. But since the object only gradually accelerated up to its full speed, d₁ is obviously an overestimate of the real distance. On the other hand, the distance the object would've travelled if it had been moving at its original speed of v₀ is simply d₀ = v₀t, which is clearly an underestimate. To better estimate the real distance travelled, we can try taking the average of these two distances, which is d_avg = avg(d₀, d₁) = 1/2 (d₀ + d₁) = 1/2 (at² + v₀t + v₀t) = 1/2 at² + v₀t, which we might expect to be closer to the real distance than either d₁ or d₀. As it happens, since, in this case, the change in speed is linear, this averaging "trick" actually does yield the exact distance the object actually travelled — but even if the acceleration had varied a bit over time, it still would've been a better approximation.

Also, in both of my comments above, I've implicitly assumed a and v₀ to be positive scalars, since that's the simplest case to visualize. Once you have a good handle on that, it's a good exercise to look at the case where either a and/or v₀ might be negative, or even non-collinear vectors, and show that the same rule still works in those cases as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ice in a Hot Room?

How effective, if at all, would a jar of ice be at cooling down a hot room? Digger3000 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Evaporative cooler has a section on performance.--76.111.32.200 (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Evaporative coolers start with liquid water. Ice can absorb more heat. Just a moment, let me do some arithmetic... --Anonymous, 05:00 UTC, May 31, 2008.

Okay, say you start with 1 kg of ice at -15 C from a freezer, and you want to finish with water vapor at a room temperature of 25°C. The specific heat of ice is 2.05 J/gnbsp;K (or equivalently kJ/kgnbsp;°C), so you'll need 15x2.05 kJ to reach the freezing point. Then the latent heat of fusion of water is 333.55 kJ/kg, so you'll need that many more kilojoules to get a liquid. Now liquid water has a higher specific heat, 4.18 kJ/kgnbsp;°C, so it's 25x4.18 kJ to reach room temperature. And finally the latent heat of vaporization is a further 2,270 kJ/kg. So the total heat energy needed adds up to over 2,700 kJ.

Now say that the room is 5 m square by 3 m high; that's 75 m³. The density of air is about 1.2 kg/m³, so that's 90 kg of air. It could give up 2,700/90 = 30 kJ/kg. The specific heat of air is 1 kJ/kg °C, so a 1 kg chunk of ice could lower the temperature of the air by a full 30°C.

But there's a big flaw in the above calculation, which is that I assumed that the same 90 kg of air would be present the whole time! In practice, air in a normal room is circulating in and out all the time, even when the doors and windows are closed. That's why you don't suffocate when inside a building. The melting and evaporation of ice is a slow process and there's not much you can do to speed it up.

In other words, it's not the heat capacity of the ice that's the issue, it's the transfer rate of heat from the air to the ice. You not only need to cool the air, you need to cool it before it's replaced with fresh warm air from outside. It is possible to cool air with ice -- it used to be done routinely on trains, before head-end power was available to run air-conditioners - but in practice it takes a lot of ice, way more than my calculation above would suggest. Forcing the air to blow over the surface of the ice would only help a little, because it doesn't have much surface area.

--Anonymous, 05:36 UTC, May 31, 2008.

On trains in India during the 19th century, this type of air-conditioner worked by misting ice water into the train car. The device was called a thermantidote. I had a heck of a time looking this word up when I read this novel (a broken thermantidote ended up being some kind of ... hiding place for a criminal, or something like that). This terminology is decisively not in current use in America (we've still got a redlink article)! I figured it sounded like some kind of medication. Nimur (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, mist coolers are used all the time in tropical places! Every open-air bar in Key West, FL has them! --BenBurch (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than cooling the whole room, try just cooling yourself by blowing air over the block of ice onto you. That should be noticeably cooler than just using a fan alone. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Or as a short cut, misting yourself near a fan for evaporation effects. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an effective cooling method, but doing so inside will result in damp (and possibly moldy) furniture, drapes, carpet, etc. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking face, neck, chest, and a desk fan for a short time dear Sturat, not the room! At that point it evaporates, I hope. You had me worried for a sec. : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Water vapor is difficult to contain, and will get on everything around the spray (and in the direction the fan is blowing). If the humidity level is low, it will evaporate readily. If not, it may remain until a nice little mold forest grows. I once stayed at a motel with a window A/C unit that was spraying water on the floor. I then thought "isn't the carpet quite a bit thicker over here ?". They were reluctant to give me my money back until I pointed out this little biology experiment and mentioned how photogenic it might appear on the evening news. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess where there's heat and water, there's humidity. Nice action, our man in Havana,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Human Biology

The subject is Sweat Glands. The question is: The body has many sweat glands, but what parts of the body or where on the body sweat glands CANNOT be found?? 75.89.250.154 (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Next question, "When's your homework due?" Here's a hot tip on how to find answers for such questions. Your teacher has probably assigned a textbook for this class. I's a great idea to actually get that. (Check for used books if your budget's strapped or check your local library.) Then go to the table of contents in the back. Look for "sweat" or related subjects. That should either get you a page, or at least the section. skim that section for things that say "sweat" or "glands", and start reading around it. Pay attention to things saying "except", "no" or "not". That should get you the answer and the skills you're building that way can let you survive not just to the next test, but throughout all your studies.76.111.32.200 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM. Careful with the tone. This doesn't appear to be a homework question. Regardless, to the user who asked the question, simply scour the internet. Seriously, there's loads of info out there about this topic. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To me it does sounds either like a homework or quiz question Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to qualify the answer you're looking for, or the question is trivial: I don't think you can find sweat glands in any of the internal organs. If you're restricting the answer to places on the surface of the body, you need to decide whether, say, finger nails count as an acceptable answer. --72.78.237.206 (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Eyeballs don't have sweat glands either, do they? And have about scar tissue, does that grow back sweat glands? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have sweat glands in lips.

Joe

Night Luminous Pearl (Ye Ming Zhu in Chinese PinYin)

How is the Night Luminous Pearl (frequently given as gifts to Emperors in Ancient China) formed in nature and how are they harvested ? What is the difference between this Luminous Pearl and normal Pearl from Oysters e.g its mineral contents ? Is it found only in China, as no other countries seem to refer to it in history. Currently, where can one view / purchase a real Night Luminous Pearl ?

218.186.72.68 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC) KKC

I think you'll find this interesting[30] in that the term is also used poetically and about applying phosphorescence as well as the luminosity that made pearls special in times when there was not so much that shone in its own right. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Night Luminous Pearl is nothing but a Chlorophane, a variety of flourite with some REE (Rare Earth Elements). These elements act as activators and deactivators. Due to these rare earth elements the flourite stores heat energy from natural sun light and release same in darkness. Some Fluorites would need UV short wave(SW) or long wave(LW) light to glow. This fact was published in many chinese journals as early as 16th century and was known to west only in 19th century, one such article was published in Harper's Monthly magazine in 1890 (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=harp;cc=harp;rgn= full%20text;idno=harp0080-4;didno=harp0080-4;view=image;seq=0546;node=harp0080-4 %3A6). Copy and paste the above link in new browser window.

The biggest piece produced from Tungsten mine in Guangdong China was 6.1 ton valued at 3.1 Billion USD. You can read the artilce at following link.

http://www.articlesbase.com/nature-articles/yemengzhu-the-3-billion-dollar-rock-298407.html

The similar Night Luminous pearl or chlorophane is found in siberian mines of Russia and few other places. The cobra also makes use of small luminous pearls to hunt insects and rodents and carry this kind of pearl, it is also called cobra pearl/serpant stone. But it is not formed inside the body of snake and it is picked from dry river beds. A small pea size cobra pearl is valued at few million USD, which is actually fluorite with night glow.

logic programming

(1)why is logic programming regarded as the corner stone of knowledge based programming41.209.23.34 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (2)can an informal model theoretic argument be established for statements like this,(has niece(x)if(3x)daughter(x,y)sibling(x,y)) {x/brother(y)}.

>::cough::HOMEWORK::cough::< --Shaggorama (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Got Lost In One Of The Questions (I'll Post This On Entertainment, As I'm Not Sure Which Desk Is Most Appropriate)

3 media of amplitude can be expressed in keyboards, per Keyboard_expression. I am assuming different instruments, such as Brass instruments, or instruments that use water, have different ways of changing dynamics, or the amplitude of the sound that can be normally produced by them, or not, say banging a saxophone against a wall. Are there any others, and if so, could you list them all? Also, please list all theoretical, possible and/or probable ways of changing dynamics (or, in other words, the amplitude of a sound).

So what I'm saying is that for different Keyboard instruments, as per the article Keyboard_expression, there are 3 ways to express dynamics.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're asking, what are the different ways of varying the volume on different musical instruments? I suggest looking at Musical instrument classification, and following the links from there. I would point out that asking people on reference desks to list all of something is not usually a very productive request: the people who reply on these desks do so voluntarily out of interest or a desire to help, but unless somebody happens to be a completist about a topic, they may not want to spend the time compiling lists. --ColinFine (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Humidity and electronic equipment

Why do specifications for electronic equipment (TV, computer, etc.) specify a range for humidity, eg. 10-70%? If the air is too humid or not humid enough, how does that affect the equipment? I've heard from friends that it would catch on fire, but I doubt it. Rilak (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but if it's too humid, I'd say condensation might occur in the device which might short circuit the whole thing. A lack of humidity doesn't sound like it would do much, although dry air does increase the chance of static electricity building up and whatnot.84.198.96.249 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above for high humidity, now let me try to explain the low humidity issue, as well. It might seem odd, but quite a few electronic devices include paper (say a circuit diagram glued to the inside of the case) or paper-based tape. When either loses all of it's humidity it can fall apart. Those pieces can then fall onto some hot component and catch fire. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Birds and hot chips

moved from misc desk
When I eat a very hot chip (or fries, depending on your preference) I can burn my mouth. But when I drop a hot chip on the floor a seagull will swallow it down whole. Do they not feel the heat of the chip in their mouth?Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to see another seagull question here at last. First, I would think that for a bird to swallow it whole, it would be a relatively small chip so it is already cooler than the fat ones. Secondly, birds don't chew their food and gulls usually swallow their food whole, so they probably don't notice its temperature until it's too late.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that they do not chew, can we conclude that they have additional mucous or other sturdy membrane linings in their esophagus? I imagine they would need to be made of tougher stuff if they regularly swallow food whole. Nimur (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Gulls also seem to be capable of quickly horking up anything that doesn't feel right in their crops. Sometimes they'll make several attempts at eating that large/hard/spiky thing to see if they can get it to sit comfortably inside. The other week, I saw a gull making three attempts at keeping a whole tomato down before finally deciding just to bite into it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Power Quality Managment

Is it possible to improve power by improving power factor? If yes upto what percent we can improve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedshahid (talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See power factor and power factor correction. Both of your questions are answered there. --Heron (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you shoot yourself in the head twice?

Assume the following: a person has two pistols, one in each hand. Would it be possible for that person to fire both guns at their own head? Or would one lose muscle control faster than you can squeeze the second trigger? Pardon my morbid curiousity :) 84.198.96.249 (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rigor mortis—contraction of skeletal muscles due to depletion of ATP or cadaveric spasm might trigger the contraction of fingers of the other hand making them press the trigger. So, this might result in the situation you are speculating. I personally, have no problems with your curiosity. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 09:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You would be lucky to still be aiming right by the time rigor mortis sets in. It would be easier to fire both guns at the same time - that ought to work fine (even if you're off by a fraction of a second there is enough delay in the firing of the gun and the loss of muscle control to get away with it - or at least, I expect there would be, I've never actually tried it!). --Tango (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're very, very lucky, you could get the 'classic' sort of suicide story where both your bullets hit each other and so don't kill you (since it's likely both your bullets will be at an angle, I presume they will still go forward and may still hurt you but I guess could potentially lose enough momentum so that they don't kill you although I can't be bothered doing the maths) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was imagining one gun on each side of your head, so if the bullets hit each other they would do so in the middle of your brain. Where are you imagining the guns? --Tango (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious to know what's going on inside Nil Einne's head. I imagine Nil misunderstood the question since I can't imagine any configuration that conciliates two shots aimed at the head with both bullets hitting each other to save the experimenter. ----Seans Potato Business 13:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He (she?) was considering the scenario where each gun's bullet is aimed towards the side of the head farthest from the gun. The bullets would then have a possibility of colliding in mid-air prior to entering the head. here's a diagram.

Suppose both guns are pointed towards the head so that their barrels, if extended, touch the head. The bullets cannot be travelling directly towards the head's centre since their collision point would then be inside the brain. Each bullet can be considered to be concurrently travelling towards the centre of the head and in the perpendicular direction. Upon collision, the bullets' velocities perpendicular to the path to the head's centre partially cancel out, while their velocities toward the head add. Whether the resultant amalgamation of the projectiles would have a greater speed than its components would have had without a collision depends on the angle between the head and the guns.

The probability of two bullets intercepting each other in mid-air, though, is likely less than the probability of winning the lottery. --Bowlhover (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple fail-deadly system would be to put a strong rubber band around each trigger finger that requires you to actively resist pulling the trigger. Point the guns at your head such that one bullet's exit won't knock the other gun out of position, and then just ... relax. --Sean 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fail-safe, you mean? Since the goal is suicide and contingencies are planned to meet it, an initial failure is "safe" because it would not render the goal impossible. --Bowlhover (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm disturbed at how practical these answers are getting. Doesn't this fall under the aegis of no medical advice? ;-)--Fangz (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no medical advice, not no immoral advice. Discussion of war and other violent means is allowed here. SpinningSpark 19:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that rigour mortis doesn't set in if you're shot in the eye? Bastard Soap (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While being shot in the head is usually fatal, a surprisingly large number of people survive. Here are some examples [31][32][33][34]. However, my favourite is Michael Moylin who woke up with such a severe headache he thought he had suffered an anuerism. The hospital soon put him straight though, and pointed out that his wife had shot him in the head while he had been sleeping [35][36]. So yes, it would be quite possible to shoot yourself in the head multiple times because you might survive the first bullet. This is not a reliable method however - don't try this at home. SpinningSpark 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to find a newspaper story on a woman who shot herself in the head in (possibly) the 1980s and survived. She had shot herself in the right temple but the surgeon removed the bullet from her left temple. The bullet had not, as one might imagine, passed through the brain. It had, in fact, skidded across the top of her skull underneath the skin. There was a great x-ray pic in the papers at the time - if anyone has a link please post it, I couldn't find it. Some women are just lousy shots I guess[37]. SpinningSpark 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bastard Soap (am not calling you names! That's your user name), considering the mechanism by which rigor mortis develops (depletion of ATP) in the individual skeletal muscles, I don't think what happens to the brain (shooting in the eye) should have much influence upon the setting in of rigor mortis. Though there are factors like temperature, emotional state, poisoning by arsenic, etc. that could alter the rapidity and depth of rigor mortis, I don't know if the factor you are talking of could also be one of these. But, remember all these factors I enumerated simply determine the intensity and timing of rigor mortis not whether it develops or not, per se.

With all this talk going about medical advice and some one stating "Discussion of war and other violent means is allowed here.", this point from WP:Common sense could be instructive here:

"Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (e.g., don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter."

But since, I believe the user who originally started the topic must be well aware that it can be fairly assumed that firing of both the pistols doesn't really greatly alter the probability of death, he'she is not asking for medical advice. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 20:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

With rigour mortis I mean the sudden contraction at the moment of death (don't think it's the right term but don't know the right one). I remember reading somewhere that snipers aim for the eyes in hostage situations so even if the terrosit has a gun pointed he won't fire in death. Bastard Soap (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm indeed quite aware that one shot to the head is usually quite fatal enough without the need for a second one ;). I just get the occasional bout of morbid curiousity. I think the rubber band guy might just be on to something though, very clever :D84.198.96.249 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original scenario, let's say that the guns involved are Walther P99 pistols loaded with american .40 calibre ammunition with a muzzle velocity of 320m/s. Let's further assume that the bullet is decelerated to a complete stop just before exiting the head (this assumption gives you the maximum possible reaction time, a "through and through" shot will give you less time as the bullet travels faster). With those assumptions, the travel time through my 16cm head would be exactly 1ms. So you have, at most, a 1ms reaction time to fire the second gun before your brains are scrambled and unable to respond. According to the article reaction time for an audio stimulus is about 150ms. So the answer is no unless you contrive to fire both guns simultaneoulsy. Simultaneous in this context being $\pm 500\mu s$. This is humanly next to impossible, but probably unverified by experiment. Don't try this at home. SpinningSpark 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also going to be some time between squeezing the trigger and it actually firing. Also, you don't need to respond to a stimulus to fire the second gun, you can have already made the decision to fire it before firing the first. If you fire them simultaneously your margin of error is the 500 microseconds you mention, plus the time the gun takes to fire and the time it takes for the signal to get from your brain to your finger (you'll still pull the trigger even after your brain is gone if the signal has already been sent). I don't know what that works out to, but I expect it's significantly more than 500 microseconds. --Tango (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One could argue philosophically that if it is a reflex or rigor mortis that causes you to squeeze the trigger rather than a conscious choice, then you, personally, in fact did not shoot yourself twice. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You could, but I don't think anyone mentioned reflexes... --Tango (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They did further up. Wrad (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The breakdown of reaction time is (very approximately) 10ms ear to brain transmission, 100ms decision time, 40ms brain to hand transmission. SpinningSpark 13:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Trapezius muscle—A doubt!

If all the fibers in the trapezius muscle are supplied by the same nerve, will the simultaneous contraction of the superior and inferior fibers not antagonize each others' actions? Hope someone answers it.

