:Yes, chemists know those general guidelines. Every chemist I know knows the basic [[solubility rules]]. Of course, if chemists really want to know [[solubility]] in a quantitative way (that is, the exact solubility of a substance at a given set of conditions) they look it up somewhere. The solubility rules are really a [[heuristic]] taught to high school and first-year college chemistry students to remember which ionic compounds tend to be soluble, and which tend to not be, based on general patterns and trends. As soon as someone is on the path towards being a professional chemist, they learn the more detailed aspects of solubility (such as the role of [[Coulomb's law]], the details of solute-solvent interactions, [[solubility product]], etc. etc.) Just like you can still sing the "ABC song" even though you probably were taught it as a child, Chemists would still all pretty much know and understand that all halide salts except silver, mercury, or lead are fairly water soluble, and similar guidelines. The main utility of those rules, for what it's worth, is not in actually making solutions from first principles, like dumping solids into water and stirring them until they dissolve. The purpose of learning those guidelines is to be able to predict the results of [[precipitation reactions]]. In simplest terms, YES every chemist knows those rules, because they all learned them as a step along the way of their education. Many chemists would use more quantitative calculations and principles (like [[solubility product]]) on their actual jobs, but they don't undergo some elaborate "memory erasing" technique to forget their high school chemistry classes. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, chemists know those general guidelines. Every chemist I know knows the basic [[solubility rules]]. Of course, if chemists really want to know [[solubility]] in a quantitative way (that is, the exact solubility of a substance at a given set of conditions) they look it up somewhere. The solubility rules are really a [[heuristic]] taught to high school and first-year college chemistry students to remember which ionic compounds tend to be soluble, and which tend to not be, based on general patterns and trends. As soon as someone is on the path towards being a professional chemist, they learn the more detailed aspects of solubility (such as the role of [[Coulomb's law]], the details of solute-solvent interactions, [[solubility product]], etc. etc.) Just like you can still sing the "ABC song" even though you probably were taught it as a child, Chemists would still all pretty much know and understand that all halide salts except silver, mercury, or lead are fairly water soluble, and similar guidelines. The main utility of those rules, for what it's worth, is not in actually making solutions from first principles, like dumping solids into water and stirring them until they dissolve. The purpose of learning those guidelines is to be able to predict the results of [[precipitation reactions]]. In simplest terms, YES every chemist knows those rules, because they all learned them as a step along the way of their education. Many chemists would use more quantitative calculations and principles (like [[solubility product]]) on their actual jobs, but they don't undergo some elaborate "memory erasing" technique to forget their high school chemistry classes. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. (OP, different IP) I was pretty much wondering if this table's worth of information was worth expending the effort to hard commit to memory. [[Special:Contributions/75.75.42.89|75.75.42.89]] ([[User talk:75.75.42.89|talk]]) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
== Has anyone ever installed a swimming pool on an aircraft? ==
== Has anyone ever installed a swimming pool on an aircraft? ==
Revision as of 22:26, 6 November 2015
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.
Megachile lapponica is referred to as a "non-metallic bee". This article mentions "metallic and non-metallic bees". I don't seem to be able to find a definition. Is it just coloring/appearance or something more technical? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never looked into the etymology of this entomological term (how often to do get to combine those two?), such that I could say with confidence but typically it does seem to be applied specifically to species which have a phenotype which disposes their exoskeleton to an iridescence suggestive of metal: [1]. As an interesting little aside, some species of bee do have a tiny amount of metal embedded in a sensory structure that allows the bee to detect and orient itself in relation to magnetic fields. Snowlet's rap 07:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very metallic Agapostemon. Yes, it refers to the shiny/metallic/iridescent look. However, it could be that the bees that have that trait must all fall into a certain group, though it is almost certainly not a clade. I mean sure, technically they do fall in the group of "metallic bees", but does that mean anything biologically? Let's see: the Agapostemon have metallic members and are Halictidae, but the Euglossa are metallic Apidae. So the most it could mean in terms of systematics is that metallic bees are in superfamily Apoidea, but that superfamily is paraphylletic anyway. And while it's true that all metallic bees are in the suborder Apocrita, so are all non-metallic bees. So I don't think this can mean anything biologically in general other than they look metallic. However, when restricted to a certain case, it may be more meaningful. For example, here's a new taxonomy of the metallic members of Lasioglossum subgenus Dialictus[2], which seem to be all closely related.
Mostly, I think the metallic trait and terminology is just an easy trait to check off in the field - the metallic bees are very easy to notice, and there aren't terribly many of them, compared to non-metallic bees, so that's a good way to get ID started. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help directly with the OP but structural coloration might be a starting place.DrChrissy(talk) 13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and there is some interesting biology there. I don't have time today to look for refs specifically about the metallic bees, but for e.g. blue bottle flys and tiger beetles, the iridescent structural color is thought to be involved in predator evasion, but also thermoregulation, and also, funnily enough, mimicry of metallic wasps [3][4]. Sexual selection may come in to some of the bees, since some of them have iridescence as a sex marker (N.B. all the metallic bees I know of are less social than eusocial, so unlike honeybees, the males actually do a bit more than deliver sperm). Here's a nice freely-accessible review of functions of iridescence across all of the animal world. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Way more than I needed, but interesting. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sweating horrendously on demand
I take part in a play, and there's an intense scene where I have to shake uncontrollably and sweat waterfall. I work on the shaking (still not look natural enough, but I hope I'll get it eventually) but sweating?? Is there any SAFE drug that will make me sweat? My director advised very spicy food, but I really don't want that. אילן שמעוני (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought makeup would be more reliable and safer than actually making yourself sweat. This site recommends a 2:1 mixture of water and glycerine, and there are plenty of special-effects makeup companies that sell suitable products. Tevildo (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is I need to start sweating mid-scene. Otherwise it would be good. BTW, are you evolving to be Sauron or are you a cat? אילן שמעוני (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat OT, but the question was asked. I am named after the illustrious Tevildo Vardo Meoita, but am not he. Whether I am a cat or not is a matter for MOS:IDENTITY. Tevildo (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chewing peppermint will have a diaphoretic (sweat-inducing) effect, but probably not enough to be noticeable unless someone's standing next to you. I believe you answered your own query in your initial question; anything with a diaphoretic effect rapid enough to sweat on cue, and strong enough to be visible at a distance, is going to be highly toxic. You're a lot better off using makeup. ‑ iridescent 12:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you need something that's visible at a distance, I'd recommend something mechanical. Sponges of water under the armpits give you an easy way to soak your shirt on demand, although you'll probably need to them to be fitted as soon as possible before the sweating scene, both for your comfort and to stop them dripping too early. If you have fairly long hair or wear a hat, you could try putting thin tubes (this sort of thing) over your scalp with little holes in them, and squeeze water out of them - for instance, from a bottle under your armpits which you squeeze (but unless you can get the blocking right, it might look a bit strange to the audience!) Smurrayinchester 14:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all that contributed. I'll try the Chili (Ouch ): אילן שמעוני (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work, for several reasons:
1) The sweating will start as soon as the chilis hit your tongue, not mid-scene.
2) It won't be visible to the audience, except perhaps the front row.
3) A burning mouth will be so distracting you won't be able to perform.
The mechanical system (a damp sponge tied under each armpit) will work far better. Make sure you wear a shirt that will darken noticeably when damp. I also suggest another sponge under a hat or wig (tied down so it doesn't fall off when you shake). You can pretend to scratch your head but really push down on the sponge then. A more sophisticated system could have a water-release mechanism under your wig or hat, either on a timer or with a remote control operated by a stagehand. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the play's author is among the living, you could ask them how they expected it to happen. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know of some friends who have used packs of fake blood under a wig to simulate a head wound - perhaps something similar with a pack of the fake sweat suggested above would work for brow sweat on cue? You'd need to burst the bag (a paperclip concealed in the cuff of a shirt can work for this), but a suitable motion could probably be incorporated. The pain in your mouth from a chili strong enough to make you sweat might well interfere with gettin your lines out reliably. MChesterMC (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that in close up cinematography, sweat oil makeup may be advantageous but on stage it will not perceivable to an audience. Remember too, many great actors became so because they could disagree with the director when he was wrong (i.e. eating spicy foods). Remember, a director is just that, he is not a god and does a not know it all. Suggest to him at playing it your way. Meaning by that, this sounds like an amateur thing. A good playwright, would I think, indicate in the script that the actor should mime wiping his brow etc., and announce “look how I sweat”. So, add your own way of emphasising that your character is sweating profusely.
As for the shaking: Avoid trying to tense up you muscles in order to shake. That produces a repetitive tremor (which is fine when displaying frustration but frustrated people don't normally sweat). Relax and perform multiple muscle twitches. After all, that is what uncontrollably means. This has to be a whole body effect. Practice in front of a full length mirror; since one's legs also turn to jelly and knees knock together, ones actions and guidance of limbs are not longer smooth, one has trouble of controlling ones voice in timber, tone and volume, etc. Think back to any time in your life were you ever felt like this and draw upon that too. Video your performance in front of the mirror whilst saying your lines. Place the camera well back because subtle movements will not come across to the audience. Actions have to be a little exaggerated compared to real life.
It has to be a whole body performance that makes your audience believe you (you're character) is really and truly sweating buckets and shaking uncontrollably.--Aspro (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. By now I produce quite convincing head and hands shaking- should suffice. The theater is VERY small, and I doubt more than 30 people or so will be in the audience... As for the director, I had enough brushes with him already as it is... but I WILL consider it after I try the chili.
As an anecdote, I have a friend who consumed raw eggs (which is bad, Salmonella and such) on stage for the sake of performance. He had to do it three time each show. He only drew the line when they had to perform three times the same day on Akko festival. I can't remember how the director handled that. I do believe an actor must aspire for the perfect in order to get at least decent performance. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In TV commercials where somebody needs to be shown eating or drinking, they usually just spit it out at the end of the take to avoid getting sick from overeating on all those takes (see Vitameatavegamin for a fictional example of what can happen when this was not done). In TV shows and movies, where it's not as critical to show people actually eating, they typically just mimic the motions, like bringing a spoon up to the mouth but not actually swallowing anything (camera cuts before they would). So, these might apply to theater, too. They could spit food or drink out when out of view. Or they could do some slight of hand to appear to be eating while really only palming the food. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had the exact same task a few years ago and a fellow actor told me of his trick of inserting a jalapeno where the sun dont shine. Only trubble was that it brought tears to my eyes as well.109.144.180.19 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine Donald Trump as the next president. If that doesn't get you sweating up a storm, nothing will. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Thanks a lot Clarityfiend ! That thought not only brings me out in a sweat but likely bring me nightmares tonight.--Aspro (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be scared of somebody with a halo hovering above their head ? ... oh, wait, that's not a halo, that's his "hair". StuRat (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Can one believe that the Moon’s ocean disappeared inside the Moon?
