Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 18

circuit breaker

I was looking at my fuse panel[1] but couldn't figure what the rating of each circuit breaker is. I see the voltage but can't seem to find the amperage. Am I blind or is the amperage not written anywhere on the circuit breaker? Mũeller (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(Google is your friend here; just start throwing text from the label into the search bar.) They appear to be Merlin Gerin miniature circuit breakers. The model/type number is C45N, and the amperage is 10 amps (leftmost, 'C10' designation) or 16 amps (the others, 'C16'). The 'C' refers to the type of overload that will trip the breaker and indicates that it is designed for conventional, general-purpose loads. See here, describing some related products. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What type and where is the service? --DHeyward (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything immediately above the abbreviation AMP that's repeated above each breaker? --69.159.60.147 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How fast could a specialized company produce generic drugs on demand?

I recently read an article that some drugs are mighty expensive in the US even though the patents have expired years ago because there is only one manufacturer for making drugs for such rare deseases. So I was wondering, in these days of crowdsourcing and on-demand, how hard it would be to manufacture drugs on demand. Say you are a pharmaceutical company and have a state-of-the-art factory and laboratory. I call you one day because I need albendazole to treat a hookworm infection. How fast could you create some pills for me to treat the infection if all you had was access to the patent? (PS: If someone starts a crowdfounding pharmaceutical company that produces pills on demand after reading this question, they agree to pay me 1% of their earnings and give me credit for the idea ). Regards SoWhy 13:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In the U.S., or any other country with regulation of pharmaceuticals, a while, because before you are able to legally sell the drug you need regulatory approval. In the U.S., for a generic drug this involves submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application. Note (as stated in the article) this involves conducting a clinical trial to establish that your drug is equivalent to the original. While we're on the U.S., it's illegal to import medications into the U.S. unless you have FDA approval to sell the medication, so your hypothetical company can't legally just import albendazole from a foreign manufacturer and sell it in the U.S.; you would still need to submit the ANDA. Here's a PBS story discussing this. (Although it's technically illegal for individuals in the U.S. to import medications for their own use, the government looks the other way as long as you have a prescription, if it's a prescription drug, and it's a reasonable quantity for personal use, which is why there are a bunch of Canadian pharmacies making online sales to U.S. residents.) The price issue in the U.S. is because the U.S. doesn't have price control mechanisms for medications, unlike most developed countries. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the Canadian government subsidize those cheap drugs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In a very broad sense, pharmaceutical drugs are less expensive in Canada compared to the US not because of government subsidies, but rather because of government price controls. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Price controls typically lead to shortages, especially if foreigners are buying them. How do they get around that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In Australia the price of prescription drugs is regulated and prices have been falling since I've need them. i get my blood pressure meds for about $15 now, they were $32 12 years ago. Greglocock (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation? It's called Econ 101. See [[Supply and demand]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Once all the R&D is done, the marginal cost of producing a given drug is very low, and below any reasonably-regulated price (and hence the elasticity of the supply is almost zero). Hence already-developed drugs will not be in shortage by that process; the R&D is a sunk cost at the moment the manufacturer must decide to produce or not. (However, drug companies may decide not to develop new drugs, anticipating a regulated price below the breakeven cost.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In the U.S. I don't pay more than $5 for 30 days supply of generics ramipril or carvidolol from Walgreens. Prices have also come down. My cost is significantly less than the copay ($10) indicating the medication is very inexpensive. The problem with price controls is that for medications that are regulated outside of demand, there will be no incentive to make. No company is going to make a drug that costs more to make than the price controlled selling point. The only way to overcome it is with subsidies but that destroys the logic of price controls in the first place. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm aware of the regulatory hurdles but my question was more of a theoretical one. Assuming those regulations did not exist or getting certification was a matter of minutes (just checking whether your manufactured drug contains the same active ingredients or something like that), how quickly could you actually produce those pills? Regards SoWhy 08:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As fast as your machine could make them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a bounded enough question. The sophistication of the required process will vary greatly between medications. Tooling up for a specific medication so that you have the capability of making a single unit can be time consuming and expensive. Single unit capability is least amount of material and equipment needed. Pharma companies are very aware of the barrier to entry cost and plan pricing accordingly. When there is only a single "high priced" source for a rare, patent-expired medication, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's priced at a point that prevents other companies from getting into the market. If that were not the case, drug makers around the world would try to capitalize on it. After you have the capability to make at least one unit, follow on orders might be faster. Illegal pill mills for MDMA and illicitly manufactured fentanyl have everything including pill presses that replicate the pharmaceutical markings. The replica pills are good enough the law enforcement now sends medications to be tested rather than rely on markings and people are dying from a fentanyl analogue overdose when they think they are taking oxycodone. Those illicit labs seem to be able to ramp up quickly after they get the recipe down and precursor chems are available. If the precursor is something like unicorn tears, it's obviously a much more difficult, time consuming and expensive problem. --DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In Britain drugs used by National Health are assessed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The drugs are sold at a standard price on prescriptions but the actual cost to the National Health can vary - it can even be cheaper. If a drug is very expensive or not too useful then NICE may simply say it is not overall worthwhile and any use has to be by private medicine. In other cases it will encourage the use of generic drugs by doctors to cut prices. They're quite keen to get medicines cheaper by any means as saying they won't supply a drug because of cost can lead to bad publicity. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In freer countries like the People's Republic of China there is a substantial business in custom drug syntheses.[2][3][4] The New York Times links http://www.guidechem.com/ http://www.cecchem.com/ and http://www.qjy168.com/ as examples. The U.S.-based coverage generally focuses on their willingness to do syntheses of relatively new substances that have not yet been banned (which is obviously criminal!) or in some cases actually has been, and so they still talk about months separating the request for a synthesis from delivery. I don't know how quickly they could respond with a genuinely new chemical not used as an illicit drug; I'd guess something quick might be possible. Bear in mind that there are obvious trade-offs that would be involved - the NYT says a site advertises GC purification and ">99% purity" (the second part of which actually is not a very reassuring guarantee!) but obviously that purification would increase the lead time. Wnt (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Project lifecycle

