Why so so many people online fight about whether Edison was cleverer / more significant than Tesla? [[Special:Contributions/105.236.159.229|105.236.159.229]] ([[User talk:105.236.159.229|talk]]) 11:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Why so so many people online fight about whether Edison was cleverer / more significant than Tesla? [[Special:Contributions/105.236.159.229|105.236.159.229]] ([[User talk:105.236.159.229|talk]]) 11:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
== Loga ==
Why do dogs put their heads out the car window? [[Special:Contributions/105.236.159.229|105.236.159.229]] ([[User talk:105.236.159.229|talk]]) 11:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 11:58, 2 August 2013
Welcome to the science section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
That's right and matches the headline. But what about the 'ascender' part? Chimps and Orangutan are not our ascenders. If we move through the phylogeny tree, we see the chain of ascenders of modern man: H. erectus < H. habilis < Forest ape. What is older that these forest apes? (if they are extinct). OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the term "ascender" used in a biology context either, though I've heard the word many times in a mountaineering context. And yes, for the species immediately preceding any given species in the timeline of evolution, the correct term is "ancestor". 24.23.196.85 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, your question is which is the closest species that has some present day descendants that are humans and others that haven't changed enough to be considered a different species? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that question is; there are no currently known extant species from which humans could have evolved. The oldest known extant species are the tuatara (200 million years old, diverged from synapsids 315 million years ago), horseshoe crab (440 million years old, diverged from deuterostomia 555 million years ago), the coelacanth (400 million years old, diverged from mammalia 555 million years ago), platypus (110 million years old, diverged from primates 220 million years ago) and the lamprey (360 million years old, diverged from mammalia 416 million years ago. Since they all appeared after their phylogeny had diverged from homo sapien's they cannot be an ancestor. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Inheritance" of the notion of female beauty
The female beauty standards vary across cultures, but I wonder how such criteria as wide hips, thin waist and long legs are transferred to many people seemingly at subconscious level? I know such traits are related to biological advantages, but many people share such notions without even knowing it, so what's the mechanism of transfer? Is it at gene level or something else?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jealousy more or less blindly driven by the urge of competition is certainly one strong influence. You can for example find that same strange behavior of "jealousy about food" among all higher Organisms where one entity tries to get the food of the other no matter an even bigger portion may actually be right in front of its nose. So in consequence whatever features the most dominant or most active male entity makes his choice on all his competitors will adapt to subconsciously. --Kharon (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I see areas being defined as having high Endemicism, it is in places far away from where I live (near Washington, DC). Even the few areas in the United States that I've heard of are either on the Hawaii, the West Coast (Spotted Owl/California condor) and Florida. On the other hand, it seems like most of the eastern half of North America is just one large ecological region. So, for the Eastern half of North America north of Florida, are there any mammals, bird, reptile or amphibians whose entire habitat is smaller than a circle one hundred miles across? (This was sparked by a comment that an acquaintance made that "you could pave the entire state of Maryland over and no animal would go extinct")Naraht (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Travel from Toledo, OH to College Park, MD, and you will cross several ecoregions.Endemism doesn't really say anything about the scale. For instance, we have a list of Endemic birds of eastern North America, which lists several endemic species. But they have decently large ranges, and it seems that you are interested in endemic species that also have very small ranges. For those, in eastern USA, I'd start looking at the New_Jersey_Pine_Barrens, [3], and also the Barrier islands along the coast. There are definitely some endemic and endangered plant spp there. Finally, there are a number of ecoregions in the eastern USA, each with their own plant and animal communities. These regions can have remarkably distinct flora and fauna, though the differences are not always visually striking. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While both the Maryland Darter, the Franklinia (sort of) and the Venus Flytrap qualify, I limited my initial request to Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians. I agree with the restatement "it seems that you are interested in endemic species that also have very small ranges", perhaps I should have phrased in in that way. It seems like even the extinct Mammals/Birds of the US East Coast like the Red Wolf and the Carolina Parakeet had relatively *wide* ranges more than 500 years ago. Naraht (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Birds and mammals don't tend to have such small ranges in areas like the Eastern US with large contiguous ecological regions. It's not like there are deep mountain valleys or flightless birds on offshore islands. If I remember correctly, the completeion of Route 18 in New Jersey was delayed by some sort of herp. But I cannot recall the exact species. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting perspective on this very problem can be found in 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, which discusses the way in which human migration (via the so-called Columbian Exchange) has created ecosystems which are much larger and more homogeneous across wider areas of the Earth's surface. The author even coins a term "Homogenocene" to represent the current ecological age as a break from the Holocene epoch, considering this trend. I can't say one way or another how "correct" this view is, but it is an interesting perspective. --Jayron3223:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can mathematical models cause errors in astrophysics
I know when astronomers and planetary scientist tries to predict future events of solar system and stars they typically use mathematical models and physical laws. Is mathematical models and astrophysical law equations always a reliable predictions, or mathematical models can often be wrong? I saw [4] when calculating remaining planets around white dwarfs, they use mathematical models and physical laws. I thought mathematical models and physical law/equations has to make reliable predictions, or they are nothing more than a basketball shot.--69.226.33.213 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well models are not reality. They will be making huge simplifications. There is also the possibility that there is an error in the interpretation of what is happening. So the model does not apply. Lastly, errors can increase over time so making future predictions less and less accurate. For example this happens in weather forecasting. Predicting the future positions of the planets gets less and less accurate over long periods of time too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to "predict" there is already some unknown factor or even an chaos element in it and its not the mathematical method causing an error instead your expectation of the capability of that method is wrong. You can be certain that a position of an known Planet can be calculated very exactly thousands of years into the future but you cant calculate how strong the solar wind will be around Earth next week. --Kharon (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So these math problems only gives us the estimates but not the exact variable? So we won't know where the habitable zone in 7 billion years future until somebody can actually try to find the habitable zone around giant star? Have anybody really tried to find habitable moon/planets around giant star. So the mathematical formulas will only give me the guesses and is rather waste of time until better studies are done? --69.226.33.213 (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the section you referred to. It applies to "an idealized object which is perfectly opaque and non-reflecting". The sun is not a perfect black body, so any results you obtain with the equation will not perfectly describe the behavior of the sun. In physics teaching, this is often joking referred to as "Assume a perfectly spherical cow of uniform composition existing in a perfect vacuum", which, believe it or not, we even have an article about: Spherical cow. No, models are not useless, and they are much better than mere guesses, but they do have their limitations. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most noticeable differences between an amateur and a professional scientist is that the professional knows when to place stock in a particular model. This is a skill that develops with experience, and perhaps is augmented by some innate aptitude. Amateurs blindly "plug and chug," and will spit out any result of any equation, without any understanding of why they are using that equation.