Arthur C. Clarke writes in the introduction to The Sentinel that the Moon’s ocean disappeared inside it as the Moon froze. I thought it was obviously absurd but it turns out that some scientists, including Edward Frankland, considered it plausible.[1] I find the argument that internal cavities originated from thermal shrinking obviously absurd, considering that such a cavity would immediately collapse under the enormous pressure inside the Moon. Is this theory still viable? Was it viable in 1951? Otherwise, why would the author come up with such an outlandish claim?
--Yecril (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not our moon, but Saturn's moon Enceladus has a documented underground ocean: [5]. So it isn't a plainly ludicrous idea; whether or not our moon has such an underground ocean aside, the notion that it could is borne out by the fact that other similar bodies in the solar system DO have them. --Jayron32 13:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notion of the Moon cooling down and water disappearing into cracks inside it is pretty ridiculous. The cracks would inevitably get warmed now and then and outgas a telltale water vapor. Other moons with subsurface oceans are covered with ice, not bone-dry dust. However, there's another way for water to disappear into the Moon, which is how much (most) of it disappeared on Earth - by chemical incorporation into the rocks, most notably ringwoodite. The People's Republic of China is showing some interest in finding ringwoodite deposits on the Moon that are exposed by cratering. [6]Wnt (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe liquid oceans could ever have existed on the Moon, since it lacks the gravity necessary to keep enough of an atmosphere to support an ocean. With little atmosphere, the water would just evaporate into space. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly from seeing a local exhibit of moon rocks in the 70's, wasn't the lack of hydrated minerals taken as an indication that the moon is essentially "dry"? μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of Laburnum contain Cytisine and how is it extracted and processed into the medicinal form? 114.38.128.163 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this it is found throughout the tree and this tells you how it can be extracted from the seeds. However, it's not clear to me whether or not cytisine is extracted from laburnum commercially to be used as a medicine. Richerman(talk) 15:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, according to this it is: "a company in Bulgaria named Sopharma made a stop-smoking drug called Tabex. The pills contained cytisine, a natural compound found in the tree’s seeds. The drug was farmed from massive laburnum orchards in Bulgaria". Richerman(talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Word for "other member of the same species"
Is there a handy word for "other members of the same species", that would fit into the sentence fragment "Unlike the Lemur catta on Madagascar, their "X" in zoos across the world..."? I feel like something of the form "homospecies" or even just "specimen" would sound right, but I'm honestly not sure if there's even a short way to to describe this concept.12.109.68.198 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word is "conspecific", but I think it would be better to rewrite your sentence so that it doesn't need such a word. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the context and audience. It's a simple con- construction, and any e.g. college student should expected to understand terms like "conspecific", "congeneric", "confamilial", etc. In the OP's sentence "counterparts" would fill in X without restructuring the sentence. If this is for WP, then the appropriate concept can easily be wikilinked, like we do with any other cromulent term that may or may not be known to readers. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using a word most people won't know, like conspecific, and then providing a link, is not a good idea, as long as there is an easy way to avoid using the confusing word in the first place. In the above example, I would just use "their species" or "that species" or "that same species". That's quite clear without readers having to research the words to understand it. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I write a lot in animal articles and I used to use the term "conspecific" regularly, However, after receiving many complaints that most people would not understand the term, I have changed my editing. Now I would write " ...members of the same species (conspecifics)..." and use "conspecifics" thereafter. To the OP (and others), please avoid using the word "specimen" when referring to animals - most writers would avoid that term these days.DrChrissy(talk) 19:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should ignore those critics. There's all kinds of words in articles that people don't already know -- just like in the rest of the written world. But -- this is important -- that's how we learn new words! Especially when we are reading the worlds largest hyperlinked collection of knowledge, the answers are only a click away. Seriously, we shouldn't use a five-dollar word when a penny one will do, but we're also completely allowed to used the correct word for a concept, without being overly worried that some readers may not know it. If that were our guiding principle, we couldn't even have an article on sheaf cohomology, or Induced pluripotent stem cells, etc., etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't come here to increase their vocab. And the problem is that if they go to the linked article to understand that term, and it in turn requires following other links to understand, and so on, they may never finish and leave in frustration. Authors of dictionaries try to follow the principle of defining words using simpler words, whenever possible, to avoid this very problem. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue that has come up time and again via MoS, Village Pump, the talk pages of policy articles, and various other community spaces. The (extremely rough) consensus I have taken away from those discussions (and the few polices that treat the matter directly) is an approach somewhere between your and SM's positions. That is to say, we should be using general terminology and typically choosing an approach that will be able to effectively inform as a broad a selection of readers as possible, but, that being said, there is no shortage of articles and topics which cannot be approached in the slightest without heavy reference to technical and scientific jargon. Some content and some concepts are just too rarefied to be explained in layman's terms, because they are so divorced from every day experience. If I had to stop in the middle of every sentence on an article in the topic of neuroscience and explain every physiological concept to the level of understanding of the average layman and then do the same for every clinical term that came up in those definitions, it would create a constant feedback loop that would lead to articles of this nature being hundreds of times longer than they would otherwise need to be, incredibly dense, and poorly organized and off-point to a degree that they would be unusable for their intended purpose. This is clearly one of the main functions (if not the main function) of internal linking in the first place.
This quote from WP:What Wikipedia is not, is instructive here: "Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before [emphasis added] advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic."
Personally I see no problem with Dr. Chrissy's approach of defining a concept (for which parentheticals are particularly useful) and then leaning on the term thereafter, where appropriate. In fact, I know that's enshrined in some policy, though I am drawing a blank on just where. Snowlet's rap 23:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the same "feedback loop" still exists when the explanations of each term are in external articles. So, at some point you get topics that simply can not be made readable by a general audience. If you want to understand them you will need to go get a PhD in the field first. Thankfully, that only applies to a small number of articles and, with the rest, we have the choice of making them readable to a general audience or totally opaque. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the choice you are presenting is whether that loop is handled within the article (in which case it bloats, disrupts its structure and generally undermines utility) or using internal links for exactly the purpose they are meant to serve, thus keeping our content organized and allowing our readers to pursue the threads they need or want to pursue at their leisure without making each article an omnibus on ever field of inquiry the topic touches upon. We have clear and overwhelming community consensus on which of this approaches is better, at it's pretty easy to see why. I also disagree that a certain amount of technical jargon requires an advanced degree to process; the entire point of Wikipedia is it now puts a wealth of information at the fingertips of its users to fill in the necessary blanks; all that limits this process is the reader's time and level of interest and the quality of the relevant articles. But that quality is not improved by avoiding necessary clinical terms like the plague, even where that terminology presents a more refined and functional understanding of the topic at hand.
I think to some extent that your proposed standard puts the cart before the horse. When there exists two options to describe the same concept that are equally elucidative, and one utilizes more common usage terminology, by all means, use that option. But if the choice is between a less accurate and less instructive option that any random person can read and one which requires some further understanding of the predicate terminology, that's the better choice for an encyclopedia. We aren't writing for children here (at least, not as the standard for an "average person") and our readers are free to choose how far they want to follow a given thread. Not giving them that option is manifestly against the very stated goals of this project. That doesn't mean I want every article on Newtonian physics to start out with equations, mind you. Obviously there is a learning curve, and that's what the lead and other contextualizing sections are for, and there's room for a lot of improvement on some articles written by academics working in their own fields before they fully understand the Wikipedia approach. But more often than not, in an article on a scientific or technical topic, I'd just as soon the more precise description be given rather than one that levels the playing field relative to those who have no time to read even a single other article defining a predicate term. Snowlet's rap 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "bloats, disrupts its structure and generally undermines utility". I absolutely agree. However, this is still the case when all the material the average reader will need to read to understand an article is at links. Indeed, it's even worse, since navigation is now complicated by links within links within links, and external links aren't always focused on explaining the linked term (for example, the article at the conspecific link first explains "intraspecific" and "interspecific", with "conspecific" only defined after about 20 unnecessary sentences and bullets.).
Now don't get me wrong, when there is no other option than to use a complex term the average reader won't understand, then links and a simple explanation are in order (there's also a "mouse-over" definition, which can be a better option than a full link). But, links can be abused. For an analogy, look at police use of tasers. The idea was to give them a nonlethal alternative to shooting suspects. And, when used in that way, they are good. But, police also then started using them on anyone being uncooperative. That's an inappropriate use. Same with links, if people decide they can now use the most complex words they can possibly find, so long as they provide links for each. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Looie496: and @StuRat:, this isn't simple english WP. Shall I start replacing "amygdala" with "little almond-shaped bits of a brain"? Or maybe change "motherboard" to "biggest wafer with squiggly metal lines and boxes glued to it in a computer"? I could make suitable re-wordings to avoid both of those, as well as many other terribly complicated words... I'm mostly joking of course, but it does seem like you two have confused English WP with its Simple English cousin. :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) ETA- oh wait, I thought this seemed familiar: it was less than a year ago [7] that the three of us went down this same specific road before![reply]
Those examples are words that have no simple, common equivalent expression in regular English. So, use those words with a link. What we want to avoid is using needlessly complex words, either with or without links. So, say "lied" instead of "prevaricated", for example, or "same species" instead of "conspecific". StuRat (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I agree with Dr, Chrissy, that's the way I do it - use the correct term, linked if possible, and also explain what it means. Richerman(talk) 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly is better than forcing them to follow a link in an attempt to decipher what you said. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you say cousin? "Their cousins in zoo's around the world..." that's what David Attenborough would say. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct was to go with "relatives", though that is inexact (as is "cousins", of course). "Unlike the Lemur catta in their natural habitat on Madagascar, the members of the species in zoos across the world..."? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving to one side the eternal populist-v-expert war, I would just note that (unless I misunderstand it), the word "conspecific" doesn't actually work in the example sentence. *Unlike the Lemur catta on Madagascar, their conspecific in zoos across the world.... Not grammatical. --Trovatore (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe I have to amend that. Wikt:conspecific lists a noun meaning, and I see above that Dr Chrissy uses it in the plural. To my ear, though, it has an inelegant sound used as a noun. --Trovatore (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To mine too. That's mainly why I suggested rewording the sentence -- it can be used as a noun but looks like an adjective. Looie496 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The noun use is as a Nominalized_adjective, and it usually has a plural form - "Grackles roost with conspecifics, while doves will roost with congeners." It is true that in many examples, the word can be avoided relatively easily. But other times we want to say something like "When corn flowers receive pollen from different species, they preferentially accept conspecific pollen, and heterospecific pollen will only fertilize if there is no conspecific pollen present. While congeneric cross-fertilization is relatively common, crosses outside the genus are unlikely." -- and explaining those (fictional) concepts with "members of the species/genus" workarounds will be result in a long and tedious mess. I do think it's interesting that you phrase this as "populist vs. expert". I hadn't heard that before, and thought it might be a common term for this type of debate. When I googled it, the first relevant hit was our own article on Anti-intellectualism, make of that what you will :)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My rewrite:
"Corn flowers prefer pollen from their own species, but, if they have none, they will accept pollen from a different species. While cross-fertilization within the same genus is relatively common, crosses outside the genus are unlikely."