Why does the Network Rail Governance for Rail Investment Projects (GRIP) have more stages in the earlier parts of the project lifecycle, compared to other similar frameworks such as RIBA or OGc? 82.132.228.171 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Where have you seen that info? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the same London-area user who posted the construction safety question above, they asked about RIBA under the other IP back in April. It doesn't seem they are interested in followups or asking clearly answerable questions. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

December 19

Jumbo jet

Dear Wikipedia. Can a Jumbo jet fly upside down? If so, has this ever been done? Please answer accurately as there is £50 riding on this. And if at all possible by 11.00 pm (which is when the pub closes). Thank you. 86.187.163.251 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Only if Tex Johnston is flying the plane. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Can a Jumbo Jet fly upside down? No. Dolphin (t) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Both Federal Express Flight 705 and United Airlines Flight 93 flew upside down for short periods as violent struggles for control occurred in their cockpits; they were smaller aircraft, not wide-body aircraft, but I see no reason that the larger aircraft couldn't do the same. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I take it back — FEF 705 used a DC-10, which is a jumbo jet. So yes, one hijacker proved that it is possible to fly a jumbo jet upside down, and seeing that he and the crew all survived and landed under control (despite his best efforts), it is proven that it is possible for a jumbo jet to do this without breaking up under stress. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't think a Jumbo (or other passenger aircraft) has flop-tubes in the tanks to continuing feeding fuel to the engines when flying inverted. Aerodynamically though, sure, even a ham-fisted pilot should be able to keep the kite in control -until it hits the ground. So yes, a Jumbo will fly inverted but without power. Aspro (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC) 21:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking more of a large loop or barrel roll which will keep positive g. Greglocock (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To do a barrel roll, press Z or R twice! --47.157.122.192 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well maybe a bit...