PS: I have posted the same question on the talk page of the article trapezius muscle.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 09:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all neurons that form the part of the accessory nerve that supplies the trapezius need fire at the same time. Indeed, upper and lower fibres of trapezius have opposite actions on the scapula. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi flyguy! You mean these neurons come from different spinal segments? Yes, that is a distinct possibility considering that the spinal accessory nucleus has the root values of C1-C5. Thanks. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 17:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pauli Equation

I I wanted to use the Pauli equation to describe a spin-4 particle, would I just have to replace the Pauli matrices with the spin-4 equivalents, or would I have to change something else, such as changing the part at the beginning fron 1/2m to 4m? Thanks, *Max* (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

The 1/(2m) part doesn't change. You just increase the dimension of the spinor part of the wavefunction (for spin 4 it has dimension 9), and replace the Pauli matrices. —Keenan Pepper 02:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's what I'm doing. Looking at the equation again, it's obvious that the 1/2 doesn't chamge. Will changing the matrices get rid of the Pauli exclusion principle? *Max* (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) It was never there. *Max* (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NUCLEOPHILICITY VS BASICITY

Hello,can some1 please help me to undstand what is the difference between NUCLEOPHILICITY and BASICITY.After going through books,i have learnt that they are somehow directly proportional in terms of strenght.But I'm bit confused as I find sometimes stronger nucleophiles are weaker bases.also i found that type of solvent affects nucleophilic nature.My text books dont explain clearly why.Can Some1 please help? Abhiroopron (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Abhiroop.

The strongest bases typically bear negative charge and lone pairs on the same atom. This property makes them both excellent nucleophiles and lewis bases (electron pair doners). This actually creates a problem in protic solvents, as they are typically very good at accepting hydrogen bonds if not outright reacting with the solvent. As a result, stronger bases (especially when comparing halide ions) can often be very poor nucleophiles in such a solvent. This can be thought of in either of two ways; in the kinetic sense, having the nucleophile lone pairs bound up by the solvent reduces their availability to attack the electrophile, lowering the rate of reaction; in the thermodynamic sense, the interaction with the solvent lowers a nucleophile's (and thus, the total reactant's) energy, reducing the favorability of a reaction. As an example of such a thing, iodide ion (an extremely weak base) will complete its reaction with methyl iodide (that's an interesting reaction, isn't it? But you can measure it via iodide isotopes) in 17 minutes in methanol, and 8.7 seconds in Dimethylformamide (a polar aprotic solvent). Faster in the aprotic sovlent, as expected from what I just told you. Cyanide, a much stronger base than iodide, reacts in 0.011s in DMF (the stronger base reacts faster than the weaker base, as you yourself probably wanted to say). In methanol, however, cyanide ion takes 1.5 hours to completion, about six times slower than iodide. Thus, as you can see, stronger bases are often worse nucleophiles in a polar protic solvent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot,that made some things much clearer to me.But smthng still confuses me.I now undstand about this nucleophilic strenght being reduced in protic solvents due to H-bonding(i know now after i looked up the terms here after your reference about the action of such solvents),but why is the basic strenght not reduced too.i mean isn't the strenghth of a base also measured by its ability to co-ordinate with a proton.if its lone pair is hindered(thereby making it a weaker nucleophile evidently),then why doesn't its(or does it)proton abstraction ability decrease hence making it a weaker base according to the definition of a lewis base if i'm not wrong.I'll be really grateful if you can clear my doubts.Thanks mr...umm Someguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhiroopron (talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that nuclephilic/electrophilic attacks are Lewis acid-base reactions. The coordination with a proton is Brønsted basicity. Now, something that is usually not discussed until advanced chemistry courses, the strength of an acid/base is dependent on the solvent. But for Brønsted reactions, I doubt you are going to see the complete reversal of order of rates that you do for Lewis reactions; and the reason would be that a horrible base (like iodide) still won't be able to hold on to a proton. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok,i see.Thanks.Though i doubt i'll do chem hons. i wish they'd make our plus II text bks better.Its an interesting subject really!Abhiroopron (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Abhiroop

Properties of silk dope

Hi - our articles are a bit vague on the actual properties of the protein solution that passes through spinnerets to produce silk. Is it called 'silk dope' or is there a more technical general term? What does it look like en masse? What is its colour, viscosity etc?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which articles? The spider silk article has some good information. The properties of the silk ingredients are rather complex (the protein sequences are different depending on the species, and only a few have been decoded), and describes various attempts to synthesize it, with references for further reading. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good article, and thanks for the answer, but it doesn't address my questions above - what are the properties en masse of silk dope - if you had a cupful, what would it look/smell like? - and is there a more technical generic term for the stuff? Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise known as gossamer. Seriously, where did you find the idea of "silk dope"? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I get it, here at Softpedia[38] seems to refer to the fibre "stock" before being spun into thread. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned too in the Synthesis section of the Spider Silk article, but dope seems to often be contained in inverted commas - just thought there might be a more official generic term - and a description - I realise it's a difficult question... Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not difficult if the scientists were more pictorial, but here[39] and searching "synthetic spider silk stock", gives terminology of "stock" and "stock solution". Only found chemical descriptions (polypeptide etc), but no sensate accounts (smell, texture, colour) among these. Synthetic spider silk "stock" etc gets more hits than "dope" so I'd go with the stock/solution term which as you know, is the bulk before drawing out fibres as such. Interestingly there are some mixtures of both natural and synthetic stock. It's freezable, too. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Julia - and thanks, all, for your efforts - I'm starting to realise it's a ridiculous question, like asking what a gallon of pure DNA looks like. Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It raised an interesting aspect – the deficit of presenting something as its chemistry without a description of its substance. At least spider web solution is a quantity of something not so in-tangible as DNA – it could be described as fluid or lightweight, sticky, grey or odorless or whatever, but we can't know!  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

btw, I have a vague memory of a newspaper article about a science project where they derived several grammes of pure DNA from onions - wasn't an extraordinary stuff, as I recall, pale grey goop - if it was up to me, it'd be a prismatic soup visibly fizzing and zinging with genetic potentialities - probably best if I don't know what silk stock looks like - more fun to make it up Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not too late. I think it is feasible (but impractical) to isolate the unspun spider silk proteins. First isolate it from a producer that can provide it en masse like a Spider goat. Second, find a way to separate the milk from the silk using methods such as High performance liquid chromatography. I'm not sure how much protein per liter of milk though. Maybe around 1 gram.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Asthma + Other disease

When I was three, I had an athsma attack with another disease at the same time. I do not remember the name of the disease, but I could not breath in or out. The last I remember of that day was falling asleep after a mask was put on me, leaving me to believe I had surgery. Ever since then, I have only had acute bronchitis, not general asthma. Does anyone in the medical field know what treatment could possibly lead to this(As well as what the disease could be)? I have a highly curious mind, so semi-complex awnsers are okay, just try not to get all E=MC² over me. 67.171.165.4 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean chronic bronchitis? --Tango (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not really supposed to give medical advice here but i'll give you some background, I suppose. Have you been confirmed to have bronchitis, or was it a disease similar to it? I ask this because both acute bronchitis and chronic bronchitis are pretty much always caused by an infection, be it by viruses or bacteria. The proportion of cases that haven't been caused by an organism are almost always due to breathing in industrial fumes, or even more commonly by smoking. I'm not sure it bronchitis can be caused by any physical treatment but i'll leave that to the more medically trained.

As for the insight into what the disease is, it's essentially an inflammation of the bronchi. It's normally treated by either antibiotics (in cases where a pathological aetiology exists) and/or by bronchodilators. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 12:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

With no medical background, but just based on "grandma says": child + trouble breathing + surgery brings tonsillitis to mind. That would however be an upper respiratory infection. Respiratory diseases has long lists of what it could be/have been. But that might just confuse matters further rather than clear things up. (No medical advice whatsoever.) Have you asked your physician? --76.111.32.200 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The user mentioned that they've had it ever since they were three, I highly doubt it was tonsillitis. Tonsillitis doesn't really lead to bronchitis. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with my daughter

My daughter is going through puberty and is starting to develop acne. I'm trying to find research papers and information regarding the effect of physical exercise on acne. Thank you.--Goon Noot (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Our article acne mentions many things that may cause or help counter acne, but physical exercise isn't one of them. I suspect therefore that exercise has little impact on it. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't give medical advice here, so there's not a lot of help we can offer. You would be best off consulting your GP. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask for medical advice. I specifically asked for research papers and information. Not advice.--Goon Noot (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Try this search string [40] which seems to get a lot of relevant hits. however, most of them require a subscription to view the full article. SpinningSpark 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one you can get for free: [41] - if you come up against a journal requesting a subscription or fee, you can always check to see if the research institution has archived the paper for free on the internet. Just yesterday, Nature tried to fleece me for $32 but I found that the research institution in Germany puts their papers online for free. You also ought to lobby your political establishment and research charities to mandate open access since its the people's donations and taxes that support so much research. ----Seans Potato Business 12:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Muscle Growth

I know this isn't probably the best place to ask for exercise advice, but I had some questions about the notion of between-lifting rest. I know you're not supposed to lift weights every day, because you need to give your muscles time to rest and regrow. But I've also heard that there are some muscles that it's OK to work every day (like, it's OK to run daily, I think), and I've also heard that abs work like this. I've also heard something, which doesn't make much sense to me, about how body-weight exercises (push ups, pull ups, etc) can be done daily, for some reason possibly having to do with lightness of weight. Do any of you know, from personal or scientific knowledge, how much of this is accurate, or what the real story is?

And, regardless of what particular muscles and exercise types call for what types of rest, what are the deleterious effects of not getting enough rest time? Will my muscles grow less if I do pushups daily than if I did them every other day? Will the muscle be more dense? Bigger? More wirey? I don't know.

And which is it that causes denser muscles, heavy weightlifting or many reps of lighter (bodyweight etc) weights? Or is the different-muscle-type-by-different-exercise stuff I've heard about pretty much made up?

Thanks,

70.108.222.173 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Running every day is mostly to build endurance and reduce fat. It may actually reduce muscle growth though if done excessively. I don't know about muscle density, but more reps means more tone, while more weight means bulkier muscles. Hope that helps. 24.46.50.159 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Genome and DNA

So a Gene is part of a DNA molecule. And a Genome is a complete set of Genes in a given organism. So does a single DNA molecule contain the entire genome of an animal? 24.46.50.159 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The pairs of chromosomes (which are the same in all cells of the body) contain the entire genome of an animal. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A chromosome just contains one DNA molecule right? So just one cell will have all the chromosomes and DNA? How many chromosomes does a human have? 24.46.50.159 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A normal human has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Algebraist 23:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. When you say pairs of chromosomes, do you mean 46 DNA molecules? 24.46.50.159 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Chromosomes are not the only DNA molecules in cells. According to chromosome, a normal human cell also contains hundreds of copies of the mitochondrial genome. Algebraist 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And the genome isn't just the genes, it's all genetic information, coding and uncoding. - Nunh-huh 00:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nunh and Alge are absolutely correct. To answer more directly the last question, however, what we mean by "23 pairs" is 46 total chromosomes (see diploid), one copy from each parent. There are 22 pairs of autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Essentially, yes, 46 DNA molecules I suppose. But, that's misleading since "DNA molecules" can mean different things depending on the species we're talking about, the cell type (gametes are haploid for instance), or whether we're talking about in vivo or in vitro analysis. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

June 1

Are scientists not telling us everything?

I've always had a suspicion that there are some scientists that know... THE TRUTH. The very unpleasant truth,- and aren't telling. For good reason. Dont wanna cause mass panic or anything. What I mean is-I'll bet there are some scientists that know, just know what's really going on.

Take the age old mystery of what happens after you die. Maybe it's very unpleasant. For EVERYONE. Maybe there is no Heaven or Hell. Just Hell. Or something like it. Doesn't matter if you've been a good person. Maybe that's just the way it is. For reasons we'll never understand. Bad things happen to undeserving people all the time, so why couldn't this "injustice" continue in the next realm?

How about where our thoughts come from. They appear at random all the time. Same for dreams. Would you really want to know that our minds are being programmed by aliens that don't necessarily have the best intentions? I doubt researchers would happily share this information with us.

I could go on but you probably don't want to get me started on mutating viruses, genetic slavery, and the insignificance of our existence. On second thought, maybe I dont want to know the answer.--Dr. Carefree (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we tell people about global warming and the end of oil and the death of the oceans and the consequences of overpopulation, and nobody listens who matters... --BenBurch (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Science is one of those things that only rewards those who tell things—you get no points for keeping things secret, for good or ill. If I (a researcher, of a sort) knew aliens were programming our minds I'd definitely tell. If I thought I had evidence of anything massive and important I'd publish it, become famous, get a great job, write a book, be on Oprah, etc. Would I worry that people couldn't handle the truth? Not at all. Am I unique? No. There are scientists working right now, right now!, who, if they had new answers (based in science, not just speculation) to the questions of the afterlife, extraterrestrials, dreams, etc., they would rush, RUSH to publish it before somebody else did. That's not just Nobel Prize quality work, that's #1 Scientist of the Century sorts of stuff (what would Einstein's redefinition of spacetime have on something like that?). So no. I don't see it as likely. I'm sure many scientists have uninformed (from the point of view of scientific method) opinions on these issues, and they surely keep them to themselves. But actual access to the truth? That they're hiding away from us all? Systematic conspiracy? No way. Too much at stake for the individual. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that those questions you are asking are outside of realm of science, because they are not verifiable. If you want answers to these things, you should look into religion, because no real scientist will give you authoritative answers on those, as it is outside of his/her specialty (and interest, in most cases). Samohyl Jan (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I read an article in a journal recently about how popular culture has made scientists look more and more evil through time. See the "Popular culture" section of Frankenstein (this section cites the article I'm talking about.) It's natural in our day and age not to trust scientists, even if there isn't any logical reason for it. Wrad (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... minor quibble: understandable? Perhaps. Natural? No. – ClockworkSoul 05:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To argue that religion answers what science does not is to argue for a god of the gaps. I think that science HAS provided definitive answers to the purpose of life and the state of death, and I don't believe there to be any realm of knowledge but what can be attained through the scientific method. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thing is,- if a scientist ever tried to talk about anything I just mentioned (or worse) I think he'd be labeled a crackpot. I also believe that if he did have absolute proof of something that terrifying and tried to go public with it,he'd probably "disappear" long before being labeled a crackpot anyways, IMHO. I was just kinda hoping that some anonymously editing scientist (using an untraceable proxy, perhaps?) would have the bravery to say what's really happening!Dr. Carefree (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To prove anything through scientific means including what you mentioned earlier, scientist would have give strong empirical proof that something like that happens or is happening. Without verifiable proof through repeatable experiments, there is no science and hence, no scientist (that's why they are called "crakpots"). Oh, and nobody has "absolute proof" of anything, only "pretty good proof" at best. Sjschen (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we imagine similar things that would "rock our world" that have been discovered, publicized, etc.? Sure. How about the fact that time and space are relative? That was pretty radical at one point. How about the fact that our brains have bits for religion hardwired into them (and they are the same parts of the brain that flash when epileptics have fits)? Big book money in that research. How about the fact that humans are descended from apes? Sure, it caused one scientist enough fear that he decided not to publish on it for a few decades—but then when it became clear that another scientist was going to make his own name on it, he rushed it into publication for posterity's sake. How about the fact that the splitting of atoms can create fantastic explosions? Yes, one scientist tried to keep others from publishing on the subject lest their common war enemy found out, but he also was more than willing to use that information where he thought it would have done good (and again, even if all of those scientists had stopped publishing completely, it would have gotten out eventually). All I'm saying is, we've had "world changing" research, examples of scientists being afraid or unwilling to publish, etc., and in the end, it all came out. It's also the case that you could remove any of the "top scientists" from history and someone else would eventually fall into place as the "discoverer" of this or that. Science is both dependent on the strivings of individual as well as independent of the work of any given individual. I don't see much possibility for real long-term coverup. Truth will out, as they say. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with such conspiracy theories is that they depend on governments, commercial organisations or other large groups of people keeping big secrets secret. Experience shows that people are just not that good at keeping secrets. On the other hand, if your conspiracy theory involves telepathic mind control by omnipotent aliens, it becomes much more credible ... Gandalf61 (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The only way to keep a big secret is to limit the number of people who know about it. The CIA was caught completely off guard by the first Indian nuclear test in 1974 in part because they kept the number of staff super small—their top scientists were also their technicians, there were no more than a few dozen people involved directly. By contrast, the massive Manhattan Project, supposedly a well-kept secret, had numerous, numerous leaks, inadvertent releases, etc. not to mention the whole espionage thing; entirely predictable, given that there were thousands upon thousands of people involved. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about death without consciousness being unpleasant (the idea of a bodiless floating soul is very discomforting for me), but I think people do realize on some level that science HAS provided the answers to questions about life and death, and that is why religionists seize upon Einstein's comment about science without religion. I also think theists are not wrong when some of them say that evolution is godless. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Carefree, you seem to be quite paranoid, perhaps you should read up on dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia (also related to paranoia and psychosis). Of course this theory is proposed by scientists.. the same ones the government are controlling ;-). --Mark PEA (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The original question implicitly suggests that all of scientists are in collusion to prevent access to certain information. While there is a great deal of consensus regarding many facts in science, it is unlikely that anyone could make all scientists everywhere agree about this sort of censorship. Wikipedia's stance is pretty much the same - there is no cabal!. Nimur (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont mean to imply that all scientists are in on hiding unpleasant information. What I mean is something along the lines of- Let's say a small group of , or even an individual scientist confirms that nature is indeed out to get us and will eventually get us in the long run. All good is an illusion, we're completely insignificant, we're all the the playtoy of sadistic extraterrestrials, and death is no escape. I highly doubt that any scientist would be allowed to go public with this information. First, he'd be discredited, and if that didn't work, he'd probably be found dead from a "suicide".

As a more practical example, do you think if it was discovered that a nearby star will explode tomorrow, killing us all (Eta Carinae?), there would be a big announcement about it? Supposedly the radiation from that star wont affect us. How about the front page news of a meteor hitting Earth in 30 years or so? Then, all of the sudden, the orbit was recalculated and, don't worry folks, it's gonna miss us. Somewhere, I see those scientists running around thier lab in a zigzag pattern, saying over and over again "Oh my God, oh my God what are we gonna do!!? It's 30 years away, Calm down!"

I'm not sure I'd want to to know the truth about any of this stuff anyways, but an interesting question, -no?Dr. Carefree (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a brief scare that 99942 Apophis was (relatively) likely to impact Earth. And they published that almost instantly.