Is that incorrect or in any way awkward or confusing ? (My version is shorter, at 62 syllables versus your 84.) I am reminded of the father in A River Runs Through It, who made his sons rewrite everything to make it more concise. I would also aim for more accessible at the same time. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glowing vapor/fume
What substances can produce vapor or fume that glows in the dark (with green, blue or other color, not simply colored fume)?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flame types of a Bunsen burner depend on oxygen supply. Left: rich fuel produces a yellow sooty flame. Right: with premixed oxygen the flame has no soot and its color is produced by CH and C2 band emission.
Arsenic - blue
Boron - bright green
Calcium and Cadmium - brick red
Copper - Green
Potassium - Lilac
Sodium - Yellow
Lead and Tin - Blue/white
Rubidium - Red/violet
Strontium - Crimson to Scarlet
Neon lighting or, more generally gas-discharge lamps. Also see Northern Lights. If you wanted to simulate the effect, perhaps colored lights or lasers aimed at water vapor produced by a fog machine might be a practical method. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With separate illumination the following toxic gasses qualify.
F2 - pale yellow
Cl2 - green
Br2 - red/brown
I2 - violet
NO2 - ugly brown - copper metal in conc. HNO3
NOCl - orange/brown - NaNO2 in conc. HCl
ClO2 - intense deep yellow - NaClO3 in conc. HCl (explosive)
CF3NO - blue
NC-N=O - blue
CH3COCOCH3 - yellow/green vapor
Not many options I think... Powdered white phosphorus at low temperature might do it, it reacts with the oxygen in the air (would burst into flames in warm air). A mixture of ozone and nitric oxide could be another option. See chemiluminescence. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like it. Fibrin appears to only exist when the clotting cascade is activated, which causes thrombin to convert fibrinogen into fibrin. Fibrinogen, in turn, is only present in the blood; it's manufactured by the liver. Fibroblasts on the other hand hang out in body tissues and produce extracellular matrix and collagen. The names are presumably similar not because the two things are linked biologically, but because of structural similarities. Fibrin binds together to form long chains, to produce a blood clot, while connective tissue, where fibroblasts are found, often has a fibrous appearance. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fibroblasts actually react to fibrinogen by becoming more active [8] and/or replicating [9], and fibrin can contribute to a epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition that can create fibroblasts where they were previously (and properly) absent. [10] For the cell type to produce something it responds to would be an engineering challenge (though I'm not saying nature couldn't find a way).
Really, at first blush fibrinogen appears to be a liver gene, though if you look closely enough you can find traces of expression in odd places [11]. Trace expression can turn out to be very important, but then again if you look at practically any gene hard enough you have a fair chance of finding a trace of expression ... so this doesn't really prove or disprove anything, especially since the data I linked above is organ-specific rather than cell type-specific. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Famous scientist who used prostitutes?
Hi,
Bit of an odd question, I know, but it's for a writing project. I was just wondering if anyone happened to know if any famous scientist (prior to 1935 so not Feynman heh) used prostitutes. Sorry to be so crass, but it's not the easiest thing to Google for heh. I swear this is a serious and adult writing project which happens to need this information heh. Dan Hartas (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) was a frequent visitor of the Zurich red light district during his time as Professor of Theoretical Physics at ETH (1928-?), it seems. Although other sources say that he made frequent trips to Hamburg (Sankt Paili district) and Berlin... In 1929 he announced his marriage with a cabaret dancer. See sourceSsscienccce (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the most important scientific figures of the 18th century but not a full-time scientist, is known to have used strumpets, as he called them. John M Baker (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but is "used" the right word for a human? "Visited" would be a less demeaning alternative. Do I "use" a painter if he paints a wall for me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Who do you use for your lawncare?" is a common construction. But I take you're point, just because it's common doesn't mean it's not also demeaning. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about prostitutes, but Feynman often bragged in print about his sexy exploits, e.g. hot tubbing with with beautiful naked ladies, playing bongos late into the night... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP finds it difficult to consider a 16 year old a famous scientist (even if he was already very smart at that age), hence why they ruled out Feynman. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed the OP's mention of Feynman, as well as the time restriction. I'll read better next time :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo da Vinci was prosecuted (and acquitted) for consorting with Jacopo Saltarelli, a notorious Florentine rent boy, if that comes into the solution set. Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Used" is an ambiguous term. Here's a quote from Henny Youngman: "A hooker came up to me on the street. She said, 'For 100 dollars, I'll do anything you want that you can say in 3 words or less.' I said, 'Paint my house!'" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Know any good links to convince my dad of evolution?
I need a link to show clearly how carbon dating works (he thinks it's unreliable), as well as how other dating methods of fossils work. Their Wikipedia articles don't do this very well. Also, a link showing the fossil record of humans and other animals would be good. Again, the article List of human evolution fossils doesn't work so well for this. Thanks, 2.102.187.59 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the first question is "Why are you convinced?" Start with the material that convinced you and it will be easier to explain. It's also a good cross-check to find out individual misconceptions by characterizing your own thoughts and beliefs and then comparing them to others. --DHeyward (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The very simple point is that we always find more primitive ancestral forms (or some lines that have simply gone extinct) below more recently deposited layers in the geological record that have more derived (more advanced) forms. Fish, but not pre-Cambrian rabbits in layers below layers with the most primitive amphibians, layers with amphibians below the first layers with early reptiles. Reptiles below layers with birds and mammals.
This is grade-school stuff that doesn't need one to be able to understand what the half-life of radioactive decay is. Arguing that carbon dating is unreliable is a very sophisticated objection to a very simple fact. To object to the obvious fact of evolution by doubting the physics of carbon dating is like denying you have diabetes when you are always thirsty, get up at night to drink and pee, have sores and nerve pain in your extremities, have weight and vision problems, and your urine tastes sweet if you sample it, but you object that your glucose meter may not be accurate.
Is there some more fundamental reason that your father doubts the obvious? μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you some reason for wanting to get into an argument with your father, what on earth difference does it make to you whether he believes in it or not? Evolution offends many peoples idea of their position in the world and rational arguments for iit will just offend them more. Do this with people with whom it doesn't matter whether you get on well with them or not. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he's open to new information and is openly unsure of his religious beliefs, trying to convince him will do nothing but create ill will between the two of you. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a three different sources for you to look at. The first is the easiest to understand, its just a quick youtube video on carbon dating. The second is an in-depth book on fossil records. The third is a very scientific-heavy article on another type of time-dating.
The problem with most proof is that those who don't believe in evolution don't believe in science either, so no scientific proof would convince them. I suggest taking him to a natural history museum, and showing him the dinosaur skeletons. You will need to find some which are complete or nearly complete, not mostly the fake white "bone" they use to fill in gaps, as that will cause him to doubt the results. But it's hard to look at a complete T-Rex skeleton and not think that life has evolved considerably since then. The only way around that is to believe in a massive conspiracy theory where every dino skeleton is completely fake. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I thought the disputed tag in Wikimedia commons on this picture of humans and dinosaurs coexisting was hilarious - "This dinosaur restoration is inaccurate, or its accuracy is disputed. Reason: No feathers + Skull clearly based on that of the baby T. rex in The Lost World: Jurassic Park rather than on actual fossil material." Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I think YouTube videos would be the best bet. He's not dumb or anything but he's convinced he's right and so wouldn't see the point in reading pages of text. The YouTube video on carbon dating was good. Does anybody know one for the fossil record of humans/other animals? Also, we're not having an argument or anything, and he doesn't take it deadly seriously (unlike my granddad). 2.102.187.59 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually, typically, three stages of disbelief...
That evolution is still happening - the fact that bacteria are evolving to avoid being killed by antibiotics, is a very clear - almost impossible to dispute thing.
That animals and plants evolved from simpler forms is usually a harder sell.
The toughest thing of all is to convince doubters that humans evolved from simpler forms.
The business of arguing against these things depends on you understanding which (perhaps all) are in doubt here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's an important argument you left out: That any apparent evidence which contradicts the Bible was placed there by Satan. And if someone truly believes that, the argument is over. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. However, there are believing Christians who state that radiometric dating does not contradict their faith: [12]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Radiocarbon dating? Why pick on that? Its usefulness is great for many purposes, but in evolution studies it's pretty minor. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very common creationist trope to argue that radiocarbon dating doesn't work and therefore evolution is a lie. The talk.origins archive linked above has a whole subsection just on carbon dating. You're right that there's oodles of other evidence for evolution, but none of that prevents people with a preconceived belief from cherry picking evidence that supports their belief. "This one study using radiocarbon dating was later found to be inaccurate. Therefore all science is wrong!" --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an abundance of time, I highly recommend the original Cosmos; it includes a detailed (if just slightly dated) understanding of the topic, will contextualize it within the broader framework of the physical universe and the origin of life, and there may not have been a person ever born that had a better gift for distilling these kinds of complex topics down to simple but still elegant language that draws in the expert and the layman alike. Snowlet's rap 00:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some on the side of rationality mount an all-out counterattack, impugning the integrity or sanity of dissenters. I figure such an attitude, however justified by those personalities, works better to defend a foolish doctrine than a wise one, so it's best omitted. This discussion reminds me of another on the topic, years ago with a colleague at the telephone exchange.
-Evolutionists are foolish and depend on carbon dating, which is entirely unreliable.