Specifically regarding error in equations: entire branches of applied mathematics - like sensitivity analysis - are dedicated to the study of how much error is introduced if a particular input is wrong. Statisticians use confidence intervals and other probabilistic measurements to describe reliability of data. Engineers and experimental scientists use signal to noise ratios to express how imperfect any part of their measurements are. So, error can be quantifiable. If we assert with high confidence that all our errors are small, we can be very accurate. Again, a distinction is that a professional scientist should be better at ensuring that they accounted for everything. Occassionally, they screw up; eventually, if the screw-up is big enough, somebody else catches it and fixes it. Nimur (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when I was a student, a Prof. told us in the very first astrophysics lecture that in many cases it is good enough to be within a factor ten of the correct answer. This has to do with the type of questions one wants to be answered in astrophysics as opposed to theoretical physics. In recent years things have changed in this field, but there is still some truth in it.Count Iblis (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of mathematical models critically depends on the nature of what is being modeled. In the case of a planet in it's orbit, there are hardly any unexpected events that can cause significant deviation from idealized behavior - and small errors in our measurement of the initial position and velocity don't get wildly magnified as the model runs off into the future. Contrast that with systems like weather and solar wind - which are chaotic systems (in the mathematical sense of "chaos theory") where the smallest error in initial conditions or the smallest error in the model will rapidly blow up into huge errors. That's "the butterfly effect" - and explains why weather forecasts for more than a few days into the future fare no better than chance but the position of a large moon or planet can be known to high precision over a period of hundreds of years. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And even something as seemingly stable as the solar system is not necessarily stable in the very long term - see n-body problem and stability of the Solar System ... "an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time". Gandalf61 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but over 100 million years, unknown factors such as the fate of the sun and the consequent variation in the pressure of the solar wind and such mean that we don't know the position that the earth will be at, even if we had it's current position accurate to a nanometer. SteveBaker (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question of the stability of the solar system can be investigated. Recent studies have come up with surprising results, see e.g. here:
"These results also answer to the question raised more than 300 years ago by Newton, by showing that collisions among planets or ejections are actually possible within the life expectancy of the Sun, that is, in less than 5 Gyr. The main surprise that comes from the numerical simulations of the recent years is that the probability for this catastrophic events to occur is relatively high, of the order of 1%, and thus not just a mathematical curiosity with extremely low probability values. At the same time, 99% of the trajectories will behave in a similar way as in the recent past millions of years, which is coherent with our common understanding that the Solar System has not much evolved in the past 4 Gyr. What is more surprising is that if we consider a pure Newtonian world, the probability of collisions within 5 Gyr grows to 60 %, which can thus be considered as an additional indirect confirmation of general relativity." Count Iblis (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This IP editor has been asking essentially the same question about mathematical models over and over again for months, and getting essentially the same answers each time. I don't get it. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe I can think about comparing astrophysics and professional scientist to predict traffic light evolutions in Orange County in the future. Ever since I was tens of years old, I have tried to predict what will the traffic lights in Irvine Base Areas will happen 6-10 years in the downtime. I noticed the specifications of red, yellow, and green bulbs changes overtime, and the traffic inspection paints happens on traffic light enamel. I could have tried to do models I just didn't have that time to do that and I am kind of lazy to do that. First, models have to be consistent and has to work on many conditions. Few years ago, most South Orange County cities still didn't have incandescent yellow light bulb replaced, only the reds and greens were replaced around 2001-2002 areas [5] I was expecting the yellow light specifications will be the amber LED colorings, but some of the cities post 2010 actually came out to egg-yellow LED lighting the new LED standards, and between 2011-2012 City of Irvine went ahead, replaced some obsolete red, yellow, green bulbs with newer systems scarlet-red, lemon-yellow, cyan-green according to the metric table listing. I can learn, when I try to create model to predict what will the traffic light bulbs will happen 5-10 years in the future, each time things actually presents and performs, my older speculations becomes more and more inaccurate. Without calling the city department to ask them questions, I can try to create a model templates according to what I have studied in the past if I have time to do that, but the problem is the models have to be consistent, and has to work to all-related cases it is hard to do because I have to organize informations, predictions intersections undergoing constructions usually happens to cause replacement of signal poles, (same as what happened on Culver and Walnut Avenues in Irvine two years ago) requires depth understanding and enough studies to be done to imitate like-intersections undergoing construction, but each time newer inventories comes up without even knowing it.--69.226.33.213 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My $0.02, nothing is infinitely correlated or infinitely predictive, and this has nothing to do with the correctness of a model. If I take a baseball and throw it in the air, I can use projectile motion to calculate its position and velocity 15 or so seconds later, and assuming that there are no confounding variables the result should be highly predictive. Now if I try and rely on the same model to tell me where that baseball will be several minutes from now than it becomes a bit more difficult, taking it to the extreme if we try to figure out where it will be a million years from when I first tossed it in the air, the best you could do would be to say that it's most likely somewhere in the general vicinity of earth. This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as projectile motion. See also correlation function. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-)11:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 30