"Goodrich, a 32-year pilot - first with the Air Force, then with Delta Air Lines -- trained pilots to fly MD-88s, which the movie's (Flight (2012 film)) plane most resembles. During production, Goodrich said he reminded Zemeckis and Washington that "you can turn an airplane like this over, but it's not going to fly like this very long. It's gonna go down." "He looked at me and he said, 'Can it fly upside down for a little bit?' I said, 'Yeah a little bit, but eventually you're gonna lose lift in the wings and you won't have the power to keep the airplane up.'". Can airliners really fly upside down? by Thom Patterson, CNN (January 2013) Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Virtually any plane can fly "upside down" if it can maintain positive G forces and a non-stalling Angle of attack. "Upside down" can still satisfy those requirements. Jumbo jets can do barrel rolls. What they are not good at is recovering from an aerodynamic stall/spin. Acrobatic and military fighter aircraft recover quite well. In addition, the positive G requirement is needed for proper fuel and oil flow.

Recap:' So which way is this £50 bet going to go ? Think it is agreed that even a Jumbo is controllable whilst inverted. Yet, like any other aircraft that is not designed to be fully aerobatic it wont fly like that for very long. There is only 55 minutes left before the UK pub closes at 11' O'clock, so time is of the essence P.S. Contrary to popular belief, even a pig will fly if provided with enough momentum, from being placed in say a Trebuchet. But I must admit, that they have a little bit of trouble taking off unassisted. Aspro (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Some "pigs" can actually take off unassisted, though. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Along those lines, I recall there's a saying among aerospace engineers that "even a brick will fly given sufficient thrust". The Space Shuttle was sometimes called a "flying brick" in its glider mode (re-entry to landing), because it arguably "fell with style" more than it "flew". Shuttle pilots trained to "fly" it in an aircraft with the landing gear down and the engines in reverse, to match the Shuttle's "flight" characteristics. Here's a video on this. Anyway, there isn't really a "right" answer here. Human language is full of ambiguity; you could argue endlessly over the definition of "fly". For "real" disputes along these lines, we rely on a justice system to resolve them. This is why legalese is so stilted: to try to minimize ambiguity. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

December 20

Cognitive task where children were much better than adults

I'm trying to find/remember an scientific article about a task/game were small children outperformed adults by far. It was not learning languages. I think it was something like playing Concentration (game)--Hofhof (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This is probably not it, but there was an episode of Brain Games (National Geographic) in which subjects were asked to do something concerning a board that showed pictures of animals along with their names - the wrong names, I think. That factor messed with the adults' heads. But it didn't bother one subject: a very young girl who hadn't learned how to read yet! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That anecdote is a twist on the Stroop effect. (A common variant is a list of names of colors where each item is printed in the 'wrong' color, e.g. Green Red Blue. The task is to say the color of each word ("red", "green", "orange") and not just read the list.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a much cooler experiment with people that have had their cranial hemispheres bisected along the sagittal plane to treat seizures. Instructions: Say the word and write the word. They have no idea that they wrote something different from what they said. BTW, there's lots of cognitive tests that develop and slow adults down. One has to do with why children often write letters and numbers backward. Adults catch these errors very quickly while children are still applying basic recognition. A "chair" is still a "chair" regardless as to whether the seat is on left of the back or the right. The letter "h" is only an "h" if the seat is on the right. That's a big step in cognition. I have a feeling that in elderly people, it progresses to knowing it's incorrect but unable to identify what is incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a practical & imaginative task/game? Nathan Furr in Forbes describes the Marshmallow Challenge:

"Why Kindergartners Make Better Entrepreneurs than MBAs - As it turns out Tom Wujec has run this same marshmallow experiment hundreds of times and found something interesting patterns. When comparing the performance of different groups, Wujec found that, for all their training, MBAs actually perform the worst on average in building marshmallow towers. Engineers perform moderately well (thank goodness), but which group performs the best? Kindergartners! But why? The reason is quite simple: MBAs want to plan their way to an optimal outcome and then execute on the plan. <snip> In contrast, kindergartners do something much different. Instead of wasting time trying to establish who is in charge or make a plan, they simply experiment over and over until they find a model that works."[5]

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Children are better at instantly recalling numbers displayed on a screen for a fraction of a second than adults. And Chimpanzees are even better at such instant recall tests. Count Iblis (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The claim has indeed been made for the Concentration game [6], but this has more recently been questioned [7]. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Crop rotation

Where do sunflowers fit in in terms of crop rotation? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There are too many other factors for a simple answer - where are you growing them, what else is being grown as well, what technologies and agrichemicals are available. Wymspen (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, suppose you are following a variant of the Norfolk four-course system (cereal crop, root crop, cereal crop, legume crop), in a temperate climate (say, Oregon), with mechanized tillage and harvesting, and using chemical fertilizers, but with minimal herbicide use. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If you Google "sunflowers crop rotation" (without quote marks), there are a lot of references including SUNFLOWER: A Native Oilseed with Growing Markets from Iowa State University. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This pretty much answers my question! Thanks! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for any reliable sources regarding "brainwashed" experiment

I am trying to construct a reliable article (in Hebrew Wikipedia) regarding this rather shocking experiment. I couldn't find any. Google Scholar yielded nothing while looking for it, or finding relevant results regarding Dr. Mark Stokes or Dr. Synthia Meyersburg, the leading scientists behind the experiment. I recall that in the past there was an article here, but it seems it got deleted. Any input is welcome! אילן שמעוני (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Those individuals don't have articles here either. On Google, I see a lot of Mark Stokeses, and a number of Cynthia Meyersburgs, but no Synthia Meyersburg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my results so far. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The Truth: Massacre at Cinema 16 in Aurora Colorado (p. 96) by Steve Unruh (2014), Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency, LLC. ISBN 978-1628570830: "Entitled Brainwashed, the experiment was overseen by Harvard Univeristy's Dr. Cynthia Meyersburg and Oxford University's Dr. Mark Stokes, and certified hypnotherapist Tom Silver and how suggestible they were". Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Also a mention on the Coastal Carolina University website: CCU science professor featured on Discovery Channel program (October 26, 2012). It seems to have been an experiment staged for a TV program rather than pure academic research: Discovery Channel’s Curiosity episode “Brainwashed” disappoints. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