-Radiocarbon is useful in some works of geochronology, being highly precise out to a few tens of thousands of years. Beyond that, it rapidly loses precision and has little use beyond about a hundred thousand, which is too short for most work on evolution.
-No, evolutionists think carbon dating is the be-all and end-all for ancient dating forever.
-No problem, then I'm not an evolutionist.
-What, you mean evolution never happened?
-No, evolution happens. However, I don't believe in the doctrine that your definition of "evolutionist" requires me to believe. No problem. If you change the definition maybe I'll fit the new one, thus becoming an evolutionist. However, evolution started before I was defined, and redefining me won't make it stop. Many things happen in the world, and not many of them depend on me.
As it happens this is a reasonable fellow; just excessively attentive to tendentious foolishness. I didn't convince him that I was right, but my ambition was more modest than that. Presumably there are many hopeless cases who would retreat into vituperation; no use bothering with them. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something to be said when a father looks at his son and says "I don't believe in evolution." Maybe just "Q.E.D." --DHeyward (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP: There's an aphorism which states "You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into" Disbelief in the general concept of biological evolution is dogmatic, and not based on reason or evidence. The answer is "you cannot, so stop trying". Knowing when to fish or cut bait is a useful skill to have in life, and if someone has reached the level of not believing in evolution (which is akin to not believing the earth travels around the sun, or is a round object that turns on its axis) then they are what we like to call a "lost cause" and, in my experience, it's best to not even try anymore. Your energy is best spent on other things. --Jayron32 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's always the case. From what I've seen, a lot of people have questions about evolution just out of ignorance and misconception ("How come there are still monkeys?"). They're open to learning, if you can figure out what questions they have, and present evidence in a straightforward fashion. Primary education in many countries isn't that great at systematizing knowledge, and often focuses more on rote memorization than elucidating the connections between things, so even many people who've been through formal education don't have a great grasp of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not something that's immediately obvious, since it generally takes timescales much longer than a human lifespan for its effects to become really apparent. To contrast with your other examples, today it's really easy to show people evidence against geocentrism or a flat earth: just show them pictures from space. Now I do agree that real hard-core creationists are a lost cause, since they've usually decided that evolution must be false and any evidence to the contrary is either misinterpreted or part of a conspiracy. Similarly, there are still some flat-earthers and geocentrists even today. But the original poster's dad sounds like he might belong more to the first camp. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is most frustrating about the creationists is that their dogma rests on a notion of a God with limited powers. A human author can write a backstory for his creation - he doesn't just put pen to paper and write in chronological order, but expands the pasts of his characters and world as he goes along. Why should God then have to look at a calendar and see it's November 4 2015, so that's what He has to write about? Why can't God go back at any time and decide that a flat world makes more sense as a ball, sketch out galaxies to fill the skies, fill the rocks with fossils that attest to a more consistent natural history? There's no need for creation and evolution to have any conflict with one another. Wnt (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm no, it doesn't rest on that at all. Quite the opposite. The underpinnings of creationism are "faith" and it is a failing of man that leads to question their faith or deny god. A test of faith would be an all powerful God that gives man all sorts of worldly clues and opportunities to deny god (i.e. fossil records, stars, galaxies, etc) while also asking man to take his word for it. That's a simple test of faith and has nothing to do science. An all-powerful god can have any history that tempts man to deny him. A test of faith doesn't have reconciliation as an outcome, whence creationism doesn't need scientific backing. It's generally not a lack of understanding or knowledge. The first story in genesis is "faith" falling to "knowledge" and is a constant religious theme. --DHeyward (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
November 4
high concentration of sugar and salt outside the cells
I would like to know and understand what happens when having high concentration of sugar or salt outside the cell. Should it constrict the cell or blow it? 78.111.186.95 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the second paragraph of our article on Crenation. -- ToE 10:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plasmolysis. The rule is that the water goes where the solutes are, to even out the concentration (osmosis). Wnt (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Wikipedia allow editors to destroy initially very good articles?
--81.6.59.42 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia enables users to do nearly everything to nearly every article. The hope is that this improves, on average, the quality of articles. It's not guaranteed to work (although the evidence so far is that it does), and it's certainly not a monotonic process. In order to make the process more efficient, Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines about what users should and shouldn't do. Sometimes these rules lead to what looks like (or even may be) a decrease in quality - e.g. if a user removes parts of a well-written and maybe even correct article because of insufficient sourcing. We don't have a Truth-O-Meter, and we often have no way to distinguish between real experts and victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. That is why we rely on external reliable sources per WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum for debate or opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All I can say to Stephan is "What planet are you from"? My experience with Wikipedia over many years has convinced me that there is rampant bullying, shallow intellectual arrogance and disregard for the so-called "rules" of fair play. Wikipedia has never stirred a finger to counter these negative influences and they have driven thousands of well-intentioned contributors away from the project. Any number of people have spent days creating an article only to have it eliminated by some Wikinazi who replaces the entire effort with the word "twaddle". If these bullies are well-entrenched up the food-chain, it is impossible to displace them. Wikipedia is indeed free-to-edit but the proposition that the edits are in the main constructive is misleading to the point of being risible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the above editor. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. People who insist that Wikipedia doesn't treat them fairly are those who simultaneously insist that concepts like providing reliable sources to support what is written in an article shouldn't apply to them. Maybe if people kept their head down and simply dug through the medical journals and neutrally presented what they said, there wouldn't be these problems. Just a thought. --Jayron32 16:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of toxic tendencies brought to bear on an edit like this. First, there is a general hostility to primary sources, which of course is altogether at odds with how scientists look at research papers. Wikipedia policy doesn't ban primary sources, but has just enough skeptical language that some insist that it does, or act like it. Second, there is a very strong medical lobby, with actual funding from outside companies. There are groups like Wiki Med Inc that try to patrol articles for "bad" information - and indeed bad information exists, but as defined by who? The problem is that when people are looking to patrol for misinformation, they get the mindset that Wikipedia articles are written for patients, instead of written for researchers and students or whoever else is interested; and they therefore think that non-human model systems aren't interesting, ongoing research isn't interesting, etc. Last but not least, there's the concern that articles (or Reference Desks) shouldn't really be too useful for patients, because anyone with a serious question is supposed to $ee Their Doctor about it. It's all very sad. The medical industry used to have an awesome Jonas Salk kind of ethics, but now they're like bullies robbing kids of their lunch money, only in this case it's more like robbing them of all their money if they need a drug and they can find a way to do keep-away. Nobody can tell me doctors are on the up-and-up when we as a society intentionally leave hepatitis C rampant so it can make some people a buck. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that Wnt's opinion (that one should ignore the advice of people who are trained in how the human body works, and how to treat diseases of it, and instead just try random fixes from random, unvetted sources of information or advice from people with no proof of training or knowledge) is peculiar to say the least. The idea that one should seek advice or treatment from people with proper knowledge and training should be uncontroversial. Wnt seems to think that training would disqualify someone from being trusted. I have no idea what leaps of logic that requires. --Jayron32 17:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words into other users mouths, especially if it clearly has nothing to do with what they were actually saying. Medical doctors know very little about how the body works, only to diagnose problems and how to treat them. Scientists know how the body works. It's the mechanic vs the engineer. His assessment about wiki articles is spot on. The ridiculous emphasis on patient information, combined with the active discouragement of primary sources (the single most important source of information), makes many biomedical articles on wiki pretty much useless. Fgf10 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Why MEDRS? is a good essay about why we avoid primary sources. In short, assessing the significance of primary research is a science in itself. There is no reason to risk allowing (presumed) amateurs to do the job when scientists have already done it for us in secondary sources. KateWishing (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that mechanics don't know how automobiles work? If one didn't, he wouldn't be able to keep that job very long, I'm sure... --Jayron32 00:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a fairly peculiar belief about the extent of understanding of physiology in the average physician. It's true that only a certain subset are biomedical researchers who are actively expanding understanding of physiological mechanisms, but the statement that they "know very little about how the body works" is patently absurd; excepting academics in a handful of fields, no class of person has a better average understanding of physiology than a person with a medical doctorate. Your average would-be physician has taken scores of classes in anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry before they even arrive at medical school, to say nothing of what that training entails (though needless to say this is variable by nation). Anyway, your argument is a complete non-sequitur, since the overwhelming majority of MEDRS utilized in Wikipedia articles come from researchers publishing in peer-review journals, not from doctors practicing in a clinical environment while practicing physicians are more likely than most every other type of medical researcher to be providing a primary source in lieu of a secondary. Meaning no offense, but your wires seem a little crossed on the nature of sourcing for these particular articles.
I happen to agree with Jayron that Wnt's comments are soapboxing at best and verging on potentially harmful conspiracy theory. I won't go into details of where I see these comments as indicative of strawman perspectives set up against a broadly necessary profession, because frankly, this is not really the place to be having that discussion per WP:NOTAFORUM. But I will say that Wikipedia's policies on precluding that information were engineered to protect people from a very real possibility of harm done by those who have exaggerated notions of their own expertise in certain fields and would indulge in these delusions without the least forethought as to the ultimate consequences. By extension, these rules also protect the project from liability and having its reputation undermined by those more commited to their delusions of grandeur than the well-being of the project. A look at the rampant speculation that regularly takes place on this particular desk, under the erroneous presumption that WP:V does not really apply here, ought to be enough to give anyone fair warning how much off-the-cuff diagnosis would take place here, were it allowed. In any event, for anyone who wants to discuss Wikipedias standards on content and sourcing in medical articles, there are a lot of better places to do it: WP:VP, WP:CD, Wikipedia Talk:MEDRS, and countless others. As this is essentially a policy question, this seems not to be the ideal space. Snowlet's rap 06:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP should provide some sort of reason as to why this "destroyed" the article. You are able to challenge edits if you want to, but there was no reason provided as to why this edit in particular was wrong or somehow unconstructive. Scarlettail (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the edit summary appears to be accurate. Most of the information which was removed appears to have been poorly sourced. Can the IP provide one example of information which was well sourced and removed? Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flashes preceding blasts in opencut pits
When footage of blasts in open-cut pits is viewed one sees linear flashes of light across the ground at extreme speed immediately prior to detonation. These must be related to fuses but what exactly is occurring? Why the light show?