Domesticated Hedgehog
Is there a scientific difference between a hedgehog and a domesticated hedgehog as there is between wolves and dogs or lions and cats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.240.26 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for your other examples, wolves and dogs now appear to be the same species, so that's a reasonable comparison, but lions and (house)cats are not the same species at all and cats certainly are not domesticated lions, but rather cats are domesticated African wildcats. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wierdly enough though the dog and the wolf are (as of 1993) considered the same species and cats and the African wildcat are not even though dogs were domesticated much earlier. But I don't think that represents a higher amount of genetic change. And sorting out the genus and species of the smaller members of Felinae (like the wildcats) gets ugly.Naraht (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of a domesticated hedgehog until a few seconds ago. My only comment is that according to our article, it is a hybrid of two separate species and therefore different to any wild hedgehog. Is a mule different to a horse? Yes. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling pain in a dream
I just woke up from a long nightmare. The last part of the dream was someone digging their hands into my chest, as if they were trying to murder me. The odd part was that I ran away from the person in my dream, but then I saw myself laying down where I was in real life right after, in my dream. The person was right there, which is when they dug their hands into my chest. An even more odd thing is that I felt the pain and woke up from it. I am very shaken and I don't think that I can get back to sleep which is understandable, considering I felt like I was being murdered. Has there been any reports of people feeling pain in their dreams? Please don't tell me that it can't happen, I felt the intense pain in my chest, in all of the correct spots. SL93 (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for my dream to be interpreted. I have a habit of saying exactly what I want, rather than implying it. SL93 (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't help me. I know of lucid dreaming, but nothing that you linked mentions pain being involved. Someone even asked for a reliable source on the talk page for REM sleep. No wonder it isn't in the article. SL93 (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there have been reports (other than yours) of people feeling pain in their dreams. It isn't common. Just search for pain+dreams in Google Scholar. You will then be in a position to update the REM sleep article. Sean.hoyland - talk10:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel pain in dreams fairly often. I was surprised a few years ago when I saw a thread on here about c-fiber nerves and people claiming that it is impossible to feel pain in dreams. I challenged it and nobody offered up a counter argument or any sources, and I haven't been able to find anything concrete one way or the other myself. But I assure you, when someone in a dream is cutting my fingers off or stabbing me, I feel it. 82.44.76.14 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears than dreams can contain just about anything that real life can contain - including hearing, taste, feeling etc. Brains can be weird <g>. Collect (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP asked if there had been reports of people feeling pain in dreams. Certainly I have had dreams in which pain played a part, after surgery, when there was a sore back, when there was tonsilitis, when there was a belly ache. The dream incorporated and explained the pain in some way. The dreaming process sometimes explains away stimuli in such a way that you can just go on sleeping. A Google book search will reveal countless books discussing pain in dreams, though many of them are "new age" self=help books or religious books. Freud, in "The interpretation of dreams" p190 mentions "headache dreams" and "toothache dreams." Edison (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the occasions I have felt pain in my dreams it was always because of some real stimulus outside of my dream, such as thinking my leg is in a bear trap to wake up and find I am in a twisted position and it has fallen asleep, or feeling that my mouth is full of ashes and my teeth are falling out to wake up and find I am gagging because I have been mouth-breathing and my mouth is entirely dried out. This seems to be the brain rationalizing the real stimulus into the dream. But I cannot say I have ever felt a pain in a dream without some external reason. The exception seems to be sex dreams, which can be very pleasantly authentic feeling without any real external stimulus. μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original research: I've personally had at least four dreams involving physical pain: on one occasion, I dreamed that I was shot to death right through the heart by a crooked cop; on another, that my mouth and throat were stuffed full of sharp plastic shards (this was when I was down with strep throat and bacterial sinusitis on top of that); on the third occasion, that I was bayonetted to death (also right through the heart) by a Red Army soldier (of the four, this was the dream I remember best -- in that dream, I was a White Army squad leader during the Russian Civil War, and me and my squad had just ambushed a Red Army column but bit off more than we could chew, so we all died fighting); and on the final occasion, I dreamed that I was shot in the chest by a gangster, but survived and had enough strength to strangle my attacker. So yeah, it can totally happen -- and also, you CAN dream that you were killed without actually dying (contrary to a popular misconception). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the difference here is, I don't have casual sex with every Tina, Dolly and Helen that I meet (unlike the characters in that movie), which means I'm safe on that end. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the possibility exists that you suffered real chest pains which were then incorporated into you nightmare. For chest pains, you would want to consult a doctor, but these are possibly dreamt chest pains. I'm not sure what the medical guidelines are for reporting those. Also, your sleeping position could possibly cause cramps in the chest muscles, which your brain interpreted as the heart. But, do you get chest pains during the day ? If so, you should definitely see a doctor. StuRat (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure OR, but in one of my lucid dreams, I decided to test the hypothesis (often assumed to be true in cartoons for children) that you can't feel a pinch in a dream. I pinched myself and definitely felt the pain--it felt very similar to a pinch in real life. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucid dreams are fun. One example is where you become lucid whilst in a painful situation, and then decide that since you're dreaming, you may as well will the situation to become painless, continue to mold the dream into anything you can imagine. However, the tricky part is remembering that you are dreaming. It is all too easy to forget, and slip right back into a non-lucid dream. It takes practice to avoid either waking up from a lucid dream, or retaining lucidity. You have to remain in perfect equilibrium, concentrating to remain relaxed and aware in a balanced manner. Occasionally, it is possible to regain lucidity within the same dream. Once in a lucid dream, I changed the taste of an apple to that of a blueberry. Another time, I wanted to fly, so I did. Halfway through my flight, I lost lucidity for a moment, and fell to the ground from ~50 m up. I got the wind knocked out of me, but was otherwise just fine. Strange, I thought that it would be a bit more painful than that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see some sources here, but I'm not sure where to begin because I can't think of how to do the experiment. I know, for example, that to me sleep and pain are so incompatible that when I had the gout I would avoid moving/"awakening" my legs for an hour after awakening to maintain sleep paralysis, preventing any sensation of the quite severe pain from the attack, but I haven't found any commentary about that (pity, because it ties into hypnosis for pain relief and perhaps more serious issues...) Wnt (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths Cap in homeopathy and well poisoning
I have read that death's cap is responsible for most mushroom poisonings; including the deaths of a few roman emperors; which makes me wonder how often it was used in medieval well poisonings. I know that is a rather sensational subject from hundreds of years ago and the numbers were inflated for propaganda purposes; but there were at least some recorded instances. I recently tried adding an article I found on PubMed Central about the use of Amanita phalloides homeopathically to treat B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I'm aware that a single study needs to be repeated; which is why I'm not contesting the removal. Now I don't believe in water memory; but what is the difference between homeopathy and diluting something in water; wouldn't diluting poison with water allow for smaller amounts of it to be consumed? They do say that the poison is in the dosage. I'm also confused as to whether alternative medicine journals are legitimate primary medical sources when they are from the NIH or other government health organizations. Here is the link; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151460/. Thanks for answering these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy is tricky. The homeopaths have their own special backdoor into the medical racket, allowing them to dispense "treatment" and "medicine" according to their own peculiar standards. In practice, there are two different kinds of homeopathy encountered: one uses astronomically high dilutions to sell tap water to unsuspecting customers, given sometimes even by mainstream physicians who have applied medical ethics (i.e. profit) to determine that the act of patients giving them money for bogus medicine will make them feel better. The other, more interesting variety, uses absolute minimum homeopathic dilutions to deliver genuinely therapeutic treatments - the catch being that they are not medically evaluated and they have the potential to harm as readily as heal. For example Zicam causing loss of smell, [6], and others. In this case, the amanitin is diluted by "D4" (1:10000) and 5-40 drops are given. Sometimes homeopathy includes a hidden dilution factor (a drop flicked into a bottle of sugar pills) but it is not guaranteed and I don't think we should count on it here. So there is possibility of a beneficial effect, but the utmost skepticism is required! Wnt (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, be careful about identifying homeopathy with homeopathic dilution. Homeopathic dilution is the aspect of homeopathy that probably gets the most attention, but it isn't the whole discipline, just one practice. Homeopathy is an entire framework of (mostly if not entirely bogus) theory and (possibly occasionally effective and/or dangerous) practice. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol/syntax for denoting an (intentional) error?
Hi, in the Orders of magnitude (speed) article, I wanted to highlight the fact that the speed measured in the Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly is "incorrect". Is there a symbol or syntax I could use to denote an intentionally incorrect value or item (in science)? I thought I could use italic for the values, or maybe an asterisk or something similar, but I frankly have no idea. Thanks in advance. --CesarFelipe (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just asterisk/footnote or other text annotation would be good. It's a disproven or contradicted statement, not a typo that would merit "sic". DMacks (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MPN / CFU relationship
Hi Guys,
Is there a direct relationship or conversion factor for comparing fecal coliform results by enzyme reaction reported as MPN and results by membrane filtration reported as CFU? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.178 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No simple conversion seems possible but models have been proposed to compare results of the two methods. Also results may depend on circumstances, for example a Korean study found MPN for e. coli larger than CFU, except in winter. On the other hand, enterococci were lower in MPN than in CFU.