The primary motivation of research science is to publish. It's how you move up in your field and pay the bills. To suggest that a scientist is sitting on the biggest discovery in the world and hiding it, is like saying McDonalds has invented the tastiest hamburger in the world but is refusing to sell it. It doesn't make sense. Calories be damned, McDonalds would rush that burger to market so they could beat Burger King to the punch. Same with science, If researcher X hides information he loses out to researcher Y who publishes. APL (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the US, at least, many scientists aren't allowed to tell the public the truth because they work for the government or a company which wants the truth suppressed. Scientists working for the FDA aren't allowed to tell the public that a drug is dangerous, because that might reduce the pharmaceutical company profits. Scientists working for NASA aren't allowed to tell the public about proof of global warming because that might call into question the Bush Administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Scientists working for companies are expected to only publish data helpful to the company. If they discover anything that doesn't increase short-term profits (say that the MTBE gasoline additive contaminates groundwater, or that ethanol production from corn is counter-productive), they are expected to suppress it. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to see parts of a pig

Trying to figure out the different parts of pork. Is the Shoulder Roast the same as a Butt Roast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.29.177 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well shoulder mean the pig's front leg and butt means the back, so, no. Franamax (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[Here's a link to a diagram showing the cuts of pork. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Shoulder Roast the same as a Butt Roast? Yes, check out the text and diagrams here . Pork#Cuts GameKeeper (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoulder roast the same as butt roast? Seems like butchers don't know their arse from their elbow ;-) Fribbler (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-quite-black snake in central Florida?

Today I fished a little "Black Racer" snake out of our pool; the poor thing was only about a foot long and couldn't lift himself far enough out of the water to climb the 6" tile lip, being all wet and slippery and all. It took me awhile, since he kept trying to get away from me, but I finally won that fight and gently deposited him in the grass where he could go back to eating flies, mosquitoes, fleas, and baby cockroaches like he's sposta. Only, as I was putting him down I realized he had a bright red ring around his neck. WTF? Grass snakes, in my experience, come in various flavors of green and black, but each individual snake is always the same color from nose to tail. Thus, I wonder if this might have been something I shouldn't have released again. I'm familiar with all the snakes up in Appalachia, but I ain't home no more, and I won't claim to be an expert on Florida snakes. I couldn't find anything on Google Images that looked right. The closest I've found is a color photo of a "Ringsnake" in the nonpoisonous section of Maynard Cox's "Protocol" handbook, but that shows a black body, yellow stripe, and red tail, so I don't think that's right. Any ideas? -SandyJax (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is indeed a ringneck snake. There are several subspecies, and the one you saw in the picture doesn't sound like the one you found. However, the top one on this page does look like it: [42]. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The top picture on your link looks exactly right, except that if it had a colored belly I didn't notice it, and it was wiggling around quite a bit, both in the pool and on the skimmer I finally used to pick it up. I probably would have seen any change in body color if the belly was different from the black head, body, and tail. Naturally, I had no camera with me when I went out to clean leaves and bugs out of the pool.... -SandyJax (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This link [43] seems to reinforce your suggestion, and says that mine was full-grown. Huh. I guess I just missed whatever bright color was on the belly. I like the quote: "Ringnecks are the snakes that are most frequently found in Florida swimming pools — they crawl in to get a drink and then cannot climb out because they are too small to reach the lip of the pool. If you find one in your pool, lift it out with the leaf skimmer or a dipnet and turn it loose in the shrubs where it can get back to eating things you do not want in your garden." -SandyJax (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the brightest of animals to climb into a pool before checking to see if there's a way out, are they ? StuRat (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: Unless you are an absolute expert on snakes I'd stay away from them, as some, especially those with bright colors on them, are poisonous. Or, at the very least, make sure there is somebody with you who can get you medical attention if you're bitten. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. No, you can't stay away from strange things in your own yard. That just leads to someone less capable of dealing with it getting surprised. I can ask the wife & kid to stay away, and try to keep the dogs inside until I take care of it, and put the cats out in hopes that they will get eaten, but I'm the guy who has to deal with the problem. I can't even ask for help from the neighbors. The 4 nearest houses I see from my front door all have old retired people in them; if there's a problem like this _they_ will come to _me_ for help. As above, I will claim to be an expert on Appalachian snakes, but certainly not everything around here that may have escaped from someone's pet cage. Why d'you think I have a copy of Maynard's "Protocol" handy, and then ask for help when I can't ID a snake? -SandyJax (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression, though, that you handled an unidentified snake with your bare hands prior to looking it up in the book and posting your question here. That's the dangerous part. You should treat any unidentified snake as if it were poisonous. Using the pool skimmer is a good idea, so it can't bite you. I believe there is also a device sold for larger snakes that has a lasso on the end of a long pole; you can tighten the loop around the snake by pulling the other end (does anyone know the name of this device ?). If you need to transport the snake you then need to deposit it into a thick bag designed for this purpose. I believe it's also far more effective to capture snakes with an assistant, as one can distract it with a long stick while the other maneuvers behind it and drops the loop around it's neck. I certainly hope that if you get a 20 foot alligator in your pool some day you won't try to handle it yourself, as you could give him indigestion that way. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. If someone asks for help, you are certainly right to include all the safety tips you can think of; any that don't apply will be happily ignored. The surface of a pool is commonly skimmed using a device that looks like a tennis racket; it attaches to a variable-length pole for the central parts that you can't reach from the edge of the pool. Unfortunately, Mr Wiggle-worm wouldn't stay on the skimmer. I ended up using a handy 5' inflatable raft because I don't know what it is yet. It's about a foot long; I grew up with rattlesnakes, cottonmouths, water moccasins, and gar, so I'm not letting it within 2 feet of my dainty little toesies without ensuring I'm in charge. If I'd used my bare hands, I could not have used the adjective 'gently' originally, as holding it behind the neck firmly enough to ensure it could not bite me (hadn't ID'ed it yet, right?) probably would have killed it. 20' alligators are best skimmed with a tool from Smith and Wesson. -SandyJax (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although I wouldn't handle a snake with bare hands even if I was certain it's wasn't venomous, as a snake bite could still lead to a nasty infection. StuRat (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well since you are an expert, it's not an issue but I disagree that you not doing it leaves it to someone less capable to do it. The responsible thing to do when you find a snake in your backyard, particularly when you think it may be venemous is not to leave your kids/wife/neighbour/cats to deal with it, but call up people who are experts are dealing with it. A Google for this [44] came up with [45] which has a link to [46]. I presume in most other parts of the US as well, there there are pest control or wild life removal experts who can similarly remove unwanted snakes (or other creatures) for you, obviously for a fee. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One other comment: You might want to keep the pool covered when not in use. Aside from the obvious advantages of keeping leaves and snakes out, the more important reason is to keep small children out. A surprisingly large number of children manage to drown themselves each year by falling into an unattended pool, so much so that covering vacant pools is the law in many areas. I don't know how old your kid is, but all those elderly folks nearby might have grandchildren over occasionally who might wander off and fall into your pool. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Need Bird Expert

There are a pair of birds nesting in my yard that look like Eastern Phoebes. Except that the Eastern Phoebe supposedly separate when their babies are still eggs, and though the chicks of the pair in question have hatched long ago and already have feathers, they continue to guard the nest together. Is there some other species that looks like the Eastern Phoebe and has similar range that I could be mixing these birds up with?

(More detailed description of the birds: about the size of sparrows. Grey-brown color all over except for white throat and belly. Black beak. No markings around the eyes, and no distinct wing bars although there are some very very faint markings on wings. Frequently flicks tail. Call is short high chirping sounds. Exactly five chicks in nest. The parents always appear to be within view of the nest, frequently together, and both have been seen flying to nest and back often in quick succession of each other.)

In case my question isn't clear: I am looking either for an explanation as to why this pair didn't separate or help identifying them as a different species than the one I've been suspecting. 96.233.8.220 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Phoebe

Sorry I'm no bird expert. But the black and white pattern on the wings, white chest and dark head is also found in some tits The bird kind. There are just an awful lot of varieties of those and I may be off entirely.--76.111.32.200 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too am no bird expert, but I recall from the Boy Scout days of my youth that the eastern wood-peewee can be difficult to distinguish from the phoebe. I was taught this: If the bird continually bobs its tail up and down while perching, it's a phoebe; if it doesn't, it's a wood-peewee. Deor (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the WP article on the wood-peewee. Note that it says that both parents raise the chicks. Your description of an all-black beak, tail flicking, and indistinct wing bars would seem to rule it out; but are you sure of your observations? Deor (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that your description of the behavior and appearance of the bird is correct (especially no wing bars and tail flipping), it must be an Eastern Phoebe. While it is true that phoebes tend to be loners, both parents do tend the nest according to this site [47] (and our article Eastern Phoebe). Continue your observations and let us know what happens. Remember that animal behavior can vary quite a bit, and what you read in books or on the Internet is just a summary of the behavior of many individuals.--Eriastrum (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Refererencing

"The CKTFS1B1 protein was shown to interact with YWHAH (or 14-3-3 eta) (4)⁠, a protein which blah blah blah..." - notice where it says (4) after '14-3-3 eta'. 14-3-3 eta is the alias of YWHAH whilst '4' is the reference number. Is it appropriate to leave '4' in brackets or should it be '(or 14-3-3 eta; 4)⁠' as one usually does when one has two sets of brackets adjacent to each other? I'd say that the purpose of the '4' in the second case is not clear. ----Seans Potato Business 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally having consecutive parentheses is awkward. If it were full referencing, your second solution works (14-3-3 eta; Widget et al., 2008). However, I've never seen that with parenthetic numerical referencing. Why not recast is as "... YWHAH, also called 14-3-3 eta (4), a protein..." or move the reference to the end of the sentence? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to recast the sentence (I couldn't put the reference at the end of the sentence because there lies another reference and I wanted to make it clear as to which morsel came from where). Thanks. ----Seans Potato Business 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does wintergreen oil dissolve plastic ?

It doesn't seem like nasty stuff, I can even put my hands in it with no ill effect (although it apparently can be lethal in large doses). So why did it dissolve the plastic case on my walkie-talkie ? StuRat (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wintergreen oil -- Methyl salicylate -- is a (fairly mild) solvent, as are many essential oils. That's why the lemon or orange in various cleaners; they do make a nice smell, but they're also functional. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would you expect a mild solvent to dissolve plastic ? StuRat (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. Depends of course on the plastic. Experiment! Try it on a water bottle (for example) and see what happens. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"mild solvent" isn't particular meaningful. Different things dissolve in different things. Water is quite a powerful solvent for things like sodium chloride, it doesn't do much at all to dissolve plastic, though. --Tango (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

True. So what makes things like methyl salicylate work as solvents? I couldn't find much about it in that regard other than the mention that oils like this dissolve some of the plastic in water bottles and such. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it have something to do with the miscibility of similar objects (ie. two non-polar like the oil and plastic or two polar like water and sodium chloride)? --71.117.35.118 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be part of it, but certainly not all polar substances dissolve each other and all non-polar substances don't dissolve each other, either, so something else is clearly going on here. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you have to be careful when you say "plastic", because not all plastics are created equal. Acetone chews straight through polystyrene cups but doesn't do much to HDPE. shoy 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wintergreen (aka salicylic acid methyl ester, oil of wintergreen, betula oil, methyl-2-hydroxybenzoate) is more than just oil. I accidentally "etched" a clear plastic clock face, wiping it with lavender oil. Using olive oil would have been harmless to the plastic though it dissolves some label glues. Is the resident chemist able to tell what the property is that dissolves stuff? I mean, etches the surface? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Several plant oils will dissolve hard plastics, polystyrene in particular (styrofoam cups, hard clear plastics). If you squeeze a lemon so that the oil from the peel gets on your fingers, and then handle a styrofoam cup, you'll dissolve part of the cup. Basil oil also contains a fairly effective solvent that eats right through a cup. And wintergreen oil also contains a solvent, as you observed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Do Horses and Zebras have more in common than Humans and Chimps?

Genetically speaking? 24.46.50.159 (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably, as they can interbreed, I think. Donkeys seem even closer to zebras than horses, though, in the stout build and braying sound they make. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'm not sure about genetics, but in terms of time, horses and zebras are closer. According to zebra, horses and zebras split off about 4 million years ago, according to hominini, "the [human/chimp] divergence was completed between 5.4 to 6.3 million years ago, after an unusual process of speciation that ranged over four million years." It's not a big difference and time is far from the only thing which affects evolution, but it gives you an idea. StuRat's point that horses and zebras can interbreed is a good one, although I don't know of any attempts to interbreed humans and chimps, so we can't be sure it's impossible! --Tango (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm no biologist, but isn't it worth comparing number of generations, instead of number of years? If zebras reproduce much more rapidly than primates, they would have had more generations, even in a shorter time, allowing for greater biological divergence. Our article says zebras may have a foal by age three. This suggests they've easily had far more generations in 4 million years than we primates have in the 6.3 million years since common ancestry. Nimur (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but biological divergence isn't strictly proportional to number of generations, either. The evolutionary pressure on the two populations to change is important. With no pressure to change, two isolated populations may have nothing but minor changes even after millions of generations. And this assumes 100% isolation. If there is any opportunity, however limited, for interbreeding, this could easily counter random mutations in two populations with no evolutionary pressure to differentiate. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been attempts, none successful. See humanzee. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although none of these refer to attempts to inseminate a human ovum/female with chimp sperm (at least from a brief search, there were plans but none were carried out). Since these AFAIK sometimes show apparent differences because of the gametes (i.e. unrelated to the problems the differences in the organisms may cause), these would provide a more complete picture, although I think we can say it's rather unlikely Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Shuttle SRB exhaust composition

What is the approximate composition of the exhaust from the APCP Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters? It looks like HCl was a large component of the output in 1991, although I've found a US government patent from around that time giving a method for reducing this. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ammonium perchlorate: NH₄ClO₄ is the both the fuel and the oxidiser here so ammonium is oxidised, and perchlorate is reduced. The products could be NO₂, H₂O and Cl₂, these are probably the main components, but there might be, as you said HCl, maybe ClO, H₂(this would be oxidised to water anyway) and probably other nitrogen oxides. (I haven't found a reference for this, I'm just assuming, it is only rocket science :D)--Shniken1 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Word jumble

Are dyslexia suferers actually better at solving word jumbles, being used to having to decipher jumbled letters ? Since we seem to lack an article on word jumbles, it's when words are presented with the letters mixed up, and you need to figure out the word, like CUKIQ for QUICK. StuRat (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• See anagram. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• An anagram typically has meaning in the unscrambled form, unlike a word jumble. The Wikipedia article is apparently just called Jumble, which is confusing, as many things other than words can be jumbled. I will add a redirect from Word Jumble to Jumble. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading two different studies, one a couple years ago and another at least 15 years ago, that found a strong correlation between children who were taught phonics as a primary tool for spelling and children's ability to solve jumbles. Both assumed that the children don't attempt to rearrange random letters. They group the letters into phonics and rearrange those. -- kainaw™ 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

what is water resistance

give some examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.151.133 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's resistance caused by water. Anything moving through water will experience it, so I'm sure you can think of some examples. --Tango (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a homework question would it? SpinningSpark 20:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Viscosity or Waterproofing? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Water resistance = Kids hating to jump into the pool for swimming class the first thing in the morning, based primarily on the school being too cheap to keep the water any warmer than necessary (which they define as "just warm enough so the water is in a liquid state"). :-) StuRat (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pholidota

What is the ethymological origin of the name of this taxon? Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED, it's from the Greek pholidotos, 'covered with scales'. Algebraist 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What are the most distantly-related animals that have successfully been interbred?

Question as topic. I've read stories of cat/rabbit hybrids but (AFAIK) they were all either hoaxes or deformed kittens. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

African elephant and Indian Elephant have hybridised, which is very surprising because the have different genera. See [48] & Motty. GameKeeper (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been at least one hybrid between the Galah and the Cockatiel bred in aviary conditions. This is also an intergeneric hybrid - though as I understand it, the genetic relationship between cockatoo species is still very poorly understood and many of the placings within certain genera are hotly disputed. This may just be one of those "they were more closely related than we realized" cases. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In a discussion not long ago on this desk, it was said that different genera of macaw can interbreed ([49]). Anyone know of animals from different families that can interbreed? --Tango (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, according to Hybrid (biology): "Extremely rare interfamilial hybrids have been known to occur (such as the guineafowl hybrids)". I haven't found any more information about them, but it seems they do exist. --Tango (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Wikipedia really does have an article on everything: Gamebird hybrids. It doesn't contain much more information, though. --Tango (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised no one joked about crossing beavers with ducks! --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lions and tigers interbred produce Ligers or Tigons, dependeng on the gender of the mom and pop. Edison (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

snakes in mt holly nc

we just found a black and white snake in our yard and we are not sure what kind it is. it has the look of a king snake but i'm not positive. what snakes are found in the area mt holly nc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.243.17 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a nice web site with photos of snakes of North Carolina [50]. And here's a website on how to identify snakes in North Carolina [51]--Eriastrum (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Feline Behaviour

Whenever my cat rubs the side of his face along my palm or around my leg, what is he telling me? Is he saying I'm marking you as my territory, or is he saying I trust you, or is he just saying that he's content being around me? He doesn't seem afraid when he does it but I don't know what it means. Althought it usually happens when he's hungry :P --Hadseys 23:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

When cats rub against you, they're marking you with their scent (secreted by glands, some of them on the face), so yes they are marking you as their territory. Other times, he is just showing affection, or wants attention. --DrVornado (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SO its the kitty equivalent of ass-licking, sometimes? --Hadseys 01:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or the equivalent of a dog urinating on your hand... SGGH ^speak! 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cats have no trouble communicating 2 different things at the same time. Just ask our tom who after we got back from a trip purred his head off while hissing intermittently, telling us he was miffed we left him alone (with a sitter) and was happy we were back. Young wild cats rub their cheeks against their mother's head to make her drop prey she brings home. So to answer your original question, probably all of the above. She's marking you as a member of her social group (sharing scent marks), acknowledges that you are the one with the can opener providing food and is making sure no one is going to lay claim to the food you'll drop in her bowl. There are no clear distinctions between social, sexual or territorial behavior as some would like to draw. (That doesn't even work for humans.) There's some debate as to whether saying an animal is happy is anthropomorphism. Cats that are secure in their social position and territory certainly seem to just enjoy hanging out, although they do get off on being petted at times. (Don't tell auntie she'd be scandalized!) We are not that far apart, though, because most people will answer a cat's advances when it rubs against their leg with petting it, asserting they are part of kitty's social group. (And isn't it nice we have other terms like "happiness" and "enjoyment" for human feelings when petting the cat.) ^ω^76.111.32.200 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2

Battery Life in Hybrid Vehicles

Just how long can and do these batteries last? I know that all rechargeable batteries loose the ability to hold a charge over time, so this make me wonder how long the batteries that are used in hybrid vehicles can last. I've read some where that NiMH batteries have a lifespan of 400-600 charge cycles with Li-ion being around that number also, but I have no idea how true those numbers are. Any help would be appreciated. Deltacom1515 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything good here? Fribbler (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would surely hate to have to replace the batteries every year and a half, since they are a major part of the price of the car. Edison (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The "hybrid drive" battery in the Toyota Prius is warranted for 100,000 miles. It's capable of this very long life because the drive management controller only cycles it over a very narrow range. IIRC, the battery cycles between 40% and 60% of its full-charge capability. The battery also has forced-air cooling so that it never faces extreme heat. I believe you can find back-up references for this information at some of the sites describing plug-in hybrid conversions for the Prius.