If you mean when rows or arrays of explosive (dynamite or a successor) is used in quarrying, you're seeing the explosion blowing out through the drill holes (the holes into which the explosive was tamped). This is the detonation, not prior to it, but you see it before you hear it, because sound travels slower than light. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naah, Finlay. The lights flash sideways. One sees them skip over ground where nothing explodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs)
(EC) WAG, but this might be the network of fuses which link all the explosive charges, these would be similar to the "black match" or quick fuse type mentioned there, used so that all the charges detonate simultaneously. [Edited to add: More accurately, what Finlay said.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blasting caps come to mind. If they are on the surface, you can see the flash, while the secondary explosives are underground, so you don't see the flash, but only the results of the explosion. Since moving all that ground takes some time, there is a slight delay after the flash. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When blasting a face or strata, one doesn’t want all the charges to go off at once. It goes outer face to inner. Each charge can be be fitted with an standard delay fuze calibrated in milliseconds. The detcord (linear flashes of light) quickly primes all fuzes. The length of each detcord can be varied to match the standard delay's to synchronize the whole blast. Thus, ensuring that the charges go off at the right time.--Aspro (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Form cracks on the surface first, then detonate the lower charges, allowing the cracks to propagate downward. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions about the vertebrae
I have two questions about the vertebrae:
1) Are the Accessory process and Mammillary process unique for the lumbar vertebrae or they appear in the rest of vertebrae (cervical, thoracic).?
2) Is there any place (I mean site, page) that presents the differences between the types of vertebrae?
First of all, it's not homework, but I take it as compliment. Second, there is no information about the questions - in this article that I already before I asked my questions. Moreover, You wouldn't find these two simple terms in the article. So, in the next time before you judge questioners, please think a little bit and check what you write. I'm here in order to study, not because I'm lazy. Thank you. 78.111.186.63 (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If hiv is so easily transmitted through needles and anal sex, why isn't it just as easily transmitted through wounds of different people touching each other or through a bodily fluid (whether saliva, semen, vaginal fluid etc) touching a wound? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:25F3:6D6E:4020:6AA9 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's correct. Are you sure that HIV isn't transmitted through wound contact with the same (or greater) chances of infection than through sexual contact? HIV does not have a section on transmission, but it says "Sexual intercourse is the major mode of HIV transmission." I think that means that is the major way it is actually transmitted in the real world. Far more people have sex than rub open wounds against each other. So just because more transmission happens via sex than via wounds does not mean that the virus cannot infect well through that vector. HIV can definitely be transmitted via blood. This [13] journal article says in the abstract
“
We know several facts about HIV transmission in the health care setting. First, blood is the single most important source of HIV infection. Second, exposure to blood through the percutaneous route is significantly more likely to transmit HIV than is mucous membrane or cutaneous contact.
”
I see no reason to believe that mingling of blood does not have the same, if not higher, risk of infection than sexual contact. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One factor is that HIV is killed by contact with oxygen in the air. So, transmission is more successful where air is absent (inside a syringe) or limited (inside a vagina or rectum). StuRat (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any citations for any of your statements here, Stu, so that readers may learn more about what kills HIV? --Jayron32 00:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's a reliable site? Do you have anything that resembles something with editorial control or peer review? 2) You don't get to avoid providing any references ever because I made a side comment to a discussion once. The fact that someone who isn't you, once, didn't provide a reference to something, once, doesn't mean you never have to verify anything you ever say ever. That's not how life works. --Jayron32 02:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sponsor of that website also claims that he was "healed" from AIDS, cancer, a "dying kidney," and vertigo (sic) - "by faith alone." It is absolutely not a reliable website for scientific information on HIV or anything else.Nimur (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the HIV help line with the same info: [15]. Also, your "side comment" wasn't just unreferenced, it was unreferencable, because it was completely wrong and should have been immediately redacted. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this resource, the statement was provided by a volunteer who was not a doctor or a scientist. Their disclaimer states clearly: "Volunteers are not doctors, nurses, or other licensed professionals. Volunteers do not give advice, and strive to provide service-users with adequate information and appropriate referrals." The information on their website is not encyclopedic; it's essentially a free service intended to refer people to community resources, not to provide authoritative medical and scientific opinions.
I think the benefit of the doubt has been exhausted here; the assertion that air "kills" or "inactivates" the HIV virus is frequently repeated and rarely backed up with evidence. You need to find better sources, like peer reviewed medical journals; or you should rescind your claim. If there is actual scientific debate over this factual detail, it should be straightforward to find a review article that summarizes the evidence and arguments on both sides. Nimur (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat is wrong: [16]. Air does not sterilize stuff against HIV. However, the virus still needs a vector to enter the body, so syringes are more contagious that doorknobs. --Scicurious (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. How did you find that ? I did Google searches on "air kills HIV" and "oxygen kills HIV" and didn't find it. (Note that your source does show that exposure to air kills HIV, just much more slowly than my sources said, over many days or weeks.) StuRat (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, exposure to air kills you, just even more slowly, over many decades. --Jayron32 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant for the discussion here, and also relevant because you keep not reading this exact statement, even though it's been told to you multiple times: Providing references has nothing to do with proving anything. You are not being asked to provide references because anyone thinks you're wrong, and requests to provide references are not accusations that you are wrong. No matter how many times you think requests to provide references are accusations of anything, they aren't. Your job is to provide references. Period. --Jayron32 03:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you always provide refs, even when asked ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, there are times when I haven't provided a reference. 2) That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You don't get to say "Look, I found this one time once, where another regular user forgot to provide a reference! It means I can continue to just repeat stuff I think I remember, and never provide a reference ever again". That isn't how life works. Finding cases where another person has violated expected norms once doesn't mean the norms never exist for you. Just start providing references for your answers. Like, as a regular habit. No one will ever bother you again about it. All you need to do is research reliable sources, or find a Wikipedia article which itself has reliable sources, and link them in all of your answers. The first time you do that, and then keep doing it, is the last time we have to repeat this same conversation. --Jayron32 04:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". StuRat (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that that is "Let him (who be without sin) cast the first stone"? "Let he cast the first stone" whould even get you laughed of Wheel of Fortune". (WoF being one of the two TV shows I still watch.) μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never cast a stone. You're not being punished. You're being asked to follow expected norms. If you don't realize the difference between punishment and being told to do the right thing, I'm not sure you have the mental capacity to handle finding references for users here anyways. --Jayron32 14:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "watch live". Everything else I stream off the internet. I did recently download and watch all the One Foot in the Grave episodes though, so I am glad you are paying attention, and suggest you also see Waiting For God if you haven't seen it. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, here is the article on Search Engine Bias. When you "search" for something, a modern web-search engine finds it, even it if is not correct. Furthermore, if it is profitable to show you a result, the search engine will "find" it with high probability, even if it is not correct.
Can you see how this might be problematic if you search for "air kills HIV", or platypuses are reptiles.... or time is a cube? If anyone has ever published these incorrect statements on the internet, a modern web search engine will turn up a "positive hit."
Search engine results are not reliable sources, and they have no place on our encyclopedia. If you do not already know how to find and use a reliable encyclopedic source - and to distinguish reliable from unreliable sources - you should not be contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are using a search-engine to help prompt your recollection of a reliable source - or to narrow down a set of websites, then read and understand those websites, that is fine... but if you're just posting the first link that "matches" what you want, you really need to re-think your model of information consumption and regurgitation, and how that relates to Wikipedia's standards for content.
@Nimur and Medeis: You people and the arguing! But you ought to know better. Whenever a statement of biology is universally held to be the very height of vulgar idiocy, it is either true or is deemed "false" entirely arbitrarily. If you look up Reptile you'll see that the definition was redrawn in 2004 to clearly exclude the platypus. Before then, there was discord about whether mammals and birds should arbitrarily be excluded from amniotes to generate a paraphyletic clade of "reptiles", and one could just as easily decide to exclude all the placentals and call a platypus a reptile! Wnt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Participants in "blood brotherhood" may indeed end up with some genes in common - HIV genes, that is. [17] HIV is an enveloped virus and so far as I know all such viruses are vulnerable to air exposure one way or another (the latter article mentions desiccation as a reason; I think lipid peroxidation has a role also). While these things limit the spread of HIV none of them come with a money back guarantee - the specific conditions are important. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Okay, if I may interrupt, first of all, HIV is readily killed by exposure to oxygen, so a wound-to-wound exposure would be an unlikely route, given people rarely hold actually open bleeding wounds together. That being said, there was a study popularized in the last few months that advised that if one could control STD's that cause open sores in Africa, one could drastically reduce the HIV transmission rate, the point being that sores on the penis or vagina exposed to the body fluids of an infected partner are ideal points of transmission.
Now, the confession: I have spent the last 15 minutes googling that and can't find the original source, which I am sure I must have found at Real Clear Science. This may have been in conjunction with an initiative from the B&M Gates Foundation. But I will keep looking. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little more to it. HIV has been transmitted from infected dentists to their patients [18] which is problematic considering its casual contact with open air wounds. Also, transmission rates for sexual contact are asymmetric and also varies by type of contact. With straight vaginal sex, an uninfected woman is much more likely to be infected by an HIV positive man than an uninfected man being infected by an HIV positive woman. It's pretty rare for women (even infected women) to transmit the virus to men during vaginal intercourse. Anal sex is not as gender selective but the risk is higher for the uninfected person being penetrated. This is why the gay community has higher incidents and also why women are more likely to be transmission victims from a polyamorous man than a man being infected through the conduct of a polyamorous woman. --DHeyward (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well ok, yes, the chances of someone holding open wounds together is rare but let's look at a more likely scenario. Oral sex with an open wound in the mouth or on the lips. That must happen alot but you don't really hear of hiv being transmitted this way. Why not? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:25F3:6D6E:4020:6AA9 (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Physics. For women to be infected, there must be some penetration and an exchange of infected fluids. The vaginal wall is susceptible (much more so than through the skin of the penis). The main sexual transmission routes are through ejaculate from an infected male. I believe the main spread of infection where women are the carrier is to their children. They can transmit it sexually but that number is dwarfed by men transmitting it through sex. --DHeyward (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:25F3:6D6E:4020:6AA9: [19] has a thorough discussion about ways of infection, and the difficulty of quantifying the rate of infection, among other research pitfalls. In summary: deep cuts or infected injuries are more dangerous than just an injure. And it's difficult to isolate cases of oral sex that exclude other forms of intercourse. It's still plausible to get infected, it's just a (much) lower risk. --Scicurious (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This [20] while coming from a source for people living with HIV/AIDS says similar so perhaps not unbiased, says similar and also discusses penetrative (although most of what you mentioned would apply to both anyway). I think another key point although not really mentioned in either source, is that while the risk of HIV appears to be quite low, the risk of some other STIs is high enough that few health authorities are going to suggest protection isn't neessary. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was stated that HIV is killed by exposure to air, but there is concern that it might persist long enough on the surface of a glucometer to be spread between patients. See a CDC guide on use of blood sugar monitoring equipment. Even when a fresh lancet is used for each person,somehow contamination of a shared meter can spread blood-borne pathogens such as Hepatitis B, hepatitis C virus, and HIV, Typical meters are not made to be sterilized. The FDA says"For blood glucose meters, the primary viruses of concern for bloodborne pathogen transmission between multiple patients are human Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). However, due to its robust nature, HBV is the most common virus in the observed outbreaks to date" and that if a meter is to be used for more than one person, it must be certified as being capable of being sterilized. The FDA also says "70% ethanol solutions are not effective against viral bloodborne pathogens and the use of 10% bleach solutions may lead to physical degradation of your device." The meter is not actually ever in contact with the patient in normal use; just a test strip and a single use lancet. Somehow there is transfer, and there have been numerous cases of hepatitis transmission among patients in nursing homes via testing equipment. Edison (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
November 5
Does this concept describe virtual reality, or does it describe 3-D movies?