Maybe this helps: "Modeling the relationship between most probable number (MPN) and colony-forming unit (CFU) estimates of fecal coliform concentration." Gronewold AD, Wolpert RL. pdf download. Ssscienccce (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps a bunch! I didn't think they directly related but it seems they are at least roughly comparable as my results are either near zero or in the 20-30k range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.178 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 31
Visibility of the New Moon
The Wikipedia entry for New Moon states 'The Moon is not normally visible at this time except when it is seen in silhouette during a solar eclipse'. While driving from California to New York on Interstate 10 I pulled over early in the morning in the desert to stretch my legs. I look up at a perfectly clear night sky and saw the entire surface of the moon un-illuminated. What phase of the moon was I viewing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.43.46 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Muslims often take good pictures of very young crescent moons for Ramadan
Yep, that's the only possibility. In addition to what you've quoted regarding the new moon, it's also only above the horizon during daylight hours (layman's definition, not astronomical). It's impossible to see a new moon, or see a dark disc where a new moon would be, at night. — Lomn01:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No! No! A new moon can be above the horizon shortly after dusk or before dawn, and it is illuminated by earthlight, which is easily bright enough to make it visible in good conditions. (Earthlight is over ten times as bright as moonlight.) Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an area with high levels of nighttime illumination (such as in large cities), it's also possible for a new moon to be darker than the night sky, and therefore visible as a dark circle. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skyglow over cities is caused by light that originates on Earth, and is then scattered back down from within the Earth's atmosphere. The Moon cannot obstruct this light, because the light goes nowhere near the Moon. So, no dark spot in your city sky. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a full lunar eclipse (as well as a full solar eclipse) and it was not a eclipse. I was in the high New Mexico desert at the time, late November perhaps 4 or 5 AM, and it seemed to me that it was being illuminated by the Earth's albedo. I have posed the question because there seems to be differing views as to what I saw is in fact possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.43.46 (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad hypothesis, and it's one I've thought about too. Unfortunately, the sky at twilight – after the Sun has set, but before the sky is fully dark – is bright enough to completely wash out the Earth-lit new Moon. The Moon can't get much further than about 7 degrees from the Sun before it starts to show a visible crescent, which means that even under ideal conditions you're just at the edge of civil twilight. (Go ahead and search—you'll find that there just aren't any images of a new, non-crescent moon at twilight. I will also note, for the record, that I have another reason to hate Stephenie Meyers—her silly vampire books and movies hopelessly contaminate Google image searches for new moon and twilight.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick question or two: (1) it was in the early morning - was it just before sunrise? (2) Was the Moon in the same direction as the rising Sun? A new Moon would be close to where the Sun would rise. In a lunar eclipse, the Moon would be opposite the Sun. Bubba73You talkin' to me?04:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of lunar eclipses here. In 2012 there was a penumbral on nov 28, mainly visible between 14:00 and 15:00 UT, that would be between 7:00 and 8:00 local time? Ssscienccce (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that one can see a perfectly unsunlit moon for the reasons given above, but it's certainly possible to see a very thin crescent moon with the rest of its visible disc faintly illuminated by earthshine. This has traditionally been referred to as "seeing the new moon in the old moon's arms", as in the ballad of Sir Patrick Spens. There's a good image here. Deor (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To somehow detect Everett's "other worlds": some new "telescope?"
Hi, I'm certainly a layman, but i was thinking that if Hugh Everett's Many worlds interpretation does turn out to be true, then physics needs a new "telescope", that is, an instrument as radical as the telescope(and microscope too) were in the 1600s, in order to "see", that is, somehow detect the other worlds. I'm wondering if the new "telescopes" could be experiments at temperatures much colder than they've done yet. I mean, I have heard of physicists getting down to .1 degree kelvin, but maybe the clues could be there at .00001 kelvin, or even 10^(-40) kelvin? And what are the hopes right now for getting these much lower temps? Thanks76.218.104.120 (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me for not checking, wikipedia says they are down to a few hundred nanokelvins now. I got up late at night with an idea that was exciting to me and i didn't read up. But the general direction of my first and second questions still stand, but they are much closer to 10^-10 than I thought. So, my second question can be revised to what would be the outlook for even lower temps, for example 10^-10000 k? Thanks again.76.218.104.120 (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the different interpretations of quantum mechanics yields the same predictions for the outcome fo experiments. The only way to test the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is to think of some very unusual experimental set-up that would yield a different prediction. As long as you have the usual type of quantum experiments where the observer is treated classically, you will not see any difference. The only way to get a difference is to think of an experiment where the observer is itself going to participate in a non-trivial way in the epxeriment where a de-facto calssical description of the observer (due to quantum decoherence) is not a valid assumption anymore.
David Deutsch came up with such a thought experiment back in 1985. This involves an observer who can be perfectly isolated from the environment. He prepares an electron with its spin polarized in the x-direction. He then measures the z-component of the spin. This measurement can yield two outcomes with equal probability, spin up or spin down. In the MWI both measurement outcomes really exist, but you'll find yourself in one of them. So, how would you know that the other outcome also exists? Well, since you are perfectly isolated, you could in principle reverse all the steps made in the measurement process, ending up with the electron spin polarized in the x-direction. However, you would not know anymore that you had previously measured the spin of the electron, as your memories would also have to be reset in that reversal process.
What you can do is keep in your memory is the information that you did perform the measurement, the transformation back to the initial state is then still a unitary transform (an easy exercise to check) and thus relaizable in principle. You cannot keep the result of the measurement; because this is different in the two branches where the measurement result is different, you won't get the electron back in its original spin state polarized in the x-direction. This verifies the physical existence of the two different measurement outcomes, because both are needed to get back to the initial state.
Of course, this experiment as originally proposed by Deutsch is impossible to perform in practice, however a few years later people came up with the concept of a quantum computer. If very large scale quantum computing ever becomes a reality, you can contemplate simulating an artificially intelligent entity inside a quantum computer and that entity could then perform Deutsch' experiment. Count Iblis (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the moon in the sky exactly as often during the day as during the night?
That is, if I timed how long the moon was in the sky during the day, and how long it was in the sky during the night, over a long enough period, would I get identical answers?