Atlant (talk)

100,000 miles is a lot, but my truck has close to 200,000 miles on it. I wonder how much it would cost to replace the batteries in a hybrid after they've "died."RedStateV (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

what is the three intrinsic property of a pure substance?

--24.78.51.208 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you could say that there are exactly three intrinsic properties of a "pure substance", so this sounds like it's probably a homework question that expects you to look at your textbook, or your previous notes, to where you've been told three properties. However, a look at chemical substance may offer a little assistance. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

infact that's in review booklet and the question is which isn't a intrinsic property..a)densiy.b)color.c)Melting point.d)boilling point

i cant find answer for it--24.78.51.208 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ask yourself this; which of those properties are you able to change? That's the one that isn't intrinsic. Also, don't think about it too deep - it's not that kind of question. SpinningSpark 02:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See Intensive_and_extensive_properties). --Bowlhover (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have confused him more Spinningspark.. (you confused me more). This appears to be a very poor question as all four of these can be changed by simple modifications of the system, but maybe, as you said, I am thinking about it too hard. So...I think it is Density as you just need to change the temperature to change this...that being said the other three properties can be easily modified.--Shniken1 (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not density. You are right though, it is a rubbish question and my answer was possibly not much better, my excuse is I was trying not to directly answer a homework question. The article found by Bowlover explains it better. An intrinsic property does not depend on the amount of the substance so it is not density - that remains the same however much there is of it. SpinningSpark 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an "intensive property" is the same as an "intrinsic property". If you think about it, even the boiling and freezing points require a certain quantity to measure, as those terms are rather undefined for a single molecule. I'd say the answer they are fishing for is indeed density, as that can be changed easily for materials in a gaseous form, simply by adding or subtracting some from the container, or by changing the temperature for a liquid or a solid. Changing the pressure will also change the boiling and melting temps, but those can't be the answer as the same logic would apply to both, and we're only looking for one answer. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, density is easily changed with temperature. However, color can also change, e.g. sulfur, which turns red when heated above 200 C; there are probably special cases, but density is easily changed in any element that undergoes thermal expansion. Nimur (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the question is total crap (can we give the teacher a failing grade ?), but I still think they are going for density. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

? [52]--76.111.32.200 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the question, it states for a pure substance. A well known quick and easy test to find out the purity of a substance is to measure the melting temperature and perhaps this is where the question was leading to? Jdrewitt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that the correct answer is whatever three properties the book or lecturer listed when the topic was presented. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If stars can't fuse past iron...

How did we get heavier elements than iron in our universe? 24.46.50.159 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They get generated in supernovae, if I remember correctly. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See Supernova#Source_of_heavy_elements. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So it means that the solar system was created out of an earlier supernova due to the number of heavy metals found here?--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

At least one. The common opinion is that at least some of the material on earth must have gone through more than one supernova to account for the relative abundances of elements. SpinningSpark 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, however, that planets, and terrestrial planets in particular, manage to filter out most of the lighter elements and leave a highly disproportional amount of heavy elements. So, while our solar system is 99% hydrogen and helium, most of the hydrogen and helium on Earth and the other terrestrial planets has bled off into space, by rising to the upper atmosphere and being blown away by the solar wind. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

liquid water versus water

I was watching a history channel documentary on the universe and a scientist kept talking about "liquid water". My family was mocking him for not just saying "water", but as the documentary went on we discovered all the scientists in it used the term. Why? What is different between water and liquid water? thanks experts. 64.231.202.9 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's about being precise. In scientific terms, water refers to the molecule H₂O. In common terms, water refers to the stuff that comes out of your tap. To a scientist, this is liquid water. This distinguishes it from ice (solid water), as ice can be the solid form of many different compounds (dry ice for example); and also from steam (water vapour) as steam can again refer to the gaseous state of many different compounds. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the documentary was on the Universe, the scientists may have been referring to environments in which water won't necessarily be liquid. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we scientists (I rather like saying that) use the term "liquid water" to distinguish between liquid water, solid water, and gaseous water. – ClockworkSoul 02:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I use the scientific terms as well, but often get laughed at by those who simply call them "water", "ice", and "steam". StuRat (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Very strange pigeon picture....

WTF?

Just discovered this odd pigeon image whilst browsing. Does it look like a photoshop job to anyone else here? The position of the head looks completely anatomically impossible, to the extent that I was unable to even parse the content at first... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless these two pictures and others from google images are all shopped, I think they might actually be real. The necks of these pigeons do seem pretty long, even though it still looks anatomically wrong to me with that knowledge. Guess their necks are just really flexible. (addendum) Found this and this image too, the latter makes me think that it's all the more likely it's possible, but maybe the patterns on the grey ones make it look like it's in a weirder position than it really is. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's the pigeon equivalent of a human being able to touch his buttocks and the back of his head together. That said, some humans *can* do that. Maybe these birds were selectively bred - specifically so they could pose like that? Can't see the point myself, but those selective breeders do seem to like the weird and wonderful... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what I can gather, "modern" fantail pigeons are the ones featured in these pictures, so I would guess also that it's selective breeding. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. A lot of people just don't seem satisfied with normal pigeons. [53] --Allen (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the taste of Bride of Wildenstein it's not surprising, since people often aren't satisfied with normal people either. Julia Rossi (talk)

It was quite popular in England in the 19th century to breed all sorts of bizarre and strange looking pigeons (it still is today, to a much lesser extent). Pigeon fancy was one of the many inspirations for Charles Darwin when thinking about the plasticity of heredity. That particular one just has a huge tail, and a ridiculously huge, puffed-up chest. It is "not natural" in the sense that the appearance did not evolve that way in the wild, it is a human intervention to make funny looking birds. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not look at all strange to me. Many birds have a great range of motion in the neck. The pictured posture would be a typical mating display for a number of species, e.g. grouse. 67.131.66.162 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It might just be the angle of the picture and/or this bird's particular markings but it looks to me as though the head is sat at 90 degrees to the neck in that image. Are they really *that* flexible? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

redox

Okay, so I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the whole redox thing. Here's the question I'm supposed to be answering:

If copper wire is placed in AgNO₃(aq).

a. Which element is going to try to lose electrons?

Copper

b. Write the redox equation between copper and silver

Cu + AgNO₃ → Ag⁺ + CuNO₃

c. What is the net voltage for this reaction?

.28V

d. Is copper wire the anode or cathode?

anode

So I'm wondering how well I did, thanks for the help! --71.117.35.118 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'll have to say that this definitely smacks of a homework question. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well at least he made an effort in answering the questions.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be just a typo, but in part b., your equation violates charge conservation. —Keenan Pepper 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if this is a homework question? They've made an effort and they're struggling so they want some help, that's absolutely fine. At least they made the effort. As Keenan said, your second part violates charge conservation but I think you just missed the + off the initial Cu. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 10:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, changing Cu to Cu⁺ does not make the equation correct. That's solid Cu in that wire, with no other elements involved, so it must be neutral. Something else must be involved to balance the charge... —Keenan Pepper 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So if I took out the positive charge of the silver so it would just be neutral would I have gotten all of the problems right? --71.98.15.188 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

measuring fecundity

This line appears in Niall of the Nine Hostages:

In January 2006, scientists suggested that Niall may have been the most fecund male in Irish history, and second only to Genghis Khan worldwide.

They get this distinction not so much by fathering numerous children themselves (Niall is said to have had at least eight sons, which is remarkable but hardly record-setting) as through their later descendants. But then what about their fathers? Is there a way of weighting generations such that one can meaningfully say "This guy, this is the one who gets most of the credit for founding a proliferative lineage"? —Tamfang (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's called Y-chromosomal Adam. 67.68.34.26 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

...who lived long before Niall and Genghis. Thank you for playing. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that Niall and his father have the same amount of living descendants but Niall is a generation more recent? The only alternative that makes any logical sense to me is that Niall's father isn't a "male in Irish History". Stanstaple (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Compressed hydrogen car

A disadvantage of hydrogen is that transportation requires compression/cooling, resulting in low efficiency. But can't this energy be won back? For example, like in a compressed air car, the pressure could be used to drive the pistons or a quasiturbine or whatever (or the wheels directly, as done by K'airmobiles). I don't know how risky it would be to use hydrogen in such a mechanical manner. (Such as sparks. Maybe use plastic parts for the mechanism?) Alternatively, instead of the pressure-difference with the surroundings, the temperature-difference could be used to generate energy, although I believe that can't be done very efficiently. What is the name for that technology again? DirkvdM (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You could possibly get something back from those methods, but the question is whether hauling around the weight of the equipment to do so incurs more of a cost than the benefit. I would guess that it would. The one exception that comes to mind is using cooled liquid hydrogen to air condition the car. The advantage here would be that this method would replace the mechanical compressor and Freon system used currently, and quite possibly reduce the car's weight rather than increase it. Compressed hydrogen could also be used, as it provides quite a bit of cooling when decompressed. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that there is mechanical energy which could be extracted from compressed Hydrogen. However, I think it would be a bad idea to use hydrogen for any sort of pneumatic system. It is highly flammable, and the probability of disaster would be significant. It's not a matter of "how risky" in absolute terms, it's "how risky relative to the alternative" (which would be, use any other thing except hydrogen in these systems). Putting flammable materials into a pneumatic system is tantamount to confining an explosive charge - should anything go wrong, the contained gases would pressurize the chamber, and firey metal fragments would fly everywhere - it would not be a good idea. Imagine using gasoline as brake fluid! It can be done, but it's far more dangerous than any alternative. Nimur (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I already mentioned the risk, but any risk can be dealt with (hell, nuclear energy is even being used all around the world and millions of people die in car accidents, and that doesn't stop us from driving cars). If the advantage is big enough, that is, and that is what I am asking this for. One of the main (principal) advantages of hydrogen is transportation, which requires compression/cooling and thus causes energy loss. So solving that could have big enough advantages that someone else will come up with a safer system. Let's take this one step at a time. :) DirkvdM (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dirk here. Sure "confining an explosive charge" is potentially dangerous, but that's the basic concept behind the internal combustion engine, after all, so it certainly can be done safely. Also note that hydrogen is only explosive once mixed with oxygen, before then it could absorb a lightning strike and not combust. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

StuRat, I'm not talking about an add-on to existing cars, which would increase the weight. The original idea is to have a hydrogen powered car and then adapt that to use the cold/pressure, but you could also look at it the other way around. A compressed air car is so light that that is actually named as one of the disadvantages in the article. So the question then becomes if adding the hydrogen sytem would not negatively affect the car's performance through weight. But of course if either system works, then the combination should too.

But the main thing that is bugging me is what method might be used to make use of the cold. Or rather the heat difference between the tank and its surroundings. That represents energy, but I have no idea how to make use of that (other than for airco). Something that uses a heat pump would probably be way to heavy for a car. DirkvdM (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. If a car has weight X and only has equipment to utilize the burning of hydrogen, and you then add components to allow it to also take advantage of the pressure and/or cold of the hydrogen gas, then you're adding weight to the vehicle (unless you can remove something as heavy or heavier, like the A/C compressor and refrigerant storage system). This same logic applies whether the additional equipment is added after-market or at the factory. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No I'm sorry, I was thinking you meant adding something to an already designed car. I'm talking about a completely new design. But yeah, unless the two technologies share some part(s), the combination will mean an increase in weight. DirkvdM (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Number one exporter of potassium

Now, we all know that according to Borat, Kazakhstan was the "number one potassium exporter in the world". But that isn't, I believe, true. Nor is it true that "all other countries have inferior potassium". So here is my question, as I cannot find the answer in the potassium article. Which country is the number one potassium exporter in the world? Based on potash (potassium carbonate), the biggest company is the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, so that would be Canada. But is potash the primary source of potassium? What about potassium chloride, potassium oxide or potassium hydroxide, all of which are used in fertilizers? A bit random, but I even thought of bananas - they have a very high potassium content. I did the math, and India (#1 producer of bananas - 16.8 million tons of bananas produced in 2005, at 358mg of potassium per 100g) produces 60,200 tons of potassium per year via bananas. I'm not sure if this is even close to the weight of potassium in fertilizers. Anyone know the answer? Who is number one potassium exporter in the world? Neıl 龱 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite surprised if bananas are worth more for their extracted potassium than as food. Are you asking who produces the most potassium sold as such, or are you including potassium found in other products ? StuRat (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edcon)I'd say if you want to include potassium inside plants and animals it gets rather extensive. Potassium is an electrolyte essential for both plants and animals. So if you count bananas you'd have to look at all the other foods, too. e.g. [54] Just an example: although soybean only contain 149 mg potassium /100g, the US reported exports of 4.36 million tonnes [55] for just one week. Add to that exports in meat, rice and other foods. You'd then have to do that for all major exporters. Next you'd have to add compounds [Category:Potassium compounds] and again products that contain those, like e.g. toothpaste and softdrinks. Good luck.Lisa4edit (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how exactly would you go about extracting potassium in elemental form from bananas? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The traditional way, I think, would be to burn them to make potash (potassium carbonate), boil that with slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) to make potash lye (potassium hydroxide), then electrolyse that to get potassium metal. But there probably isn't a huge demand for potassium metal, so you might be better off leaving it at the potash stage to make fertiliser. --Heron (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think sales of potassium metal itself are very low, given it's highly reactive with water (so that wouldn't be the answer - it's almost always sold as a compound). I also have a feeling I've taken on too much if I include foodstuffs etc. I'm going to make my life easier, and stick with potash, and Canada. Thank you for your help, though, guys. Neıl 龱 08:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

DREAMS

why do we dream? I have read that dreams occur due to the memories that had been stored in our brain during sleep. but i need a clear cut idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinni smart (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we know for sure. There have been many theories:

1) They are "random firings of nerve cells" while we're asleep.

2) They are a method for us to review what we've done and come up with better strategies for dealing with similar situations in the future. (I like this idea.)

3) They are attempts by our subconcious to communicate with our concious minds. (Sigmund Fraud loved this idea.)

4) They are attempts by God/the gods to communicate with us. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out Dream#Dream_theories. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because 'directed thinking' (as described by Carl Jung) is tiring. Somehow dreaming recharges our batteries, so to speak. Em3ryguy (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this question has caused people problems for ages. Although REM sleep has been identified as "recharging" as Em3ryguy put it, it's just as likely that dreams are jsut a werid side effect of REM-sleep. We have no way of knowing for sure if the dreams themselves have a recuperative effect. One theory that hasn't been posted yet is the behaviorist answer: "Dreams are just a propensity to tel funny stories immediately after waking." --Shaggorama (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a document on the importance of rem sleep http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/resources/sleep/AQA_A2_sleep_deprivationstudies.pdf

Here is the same article in html http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:93gvQl7J9qkJ:www.psychlotron.org.uk/resources/sleep/AQA_A2_sleep_deprivationstudies.pdf Em3ryguy (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Burr oak

I posted a question concerning burr oaks last week and it is no longer posted. What happened???129.112.109.252 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What's your question? If it asked for medical or other advice it might have been deleted.Lisa4edit (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

After a week, questions are moved to the Archives. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit history shows no such question, although you might have a varying ISP number. By all means ask again.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Might want to look at burr wood. Ziggy Sawdust 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bur oak?--Lisa4edit (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

thin film book

i need book about thin film, how can i find thin film book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by More55 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried an on-line bookshop? Amazon has plenty of titles with "thin film".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You did not by any chance mean books captured on microfilm or microfiche? The article has some links at the bottom, but I don't know if they'd be helpful to you. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutritional information Aquafina Alive Satisfy water - specifically, what substance is the fiber?

This product states it has 3 grams of dietary fiber per 8 ounce serving. Reading the ingredients on the Pepsi website states exactly what the label on the bottle states....nothing that I can identify as being the substance that is the "fiber" in this water. I know that there are some types of seed husks that are used in Metamucil and the like.

What is in this water that is considered to be fiber?

--Dbacksfanbrian (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the ingredients list from this site, the only ingredient listed that might contain dietary fiber is the NATURAL FLAVOR. Everything else is water, sugar, and assorted small-molecule chemicals. I'd say it's likely that those 'natural flavors' include some sort of pureed fiber source. I couldn't tell you what that was, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maltodextrin is considered a "dietary fiber" apparently. Lisa4edit (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I did review the ingredient list from the PepsiCo website. I never imagined that maltodextrin could be considered "fiber". I know it's used in a lot of candy, likely for the same purpose as it serves in pharmaceuticals...as a binder. I guess I struggle with calling something "fiber" just because it isn't digestible. Thank you for answering the question. I wonder if the FDA considers it to be fiber! Thanks again! --Dbacksfanbrian (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Propeller aeroplane under water

If a propeller aeroplane is made waterproof, will it work under water? What are the issues involved? --Masatran (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Submarine what would be the difference? What changes do you propose? Lisa4edit (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do the gear ratio of the motor of the propeller, etc. have to be adjusted? If yes, how? --Masatran (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Water is a heck of a lot thicker (more viscous) than air. If you start trying to spin an airplane prop at its normal speed, it will cavitate for a little while – if you're very lucky – and then snap off. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it wouldn't work well. For water you need a shorter, thicker, slower prop than for air. I suppose you could run an airplane prop extremely slowly (less than one rev per second), and get some propulsion under water, but you would do better to have a separate prop for underwater use. Another issue is cooling, as airplane engines will commonly be air-cooled and won't tolerate being submerged in water. The wings will also provide a lot of drag under water. Finally, an airplane is way too light to submerge in water, it would float until it fills with water, then it would sink. So, this idea really won't work. However, an airplane that would operate on (or just above) the surface of the water could work well, as a ground effects aircraft. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Normal airplane engines work by burning fuel and therefore require an oxygen supply, which is in the form of air. See Submarine#Propulsion for discussion of underwater power supplies. --Anon, 16:50 UTC, June 2, 2008.