I'm writing a sci-fi story. Here is a concept I'm describing:
"If someone wanted to visit Hawaii without leaving home, that person could still see Hawaii, but first, the person's eyes would have to be covered with two displays (one for the right eye and one for the left eye), each display showing live action moving images (one for the right eye and one for the left eye) of life, like, someone at home could be able to see, for example, Hawaiians surfing. The image of the right eye and the left eye combine to form a single image."
I don't know what my concept is an example of, though. One person told me I was describing virtual reality. Another person told me I was describing 3-D movies. I don't really know the difference between virtual reality and 3-D movies. So is my concept an example of virtual reality or 3-D movies? VRtrooper (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your technology (variations of which exist, I should mention, so it's not altogether sci-fi) shares elements of both 3-D displays and virtual reality. The relevant articles you are going to want to look at are Stereopsis, binocular vision, virtual reality and 3D film. In short, in normal vision, the human visual system constructs a three-dimensional representation of the surrounding environment by comparing two essentially 2D image maps formed by stimuli acting upon the retina of each eye. The thing is, the pattern recognition capabilities of the brain are such that it can extract a three-dimensional representation even from a two-dimensional projection (hence the effect of a regular television or cinema screen and numerous forms of optical illusion). 3-D movie technology attempts to augment this perception by introducing more depth to the image it projects and allowing one to adjust their angle of perception to the stimuli. This can be accomplished in numerous ways; perhaps the most common in the history of 3D-cinema is to form a 2D projection to which the color has been altered in such a way that, when the viewer wears glasses with two lenses that filter different wavelengths of light, each eye is given a somewhat different set of stimuli, even if each is focused on largely the same point in space. The effect leverages binocular vision and allows for the perception of depth from an image which actually consists of optical stimuli on a flat plane. Depending on how your headset was designed, it could leverage similar effects, though probably through different mechanisms than colour filtration. In any event, any headset displaying a visual representation of a simulated or pre-recorded environment which the user could interactively engage with would be considered a form of virtually reality, which is basically defined by that form of interactivity. Snowlet's rap 06:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a 3D movie and virtual reality is that in the latter you get to decide where to go. That's why the latter is a "reality" rather than just a 3D image. I don't think that wearing a headset or using inertial sensors or even having 3D is actually a requirement of virtual reality, since people have been using the term loosely for a very long time (and hey, your virtual avatar might be a Cyclops! Come to think of it, having the people with old/simple equipment appear as cyclopes would explain their uncoordinated blundering, and just be kind of cute), but certainly some would insist on it. Wnt (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fuzzy line between 3D video and true Virtual Reality. In a 3D movie (or TV), the display covers some area of a wall of the room - and appears as a "window" into a 3D virtual world. In the ideal of VR, you have a StarTrek-like "holodeck" which is indistinguishable from reality...but our present technology is far from being that good. With a typical VR headset, there is also a 'head tracker' - a device that measures where your head is pointing - the computer figures out where your head is pointing, then generates pictures that are both 3D *and* representative of the virtual world you're standing in. The effect is that no matter where you look, what you see is the virtual world. With 3D TV/Movies, when you look away from the screen, all you see is the wall of the real room that you're in. The effect can be quite convincing with very high end VR equipment - but on cheaper consumer-grade devices, it's more of a novelty than a convincingly "real" experience. Beyond that, you can add various control devices that also track the position of your hands, perhaps individual fingers even...and perhaps also your feet - so that when you look at your hands through the VR goggles, you see computer-graphics hands that are in the right place. This stepwise approach to making more and more real effects can include things like little balloons mounted into the fingers of gloves that the computer can inflate and deflate to give you a feeling of 'touch' when you grasp a virtual object...these are in no way convincing, but they allow a lot more subtle control in the virtual world. I've worked on systems that attempted to add smells and other effects such as wind blowing in your face, etc, etc. SteveBaker (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go, would you like to buy him some companionship? Actually, don't; one will very likely try to eat the other, but this newest image/phenotype does seem to suggest that your specimen is likely to be a variant of Holconia immanis, or a very closely related species. Snowlet's rap 08:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Age of the Universe
I read that the Universe is c. 13 Billion years old, and that our Sun is c. 4.6 Billion years old. I also understand that there are Suns/Stars that are c.10 Billion years old. Considering the time taken to form suns, followed by planetary solar systems, and the time taken to form Galaxies, and that the death of a star is where (I am informed) the heavier elements are distributed, the relative lifespan of the Universe and Stars appear not to make sense. Explanation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.134.38.231 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The death of a star only causes heavy elements to be distributed if the star dies in a supernova explosion. The stars that undergo these explosions are very large ones. But the larger a star is, the less time it lives. The very large stars that become supernovas do not last billions of years, but much less, perhaps only 10 million years. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The article Stellar population explains a bit more. The oldest star whose age is fairly certain is SM0313: at about 13 billion years old, it's nearly the same age as the universe. However, it's a "K dwarf" – fairly small and cold compared to, say, the sun. Supergiants and hypergiants, which are the really big and hot stars, only live a few million years. There have been many generations of supermassive stars blasting metals throughout the galaxy. Smurrayinchester 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since certain heavier elements catalyse fusion processes, earlier stars (in particular population III stars), which are poor in metals (in the astronomy sense), start fusion slower and at higher densities, thus allowing stars to become a lot larger before ignition, when radiation pressure clears the environment and accretion stops. Thus, population III stars are hypothesised to have been, on average, very large, and hence short-lived. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per Stellar population, the idea is that early on, it was easy to form huge stars that supernovaed fast. These burst into supernovae and salted the galaxies with heavy elements. Even so, the older stars are more metal-poor than the new stars, because the process continues. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW when people here say "metal" they don't mean an actual metal, but rather any element heavier (i.e. more protons) than helium. So carbon and oxygen are "metals" in this context. Ariel. (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Hepatitis_A#Treatment. In short, forever. Hepatitis A cannot be cured, only its symptoms managed. --Jayron32 16:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: That article says 1-3 weeks in children, 2-6 months in adults. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the length of time the disease infects you, that's the time the symptoms are evident. The disease "flares up" for periods, and goes into remisssion for periods. A person is not cured of the disease merely because the symptoms have subsided for a time. --Jayron32 19:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hepatitis A is a self limiting disease that resolves on its own without any specific treatment in ~6 months. After that it is actually "cured" in sense that virus has completely disappeared from the body. The resolution results in life-long immunity. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I was confusing it with it's more chronic cousins, like Hepatitis C. Mea culpa. --Jayron32 20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I think Jayron2 may be getting confused with Hepatitis B and C (and perhaps some of the others). Both of these can result in chronic conditions. See Viral hepatitis and [26]. Hepatitis A does not (see the earlier refs) and nor is it a retrovirus which integrates in to the genome or have a long term latency phase (like say the varicella zoster virus). So once it's gone (which as was said may in some cases be 6 months or even a year), it's gone. Kariskwilson's point below is also relevant, there's not that much you can do to treat the symptoms or to speed up recovery beyond the basics (including those related to the symptoms like avoiding overtaxing the liver), and waiting for your own immune system to fight off the infection and body to recover from the symptoms. (As to whether to say you're "cured" this is to some extent a matter of semantics. Are you "cured" of a cold or flu? And in those cases you can I think have a greater effect on the symptoms.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hepatitis A can not be cured. In summary the definition of "cured" means to relieve symptoms of something in some way. The exact definition can be found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cure. Also, the condition and effect of the disease can be lessened with medication and giving the body or the liver time to rest From things like medication or alcohol. sources and more information about what I have provided for you can be found on the following websites. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hepatitis-a/basics/treatment/con-20022163. there is no specific medication that can cure this disease but there are different thing that are natural things you can try and medication that will help in the healing process. The source for this information and more information I what I've written can be found at http://www.emedicinehealth.com/hepatitis_a/page7_em.htm.Kariskwilson (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Hepatitis A can be prevented with the Hepatitis A vaccine. Get it if you can, unless you know you have immunity. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see your healthcare provider. If you do not already have Hep A, (as well as Hep B) you can get vaccinated. The test and the vaccination were both free for me, since the insurance company would rather prevent it than deal with the sequelae. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been indeffed for troling
Where can I get information about the the rotation degrees of the Atlas around the axis?
I've searched many articles and I didn't find. I just want to know how many degrees is ability of the atlas to rotate around the axis dent. 78.111.187.141 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What 'Atlas' do you mean? This or may be this? Both cam rotate around an axis. Ruslik_Zero 20:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finasteride inhibits 5 Alpha Reductase (5 AR) which is responsible for converting Testosterone to DHT which inturn is responsible for male pattern baldness. How much 5 AR does 1 mg Finasteride inhibit ? 5 AR converts 5% of Testosterone to DHT so if we increase Testosterone through sexual indulgence, exercise etc... we will be providing more facility for increase in DHT right ? So if 1mg Finasteride reduces 5 AR by x amount then the remaining (v-x) amount of 5 AR will still convert T into DHT and the amount of T increased by some activity or the other will still produce enough DHT to attack hair follicles right ? Please do give a quantitaive explanation if possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.101.24.136 (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It gets complicated. I was going to go through according to the IC50, but it's more complicated than that - there's a Type I 5alpha reductase and a Type II. [27] It inhibits Type II, which produces 2/3 the testosterone, 100x better than type I. So a practical dose is probably, approximately, going to block a bit under 2/3 the testosterone production. But there's some tissue specificity - same paper says the prostatic DHT drops 90% with that treatment, so apparently DHT isn't in equilibrium throughout the body. So the type II that takes it in the shorts is prostate, seminal vesicle, epidydimis, hair follicle; the type I is in scalp sebum gland, liver, muscle, brain. The IC50 according to this is 5.9 nM in prostate, 310 nM in scalp. But then there's turnover ... takes two weeks for the enzyme to recover... and note the rodent results and human are different...