Be as picky as you want about details, and do please try to quantify your answers: I'm interested in whether the various skewed orbits and other factors make a difference. 86.164.26.17 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should to a first approximation. Now, you see more of it at night because the full moon is at it's zenith at local midnight, while the new moon is at zenith at local noon. But averaged out over an arbitrarily long time, there are no stretches of any 24 hour cycle when the moon is in "the sky" more than at other times. --Jayron3211:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You never get things like that exactly the same if you measure closely enough. Lets just consider the moon to be a point to simplify things. The sun isn't a point so that makes days longer than nights. Refraction makes the light go further so that also makes days longer. Discounting those two factors the earth has a width so with a point sun the day is a little bit shorter than the night if it rotates evenly. The earth goes in an ellipse round the sun which I believe means the northern hemisphere gets slightly more daylight as the earth is farther away from the sun and goes slower when it is tilted towards the sun. Discounting the tilt as well we have the problem of the speed of the moon as it orbits the earth, I think it should be going slightly faster when it is on the sun side so that would mean it is more often out at night. And I haven't started on earthquakes or the other planets. Anyway the most important factor discounting refraction is the width of the sun I believe so you would have it more often in the day than the night. Dmcq (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that Dmcq has already given the reasons for the two not being equal: sunrise and sunset are defined as the moment the upper edge of the sun is at the horizon, and atmospheric refraction. When considering twilight, the difference becomes larger, see definitions here. I calculated the total time the moon would be visible at 0°W 20°N during 2013, using the tables you can generate here; results: moon visible during the day for 134937 minutes (2248.95 hours or 93.706 days), and during the night for 128363 minutes (2139.38 hours or 89.14 days). Some other numbers: total daytime 184.68 days, nighttime 180.31 days; moon for 182.85 days, no moon for 182.15 days Ssscienccce (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same calculation for 0°W 60°S gave: moon during the day: 132561 minutes, during the night: 125251 minutes. (92.06 vs 86.98 days) Total daytime 185.18, nighttime 179.82 days; moon for 179.04 days, no moon 185.96 days total.
Are you counting the new moon? Because although the moon is in the sky during the day, a human eye will not be able to see it. Also the thin crescent moons are not that obvious during the day, so are you counting that as being in the sky, as you have to look carefully to notice it. So the moon is certainly less noticeable in the day than at night. guess you knew that! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over a long period of time (probably on the order of some years) the moon will average the same period of time over any longitude during day as night. That's intuitively obvious, but you can ask for an explicit explanation at the math desk. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I haven't thought critically about these things for a long time. I have heard of electron affinity, the term just escaped my mind prior your link. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest explanation, although it may not be completely correct, as I was taught to memorize and recite, is that the 2p orbital you would have to insert the electron into experiences significantly more electrostatic repulsion with the electron that is already in that orbital. While the effective nuclear charge for chlorine's 3p orbital is lower than for fluorine's 2p (which would explain why fluorine has the greater electronegativity), it has much less electrostatic repulsion than fluorine's 2p orbital, which makes the chlorine 3p orbital the lower energy state.--Jasper Deng(talk)00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
F itself isn't the special-case/anomaly. F being low (or Cl being high) in F→Cl→Br→I is the same pattern as O→S→Se→Te (O is low or S is high) and likewise for the carbon and boron groups. The link Dominus Vobisdu mentioned mentions this pattern for the second row vs third row. DMacks (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Utilization of infrared, solar cells.
Greetings!
I am somewhat puzzled by the advent of solar-power generators capable of producing electricity from the infrared part of the spectrum. For starters, I've heard that they can generate power in all kinds of weather—even at night! Also, I've heard that the only reason we (end users) don't have them is because they produce electricity at about 10 THz, making them totally useless with which to run our appliances, which typically run at approximately 50 to 60 Hz.
I have two quick questions; namely, how exactly can a solar cell generate power at night? Does it utilize infrared light, from the Sun, absorbed by Earth's atmosphere during the daylight hours, or perhaps, infrared radiation arriving here from more-distant stars? Also, (and I apologize in advance, if this is stupid question) just how impractical and unwieldy would it be to just nix all of 50-60 Hz electronics and replace them with 10 THz ones—the way we did with regular gasoline, and are currently doing with analog television?
Would be the cost greatly outweigh the benefit of living free of power plants, dams, coal mines, transmission lines, et al? Thank you.Pine (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds unlikely. Do you have a source? Maybe it got a bit distorted in transmission or in recall. The frequency you say it produces electricity is only a little lower than for infrared, and certainly it could not be transmitted over power lines. See Terahertz radiation, Infrared. Photovoltaic Solar cells produce direct current. Mirror arrays can concentrate sunlight on a boiler and probably could produce power from infrared if there were enough of it hitting the mirrors, but residual heat in the atmosphere, or moonlight, or starlight would not be enough. And if the mirror array did boil water, then the generator would produce plain old electricity unless you somehow had a microwave generator or like which ran on heat, or the concentrated black electromagnetic energy just heated something up so it radiated black body radiation. Edison (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solar cells can respond to near infrared with wavelengths shorter than about 1 micron. You don't get much of this at night at all, as it comes from the sun like normal visible light. When you get the longer wavelength thermal infrared, solar cells do not turn this into electricity in any significant amount. THey are just as likely to do the reverse process and radiate thermal infrared. The issue here is entropy. Note there are other techniques such as solar thermal power. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found an IEEE article from 2012 which discusses Terahertz power generation. It generally has less than 1% conversion efficiency in generating the Terahertz output, and such EM radiation is reduced severely as it travels through the atmosphere. Edison (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP may be referring to so-called nano-antennas that receive the IR energy as electric signals which after rectifying would result in usable energy. Very promising it seems "Unlike solar cells, nano-antennas can operate round the clock, independently of weather conditions such as humidity and cloud cover and without restriction of orientation towards the sun.", but when the rectifier is discussed, the optimism wanes: "The implementation of rectennas for energy harvesting at IR frequencies has remained an elusive research area due to the limitations of nanoscale fabrication and inability to implement rectifiers that could handle EM radiations oscillating at trillion times a second." And I assume the solar panels would have to be raised in the air (and receive IR from the ground), otherwise the laws of thermodynamics would prevent "round the clock" operation. Ssscienccce (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at this photo and it made me think. How do you determine the difference between a really fat bird and a bird that's just very fluffy? Is there a reliable thing to look for? --87.114.229.248 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)--87.114.229.248 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several methods are possible, of which the two most obvious quick and sloppy methods are weight/length ratio and thigh circumference/length ratio. These presupose that you have reference data for the specific population in question. If you mean by mere sight, an experienced observer could probably make an educated guess. Again, depends on long-term observation of the population. You can find more sophisticated measurement methods like ultrasound and x-rays by Googling measuring body fat content in birds. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have chickens who confuse me the same way. Three are basically identical, except there's a small, a medium and a large. Now and then, the small one looks bigger than the big one. While they're ruffled, it's hard to tell by sight. I'd say feel it, but that's obviously not easy with an owl.