If the pitch of the propellor were adjusted (many modern planes have adjustable pitch) and the speed of rotation were reduced, to compensate for the higher density of water, and the wings were folded in somewhat for similar reasons, and compartments were flooded to decrease bouyancy, and the craft had a passenger compartment which could withstand the pressure of the water, and the propulsion system could switch over to battery (or other non air breathing technology) then it should be do-able, at least sufficiently for plausibility in a Jules Verne or Saturday Morning Cartoon type of fiction. Fluid is fluid. I'm relatively sure I saw something like this in a movie in the last ten years. Edison (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. 24.2.176.64 (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning

If there were a liquid metal other than Mercury, would it also be poisonous? --Masatran (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not a logical conclusion. For example, Gallium melts in the hand and it is non-toxic. Mercury has a low melting point, and it also happens to be toxic, but those two facts are independent and not logically connected. —Keenan Pepper 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Gallium conduct electricity? If not: Are all liquids that conduct electricity poisonous? --Masatran (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Salt water conducts reasonably well. It depends on your application. How conductive do you need it to be? APL (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got this idea that liquid metals relate to toxicity but it's not the case. Toxicity depends on what your body does with it (or often doesn't do with it). For example, water is a liquid and it conducts electricity, but it is not poisonous. As for metals, there are several metallic ions there which are not poisonous (at least in the correct quantities). Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Water is an excellent insulator. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. That's why I said salt water. -- APL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.176.64 (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you know. That's why I appended to Cyclonenim's thing. Now we all know. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea, I didn't notice that Cylconenim mentioned water. Sorry. -- APL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.176.64 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob, Bob. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The OP seems to be committing the illicit minor fallacy. All A is B, all A is C, therefore all C is B - where A = mercury, B = toxic and C = liquid metal (or conductive liquids in his/hers second post). --Mark PEA (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know about gallium specifically, but most metals do conduct electricity. (Because they are held together with metallic bonds, where electrons are only loosely-held.) To get to the real meat of your question, though, you want to know "Why is mercury toxic?" I'm sorry I don't have a reference, but as I understand it, mercury poisoning is due mainly to the fact that mercury is not readily excreted (it bioaccumulates). This causes problems because mercury likes to bind to sulfur atoms, and sulfur atoms are a vital component to the activity of a number of proteins (e.g cysteine proteases). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll be the bad guy this time. Both "poisonous" and "conductive" are relative terms. Everything is poisonous at a certain dosage, and everything is conductive given enough voltage. I know that sounds like I'm just trying to be a jerk, but if you want good answers on the Science Desk, you've got to ask good questions. To try to answer, no, not all liquids that are good conductors of electricity are dangerous poisons, and neither are all metals that are liquid at temeratures that the human body can tolerate well. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Liquid mercury is not very toxic at all. Liquid mecury is not readily absorbed into the body. From Mercury poisoning:

”Cases of systemic toxicity from accidental swallowing are rare, and attempted suicide via intravenous injection does not appear to result in systemic toxicity“

...

In humans, approximately 80% of inhaled mercury vapour is absorbed via the respiratory tract where it enters the circulatory system and is distributed throughout the body.[17] Chronic exposure by inhalation, even at low concentrations in the range 0.7–42 μg/m3, has been shown in case control studies to cause effects such as tremors, impaired cognitive skills, and sleep disturbance in workers

The vapour is toxic but not the liquid, this is essentially because of the relative reactivities of the two.Shniken1 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that organometallic, or other liquid/solvable forms of mercury, can be extremely toxic (see dimethylmercury). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Toy helicopter

I want to buy a toy helicopter to get an understanding of aircraft. Is there any inexpensive model that has a control to fly forward? I am looking at Apache Havoc but I don't think it can fly forward. --Masatran (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for an understanding of aircraft broadly, then a helicopter isn't really a good choice -- that's a much more specific form of aircraft based on different principles. I'm afraid I can't advise regarding selection of an r/c copter if that's what you want to continue with. I will note that weighting the nose of a very cheap rc copter will tend to cause it to fly forward, though I doubt this constitutes the control you want. — Lomn 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a r/c copter with forward flight control -- but said forward flight is accomplished by pusher propellors, not the standard means of helicopter propulsion (again falling afoul of your "understanding of aircraft" criteria). — Lomn 19:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomn (talk • contribs)

journal article without subscription

I am trying to access an article from a journal to which my university (u of oregon) does not subscribe. Our library also does not stock the print edition of this journal for any newer dates than 1988, so my only option is an inter-library loan and this usually takes over a week. I need the article sooner than that for a presentation, so I was hoping that someone here might be able to access it and provide it somehow.

The article is titled "The Redfield equation in condensed-phase quantum dynamics" by Pollard and Friesner, Adv. Chem. Phys. 1996

The article is cited by every other article I've been reading so I'd like to go directly to the source. My apologies if this request is a breach of wikipedia guidelines. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would probably breach copyright in some way to comply with your request, so I'd advise you to buy the article instead. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As helpful as the above suggestion is, I'd like to think there is some site on the web where people do fulfill requests such as this one. Does anyone know of such a site? Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A helpful hint would not be posting such requests on very public boards such as this one. I'd consider asking elsewhere. Sorry I could not be more illegalhelpful. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were to write the author(s) directly, they could get a slave post-doc to send you a copy? Here's one of them. --Sean 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, I think that that will work very well. I just didn't see paying $30 as a viable option. If someone would like to delete this section, that would be fine with me. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, either posting to the requests page or asking one of the members. You can count me out though, as I don't have a subscription to that series. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not illegal to distribute single copies of articles for academic purposes—it easily falls under fair use (even if might be a breach of user policies for the journals, but even then, most journals are pretty lenient when you are talking about very small-scale, not-for-profit, one-off stuff). My university doesn't carry e-copies of that one either (which surprises me), otherwise I'd be happy to send you a copy. Your best bet might be e-mailing one of the authors, if you want it quickly. It seems like a pretty rare journal. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My university's library claims to have a paper copy, though the online catalog says that particular issue is shelved at the physical chemistry laboratory rather than at the main library. I can try to find it tomorrow, though at 58 pages(!) according to BL Direct it sounds like a pain to scan. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer but I would hate for you to scan in the 58 pages, that sounds like a real pain in the rear. I emailed the author and put in a request for an inter-library loan, patience is a virtue right? Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Liquid state of water

Why is water a liquid and hydrogen sulphide a gas, when hydrogen sulphide's Mr is nearly twice as much as that of water's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.94.171 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The conventional answer is hydrogen bonding. The hydrogens from one water molecule really like to bind to the lone pair electrons of an oxygen from a different water molecule. They can't do this in the gas phase, so the boiling point is much higher that it would be otherwise, as you have to add in enough energy to break all of those hydrogen bonds before the water will boil. Sulfur, for various reasons, doesn't participate all that well in hydrogen bonding, so hydrogen sulfide doesn't get the boiling point boost. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for H₂S not having hydrogen bonds is due to the small difference in electronegativity of S and H atoms, where as O and H atoms have a much larger difference in electronegativity. --Mark PEA (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The density of water is almost the same as the density of liquid oxygen but the density of hydrogen sulfide is much less than the density of sulfer (which is approximately 2 g/cc. At least I think it is. Something else I read said it was 5.4 g/cc). Em3ryguy (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In liquid sulfur the atoms are held together tightly with short covalent bonds, which is not the case in hydrogen sulfide liquid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines and barbiturates at the GABAa receptor

GABAA_receptor#Agonists only vaguely describes the difference between the action of benzodiazepines and barbiturates at the GABAa receptor. Normally I would simply edit the section; however, I'm afraid that I don't understand the difference all that well myself. I apologize for the somewhat vague question, but can anyone explain exactly what the difference is in the way these two classes of drugs generally bind to and modulate this receptor? If anyone knows of reliable external sources that explain this well, a link or two would be greatly appreciated; if not, an explanation would be greatly appreciated. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines bind to the aptly named "benzodiazepine binding site" located at the outer intersection of α and γ subunits of GABA_a receptors, while barbiturates bind inside the Cl^- pore on the α and β subunits (see this diagram, from Purves et al's Neuroscience). Benzodiazepines increase the probability that the channel will open, while barbiturates cause the channel to remain open longer once triggered (see the section entitled "The GABAA receptor is the major molecular target for the action of many drugs in the brain" here from Siegel et al's Basic Neurochemistry). Hope that helps! St3vo (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

strobe lights

how can i make a strobe light with a the flash lights found in cameras? do i need a different capacitator?wat is the amount of electricity needed to run it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.124.175 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advise you not to make the attemp[t. The reason is that the capacitor which powers a photographer's electronic flash store a large amount of energy at a high voltage. It is sufficient to stop your heart if you accidentally get a jolt while experimenting. This is not for the amateur or novice to experiment with. Edison (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

u didn't answer my question.....how do i make a strobelight using the flash on a camera......i wasn't asuming i needed that big of a capacitator....i was thinking of using a smaller one..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.124.175 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest an alternate method: Shine a flashlight thru a fan. You can vary the fan speed to control the strobe speed. You can also use paper and tape to block all but one of the openings between the blades to slow the strobe down further. Black paper would be best to absorb light. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Edison was right. Our Edison, not Thomas Alva. I googled and found a site that gives a schematic and all, but it carries a warning that you're looking at 350 volts across a big electrolytic, saying that "it won't kill you" but will give you a "nasty shock". They are wrong, it will kill you. Get 350 volts hand-to-hand and it's sayonara muchachos, maybe. Arcking and sparking at those levels is a serious hazard, and you'd better be wearing a helmet too if you get a big filter cap in backwards. What you want to do is way not safe. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the above are really helpful replies. There's a big difference between a xenon tube flash and StuRat's suggestion of using a flashlight+fan, which doesn't give you adequate flash brightness with short enough duration to freeze an image, if that's what the OP wants.

Examples of do-it-yourself strobe light circuits can be found here, even an example of an adjustable one.

Milkbreath is right about capacitors being dangerous, but also wrong in that voltage doesn't kill you, current does. Electrostatic generators such as a Van de Graaff generator generate thousands of volts and are safe to touch because they don't actually store enough charge to generate much of a current. Generally when a spark arcs from your fingertips, that's about 30,000 volts per centimeter required to make the arc. =Axlq 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One could just as well point out that a roomful of 12-volt lead-acid batteries in series-parallel like they have down at the phone company can deliver thousands of amps, but at 48 volts they are harmless to humans. Of course it's the current that kills you, but that pat statement both belies the complexity of the relationship among the factors involved in producing electric shock, and reveals a simplistic conception of it in the one mouthing it. Static electricity is a whole nother aminal and is not pertinent here. If I get across a few hundred volts as my final act, please put the following on my tombstone: "It was the voltage that killed him." --Milkbreath (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the unhelpfulness was well-placed, since it's non-intuitive that anything in a camera flash could kill you and the poster's writing style suggests youth. If someone asked "how do u fit a knife in2 an electric sokket?", I'd also hesitate to answer, the gene pool be damned. --Sean 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An electronics magazine I subscribed to decades ago had an editorial specifically warning electronics experimenters not to try to repair, modify, or in general experiment with the electronic flashes used by photographers, and cited a friend, an experienced electronic worker, who was killed by one. A charged capacitor at several hundred volts has eneough energy to cause death, far beyond the energy or available current from a typical high voltage static shock. At the same time, the source of the danger does not look as intimidating as what's up on a utility pole or inside a glass tube TV set. It is the type of device that may not give a second chance. The questioner did not give the impression of having the training or experience or knowledge of necessary safety measures to work with high voltages. Edison (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently got a nice shock from a flash from a camera that had been off for at least half an hour. Stupidly, I forgot completely about the flash capacitor. I put my thumb across the terminals, got a shock and threw the camera across the room. My whole arm was all pins-and-needles tingly for hours. I'm imagine that if I'd somehow managed to touch it with both hands it would have been even more uncomfortable. APL (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit more on the mechanical (fan) system I started to describe. You can mask out all but a small circle on the fan and use a laser pointer aimed at that hole. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

June 3

Better name for 'africanization'

Somehow the author chose not to say 'desertification' in this NYT article. Probably motivated by the fact not all African landscape is a desert. But what is the correct term for it? 217.168.1.158 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple: drought. The article is about a drought in Spain, but it is using the ongoing drought conditions in Africa as well as the centuries-old shift from lush greenery to deserts to give the drought a name. -- kainaw™ 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. A drought is usually a short-term event with few permanent implications, while desertification means a permanent shift in the climate of a region towards a dryer climate. This tends to happen over centuries or millenia, although global warming may serve to help things along. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I used drought because I saw nothing in the article that justifies desertification. They are describing a drought and using "africanization" to make the reader think all of Spain will be a desert in a few days. -- kainaw™ 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The author says "officials visibly stiffen when asked about the "Africanization" of Spain’s climate — a term now common among scientists", but I don't buy it. Doing a Google Scholar search for "Africanization climate -honeybee" shows nothing about weather in the first page. "Africanization" usually refers to renaming places like Victoria Falls to Mosi-oa-Tunya. Her assertion about the term is perhaps an example of the rhetorical technique known as "making stuff up". --Sean 10:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit more luck with ghits in Spanish [56] Can't say how many of those are scientific, though. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Inverted icicle mechanism

Ice cube tendril growths

Usually when I make ice cubes, I fill the ice tray from the tap. A few months ago I decided to make ice cubes from some highly purified water (1 ppm total dissolved solids). To my surprise, two of the ice cubes exhibited inverted icicles; tendrils of ice that grew upward as the water froze. This was such a strange phenomenon that I decided to take the picture to the right. Click on it to see the full details.

Does anybody know what mechanism might have caused this?

My best guess is that the water must have froze around the edges first, leaving an opening in the top. As the water froze further, it expanded, pushing water out the hole, and the edge of the hole kept freezing to build the tendril higher.

I'm skeptical that this is what happened. If the water formed a frozen tube to grow in, it should have frozen shut well before the thin part of the tendril could grow so long.

Any ideas? =Axlq 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an Ice spike--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Lenticel for showing the amazing range of phenomena which have Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: what is it about tap-water that prevents this? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Impurities in the tap water acts as a Ice nucleus so the water freezes before an ice spike can form.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a spike in an ice cube made with water that (depending on who filled the tray) was either straight from the tap or had gone through an ordinary household water filter. Not distilled or specially purified water. --Anonymous, 23:50 UTC, June 3, 2008.

Amazing. I second the kudos to Lenticel. My question has been answered. Wikipedia really does have an article on everything! I guess my hypothesis on how the formation came about was correct, too. Thanks. =Axlq 04:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious question about masturbation

If you consider that a hand feels like different from a vagina, should we expect that people who maturbate too much have a problem with 'normal' sex? GoingOnTracks (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should we? Boxers also feel different from a vagina, but not going commando doesn't seem to cause an issue for people. — Lomn 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean have a problem with? Is it (A) you mean they do not enjoy it as much, have something against it, or (B) they're no good at it (there is a problem they have)?

If you mean A then it's entirely possible and very often the case that those who do it too often simply don't have access to intercourse. Of course that doesn't mean that one who has access to it will not do it on there own, but statistically men who have sex masturbate less often.

If you mean B then it could be there is some problem with them having it. Or again simply that they don't have access to it. In all honesty though you'd probably be hard pressed to find a male who would prefer solo over the alternative if both were options. Chris M. (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be the issue of what sex columnist Dan Savage calls the "death grip", in which the masturbator uses a great deal of force and friction when masturbating, and becomes so accustomed to it that no lesser stimulation will do. In these cases, no actual intercourse is going to be enough to get them to climax, which can obviously be problematic. But that's more a question of habit than anything else, though, and easily avoided. In itself, masturbation isn't going to affect anyone's sexual prowess, and in any case, it's very common for people in sexual relationships to masturbate anyway -- in some cases precisely because a hand feels different from intercourse, variety being the spice of life and all that. (The mistake lies in thinking that because something is different, one of them must be "better" on some absolute scale and therefore always preferable -- but in real life, people tend to prefer different things and sensations at different times.)

As for males who exclusively or almost exclusively prefer masturbation to intercourse, Chris -- as it happens, the latest Savage Love column features a letter from just such a man. Certainly an exceptional individual, I'm sure, but still. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Platypus and falsifying the nested hierarchy

Assume we are trying to falsify the established phylogeny of common ancestry. The platypus can lay eggs, and also has venom. Both are not common in mammals. Why does this not violate the nested hierarchy? After all, if we were to find a human with a plant cell wall, it would falsify the phylogeny right? Why not the platypus? I think I know the answer already, but I want to hear more... ScienceApe (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Platypus#Evolution was a useful read and could help explain some things. Chris M. (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Egg laying is an ancestral character that other mammals (except the echidna) have lost, but the platypus has retained. The poisonous spur is a derived character that is unique to the platypus (among extant species). Thus (put very simplistically) there is no "violation of the nested hierarchy". Now, if it were found that the platypus produced venom in exactly the same way (anatomically and chemically) as some distantly related placental mammal, that would create a problem; because that would imply that the venom-producing character was due to common ancestry, not convergent evolution. However, the few venomous mammals have poisonous bites, something that is quite different from the platypus leg spur.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a conscious entity?

Terrence Sejnowski considered a similar question about the entire Internet some time ago. Wikipedia is more organized than the entire Internet. Wiki links on a page on some topic try to define the subject in terms of more fundamental concepts. This is similar to when the brain perceives something. Then a pattern is recognized which consists of more basic patterns which in turn consist of even simpler patterns etc. etc.

I'm not suggesting that wikipedia "understands" the contents of its own pages. Instead, the entirety of all the wikipedia pages with their interdependence may give rise to conscious experiences. A wiki page will simply be a pattern that could be part of some larger pattern that perhaps gives rise to some subjective experience. Count Iblis (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you define consciousness, of course. John Searle would say definitely no, and I'm inclined to agree, in this case—where does the consciousness come into being, other than in the fact that it is a system used by conscious entities?