it was an experiment conducted by amateurs supposedly under professionals supervision. While not a scientific experiment per se, exposed to peer reviews, the fact that two scientists did took charge calls for attention. אילן שמעוני (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like pseudo-science. They might just as well have run The Naked Gun movie, where Reggie Jackson is hypnotically "programmed" to kill the queen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless two researchers with academic recognition (both of them, especially Stokes, have reputable, peer-reviewed and cited scientific articles)were willing to put their good reputation to risk, which is not likely, this can not be neither a hoax nor pseudo-science. I am looking for evidence weather it was a BAD science. Weather the methodology was rigorous and thorough enough, and to understand why no response came from any academic body. It would seem that such claim requires follow-up controlled experiments. There is some research articles with the claim that such claim is feasible, like THEODORE XENOPHON BARBER: Antisocial and Criminal Acts Induced by "Hypnosis", A Review of Experimental and Clinical Findings, 1961. אילן שמעוני (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a look on Germany regarding electric cars and Diesel emissions. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 17:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The crucial difference is that in the diesel pollution fraud at stake were entire careers (i.e. the fraudulent researchers were employed by the fraudulent companies), while here we deal with an isolated project. It is highly unlikely that Stokes and Meyersburg would put at risk their entire career for a single one-time reward. Furthermore, since both do have an ongoing career as scientists, such evidence for a pure-and-straight fraud is bound to be either non-existent or extremely hard to prove. Hard core sciences such as neuroscience are unforgiving fields. I urge the skeptics here to try to look further into the matter. Skepticism is indeed sacred, but here it is pointed at an obviously unlikely candidates. There are many questions that are open regarding this, especially the result feasibility and the ensuing lack of academic response - neither condemning nor adopting the outstanding results. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless two researchers with academic recognition (...) were willing to put their good reputation to risk... Luc Montagnier is a Nobel prize of medecine. He also made an infamous "memory of water" study. Even if it wasn't a POV-push for homeopathy (he is dancing the line around "it is not enough to prove homeopathy works but it certainly means we should give it more attention"), it was certainly crap science and would have sunk his reputation regardless of the subject. There are a few other Nobel prize recipients who went on saying batshit crazy things and put their good reputation to risk though usually outside their area of expertise or outside science altogether (see e.g. James_Watson#Avoid_Boring_People,_UK_book_tour_and_resignation, Ivar_Giaever#Global_warming). Even if you think one of those guys in is the right, you probably don't think all of them are, and the will to bet one's reputation is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Brainwashing is common language. In science the technology or principle is called "conditioning". See our articles about Classical conditioning, Second-order conditioning, Social conditioning, Covert conditioning etc. etc. I would recommend to stay skeptical about related "stories" and "conspiracy theories" altho this technology is without doubt used everywhere. Sometimes with great (or huge:) success on a grand scale especially in the field of commercials for product and brands and of course in politics. --Kharon (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical trademarks/patents?

Are there any drugs that are in the public domain? For example, can only Tylenol, make Tylenol, only Benadryl, make Benadryl? Aren't some common medicine like aspirin, the ingredients are public, so any pharmaceutical company can make their version of it? They just can't give it a new name.

I'm also asking about how we draw the line for trademarks/patents. For example, take 3% hydrogen peroxide, which is 97% water. That can't be patented or given a trademark name, right? The 1st company that made it. And any chemical or pharmaceutical company can manufacture and sell it, right? Then what if you came up with something that was also 1% this and .5% that. I know there are various types of bleaches that are roughly 8-10% NaOCl and 1% NaOH, but with different patents, like Chlorox. Thanks. 12.130.157.65 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

The majority of drugs are in the public domain. Tylenol and Benadryl are simply trademarks for particular formulations of acetaminophen (a.k.a. paracetamol, APAP) and diphenhydramine, repectively. APAP and diphenhydramine are in hundreds of different formulations, often combined with other drugs. So in the very literal sense, yes, no one else can make something called "Tylenol" or "Benadryl" without permission from the holders of those trademarks. But, anyone can market their own APAP or diphenhydramine under a different name, and many do. These are generic drugs. At least in the U.S. it's standard in most stores that sell over-the-counter drugs to see the store's own generic brand of a medication on the shelf next to the brand-name version(s). "Aspirin" is actually an odd case because it was originally a trademark of Bayer, and in some countries it still is. However, in most of the English-speaking world, Bayer lost its trademark, and since the trademark was well-known, most English-speakers just kept using it as the name of the drug. As the article states, the International Nonproprietary Name for "aspirin" is acetylsalicylic acid, but you won't see this in English outside of the medical literature, where having a standard, neutral, "official" name for a drug is important so everyone's "on the same page". --47.157.122.192 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Canada is one of the countries where Aspirin is still a trademark, but the long phrase "acetylsalicylic acid" is confined to the fine print. What the large lettering on brands other than Bayer says is "ASA". For example, these. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

For starters, read our article on trademarks and patents. If you're interested in the rules that apply to the United States, have a look at:

• General Information Concerning Patents
  • What is a Patent? What Is a Trademark?

Trademarks and patents are not the same thing.