In this guy's case, note how deep the branch is into his body. Probably safe to assume that's not flab, and that he's at least equally feathery on the other side. I'm no expert on fish owls, but he doesn't look particularly fat to me. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:39, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
Can birds get fat at all? Birds have a very high power to weight ratio, allowing them to fly. So, it seems to me that if they could get obese, that would compromize their ability to fly. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Birds that fly can't get all that fat, no. The leaves us with flightless birds and chicks, where fat may be advantageous for the usual reasons (insulation, surviving periods of famine, etc.). StuRat (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP is using "fat" colloquially, as in the opposite of thin, not necessarily the opposite of skinny. There's a great clip on youtube from a japanese tv show, you can find it if you search for transformer owl. it shows an owl trying to make it self look "fat" and then trying to make it self look skinny, it's quite incredible. Vespine (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is inferable, but I once had a cockatiel which would get exhausted from just circling three times within our twin garage. We took it for a fly several times a week, just like you would take a dog for a walk. Maybe it was just not very fit when it came to flying, but not fat? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can get truly fat birds: ducks for example are prized for their fat and along with geese are "fattened" on purpose for fois gras. I imagine penguins too would have some fat for insulation. But I agree those would be the exceptons amongst wild birds, expecially if you only count flying ones. Vespine (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but that has to be about the ugliest non-moulting non-chick I have ever seen. And apparently the inspiration for Big Bird. 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it ugly, but it won't win a beauty contest either, I'll resign to calling it odd-looking. It brings to mind what the result could be if you visually combine a housecat with a hawk. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read in a news article that in a study, subjects displayed more extroverted behaviour (e.g. were more likely to socialize with strangers) after receiving a live attenuated flu vaccine. The explanation implied by the article was that the flu virus (for which the vaccine was presumably a proxy, for ethical reasons) had evolved this effect in order to spread faster. Can anyone provide the original citation? Was it a DBPCT or just a correlational study? NeonMerlin02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many studies about this, of varying quality and with varying conclusions. See [8] and [9]. Maybe if you linked to the news article, someone could figure out which one they are talking about. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does astrology say anything about when technological/social progress has head/tailwinds?
It's all baloney of course, but fiction is still entertaining. Any lists of planet(s) by sign or something out there? Re:1846-48, they've got some explainin' to do: ether, chloroform, cameras, Neptune, telegraphs, democratization and Marxism, lol. 108.27.81.195 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology may not be a science but, as the OP remarked, astrologically speaking the discovery of Neptune has a lot to do with the discoveries/inventions that the OP lists. We also have an article which the OP should consult: Planets in astrology --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wnt, the time a planet comes into the consciousness of mankind is deemed to be the time that planet starts to affect mankind. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why only 2nd period elements show diagonal relationship?
Only 2nd period elements exhibit same property which resembles not only with the property of it's own group members,but also with the members of next group which is one period below ...Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit.ghimire13 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am confused, because all the periods show trends in both horizontal and vertical directions, and thus logically diagonally also. The trends may not be linear, but they exist nonetheless. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are underground power lines still vulnerable to electrical storms?
Underground powerlines are still connected to things above the ground, wouldn't be much use otherwise. And stuff above the ground gets hit by lightning sometimes... Ssscienccce (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even remotely possible that this isn't a scam?
Here's an interesting Kickstarter Project that claims to "Filter out" the greenhouse gasses from your car's emissions.
Sugar is a very good source of energy. If something that size could do that easily then you would be able to take the sugar it produces and run an engine from it - which would produce the carbon dioxide again for that to turn into sugar again. Not quite a perpetual motion machine but at that size with so little access for sunlight practically so. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The principle that photosynthesis removes CO_2 from the air is sound. They don't seem to claim to eliminate CO_2 emissions, just reduce emissions. Really, any old can of algae can do that. It remains unclear just how effective this design is, and what its life cycle analysis might be. For instance, though CO_2 is likely trapped in the algae, what do you do with said algae when you clean the filter? If you throw it in the trash or compost, the CO_2 will be back in the air in a few years (or less), due to decomposition. I wouldn't call it an outright scam, because I believe their device can reduce tailpipe emissions. But I am highly suspicious of the long-term benefits of such a system. Perhaps it would be most useful to prevent smog in e.g. L.A. Even if the total offset of emissions is small, there may be value in distributing the emissions more evenly (e.g. far from urban centers, where they pose health risks). My WP:OR is, if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, invest in a bike, move closer to work, and plant a few trees. (Post EC with DMCQ, re-using the sugars for usable energy would indeed be a good idea, and there are plenty of bright people working on said biofuels) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We have grown multiple generations of algae colonies to find the most suitable strain for the heat and pressure of the exhaust system (artificial selection)." Suitable for 900°F / 500°C, really?... Ssscienccce (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we take it for face value, any removed C would wind up in the filter one way or another. Photosynthesis doesn't make C disappear. So it'd be a worthlessly small amount of C.