I think you could say that it is easy to abstract Wikipedia—via metonymy—as if it were a conscious entity, as if Wikipedia answered your questions, as if Wikipedia understood. But it doesn't—you're just ignoring the people who really do the work, abstracting them into the system in which they operate, taking part of the whole as the whole (taking the site to be the same thing as the many networks, social and technical, that makes the site work). Wikipedia, the site, knows no patterns. The human beings that use it, do.

Wikipedia isn't answering your question, I am. I am a human being. I am sitting in a green chair in a room with green walls with a green bed in a little suburb in the Massachusetts (you know, I never noticed how much green was in here, until now). Don't give Wikipedia credit for something I'm doing! ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives credit to volunteers. Check Wikipedia:About —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranemanoj (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I joke with friends saying that eventually a bot will be created that will be able to fully understand context and will scan the entirety of Wikipedia and find the underlying pattern linking all of the articles, "truth" :). Then, the bot can simply create random articles until one matches it and we can solve all of the world unanswered questions. Chris M. (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(In response to OP) You might like to have a look at "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose in which he argues that there is something inherently non-algorithmic about minds and that complexity doesn't automatically lead to consciousness (if I got that right). It's a fairly dense book though. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We have an article about his (and Stuart Hameroff's) hypothesis, too: Orch-OR. If they're right, then nothing like the internet or Wikipedia could be conscious. --Allen (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia were a conscious entity, what is it conscious of? What stimulus does wikipedia respond to? I'm not familiar with Sejnowski's work, but I have encountered theories of consciousness ascribing personality traits, intentionality and propositional attitudes to large organized systems. A nice exemplar is a corporation. One reason this is a good example is because it exists in an environment (the market) in which it competes with other similar 'organisms' for resources. If we are to treat wikipedia like an organism, what is its environment? what stimulus does it respond to? If it's conscious, what is it conscious of? --Shaggorama (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Different angle: An intelligence can emerge from dumb parts. Our cells are dumb, but together they form an intelligence (without knowing it!). So could all humans together form a single intelligence (without the indivuduals knowing it)? They would have to be able to communicate, just like brain cells passing on 'impulses' that cause a reaction, which causes impulses to other individuals, rippling through humanity. Speech already does that. Books (and other printed stuff such as newspapers) helped spread the ripples further. And eventually faster. Radio and tv added to that. And then came the Internet, greatly increasing the scope and speed. But is simple communication enough? What constitutes intelligence? At the very least, there should be a method that creates a single structure that develops a sense of 'I'. And Wikipedia does indeed do something like that. So can Wikipedia be conscious? Can a human brain be conscious without it's surroundings (including the body it occupies)? An intelligence isn't something isolated. So for Wikipedia or the Internet to be conscious it needs at least the humans who are an integral part of it (its 'sensors'?). Who in turn need their surroundings to survive. But where is the sense of 'I' located? If Wikipedia becomes conscious, what does it think it is? Who do we think we are? Our bodies? Our brains? Or is that because we are selfconscious? What does a dog think it is? Does it have a more holistic view of itself because it is not self-conscious? (Or is it really not?) And if we can't even fathom the consciousness of a dog, then what chances do we have with something so different from biological intelligence? Or does that actually make it easier? Can we look for signs of intelligence in the Internet superstructure, thus understand intelligence better, and as a result ourselves?

Sorry, more questions, but that's what you're likely to get when you ask a philosophical question. But it sounds rather gaia, doesn't it? :)

Oh, and will this thread spread through the Internet and cause it to become selfconscious? DirkvdM (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Wikipedia, in itself, could be considered conscious under any theory of conscious, or at least any more conscious than a rock. Unlike a human, or the Chinese Room, or a neuron, or even a thermostat, Wikipedia doesn't process any information. It just sits there. It contains information, but so does any book. It inspires people to do a lot of information processing around it and change it accordingly, but I don't know any theory of consciousness where that would matter. (MediaWiki processes information, of course, but it isn't Wikipedia itself.) --Allen (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with irrational fear

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

birds and current

why do not birds feel current while sitting on high voltage wires? and wat if we some person made to hang on the same wires without having any contact with earth?Lovindhawan (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)lovindhawan

That is because when birds site on a high voltage wire their entire body potential becomes equal to the wire's potential and there is no current flowing through their body since they are not in contact with anything else which could be at a different potential. If some person was made to hang on the same wires without having any contact with earth, they would similarly feel no electric shock. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

They probably do feel something, as would a person in the same position, if the voltage is high enough. A field is produced in the space around the wire 120 times a second, a strong field if it's transmission lines. This will move electrons in the body. The birds don't get fried by the electricity running in the wire because there is practically no potential difference between their two feet, the resistance of that extent of transmission line being essentially zero ohms. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which amounts to the same thing, namely that the only potential difference across the body of a bird sitting on a wire is across its two feet, which is not enough to cause a significant current flow given the bird's resistance; this changes if the bird's body is grounded somehow. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

At a high-enough voltage, corona effects start to be important, though. The bird sitting on the wire represents a sharp point which will readily create corona and this (or the related charging currents in and out of the bird) would be uncomfortable, injurious, or fatal to the bird. That's why you mostly see birds sitting on local distribution wires (up to, say 33KV) but essentially never on long-haul transmission lines (at 110KV and higher).

Atlant (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that was insightful, thanks! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As for a human doing the same thing, check out this amazing video: [57]. --Sean 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is such a cool video, thanks!--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

greenhouse effect

is sulphur dioxidea greenhouse gas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.88.195 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the IPCC list of greenhouse gases but i'm sure it's not beneficial to have lots of it in the atmosphere. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 10:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it is probably not listed because sulphur dioxide does not remain in the atmsophere for long before it is washed out as acid rain which is a much bigger problem for this chemical. Because it is heavier than air and reacts with water to form suphuric acid which then precipitates out, it does not get in to the upper atmsophere in large quantites. SpinningSpark 11:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If I recall from my environmental chemistry module, sulfur dioxide may actually have an inverse greenhouse effect because it induces cloud formation and hence increases the Earth's albedo and hence the amount of solar radiation reflected away. But I may be thinking of something else - and the other negative effects of sulfur dioxide (ie acid rain and asthma) make it an undesirable pollutant anyway. ~ mazca ^talk 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobel chemistry prize winner and atmosphere expert Paul J. Crutzen has a fairly controversial idea of putting massive amounts of sulphur into the upper atmosphere to put a radical stop to climate change. Just very recently, Tim Flannery went and suggested a similar plan for the same reason. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If I remember correctly, volcanoes can eject sulfur into the atmosphere, briefly cooling the atmosphere for as much as 1C. Mount Pinatubo is a recent example, while prehistoric eruptions such as Mount Toba made temperatures so low it wiped out more than 99.9% of all human civilization. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe volcanoes do indeed release sulfur, but I thought it was the dust thrown up blocking the sun that causes the global cooling. It may be a combination, of course. --Tango (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How do Fleas find their hoasts?

How do adult Fleas find their hoasts? Do they use their sense of smell or some kind of thermography? I remmember that fleas used to be drawn to warm places when I had a small flea invasion in my home (gone in to days after applying a "spot-on" anti-flea substance to my dog). Mieciu K (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the flea article which has all the answers to this. SpinningSpark 11:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Mieciu K (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

About career options

–NOW, AS I'M HEADING FOR CLASS 11TH, I WISH TO TAKE SCIENCE STREAM. PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THE SUBJECTS THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL, AS I AIM FOR ENGINEERING & THEN MBA. ALSO TELL ME ABOUT OTHER DEGREES AS MBA. DO GIVE ME INFORMATION ABOUT IIT-JEE, ENGINEERING, MBA & OTHER COURSES.TELL ME ABOUT THE PREPARATIONS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.115.66 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You will be better advised to visit career counselling websites rather than ask at the Wikipedia reference desk. Since you seem to be from India, sites like Rediff might have useful information of a general nature, and educational sites based in India may have more specific information you are looking for. And don't write in capital letters, it amounts to shouting. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In general the subjects of importance for engineering will be Mathematics, Physics, English Language, and Computer Programming.

Colleges near Mumbai

PLEASE GIVE ME THE LIST OF SCIENCE COLLEGES IN MUMBAI IN WESTERN -SUBURBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.115.66 (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You can sort out from List of Mumbai Colleges.

And can you hit that CAPS LOCK button once? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.237.147 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

how do u fit a knife in2 an electric sokket?

how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.79.163 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

simply use the knife for a self-lobotomy first and you cannot go wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.96.61 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same way you stuff beans up your nose. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm first-hand that beans up the nose is a bad idea. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Try phoning the local mental heath unit, I'm sure they have a lovely padded room you can practice in to your heart's content. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

EZ U go 2 a Master Electrician, complete an apprenticeship and take classes where they'll tell you all about patch panels and breakers. Then you become a licensed electrician, go to your basement, find your patch panel, switch off that magic mains breaker, protect it against some wisea## switching it back on and can finally put anything you d## well please into your sockets. It is highly recommended to remove any foreign object from outlets before switching the power back on. If for no other reason than to prevent severe head injuries due to your spouse beating you about the head. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Order

If there's an order called Carnivora, why isn't there one called Herbivora? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Carnivora, there is quite a big difference between being a member of that order and being a carnivore. While most members are carnivores, not all are, and plenty of carnivores aren't members (all the non-mammals, for a start). It's best not to read too much into the names of these things - there are probably historical reasons for the name that don't really apply to its current usage. --Tango (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oil crisis and food crisis, the next 50 years.

The oil will dwindle down in the next 50 years and become too expensive, to combat this I see a shift towards Bio-diesel . Now I read that the world is running out of food part of which I suspect is rising fuel costs.

[58]

So , in the next 50 years I see a dilemma , not enough land for food crops AND fuel crops and an ever increasing population.

Is there a sensible solution to this?

78.144.96.61 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)andy

• Yes, possibly. There are many reliable scientists who state that bio-fuels are not the way forward, for the reasons you have mentioned and the fact that it is not actually as evironmentally friendly as it is made out to be. So many are of the opinion that renewable sources of energy are the way out. Wind, Wave and Hydroelectric being the main ones. Nuclear power is also less damaging to the environment, but iranium will run out eventually (though not for a very long time) and the possibility of an accident resulting disaster must be taken into consideration. There is not really a solution to the population problem. We can kill billions of people but that would be illegal, inhumane and cruel. We could follow China's exemple and offer incentives to people to only have one child but that is also regarded as cruel and should not be allowed. So, we having thought that we had risen above nature find that we can only fall back. Other animal's population is regulated by the food supply, and this was something we historicall never worried about but now we are beggining to realise that our population will be, in the end regulated by our food supply. This will be called awful and terrible by people but the will realise that there is very little thay can do. The poorer countries will be affected first as they do not have the money to buy enough food for their populations, the richer countries will try to help but will find that if they do so then they will not have enough money to buy food for their people. To make matters worse the global communications we have set up make us think that any food trouble is far away and we have never had to say 'I will only have one child becausee I cannot feed two' it is a foriegn idea. So we will continue to expand and noone will be able to tell us not to as that would be cruel! So humanity is doomed! (by our intelligence) :) Or we could colonise another planet but with no air there is no food so earth would have to supply another planet too. (Unless we found one that could support life). Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Iranium" ? Is that what Iran is using for it's nuclear weapons program ? :-) StuRat (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• When considering overpopulation, it's important to remember that much of the developed world is actually at, or approaching, sub-replacement fertility rates. If it weren't for immigration, the populations would actually be reducing. If you want to reduce overpopulation, you have to do so in poorer countries, not rich ones. One way to do that may be to help them become developed, it seems the incentive to have large families reduces when you are reasonably wealthy (I'm sure plenty of studies have been done into this, but I haven't read them, so I'm not sure of the exact reasons). --Tango (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's less a scientific than a political and economical questions. I strongly believe that we have the science to smoothly move to a high-tech, mostly clean lifestyle based primarily on renewable energy - wind, sun, hydro, tidal, geothermic, biomass. The sooner we start, the easier the transition will be. Solar warm-water is cost-effective in most of the industrialized countries even now - in many the advantage is compelling. Go to Greece, and you will see a simple solar-thermic system on nearly every roof. Wind is a largely unused reserve - Denmark is producing 20% of its electricity with wind, and has yet to significantly tap offshore wind resources. However, as in all large economical shifts, the incumbents are expected to lose, which results in a certain inertia. In Germany, the influential car industry lobbies for stricter environmental laws concerning old cars (to entice people to buy new cars), but against strict absolute limits on emissions and mileage, as German cars are on the large and heavy side (for European cars). If I own a couple of oil fields, my economic interest wil likely by against competition from other energy sources. The US is spending about US$10 per citizen per week for the war in Iraq - imagine that amount of money going into support for a shift to renewable energies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Significant problems still exist with alternate sources, especially with respect to intermittancy and energy storage. The Denmark examples is a good illustration - even at "only" 20% wind-based the national grid is inherently unstable because the wind doesn't always blow. Denmark is forced to rely on balancing its grid with imports and exports to other nations with more traditional power sources. See Wind power#Penetration. Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Denmark is a) small, so local fluctuations don't even out, and b) very flat, so pumped hydro is not an option. To solve this, they export energy to Norway, which has an enormous potential of hydro (both conventional and pumped) that can conveniently buffer irregular supplies. But these are not fundamental scientific questions, but part engineering and part economical. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is reasonably easy to overcome, there are lots of other sources of energy, at the moment they are simply more expensive, so no-one bothers much with them. Once the cost of fossil fuels gets high enough, it will make good business sense to shift to other sources, so people will do so. Common sense would suggest shifting *before* we run into trouble (which would be about now), but unfortunately business sense and common sense don't quite match up, so there will probably be a short period of difficulty before the switch is completed. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is, in general, more than enough land for most purposes. Water for irrigation, people to tend the crops, money, and so on tends to be more of a problem.--Fangz (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment that overpopulation is the source of the problems is spot on. Energy we can possibly get around, as almost unlimited nuclear energy could be made available if we wanted to build the plants (I suggest building them in stable underground sites in unpopulated areas to protect the population from any radioactivity). This could provide electricity for electric cars, heating, air conditioning, etc. Food is a more serious long-term issue, as food production is limited by the amount of farm land, which is finite (and which we would prefer doesn't expand to include all of the remaining rain forests). (Hydroponic food is an exception to the land requirement, but is far too expensive to feed the starving people of the world.) Poor nations, on the other hand, have the potential for their populations to increase infinitely, unless limited by starvation, war, and disease (which we would also like to avoid). The question is, then, do we prefer to continue to limit population by starvation, war, and disease, or would we be willing to use coercive means to limit fertility ? I'd suggest a simple method, if someone is starving, only give them food if they agree to be sterilized. If they agree, they stop having children they can't feed. If they refuse, they starve, and also stop having children they can't feed. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And when they don't have enough children to work their farmland, they also starve... In most parts of the poor world, the decision to have large families is motivated by the apparent usefulness of free familial labor. No one wants to have children that they expect will starve to death. Dragons flight (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A problem here is medical care and slow human adaption. People had loads of children because lots of them did die. But where modern medicine has stopped or reduced this problem culture hasn't suddenly changed to have fewer children. Actually, human fertility is designed to have about a dozen children per female. With modern medicine we need unnatural means (condoms, abortion) to keep our fertility drive in check. DirkvdM (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Solar power satellites, powering the production of hydrogen fuel from water. Use the land for food production, not fuel production. --arkuat (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A problem with alternative energy sources that is often overlooked is that most of them (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) are used with technologies that create electricity. But only 20% or less of our energy consumption is in the form of electricity. Another 20% is used by cars.

So what can we do?

• switch to electric cars
• use an intermediary, such as hydrogen
• stop driving cars. Well, use them less. Or make them more fuel efficient (oddly, we're massively doing the opposite, driving ever heavier cars). Or drive them more fuel efficiently. Or reduce traffic jams. You get the point.
• switch to biofuel
• die

Or, of course, a combination of the above.

But a more specific answer to your question. Lately, I've read in several sources that there is plenty land, plus the technology, to grow both food and biofuel for everyone. But it's the same old story. The means to make this happen are present in rich countries, but since we don't own the poor countries, fuck 'm. Let them solve their own problems. Maybe decolonisation wasn't such a good idea after all? Note that that is a question, not a statement. DirkvdM (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New Guinea forest wallaby

Is there an article on the New Guinea forest wallaby under a different name? There is the Black Dorcopsis which inhabits New Guinea but nowhere can I find the New Guinea forest wallaby (Dorcopsis veterum). It does exist [59]. Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This page says that Dorcopsis veterum is a synonym of Dorcopsis muelleri. We have an article on D. muelleri (not much of one, admittedly) at Brown Dorcopsis. If you can add any information to the article, I'm sure it would be appreciated. Deor (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Food/drink to help your memory

Have just read that smoking dope can reduce your memory capacity by up to 15%. Can this be compensated by regularly eating any food that stimulates your brain/memory area? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis reduces your short-term memory capacity, i'm not convinced it's as bad as 15% but it certainly does. I'm also unsure of long-term memory loss. There are many artificial ways of improving cognitive abilities including caffeine and other CNS stimulants but again, I don't know in terms of a percentage how this would work out. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do Marsupial mammals have placentas?