To help explain the difference: Tylenol is a brand-name of the drug acetaminophen. In the United States, Tylenol is only sold by Johnson & Johnson. Other companies may sell the drug acetaminophen but they must call it by a different name. Specific rules apply to the way that the drug can be labeled.

A confounding detail that makes the scenario less clear is the case of a generic trademark: in that case, a brand-name may exist for so long, and become so widely-known as an interchangeable word for the product, that the Government no longer authorizes protection of the exclusivity of that name.

Further, the OP has asked, "...That can't be patented or given a trademark name, right?"

...well, here's some bad news for you: you need a lawyer to get a correct answer to that. Patent law is extraordinarily complicated. You can apply to patent anything you like; the patent office will decide if your patent meets their requirements, (e.g. is it even eligible? ...is it obvious? ...is it equivalent to prior work?) - and they may even grant you a patent for it - even if somebody else has already patented it; but the strength of the protection that it offers depends entirely on how well you know how to use existing legal infrastructure. Granted patents can be invalidated, overturned, bought, sold, negotiated; they may expire; they may be useful or useless; they may provide legal protection for something you can't actually do (reasons of technical difficulty, legality, commercial interest, or any other reasons)... this is why people pay thousands of dollars to specialized attorneys to get real legal advice, because free advice about patents is worth very little.

Let's put it in laymans' terms: you can't patent a drug: you patent a "process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter," or an "ornamental design," or a "variety of plant." And you can't trademark a drug: you trademark a "word, name, symbol, or device," (in the sense of an "emblem").

So - if your new and useful mixture of bleach constituted a "new and useful composition of matter," you could patent that; or you could patent a "new and useful" process for making it; and you could trademark the graphical and verbal means that you use to distinguish your mixture of bleach during actual trade. All of these items are totally orthogonal to the other legal questions about whether you could make, market, and sell it as a food or drug - which is typically subject to the regulatory oversight of the FDA, explained on their website: What We Do. FDA, and many other regulators, will probably have authority to regulate what you make and market.

Nimur (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As a brief note, lumping both inventions and ornamental designs under the heading of "patents" is a peculiarity mostly to the US. Other jurisdictions have more of a separation between patents (for inventions) and registered designs (for ornamental/aesthetic designs). MChesterMC (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where you are getting that nonsense; ornamental designs are not patented in the US, although they may be trademarked, and the trademark may be registered. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Recycling cardboard that has stickers on it

I read this article on Earth911's website, and while I already knew about the grease and food issue, and about the kind of gummy glue that is used in some junk mail, I'm curious about the glue issue for coupons on pizza boxes. I work for Pizza Hut, and the coupons we put on top of the boxes have the same kind of glue that is used on shipping labels and similar stickers, not that gummy glue that I already knew is bad for the recycling process. Are they saying that the sticker glue ruins batches of paper too, or are they talking about other pizza chains (or mom & pop restaurants) using the gummy type of glue? If that's the case, how do they recycle any cardboard when almost all of it has some form of glue, stickers, or tape on it? 76.3.174.28 (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost all recycled paper or card has some degree of contamination. What the recycling companies have to worry about is the level of contamination: the buyers of the paper will accept a small amount, but if the level of contaminants is too high they will reject the batch, or pay less for it. [8] [9] Wymspen (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I always put pizza boxes straight into the trash. If the landfill folks have a process to try to glean recyclables from trash, they can make the decision of what to do with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, many countries have separate wheelie bins for recycling. Only paper, cardboard, cans and glass may be put in them. In my neighbourhood, there's even a third collection of food scraps, peelings, etc, in small bins about 35 centimetres (14 in) by 30 centimetres (12 in) by 40 centimetres (16 in). The householder lines the inside of the bin with a plastic liner, which is itself recyclable. The collection operator simply empties the bin into his truck. Akld guy (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we have two bins, one for recycles and one for trash. And anything that appears to be have significant food contamination (such as a pizza box) I put into the trash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Further to Akld guy, in my area (in southern England, but rules differ with each Local Authority) households have one (LA-provided) bin for general refuse, one for recyclable paper, cardboard, plastics and cans (cleaned/washed as necessary), one for glass, and one for (industrially) compostable food waste, plus opt-in collections of garden waste. Additionally, batteries can be placed in plastic bags to be collected alongside the glass. General refuse is destined for landfill because it would be uneconomic to sort it, but if one takes items to the nearest LA Recycling centre (aka "tip"), tinfoil, metals, light bulbs/tubes, and clothing can instead be deposited separately, and any burnable waste can be sent to an incinerator to generate electricity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant to point out, but forgot, that the food scrap collection in the very small bins is run by a company that turns it into manure and sells it for fertilizer. Akld guy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I usually rip the top half of the pizza box off and recycle it and throw the greasy bottom half in the garbage, which is acceptable according to the county. 76.3.174.28 (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