That's the part I'm questioning, you'd need a place to put all the C, right? It can't just be "filtered out" into nothingness. So there's no way this filter, photosynthesis or not, could remove a useful amount of carbon. (A single tank of gas probably represents hundreds of kilos of algae-manufactured sugars.)
Unless I'm missing something really important, which is why I asked.
Indeed; in this universe we obey the law of conservation of mass. Gasoline and diesel fuel are both upwards of 80% carbon by mass, and even ethanol is more than 50% carbon. The important reaction here appears to be the reaction of water vapor and carbon dioxide with sodium hydroxide to form solid sodium carbonate, thereby 'reducing' the carbon dioxide output (at least until all of the sodium hydroxide is consumed). The algae in the product appears to be a red herring; at best it's a matrix that enables the device to disperse the solid sodium carbonate out the tailpipe.
One mole of sodium hydroxide reacts with one mole of carbon to produce one mole of sodium carbonate (via various intermediates and producing some other unimportant products); to fully sequester the carbon from a kilogram of gasoline will require something like three kilograms of sodium hydroxide. That fist-sized device couldn't hold even a full kilo of NaOH even if it were the solid material; one tank of gasoline contains 40 kilos of carbon. You do the math.
One also wonders if the increased back pressure on the exhaust system (caused by the partial obstruction introduced by this device) might not have a detrimental effect on fuel efficiency. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident the device does not work. But where do we even begin enumerating its many flaws? The rate of exhaust-gas production is orders of magnitude faster than any algae can grow. Conservation of mass flux inside a tube is about as simple a problem as you can get: if you can't "use up" or convert the carbon exactly as fast as the engine produces gases, then you either overpressure the exhaust pipe (unsafe!) or you vent the exhaust gas to the outside world.
Also, automotive exhaust isn't just carbon dioxide. It's also carbon monoxide, soot, trace heavy hydrocarbons, unburned fuel, trace nitrates, sulfates, oxides of those; heavy metals and metal vapors... this exhaust gas isn't healthy for living organisms, even algae. That's why we call it pollution. It's not the ideal breeding ground for algae: it's as hot as a furnace, there's no sunlight, and there are numerous chemical toxins contaminating the "fresh breathable CO2" that algae and plants crave.
What effect does this tube have on engine performance, auto maintenance, and gas mileage? Adding exhaust backpressure increases engine temperature and lowers performance. Users may burn more gas, less efficiently, getting fewer miles per gallon, because their exhaust system is essentially clogged. Engine life may be reduced. This data should be trivially easy to collect by road testing.
The entrepreneurs claim to have filed for tax credits and other incentives. Anyone can ask the EPA to evaluate technology; that doesn't mean the EPA will evaluate it; and it certainly doesn't mean that a tax credit is "in the works." If these guys had a real and competitive idea, why haven't they applied for an SBIR? What's their DOE project number? Or did they prefer Kickstarter over these real methods to fund environmentally-friendly energy technology because Kickstarter requires far less accountability?
Our OP asks if this is a scam. At first glance, I thought otherwise: it looked like some naive high-schoolers optimistic about ecologically friendly technology innovation, who haven't yet learned very much about biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and the environment. Given enough time, working out the details on their own, plus a healthy amount of formal schooling, they'll learn to constrain their problem a little better, and make more realistic claims.
But the more I looked at their elaborate diagrams, drawings, and photos; and the more I entertained their outrageous claims; I realized they've put too much effort into their charlatanism to have overlooked the basic operational flaws. Airflow simulations? Computational fluid dynamics? All the while ignoring basic physics and chemistry? I conclude that there is no plausible way these guys are "unaware." One cannot operate a CFD software program if one does not know how to use a 4-function calculator. They know exactly how ineffectual their device is, in concept and in practice. They see crowd-sourced internet funding as an easy way to get twenty thousand dollars with few questions and zero accountability. Perhaps it is an indictment of the recent fad for "crowd sourced funding" - uninformed public contributors are very ill-equipped to evaluate the financial and technical merits of new ideas. And, these guys are taking full advantage of it. Perhaps they are not even who they claim to be, but chose the façade of independent kid-inventors to maximize marketability in the target audience.
The real trouble is, disproving the device requires a little more lab equipment than their average clientele will muster; there's a vibrant commercial market for all sorts of pseudoscientific cruft, because someone always buys it. Nimur (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, That's all pretty much what I thought, but the presentation, and the complete lack of any skepticism from media that covered it gave me he tiniest shade of doubt that I was missing something obvious. I must be getting gullible or something!
Still, you have to respect a well formed scam. I wonder if they'll even bother shipping out product, or if they'll just disappear entirely. APL (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
August 2
protect US electrical grid
How important is it to protect the US electrical grid from electro-magnetic pulses and solar flares? There are people saying that it can be done for a few billion dollars and should be done. Bubba73You talkin' to me?01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How important to whom? Very important to the US, quite important in Europe, not at all important to certain other countries and regimes. See electromagnetic pulse and solar flare. The usual way to convince the taxpayers is to wait for something to go wrong, and then fix it.--Shantavira|feed me10:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