I've read Marsupials and placenta, these articles said that marsupials do not have placentas. But do these animals have any primitive organ that structurally or functionally like a "primitive placenta"? Luuva (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dont know about marsupials but look at these:http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/16cm05/1116/34-19-AmnioticEgg-L.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allantois Em3ryguy (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

According to marsupial: "The pregnant female develops a kind of yolk sac in her womb which delivers nutrients to the embryo." That would be the functional equivalent, in that in provides nutrients to the embryo, but it seems it works in a very different way. It sounds like store of nutrients that is created before or soon after conception, rather than being a link between the mother and embryo. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The placenta also provides oxygen and eliminates waste. Also, placental embryos possess both a placenta and a yolk sac. Em3ryguy (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

??Lightning

Today it started raining in Mumbai. Before the rains there was lightning. During that time i witnessed a huge white coloured ball moving quickly in the clouds. It was flashing. When it appeared there was thunder. Can this be a lightning?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.111.13 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was ball lightning? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It could have been clouds illuminated by a series of lightning strikes. I think that ball lightning is smaller than this sounds. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Glyceryl Trinitrate and Phlebotomy

I have been working as a phlebotomist for a year alongside university to help pay my nights out. Today on my way to a ward another phlebotomist was tellin gme that one day she was having problems finding a vein on a larger gentleman and that a young doctor gave her a spray bottle of Glyceryl Trinitrate/Nitroglycerine and sprayed it on the venipuncture site and Ta-da, the veins popped up. Is this true, is this safe etc? 92.0.228.141 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If the person doing it was a qualified doctor, they probably know better than the people here (unless there happens to be a doctor here, of course, which is entirely possible). I seem to remember hearing that one of the reasons for rubbing alcohol on the area first (in addition to sterilising it), is because it makes the veins easier to find. This is probably a similar idea. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(After ec)True, most definately. This is a "trick" of sorts usually employed when all else fails. Safe? Probably. Vasodilating nitrates are available without prescription in many places, and one single, topical application is trivial. BUT I couldn't find a study to categorically show safety, so ask the nearest Doctor before performing this trick. Fribbler (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it hurt more than performing the procedure without it? 92.0.228.141 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why it would be more painful using nitrates. GTN merely dilates blood vessels. In fact the opposite may be the case, as there is less "poking-about" involved. Fribbler (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are they available over the counter in pharmacies in the UK? Also, what would be the smallest needle which could be used (gauge wise) to allow safe collection of blood without rupturing blood vessels? The smallest we use is 23g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.228.141 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GTN is an over-the-counter medication in the uk [60]. As for needle-bore calibre...I haven't a clue. Not my forte, I'm afraid. Thats a question for a senior phlebotomist or a doctor who takes bloods regularly.

Regarding needle calibre, it depends on technique, medical condition of the patient, and the intended use of the blood (and I assume the original poster intended to say, "...without rupturing blood CELLS", rather than "vessels"). Smaller-bore needles will increase risk of cell lysis, but this can be reduced by avoiding extreme suction. Might be a bigger issue in people with fragile red or white cells (e.g. leukemia). Also a bigger issue if trying to measure something like potassium that is particularly affected by hemolysis. Blood coagulation parameters seem pretty unaffected by small-bore needles based on this study.Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Poli G, Guidi GC (2006). "Influence of the needle bore size on platelet count and routine coagulation testing". Blood Coagul. Fibrinolysis. 17 (7): 557–61. doi:10.1097/01.mbc.0000245300.10387.ca. PMID 16988551. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

18 or 20 gauge is ideal for blood collection. A larger bore (gauge less than 18) makes damage to the blood vessel more likely, a smaller bore (gauge more than 20) makes hemolysis more likely. 23 gauge really is as small a bore as you'd want to use to collect blood, though you can use smaller bores for IV infusions. GIven that 18 gauge is more painful than 20, I think most phlebotomists would use 20 gauge as a default and mentally go up or down from there based on other intangibles. - Nunh-huh 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Zits

As I looked in the mirror this morning, a couple questions popped into my mind.

First of all, why do humans (or at least me) feel the need to pop/remove/otherwise destroy a zit, blemish, blister, scab or other such abnormality on the skin? My hypothesis would be that removing foreign objects on the skin (leeches, parasites etc.) may have been a mechanism in ancient times for mitigating the damage done by said parasite, but I'm curious as to why we don't recognize scabs/blisters/etc as parts of our bodies and lose the urge to pick at them.

Secondly, is there any real health detriment caused by zits? I know they look like hell, but does a seething white pustule really do any damage per se? The same goes for a generally bad complexion (oily skin, not-washing-your-face-osis etc). Is there some other health detriment besides looking bad? A zit seems like a neutrally-inclined mass of dead bacteria and leukocytes and pus. Of course a lump of dead bacteria on your face sounds gross but why are people so obsessed with good complexion? Is this solely vanity, or is there actual medical wrongness with poor facial hygiene?

Ziggy Sawdust 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first part, I think we do it to relieve discomfort (either pain, or itchiness). I think itching does have to do with removing parasites - itch will probably tell you more. Pain is generally to stop you doing something harmful - I don't expect zits hurt for any specific reason, they just happen to stimulate the nerve endings in the same way other harmful things do. As for your second part, I think that probably counts as medical advice, so all I can say is: Contact a doctor. --Tango (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First question I think can be answered better by a psychological standpoint. You see a zit and you worry about what other people think about you, so you feel the need to pop it. I don't think it's any 'built in mechanism' really. Second question — not really, but it does often cause scarring of the skin, especially if you pop the zit and it bleeds. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on a built-in mechanism: if you put a chimpanzee in front of a mirror with a dot of red paint on its forehead, it will scratch around and remove it. Researchers have used this experiment to determine that chimps can tell that a mirror is a reflection of them (dogs and cats just ignore the reflection in the mirror, at best, or think it is another animal, at worst), and thus have some sort of abstract concept of selfhood. So maybe there is something to that urge to remove the blemish, to restore the self, whatever, that goes beyond simple rationality—if a chimp cares about having a little mark on its face, maybe it's no surprise that we do too. Just a speculation. --140.247.11.15 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That test is just meant to show they have an understanding of self, rather than any desire to restore the self. Removing a dot of paint and removing a zit are different matters - cleanliness is common to a lot of animals (for a variety of reasons, I expect), so removing a foreign substance from your face is quite normal. A zit isn't foreign, though, it's part of you. --Tango (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's part of you, but not part of your preferred image so becomes a focus of annoyance even if releasing the infection is a valid response to pressure in the skin. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Drixoral

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

Fribbler (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

US upcoming analog to digital TV change over

I've read and understood what I could find on the upcoming changeover from analog to digital formats for TV in the US. I'd like to know if the major cable companies will still be offering analog cable after the changeover date. ike9898 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As the commercials have (much to the annoyance of many) said, if you have cable you are unaffected by the change over. Analog cable with still be offered. See the US government's website on the matter for more information. To be perfectly explicit ONLY if you get TV over an antenna do you need to anticipate any changes, and even then only if your TV was purchased before March 1, 2007. See their FAQ for more information. EagleFalconn (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they see it as a sales advantage. If they are selling you analog conversion, you will stick with them rather than buy a new set. --BenBurch (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That said, I fully expect to see the cable companies start moving to digital-only within a couple years of the broadcast change. Digital (standard-def) channels require less bandwidth than their analog counterparts and confer greater content control to the cable provider, both incentives for cable to switch. — Lomn 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My digital cable box here feeds my analog TV just fine. That is ALSO a conversion service even though it happens in the set top box. --BenBurch (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the point. The digital box in and of itself solves neither of the problems with analog cable mentioned above. Cable has a strong incentive to drop analog altogether, and it's only a matter of time. — Lomn 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is covered in this section of the DTV FAQ. Note particularly "the FCC requires cable companies to continue to provide local stations in analog as long as they provide any analog service, even after February 17, 2009" and "Your cable company may decide to move certain cable channels off of its analog service tier and onto a digital service tier, or it may decide to switch to all-digital service at once, so that there is no analog service tier for any subscribers." In that latter case, this would force a customer to rent a set top box from the cable company. I know that Verizon's FIOS service in many (all?) areas has eliminated all analog service, and Comcast has been moving more and more stations to their digital tier. --LarryMac | Talk 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Color variation in the mallard duck

I've seen some male mallard ducks whose heads were a purple-indigo color instead of the usual dark green. This is apparently not unheard of, as Google turns up some photos of similar ducks[61]. And I don't think it was a trick of the light, since the heads of the ducks I saw looked purple from all angles. Are these a recognized sub-species or mutation of mallards, or a different species? 69.111.189.55 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "recognized sub-species" of mallard with a purple head (as far as I know), and I can't say that I've seen one myself (I've been a birder for many years). And it is certainly true that the "green" of the male mallard head can look black or purple in certain light or at certain angles. However, if you are sure that the head was purple from all angles, it is possible that it was genetic due to hybridizing. Mallards are notorious for hybridizing with related species of ducks and with various types of domestic ducks. Many of the "mallards" that you see are not actually "wild" at all, but mixtures of feral hybrids. So that is a possibility.--Eriastrum (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

lots of these in my local pond (north east England) they have purple heads no green in sight. I don't know if they are mallards but they seem to resemble a mallard duck but with a purple head rather than a green one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.140.140 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Red-winged blackbirds are seen quite frequently on mile marker posts, and along rural highways...why?

I read the segment in wikipedia about these birds but it didn't really explain this phenomenon. If you are driving through the country in the midwest US for example, you will see these birds along the road, sometimes on the ground, often on mile markers or guardrails, much more frequently than any other bird. I'm wondering it there is something about the roads that attracts them (besides spilled grain or corn). --Dbacksfanbrian (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

They're perching birds. You find them on mile markers for the same reason you find them on cattails: it's a vertical object they can perch on. --Carnildo (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Where I live on the central coast of California I have a daily commute of 80 miles in a largely rural area. Red-wing Blackbirds are seen along most stretches of the highway (a poky, two-lane affair), because they are nesting in the tall weeds and cattails that are found along the edge of the road. There is no grazing directly along the road and the runoff from the road makes for fairly dense weed growth. In addition, there is often a ditch or minor streambed along the road that increases the amount of tall, reedy vegetation that the blackbirds find appropriate for breeding. This may be the same situation that you have observed in the midwest.--Eriastrum (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the markers and rails taller than the surrounding vegetation? Perching birds generally like to find a good vantage point, which often equates to the highest available perch. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's some totally anecdotal stuff. I've been watching those birds my whole life, and that's just what they do in the springtime. They display. The males stake out a little territory in the reeds and perch high up on a reed and call to claim it. The ones who can't get the good spots in the swamp end up doing their thing where they can. Their whole purpose is to be seen and heard around this time of year, and that's why we see them perching all over the place and why our heads ring with konk-la-reeee. (I was listening to a mockingbird the other day, and he did a redwing, but he did a faraway one. He made it sound like it would have if it had been one a few hundred yards away where they hang out around here. It's hard not to attribute such virtuosity to something like intelligence, isn't it?) --Milkbreath (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(In answer to Kurt's question) Yes, these are areas of rangeland where a fence parallels the road and behind it the land is densely grazed and of no interest to the blackbirds at all. Also note, these birds are breeding there, not just perching there. Early in the year the males show up and stake out their territories as soon as possible to get the upper hand (wing?). They all clear out by early to mid summer after breeding.--Eriastrum (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would certainly make sense that the males wish to make themselves as conspicuous as possible to the females at that time of the year. Higher up = better all-round view of their displays to hens looking for a mate in the surrounding area. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to indent anymore, so feel free to correct my indentation. Rural highways are often edged by ditches which collect water. They are also edged by mile-marker posts. Redwinged blackbirds like to nest by water, in which cattails grow, for instance. (And cattails often do grow in the ditches along rural highways.) So there's a coincidence in space between mile-markers and redwinged blackbirds. --arkuat (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Find out who cited an article?

How can I find out which scientific journal articles have cited another article (e.g. A genome-wide analysis of CpG dinucleotides in the human genome distinguishes two distinct classes of promoters) in which I'm interested? ----Seans Potato Business 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With Google Scholar, of course. Search for the title of the paper, and then click the "cited by" link underneath the article. See here. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ISI Web of Knowledge has a pretty rigorous citation indexing system (the Science Citation Index). I wouldn't rely on Google Scholar; it's still pretty patchy in its coverage. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Biomes by latitude

If a planet's axial inclination is 19.37°, as Billy Meier claims Erra's is, then what biomes would you expect to find at:

90° north

80°

70°

60°

50°

40°

30°

20°

10°

The equator? Subliminable (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends. How fast does the planet turn? How hot and far away is the sun? How much water is available? What's the spread of native life? What's the atmosphere? Etc, etc. Biomes are determined by much more than lattitude.--Fangz (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very similar to Earth's, so all else being equal, you would expect pretty similar biomes to Earth. Of course, all else may not be equal, I have no idea what else has been claimed about this planet. --Tango (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Latitude is just one of a number of factors that play into where a given biome occurs. The relationship of continents to oceans and the pattern of prevailing winds plays a major role. Also important is the location of mountains ranges. This is why, for example, the Pacific Northwest has a mild, temperate, maritime climate with cold rainforests along the coast (between the mountains the ocean) and an arid semi-desert climate east of the mountains. At the same latitude, approximately 50 degrees north, you can find a wide range of biomes, from tiaga to deciduous forest to desert to rainforest. In short, you need more than latitude to determine biomes. Pfly (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

19 degrees inclination is less inclined than Earth, so the climate would vary less than Earth's does as you move from the equator. Day and night lengths would not vary as much as they do on Earth at 45 degrees latitude, for instance. The difference between winter and summer temperatures would be slightly less.

Uranus has no biomes as far as we know, but it's an excellent example of an unusually high inclination of equator to ecliptic. (See Uranus#Axial tilt.) Such planets with extreme inclinations, if they have atmospheres, have some pretty dramatic storms and wind movements.

--arkuat (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reduced inclination will reduce seasonal effects, rather than latitude effects, surely? At a fixed point during the year, it shouldn't make any difference how the planet is tilted. --Tango (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Photodissociation

In Photosystem II (during the light reaction of photosynthesis), sunlight is absorbed and used to charge up a single electron in the middle of the photosystem. This electron is taken to an electron transport chain, where it uses its energy to make ATP. To replace this electron, a water molecule is split into oxygen gas and protons (H+ ions) and electrons. The oxygen gas made here is the waste product of photosynthesis.

But water is a much more stable molecule than oxygen gas, so it takes a lot of energy to split it. In the photodissociation article it says that an empty photosystem is the strongest known biological oxidizing agent, so it has the power to split that water... but if it is such a strong oxidizing agent, then it should require a lot of energy to pull the electron off of it in the first place. It seems to me that two things happen in Photosystem II that require energy: ATP is made (on the electron transport chain) and water is split (in the oxygen evolving complex. I assume that both are powered by sunlight energy, but I'm not sure how it all works. Where does the energy to pull the electron off the photosystem come from? Does sunlight power the photosystem and the oxygen evolving complex separately, or does it power the photosystem first and the photosystem powers the oxygen complex? Thanks for the help :)

Jonathan ^talk 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a great question that I don't how to answer. The first thing I'd look at is photon counts. Each of these events is powered by a molecule that has been charged up (just like a battery) by absorbing a photon. I'd parse your last question this way: do the photosystem and the oxygen evolving complex absorb charging-up photons independently of one another, or does a single photon absorption event power both the photosystem and the oxygen complex? It may be (I don't know) that the splitting of water uses up some but not all of the ATP that is produced by the electron transport chain. HTH. --arkuat (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See oxygen evolution (very close to an article you already linked); it seems that Photosystem II prepares the OEC with some captured photons, while using other captured photons to drive the electron transport chain. --Tardis (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, in cellular respiration, you use a high-energy electron from glucose to make ATP, but you also change oxygen gas back into water, which should produce a lot of energy... so it looks like you're getting energy from two different places there. Jonathan ^talk 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In chemistry, it's almost always an energy difference that matters: glucose electrons have high energy relative to what? To the oxygen, of course, and adding the electrons and some handy protons to it, ${\text{O}}^{2-}+2{\text{H}}^{+}$, gives you the water. In other words, it's only one process to say "use high-energy electron and change oxygen gas into water". Better to say "benefit from letting oxygen gas take an electron from you and become water". --Tardis (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alien life and falsifying our current theories of evolution

Lets say we find life on another planet. And this alien has a backbone, eyes, blood, and a genome that is very similar to life on our planet. Would this falsify our current theories of evolution since it would be impossible for this alien to have common ancestors with any life on our planet? ScienceApe (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because some traits can develope similarly in different environments. Besides that having a similar genome doesn't mean anything. Some scientist believe that our genome is from outer space. GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Parallel evolution --76.111.32.200 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Convergent evolution is when two dissimilar organisms develop the same trait. Parallel evolution is when two similar organisms develop the same trait.(Parallel evolution#Parallel vs. convergent evolution). Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See Panspermia for more information about the possibility that life originated in outer space. --Tango (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be kind of like convergent evolution (when two different species develop the same characteristic independently).--Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But even with parallel and convergent evolution.... Wouldn't it be far fetched? ScienceApe (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it? We don't really know the full steps of evolution as they occured. In the chemical sense, it may well be that life built on amino acids, fatty acids, and sugars with nucleic acid as a hereditary material is simply the chemically easiest way to go about things. So certainly, finding a cell bound by twin-tailed amphipathic lipids (like our phospholipids), using DNA or RNA as a hereditary material and using proteins for structure and metabolic function may actually be expected. And as far as killing evolution goes, looking at physical traits wouldn't even be that interesting; our traits evolved as the most viable random responses to the state of our world, and maybe the same conditions exist elsewhere. If we found life from another planet that use the exact same 20 amino acids for building proteins, have nearly identical ribosomes, or some other extreme and specific biochemical similarity...that might shake science. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem odd in itself for it to live in conditions where it could be the same, IMHO. Remember that key features of the Earth (especially the oxygen atmosphere) arose essentially out of chance. Also, whilst some convergence might be expected, in some issues, it's a bit implausible to argue that. For example, mammalian dominance arose very much due to a string of fortuitous extinctions. It would indicate at least that something interesting is going on. So in the end, it's a matter of how similar similar is, and whether justifications can be found for those similarities.--Fangz (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the oxygen atmosphere arose because of life, so life evolving elsewhere could make it quite likely that it would end up being in an oxygen atmosphere. --Tango (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on the conditions of the alien planet in question. If it is similar to Earth, then it can well be argued that just as useful parts like the eye has evolved numerous times independently, hereditary structures such as DNA and RNA are the best in duplicating genes and thus should evolve in other similar planets as well. As someone has pointed out in another internet forum, life on Earth does not imply the existence of God. Life on an inhospitable planet might be. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If these similarities between the alien and terrestrial species were coded in the same way (same DNA code, same genes, etc.), then they could not have evolved separately--they would have to have had a common ancestor. However, this would not falsify the theory of biological evolution by natural selection; it would simply provide very strong evidence for the theory of panspermia--the dissemination of life throughout the galaxy.--Eriastrum (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

June 4

Electromotive Force and Potential Difference?