How do plants deal with dust coating their leaves?

I came across this old account of a "coughing" plant, which I suspect is nothing but a tall tale, but it got me wondering: plants in deserts must sometimes get coated in windblown dust which could impede respiration and photosynthesis by getting on the leaves. How do they cope with this? Can any plants actually expel dust like the "coughing" plant? 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.228.153.91 (talk)

For leafy plants, at least, as far as I know the carbon dioxide intake occurs on the under side of the leaves. (Photosynthesis) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the American Botanist thought little of this story at the time, calling it a "myth". [10] They would perhaps have been more persuasive if they did not provide the sensitivity of Mimosa as the other example of a plant myth in that article.

The original link claims that this "Eutada tussiens" is in fact an Entada species, mentioning Entada scandens while evading any implication that is the plant intended. The story is that the plant is from humid tropical climes, though it ends up being described as coughing in the Sahara. I am reminded of jumping beans, of which the more famous is the Mexican jumping bean, but perhaps Spirostachys africana, being at least African, is more relevant. Jumping beans jump because moth larvae try to move them away from heat, and it seems conceivable this could be observed as "coughing" and thought to be due to the dust rather than the heat. Wnt (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting reply. The American Botanist article also includes something about an orchid that extends a tube to suck up water, about which I can't find anything. Seems like these fantastical tales were inspired, at least partially, by the real mimosa which that article dismisses. 169.228.153.91 (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As has been said, respiration occurs through the underside of most leaves, making dust less of a problem. It would take a very thick coating of dust to prevent sunlight penetrating, and in most situations dust would be removed by either the rain or the wind - and most places where plants can grow do get at least one of those. Wymspen (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

By that same token, many desert plants, such as the cactus, do not have leaves in the usual sense. My understanding is that this is attributed mostly to reducing moisture loss, but it could also serve more than one purpose. Matt Deres (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 21

Oddities of "entombed" toads

From William R. Corliss's Anomalies in Geology, on the phenomenon of entombed animals:

After reading through our collection of a hundred or so accounts of toads-in-holes, it becomes apparent that even though these tales were collected over a period of two centuries and come from several continents, there are several common elements—elements so unique or bizarre that one doubts that they were invented separately so many times. Some of these features are:

• Disinterred toads usually expire in only a few hours or days.
• Mouths are often nonexistent or sealed shut by a membrane.
• Exhumed toads frequently occupied a cavity roughly scuplted [sic] to their shape and size.
• Many reports remark on the "bright eyes of the toads.
• Freshly disinterred toads sometimes appear transparent.