In reality, this is very much going to be settled empirically, not theoretically. Whatever dose is determined to work for a particular application with tolerable side effects is what people will use. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're awfully interested in male-pattern baldness. Have you actually read our article? The only lifestyle factors with a well-demonstrated link to promoting male-pattern baldness are being overweight/obese, sedentary lifestyle, and chronic stress. So avoid those, which you should do for a million other reasons anyway. I'm getting a vibe of "I'm planning to take drugs without a doctor's recommendation because I think they will prevent hair loss", which is definitely a thing you should not do. If there is something else you're trying to learn, how about just asking it straight out instead of a bunch of vague questions about testosterone and drugs and hair follices? --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith - the question is just interesting. It's interesting to see transgenders talk about it - there are probably biological insights to be learned regarding their inability to regrow the lost hair or the question of whether gynecomastia can be separated from it. I'd also love to see more research into He Shou Wu, despite occasional trouble with it. Still, a good rule for human biology is Don't be the science project. Let somebody else be the science project and watch what happens. :) Wnt (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for that, or is it pure speculation ? StuRat (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have thought I was you for a second. this turns up no significant cross section of information about the two random facts noted by the OP. I can't even find anyone aside from the OP who has proposed that there could be a connection. --Jayron32 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's almost certainly no data on this - and in biology, if you don't have the data, you really don't know the answer. I'd bet money it's coincidence, but no more than I could comfortably lose. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Correlation does not imply causationnecessarily. However identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false, so according to Popper we must admit the OP's alternative bold hypotheses to scientific investigation:
More than the two samples collected by the OP will be needed to lend more confidence to A or to B than already exists in the
null hypothesis: !A AND !B
The latter predicts that wider sampling under controlled conditions will yield a standard Cauchy distribution which is the distribution of a random variable that is the ratio of two independentstandard normal variables and has the probability density function
That math is great, but the math that matters is your odds of getting a Golden Fleece Award in the improbable event you actually get a research grant to study homoromantic asexual men. I am not expecting data soon. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone, for helping me out! :) And too bad the second commentator was anonymous, because that website was hilarious! Theskinnytypist (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about:
Hypothesis C: both are caused by some as yet unknown factor? (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course Hypothesis D: there is no connection, correlation, or causation between the two at all. The null hypothesis should be the default stance for any proposition. People can propose any two random facts, like "Do more people born on Tuesday have blue eyes". Unless and until evidence is presented which would support the proposition, the null hypothesis should be the default and standard answer to the proposition, without need for further proof. --Jayron32 16:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do feces contain more dangerous bacteria than vomit?
They have both been in the stomach and exposed to digestive bacteria so why do feces contain more? ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stomach contains few if any bacteria. Your stomach is filled with acid partly in order to kill pathogens that might come in. Only a few acid-resistant bacteria can survive the environment, one notable species being Helicobacter pylori, which causes most ulcers. Your gut flora live mostly in the large intestine. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that the gut is actually designed to grow bacteria (people depend on vitamins they generate). And the contents have had longer to grow bacteria, wanted or unwanted, at the far end. And the bacteria have evolved to spread via feces, not via vomiting, because usually they go out the rear. (Fecal-oral route) Wnt (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Designed? Bazza (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
November 6
Is it possible to say that one dimensional is one axis?
Is it possible to say that one dimensional is one axis? (doesn't matter if it's X,Y,Z). if it's right, how can it be, here is also there are length and width. I don't understand it and I would like to get explanation about it.78.111.187.209 (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can say that. One Dimension, is One Axis. When you have two dimensions, you also have two axes. They go together. Explain more about what you don't understand. Ariel. (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can say anything you want, but if you have an axis, you must have a rotation. You need at least two dimensions for a rotation to work... In two dimensions, an axis would be a point. In three it's a line. In one it's... impossible. --Jayron32 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jayron32 is using the word "axis" to mean "an axis of rotation," while Ariel is using it to mean a geometric representation of a basis vector. There are many usages of the word "axis" in mathematics and other disciplines; it is not clear to which the original question is referring. Nimur (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes. Brain no makee the smart thots. I go sleepy now. be better tomorrow. --Jayron32 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I have an immense number of slow neutrinos is a huge ball in space, so many neutrinos in one place that interactions are frequent, but not energetic enough to escape the gravity of this neutrino [not neutron] star. Does that star have a temperature? Is so, what happens to blackbody radiation? If I drop some matter into this star it seems to me it would transfer some heat energy between itself and the neutrinos. Is this star opaque or transparent to light? Are W bosons able to interact with photons? Would that be enough to give it blackbody radiation? Ariel. (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You present an interesting scenario. Neutrinos are not believed to interact electromagnetically, so they do not emit or absorb light. So the "star" would be transparent. Light is the electromagnetic interaction. And this is easy to demonstrate: Look Around You! Trillions of neutrinos are blasting through you every second, but you don't see them. They're constantly being produced by the fusion reactions in the Sun. And the neutrino flux doesn't change with time of day, since neutrinos just go right through the Earth. As for the W and Z bosons, if I'm understanding the article correctly, the W bosons interact electromagnetically but the Z doesn't. But, these bosons' half-lives are so incredibly short that I'm pretty sure you'd never notice any macroscopic effect. They're more massive than iron atoms! Now I'd like to think about your scenario a little more. Neutrinos have such a tiny mass that I'm not sure they'd have any appreciable gravitational interaction. If I'm right, they wouldn't be in a bound state, so it wouldn't really be a star, just a big unbound cloud. But I'm not a physicist so I could certainly be wrong about this. And I'm not sure if taking general relativity into account changes anything. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A gravitationally bound cloud of neutrinos is possible in principle. It would be similar to an ideal gas or a photon gas (photons also barely interact with each other), and it would likewise have a temperature. Neutrinos do interact with photons (via charged virtual particles) but extremely weakly. I don't know if it would be possible to pack neutrinos densely enough to be opaque without their collapsing into a black hole. A blackbody by definition absorbs all incoming radiation. An opaque neutrino cloud (if such a thing is possible) would be a blackbody and would radiate according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law, but an almost transparent neutrino cloud would emit almost no light. -- BenRG (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thought experiment though not sure that neutrinos could be bound by their own gravitational force. To wit, the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way seems to be emitting neutrinos. It's not unreasonable to speculate a consequence of gravity is neutrino/anti-neutrino production. That kind of makes it look like neutrinos would work like anti-gravity which is another weird thought experiment. It would be kind of satisfying if dark matter were neutrinos trying to spread out gravity. --DHeyward (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this one but it describes production during shock waves, high energy events ... notantigravity :) Wnt (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the what makes it weird. A condensing cloud of low energy neutrinos due to gravity creates black hole and starts emitting high energy neutrinos. That's kind of a backlash against gravity. "anti-gravity" if you will as it evaporates. Probably a whole slew of laws would need rewriting. --DHeyward (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
brain vs computer damage
I understand that depriving someone of oxygen will cause unconsciousness, but why does it cause permanent brain damage?
After all, if you unplug a computer, its battery will run out, but it won't suffer permanent damage. 203.45.134.227 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The brain starts to die, because without oxygen your brain cells can't produce enough energy to stay alive. See hypoxia (medical) and cerebral hypoxia. The brain is very energy-hungry (an adult human's brain accounts for about 25% of the body's energy demands), so the brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. To examine your analogy, our brains don't have any permanent storage akin to a hard drive or flash memory, that stays as-is without using energy. Living cells constantly need to expend energy. In the vein of your computer analogy, you could say the brain is all CPU and RAM. And to be a little pedantic, computers can suffer damage from loss of power. If nothing else you lose any data that hasn't been written to permanent storage. This can be especially bad if it leaves the file system in an inconsistent state. Ever seen a message telling you not to shut off your computer, like while installing operating system updates? Modern file systems use techniques like journaling and copy-on-write to make catastrophic file system corruption less likely. And, hard drives these days tend to be more fault-tolerant, but in years past it wasn't unheard of for hard drives to be physically damaged or destroyed from a head crash after a sudden power loss. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good description. I would add that most machines are designed to be able to be shut completely off, but complex animals can't do this and survive. The closest complex animals come is hibernation and hypothermia. Plants and some simple animals seem more able to go dormant for long periods. There's seeds and bulbs in the case of plants, and some insects and spiders may be able to do something similar. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't only simple animals; some mammals can survive long periods of hibernation at very cold temperatures: The Arctic ground squirrel can survive conditions where its internal body temperature is below the freezing point of water (the body itself doesn't freeze solid because the body isn't pure water, it's pretty salty, see Freezing-point depression) --Jayron32 13:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apoptosis is a frequent contributor to brain injury, and often it seems like the death really doesn't "need" to happen. See [28] for information, including various ways in which some of the damage can be prevented. As I recall xenon stood out - even if given after the injury. But necrosis is a feature of some of the damage, so it's not like there's a magic bullet in that regard. Wnt (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak points in/of a human body
I wish to learn about all the weak point(s) in/of a human body; from head to toe. Does anybody know? Illustrations with summaries would be helpful. -- Space Ghost (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd need a better pointer as to what you want to know. For instance hair is fairly strong when pulled but pretty weak if you push two ends towards each other or if you bend it. And I believe it is stronger when pulled than a fiber of nylon but weaker than a thin wire of good steel. I think my brain would be pretty weak if taken out and poked too. Dmcq (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the pictures . Thank you! -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where can you find whole grains?