I am slightly confused what is the difference between electromotive force and potential difference. From what I currently understand it seems like emf is a theoretical value assuming no internal resistance within a battery while potential difference is the actual, pratical value. Is this correct? 24.125.56.9 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You've already looked at Electromotive force#Electromotive force and voltage difference, right? Also note that at potential difference, it has been suggested that this article be merged with voltage. Are you asking about the difference between emf and voltage? The main thing I'm getting out of these articles is that the word "force" in emf is a misnomer. --arkuat (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no real difference other than semantic convention. The emf phrase is usually applied to the voltage of a generator and the pd phrase is usually applied to the voltage across a load. However, this can be relative, the load can be a supply to something else so whether a particular item is a load or a source can be a matter of point of view. Arkuat is correct that emf is a misnomer and is therefore discouraged. Voltage is neither force nor pressure (another common analogy). It is potential energy (per unit charge). SpinningSpark 13:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

mental health

explain the practicle knowledge of the principles, concepts, and methodology in the field of mental health in order. Think of yourself being a mental health couselor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.167.213 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Do your own homework. Think of yourself being a student learning the material instead of a freeloader cheating on-line. DMacks (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems like practicle practical advice ;-) --hydnjo talk 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sound cousel counsel too. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mental health - Mental health professional - Social worker - Psychology - Psychiatry. Damn, I really thought it was a question about the meeting of particle physics and psychology. So disappointed. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ears

Do your ears get bigger as you age? It seems like elderly people have abnormally large ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.24.1 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This study suggests yes, though it is not an ironclad correlation between ear size and age. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo answers[62] is inconclusive but madsci[63] discusses it with a yes in there as well. Sometimes it's only apparent (the flesh-and-hair loss effect) and sometimes it's measurable. Hair apparently falls off the head only to reappear in the nose and ears. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Do Your Ears Hang Low? Edison (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you plug a 115 volt appliance into a 110 volt outlet?

I'm trying to determine if I can plug a 115 volt appliance into a 110 volt outlet. You know, whether or not that would actually work without anything blowing up. I found an answer to a similar question on Wikianswers, but it didn't really help at all. Digger3000 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In North America, household outlet voltages of 110/115/120V are used interchangeably (see this FAQ). According to that link, appliances are generally designed to operate at 115 +/- 10%, so you should be just fine. Cheers, St3vo (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. They just call them those different numbers and there's no telling what the actual voltage is going to be on any given day. It'll be higher closer to the power plant, too. The power companies don't regulate that very strictly, but they do keep the 60 cycles pretty tight. Our article Mains_electricity#Voltage_levels says "In the United States and Canada, national standards specify that the nominal voltage at the source should be 120 V and allow a range of 114 to 126 V (-5% to +5%)." Also see Mains_electricity#Voltage_regulation. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Edison started out with 100 volts in New York City supplied from the Pearl Street Plant in 1882. He decided to stress the insulation slightly more to achieve the transfer of greater power and the voltage level was raised to 110 volts. A couple of decades later, the nominal supply voltage became 120 volts, again to aupply more power via the same conductors. 120 volts AC is a nominal voltage in North America for many utilities at the transformer terminals. By the time the voltage has dropped through the service conductors and the wiring in the customer's premesis, it may be down to 110 volts at the actual motor terminals, representing the same real life situation. Utility commissions in many U.S. states allow the utility voltage to drop from the nominal 120 volts to 114 volts (a 5 % decrease) for 1 minute. A 115 volt (nominal) motor supplied with 120 volts would generally operate satisfactorily while drawing lower current. As with all Wikipedia Reerence Desk answers, this is provided for information only and may not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice from a licensed professional. No liability whatsoever is assumed. Edison (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Animal behaviour

I want to know some facts about social hierarchy among animals.

• Which animals other than Homo sapiens have social hierarchy?

• I have read the article on Gorilla. The Gorilla#Behavior section of that article does not have much information about their group life. The only information given in the article is:

Silverbacks are the strong, dominant troop leaders. Each typically leads a troop (group size ranges from 5 to 30) and is in the center of the troop's attention, making all the decisions, mediating conflicts, determining the movements of the group, leading the others to feeding sites and taking responsibility for the safety and well-being of the troop.

• • • How the leader of a gorilla group is chosen?
    • If the existing leader of a group of Gorilla dies, then who will be the next leader and what is the selection procedure?
    • If any member of a gorilla group denies the order of the troop leader, then what will be the result?

• Regarding Chimpanzee, is there social hierarchy among chimps? What is the role of violence among chimpanzees? Are they attack one another or conflicts between one group and another, if there is violence then what is the reason behind the violence and what is the usual result of such violence? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Start from Ethology and then follow the links at the bottom. Dominance hierarchy(pecking order) and Alpha (biology) would probably also be of interest to you. Mountain Gorilla has a bit more on social structure. For Chimpanzee the answer depends on what species Common Chimpanzee is different from Bonobo.76.111.32.200 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of questions. I'll have a go at the first. Almost all social animals have hierarchies, and that means a lot of mammals including chimps and gorillas. Perhaps the most rigid social hierarchies in mammals are among the Naked mole rats and Damaraland Mole Rats - the only two mammals that are know to display eusociality. Rockpocket 07:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I carefully read the article Mountain Gorilla. The Mountain_Gorilla#Social_structure section answers to one of my question that if the existing group leader dies, then "the family group may be severely disrupted. Unless he leaves behind a male descendant capable of taking over his position, the group will either split up or be taken over in its entirety by an unrelated male. When a new silverback takes control of a family group, he may kill all of the infants of the dead silverback". This section also clearly states A typical group contains: one silverback, who is the group's undisputed leader. Here the fact I still do not understand that what will be fate of a group member if he/she denies any order of the troop leader? Will he/she be expelled from group or anything other? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Animals don't tend to order one another around. The dominant animal will typically do what he wants do do (which is generally eat, be groomed, and mate). If the other males stay out of his way and do not interfere with him then they will be fine. If they do, then they will likely be attacked until they submit. If they don't submit one of three things will happen: they may be chased away from the social group, they may be killed or the may usurp the dominant animal (who will either submit, be chased away or be killed). Rockpocket 07:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I cut the skin on my knee

Yesterday night, I fell from my bicycle and cut the skin on my knee, for about an inch long, on the tar road. I washed it in Dettol and put on a Band-Aid. I removed the Band-Aid just now.

How come the skin got cut but my pants has no damage?

Why does it look white under the skin on the knee? It looks reddish under the skin on other parts of the body, right?

What is this translucent gel that has formed a thin film on the wound?

--Masatran (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fabric on your pants is stronger than the skin on your knee? I suspect the 'whiteness' is because your knee doesn't have much by way of muscle between it and the knee-cap, whereas on other parts of the body you do. I think the gel is white-blood cells. Sorry not much use i'm sure someone in the know will correct/answer more accurately in time. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like a scrape than a cut. The fact that your jeans held up is probably due to the fact that there are lots of tiny sharp edged pebbles in the road surface. They work like sandpaper. The sharp edges poked through tiny holes in your jeans and then cut lots of tiny little holes in your skin. The translucent film are white blood cells and a couple of other things your body uses to heal the wound. The white skin can have 2 reasons: Under the bandaid the skin can not "breathe" and is kept moist. The effects are the same as staying in the pool or tub too long. The second is that the blood supply is disrupted, compared to healthy skin, the body is also supplying more white blood cells in proportion to red to the site of the injury. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Parachute for rock climbing

Would it help if rock climbers kept a parachute? Perhaps it would slow them down if they had a fall? --Masatran (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is not feasible. First the parachute will not have enough room to deploy should the climber. Second, it will be torn by the jagged rocks of the cliff.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See BASE jumping. You would need a significant amount of expertise to pull it off, I imagine, but it could work. --Tango (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time they use ropes and such tools instead to secure themselves. More reliable than a parachute and works at any height. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 12:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics and wave functions

QM states that prior to observation, nothing can be said about a physical system other than a probability function which seems to be definable to a degree by assumptions about the system's elements. With observation a system's probability wave function will collapse into a precise quantity which is observable by the means of measuring the device applied. – taken from Reality#Quantum physical views of reality.

Does this imply that, prior to the appearance of living beings capable of observing, the entire universe was in a state of quantum superposition? Does this mean that the far side of Pluto, which is not being observed, is in a combination of all the possible states? And finally, if I enclosed myself in a dark steel box, more or less like Schrödinger's cat, would I instantly experiment superposition too? -- Leptictidium (mt) 10:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real agreement on what "observe" means in that context. Collapsing wave functions doesn't really appear in the theory, it's just tacked on after the fact to explain why we do actually observe fixed outcomes to experiments. Different people have different ideas about how it actually works. Someone else can probably explain what the major interpretations are better than I can. --Tango (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole universe is in a state of superposition whether it is observed or not! Proper Interval Locality —Preceding unsigned comment added by WROBO (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can other animals or even plants not observe? Imagine Reason (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle Fuel Economy declines by 10% for every mile per hour over 60 mph. Is this true?

Common knowledge or media has told me that for every increase in speed by 1 MPH, over the speed of 60MPH, fuel economy declines by 10%. This would result in a fuel economy loss of 50%, from say 15 MPG to 7.5 MPG by driving at 65 MPH. (5mph X 10% for each MPH= 50%. This cannot be true. What is the truth? Steve in canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.218.64 (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question to answer your question. Say something costs $100. A store charges a 50% markup on the price. Later, when the store is going out of business, they have a 50% off sale. How much does it cost now? shoy 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the 10% rule of thumb as described above can't be literally true, otherwise your fuel tank would instantly empty itself when you hit 70MPH. (I have myself driven over 70MPH and can report that my fuel consumption did not suddenly divide by zero.)

Check out the graph at page 4-23 of this report for a rough idea of how this goes. Obviously it will be somewhat different depending on the vehicle. APL (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Minus 10% and then minus another 10% isn't the same as minusing 20% - pick a starting number and try it. --Tango (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But even taking compounding into account, a 10% drop per 1 mph increase in speed would mean that fuel economy at 70 mph was only 35% of its value at 60 mph - which is clearly not correct. The rate of drop off in fuel economy in the source given by APL above is much smaller than this - only 1% to 2% per mph. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It massively depends on the engine and gearbox of the car, too. Different cars are optimised for different speeds, a car with a fairly low-ratio gearbox designed for city driving does lose efficiency quite quickly at high speeds, but a car designed for it generally gets its best mileage at 70-80mph. ~ mazca ^talk 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That number surprises me. I thought cars typically saw their most efficient speeds in more like the 30-50 mph range. Where did you read about cars that are most efficient at 70-80? Air resistance becomes way more significant with higher speeds- there's not really any getting around that. Friday (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I can see an engine producing peak power in that range, but not peak fuel efficiency for the overall system. — Lomn 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Union of Concerned Scientists guy here says you lose 1% for every mph over 55 (not 10% for every mph over 55) (You have to love the sidebar poll - On a 65mph speed limit road, how slow would you go to save gas? Most common answer - 70!) Rmhermen (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't pygmies considered a separate species or sub-species of Homo Sapiens?

For example, the Pygmy Hippopotamus is considered a separate species from the Hippopotamus. The Pygmy Blue Whale is considered a separate sub-species of Blue Whale. And there are many other examples. So why aren't human pygmies considered a different species or sub-species of Homo Sapiens? Is it because of political reasons or because of actual scientific reasons? ScienceApe (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See Race (classification of human beings)#Race as subspecies. --Elliskev 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good link. In general the meanings of the terms "race" and "subspecies", while vague, mean something pretty similar. So to answer the original question - yes, you probably could call pygmies a subspecies, just as you could call Caucasians, or Maoris, or Koreans a subspecies. In general, though, I think the term "race" is used because it sounds more neutral. To me "subspecies of human" gives an implication of "subhuman" which is obviously worth avoiding politically. ~ mazca ^talk 16:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the term "pygmy". It is not a scientific term, neither when applied to hippos, whales, or humans. It is a name that just means "smaller". It does not denote whether anything labeled it is a different species or sub-species. Membership in a species is determined by a number of factors—no human groups have ever been found who were not of the same species. There has been a long discussion over whether it makes sense to consider human races forms of subspecies or variations, but in there the apparently static appearances of the races is quite deceptive, they are just probabilistic clusters of traits that on aggregate seem to be biologically real but have no distinct genetic basis (other than being said probabilistic clusters of traits—people from X area have a higher chance of having certain traits than people from Y area that is distant), and much of what we consider to be the differences are very superficial and are colored by social cues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, 98..., you have just described subspecies quite well (people from X area have a higher chance of having certain traits than people from Y area that is distant) in your attempt to prove the opposite. This is part of the problem of defining subspecies for any organism. Rmhermen (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In my understanding of it, the definition of subspecies is considerably more complicated than that, and it is in those complexities that the whole problem of race as a subspecies falls apart. Human racial traits are clinal, which goes against the categorization of subspecies fairly strongly.--98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And how do the African Pygmies not fall into the definition of a subspecies exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As yet another example of why not to get hung up on the name: the African pygmies were only called such as early as the 1860s[64], after the categorization of the Pygmy Hippos (1840s). This loose application of similar names to African peoples is tres' 19th-century, and it's interesting to note that the man who was responsible for giving a full description of the Pygmy Hippos to science was none other than notorious scientific racist Samuel George Morton. While I doubt Morton had anything to do with apply the term "Pygmy" to people, it's worth noting that he did think that human races were distinct species (despite the obvious evidence of ability to interbreed), and used it as a way to justify all sorts of things like Slavery. So just to reiterate: "is it because of political reasons or because of actual scientific reasons?" is not exactly the right question; questions about race and biology have long been both. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly due to a relatively recent Population bottleneck approx 70,000 years ago (the cause is speculated to be the Toba catastrophe theory ), the human species is very similar genetically, more so than other animals with such a large population. This means on genetic grounds it is unlikely that any subsection of the human species will be genetically different enough to be regarded as a subspecies. Due to anthropomorphic bias we tend to regard differences in humans as more noticeable than differences in other animals. I.e. Most people find it far easier to tell the difference between 2 people than 2 snails. GameKeeper (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Baby seagulls

Can baby seagulls swim soon after hatching, like ducklings can? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.27.201 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ducks generally nest on or very near the water, so it's quite necessary for ducklings to swim very early on. Conversely, seagulls generally nest on cliffs and crags a fair distance from the water and the chicks stay in the nest for longer, so I don't think it's likely that the babies need to swim soon after hatching. My guess would be that they gain swimming capabilities about the time they fledge and fly out of the nest, because they are unlikely to encounter the water much before then. I'm not sure, though. ~ mazca ^talk 14:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Escaping from a falling plane that is going to crash

I was on a plane the other day and I always wondered that if a plane is going to crash, yet I am still high enough in the air to parachute down, would I survive? How would you survive, if it is possible? I know now that there are security restrictions on actually bring a parachute pack with you on the plane nowadays. But, if you could, what would you bring so that you can literally jump out of a jumbo jet and survive? Also what part of the plane would have to jump from to survive? --Vincebosma (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly you could do it with a pressure suit and parachute, because Joseph Kittinger did it from over 100,000 feet. But I don't know what altitude you can safely jump from with a parachute but without a pressure suit. Vesna Vulović survived a fall from 33,000 feet with no suit or parachute, but that's rare. This site says you can jump from near 30,000 feet with just a parachute and an oxygen bottle, but I don't know how reliable it is. --Allen (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With an airliner, there's also a very real question of how you're going to safely bail out. D. B. Cooper exited his craft via a tail hatch, but that's an uncommon feature these days, and present-day exits (forward hatches, over-wing windows) aren't designed to let an occupant jump while avoiding wings and engines. — Lomn 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you're high enough (like 35,000 feet or so), and you have only the clothing you normally wear on an airliner plus a parachute, you're probably more at risk of freezing to death (or at least suffering severe frostbite, losing limbs, ears, nose, etc.) if you did get out safely. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally, there is the issue of getting out of the plane. Passengers are not allowed to open the hatches - even if the plane is crashing. So, you'll have to fight your way through the flight crew as well as all passengers that think you are trying to blow up the plane somehow by opening a hatch in flight. -- kainaw™ 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Electric Motors

Domestic electric fans

1. How it works with a rotor where no electricity is supplied ?
2. What is the function of a capacitor attached to the fan?Practically it boosts the efficiency of the motor.
3. Since a generator is the reverse of a motor, it should be possible to generate current from a domestic AC exhaust fan by keeping it exposed to air flow. In that case the current so generated will be AC or DC? What will be the function of the capacitor of a motor in case the same is used as a generator?
4. It is mentioned that aluminium winding is more efficient than copper. But I have never seen aluminium winding wires being used by professionals. Rather copper wire is seen used by them, Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshkumardessai (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To get you started, you could read things like electric motor, electric generator and aluminum wiring. Friday (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Induction motor will also be appropriate for learning about the type of motor used in most mains-powered fans.

Atlant (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ants smell

Here's a thought I have: if we could shrink to the size of an ant, so that the ant was as big as a dog to us, what would it smell like? I know that ants have pheremones, but I'm not sure if these are something a human would smell. Would the ant smell like dirt, since it lives in the dirt? Would it be really stinky? I also heard somewhere that some ants grow fungus. Jonathan ^talk 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess a giant ant (OK, a regular ant where we were tiny) would smell like a whole mess of normal ants do to us at our present size. Formic acid seems to pretty much override any other smell. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you retained your human sense of smell, you likely wouldn't ever pick up on the pheromones anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the ant would still be releasing the same amount of pheromone and your nose would be the same sensitivity it is now I would have thought (assuming your cells are shrunk with you) so i'm pretty sure it'd be no different. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lidocaine and a couple of other questions

I work in a hospital and onje day I was in the prep room next to the building exit and there was a 100mg in 5ml vial of lidocaine sitting. How dangerous would that have been had it been taken, what could it to if injected intravenously, rubbed topically etc? There was also a 200mg in 10ml of acetylcysteine. Same question applies.

Also, there is much saline and sterile water lying around which might be confused for drugs in an admissions ward. Before I say anything to ward staff I would like to know the dangers of all these things. 92.0.228.141 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a medical question and so will not be answered here. --BenBurch (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)