Commercial bread contains carcinogenic preservatives or is very expensive and not very tasty. Rice is full of arsenic. You can eat only so much whole-grain pasta. 69.22.242.15 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grow your own wheat, rice, and pasta? 140.254.136.179 (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few articles on choosing good whole grain products: [29][30]. --Jayron32 13:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you will escape periodic table. It's true that industry can concentrate certain bad things in areas where they weren't concentrated before but many places have natural background variations of carcinogens that simply exist. "Natural spring water" for example can exceed EPA safe limits for many elements without ever being touched by humans. Lead, arsenic, mercury, uranium etc, etc, all exist naturally and often near water sources necessary for agriculture. But why "Whole grains?" Humans don't seem particularly suited to eat whole grains without processing of some type and became dietary for economic reasons. We seem more naturally suited to eat fruits, vegetables and vertebrates. --DHeyward (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whole grains contain higher amount of dietary fiber; its indigestibility IS its main positive trait. Also, whole grains contain bran, which besides the dietary fiber contains other nutrients not available in more processed grains; the processing can remove these nutrients, and lower the amount of dietary fiber. --Jayron32 16:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STD Transmission
Why do health educators say that abstinence provides 100% protection and at the same time they say that, even if a person does not engage in sexual activities, has never had sexual contact or a kiss on the lips, has never had organ transplant or blood transfusion, has not shared needles with others, has no congenital STDs, has never shared clothing, etc., as having a very low risk of STD? "A very low risk of STD" is not 100%, which implies that even if a person is abstinent all his life, he may still have an STD out of the blue or some kind of occupational needle-stick injury? I notice that if pathogens can be transmitted by aerosol or water or food, then somehow it is not considered an STD? If those are not considered STDs, what is the reason behind the "very low risk" as opposed to saying "no risk at all unless you have a freak accident or an occupational needlestick injury"? 140.254.136.179 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a source where a medical professional or professional body or health educator has stated that there is a low risk of an STD for a non-sexually active person?--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Few babies are sexually active, but may get an STD from their mother either in utero or during the birth process. See vertically transmitted infection and HIV and pregnancy. So, obviously, you can get STDs through non-sexual means. Abstinence is only considered 100% effective if you're only considering STDs that are literally being transmitted during sex - sexual abstinence would not stop you from getting HIV from a dirty needle either. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, you can kiss even if you are abstinent. Kissing carries a non-zero risk of transmitting disease. Second, STDs are "infections that are commonly spread by sex" (italics by me) as our article Sexually transmitted infection says. It's still called that even if it's transmitted in a non-sexual way, much like the common cold doesn't become an STD if somebody gets it through sexual contact.
Phil, CDC says that abstinence protects against STDs. I don't think anyone questions that the risk generally is low for non-sexually active adults (with exceptions, such as IV drug users). Sjö (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is one of those self evident things that gets blown out of proportion. If you never commit any activity which could ever bring you into contact with those infectious agents, you never get the infectious agents. Of course, the discussion over passing STIs via non-sexual contact is a different discussion, but lets put that aside for a second. If (I know this is never true, but pretend it is true for the discussion), If a specific disease is ONLY passed on through sexual relations, then if a person never has sexual relations, the NEVER get the disease. That's how concepts like "ONLY" and "NEVER" work. In logic, this is called the Logical conjunction: A person can become infected only if a) they have sexual contact with b) a person who is themselves infected. Since a person only has complete knowledge of option (a) (whether or not they have sexual contact), that's the only thing they have control over. The actual discussion over whether or not that is true as to whether STIs can be passed by non-sexual contact is not relevant to the message being delievered for the purpose being delivered. From a public health standpoint, reducing preventable infections is a basic goal. If the message "If you don't have sex, you don't get infected" reduces infections by stopping people from having risky sex, that's why its stated that way; it's also accurate enough, at least within significant figures when comparing the infection rates of people who get STIs from non-sexual sources, that is while the numbers are not zero, the numbers are both a) low enough that they don't much affect the overall percentage of total STIs and 2) not readily preventable by behavioral modification. This article mentions non-sexual transmission methods, but does not go into statistical details. It does, however, contain links to articles which do. This article notes that the risk of catching HPV infections outside of sexual intercourse is about 11.6%, much higher than most STIs, but that still means eliminating sexual activity reduces your risk of catching it by an order of magnitude. this rather long article also has some information on infection rates and infection pathways for various STIs. --Jayron32 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I'm not sure Phil is questioning the risk is low. I think Phil is querying whether health authorities say the risk is low instead of saying there is no risk. But as you said, the risk is low is the correct assessment. I would also note that I don't think many health authorities refer to someone who "has never shared clothing, etc" anyway. Probably even the kissing on lips doesn't generally come up. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as I mentioned (and just to clarify the thesis, just because it may get lost) the issue is "Where is the message coming from and for what purpose." Since the message is coming from public health officials, the purpose is to reduce rates of infections. Public health officials have identified sexual behavior as a major vector for these diseases, and are making statements to alter behavior so as to lower transmission rates. There's a difference here between statements made by public health officials who are trying to get people to change behavior, and research scientists who are trying to find verifiable statistics. While the latter certainly informs the former, the actual statements they make have different purposes. --Jayron32 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's always something. Dentists who don't clean their equipment. Tattoo parlors. Getting shot and the bullet goes through someone with HIV on its way to you. (Well, honestly, I don't know if that one works :) ) Sharp edge on a railing. There's always something... you have to be creative to come up with a whole list of ideas, but nature is more creative than that. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of tallest elevators?
Hello Wikipedia Reference Desk:
I am looking for a list of the world's tallest elevators. I have only been able to find our list of tallest buildings in the world; but most of these buildings have complex elevator systems; it is not generally true that the taller buildings have taller individual elevator shafts. Furthermore, there are a handful of sophisticated elevators in the mining industry, freight transport, and other more esoteric applications that dwarf the elevators of many modern skyscrapers.
Is this eclectic information organized anywhere on Wikipedia, or should I start engaging with the folks at Talk:Elevator?
(I am aware that Shanghai Tower reputedly contains the tallest - rather, the furthest-travel - at some 580 meters... I'm looking to qualify and compare that factoid in context).
This looks like it has some promising leads. It led me to This which claims to have information on the tallest elevators on Earth. --Jayron32 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wow. I was surprised modern elevators still use cables. --DHeyward (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do chemists tend to memorize solubility guidelines?
The textbook I have says "Unfortunately, there are no rules based on simple physical properties such as ionic charge to guide us in predicting whether a particular ionic compound will be soluble or not." and there is a table of soluble ionic compounds with lines such as "chlorides, bromides, and iodides are soluble except in compounds with Ag+, Hg2+, and Pb2+" and "sulfates are soluble except in compounds with Sr2+, Ba2+, Hg2+, and Pb2+". There is another table of insoluble compounds with a list of exceptions, but you get the point. Is this information generally memorized by most people whose job title includes the word "chemist"? 20.137.7.64 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they have to pass an exam about it, but compounds like silver chloride, mercury iodide and strontium sulfate are entities that people who are even not officially chemists start to become familiar with. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, chemists know those general guidelines. Every chemist I know knows the basic solubility rules. Of course, if chemists really want to know solubility in a quantitative way (that is, the exact solubility of a substance at a given set of conditions) they look it up somewhere. The solubility rules are really a heuristic taught to high school and first-year college chemistry students to remember which ionic compounds tend to be soluble, and which tend to not be, based on general patterns and trends. As soon as someone is on the path towards being a professional chemist, they learn the more detailed aspects of solubility (such as the role of Coulomb's law, the details of solute-solvent interactions, solubility product, etc. etc.) Just like you can still sing the "ABC song" even though you probably were taught it as a child, Chemists would still all pretty much know and understand that all halide salts except silver, mercury, or lead are fairly water soluble, and similar guidelines. The main utility of those rules, for what it's worth, is not in actually making solutions from first principles, like dumping solids into water and stirring them until they dissolve. The purpose of learning those guidelines is to be able to predict the results of precipitation reactions. In simplest terms, YES every chemist knows those rules, because they all learned them as a step along the way of their education. Many chemists would use more quantitative calculations and principles (like solubility product) on their actual jobs, but they don't undergo some elaborate "memory erasing" technique to forget their high school chemistry classes. --Jayron32 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (OP, different IP) I was pretty much wondering if this table's worth of information was worth expending the effort to hard commit to memory. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone ever installed a swimming pool on an aircraft?
Has there ever been a plane with a swimming pool on board? I mean a working plane that can still fly, and a pool big enough to actually swim a little before you hit the other end. I've heard of jacuzzis on private jets, and the Evergreen Museum Waterpark in Oregon that has water slides built through a retired 747, but not an actual airborne pool. 94.12.76.44 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking [31] which gets " the U.S. Forest Service will get 22 military aircraft — seven HC-130HHercules air tankers and 15 C-23BSherpa cargo planes ". Whether a tank is a swimming pool is kind of subjective... because airlines change attitude, the notion of one surrounded by a nice flat tile area to sunbathe on is problematic! Looks like Lockheed HC-130 and Short C-23 Sherpa are the articles for those. The former holds 45,000 kg = 45,000 liters; the latter is only a tenth that according to the articles. So think 20 dm x 20 dm x 115 dm = 2 m x 2 m x 11.5 m, I think, assuming nothing else on board? That's a fair swim lane, I suppose... Wnt (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hadn't thought of firefighting planes, but now that you mentioned them it reminds me of the old story about the scuba diver caught in a water scoop[32]... luckily not true! 94.12.76.44 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to do this safely (for an actually swimmable pool), because the water would be subject to the free surface effect. The normal mitigations to this (breaking the volume up into multiple compartments, or having baffles or honeycombing inside the tanks) wouldn't be viable for a pool (I guess one could have a pool where the baffles were removed when the aircraft was on the ground - but that seems like even more work). I can't find much info about the tankage of firefighting airtankers, but this patent for the Bombardier 415 talks about baffling for its tanks (i.e. it's not one big volume of free water). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it has been done yet. This article notes that a Saudi Prince once asked Airbus to install one on his airplane, and they flatly refused. Several other sources note that it's never happened before; there's been rumors, but no one has ever actually built a full-fledged swimming pool on any airplane. The closest I could find was this article which notes that the Airbus Beluga is big enough to house one, but not that anyone actually ever installed one. --Jayron32 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. If someone basically richer than God asked Airbus directly and they said it can't be done, I guess that answers my question. But does it take a certain minimum volume of water for the free surface effect to be significant, or could it build to a dangerous level even in a large jacuzzi? If jacuzzis deal with it by really fast drainage controlled from the flight deck, presumably that could work for a bigger pool too if it had enough pumps. 94.12.76.44 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
. Thank you! -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
![[22]](http://www.findaspider.org.au/find/spiders/images/402C10.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://www.findaspider.org.au/find/spiders/images/402E10.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](http://www.findaspider.org.au/find/spiders/images/402B10.jpg){kind=link}