Aside from the plausibility of the "entombed animal" story, are there any species of toads which are transparent, which would appear to have no mouth, or which develop some sort of membrane over their mouths during hibernation? (I would guess that the latter happens as a way of preserving moisture while hibernating, but I can't find any info on such mouth membranes.) 169.228.153.91 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I would assume but don't actually know that "entombed toads" are based on the known estivation of amphibians like Cyclorana alboguttata for up to 3-5 years in cases of severe drought. [11] These frogs apparently form cocoons in layers while estivating, maybe a layer every three months? [12] I should look into this more later. It doesn't seem hard to picture that a dried-out toad near the end of its shelf life might suffer greatly if cracked rudely out of hardened sediment, but I don't have a ref for that. Wnt (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And there's the "Legend of 'Old Rip'" -- article: Ol' Rip the Horned Toad (possible inspiration for One Froggy Evening). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Effects of water in the body on sleep

I claim that drinking quite the amount of water right before bed would make me sleep not as deeply as otherwise, thus I would not dream as readily, not solely because of the increased urge to urinate, but just from water flowing around in the body would serve as alleviation factor for sleep. Anyone else claims that? PlanetStar 04:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in what the National Sleep Foundation has to say about the subject:

• "The Connection Between Hydration and Sleep". sleepfoundation.org.

—2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nutrition in mutton/chicken soup

It is widely believed in Punjab that soup made from the muscles nearest to the goat's hooves is far more nutritious than from soup made from any other of it's body part. Is that a scientific fact ? Is chicken soup less nutritious than mutton's any other part ? Or non-veg soups are no different than each other when it comes to nutrition ? Jon Ascton  (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Mutton is from sheep, at least in American usage. As to the alleged medicinal properties of chicken soup, check out Chicken soup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think folk beliefs about food, herbs etc. are often true, if they can be shown to have persisted for more than a few centuries, especially if they cannot be shown to have originated in single famous texts (e.g. Galen), because the only way for them to persist in that case is for multiple individual generations to think they were working. But of course, they are probably more often false, though still usually harmless. I know nothing about goats - I had to look up they don't have marbled meat, which takes one explanation away. I don't know if by "muscles" here you include Achilles tendon or not (which extends fairly far up the gastrocnemius adjacent to the soleus) -- clearly, the presence of tendon material, which would eventually gelatinize with lots of cooking, would change nutrients present. There are many sellers of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements in the U.S., and arguably, this might have some similarities. I wish I could give a real answer. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to answer your second and third questions as the nutritional value of any "soup" will depend entirely on the recipe, which varies enormously. Bear in mind that even a leading brand like Heinz soup will only contain 2-3% meat.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ingredients are definitely important. There's an old story about an old farmer's wife who had two chickens. One of the chickens got sick, so she killed the other one to make a high-grade chicken soup to cure the first one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Folk remedies like this are often based on false analogies of similarity and proximity. See our article sympathetic magic. The notion is usually something like, since rhinos' horns are erect, they are a cure for impotence. Here, perhaps, the hooves are the strongest part of the leg, hence the muscles close to the hooves share their power, proximity to mother earth, or some other factor besides their protein content.

Wnt's supposition that such beliefs usually continue because they work is credulous and greatly underestimates humans' penchants for ignorance, magical thinking, confirmation bias, and spurious pattern recognition. Look at the silly patent nostrums like shark cartilage and jellyfish protein being sold for joint health and memory boosting power when, once they get to the gut, are nothing but run-of-the-mill ground gristle and simple polypeptides. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This might be a good time to bring this up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A patent nostrum is defined by the patent, which may be an abuse of the literal definition, but should convey the idea of an individual profit motive. When an alleged remedy has been around for centuries, the enterprising chiseler is better off patenting something else than investing in a competitive marketplace. Especially when the only way to do so involves producing a whole goat!

The doctrine of signatures is indeed a source of bad ideas in ancient medicine; yet we should realize also that practitioners came up with it for a different reason, as a mnemonic! If you use an herb for kidney ailments and you can try to remember that that's the one with a leaf that looks a bit like a kidney, this is a good thing. If you really believe a kidney shaped leaf makes something good for kidneys, not so much. The example with the goat above though sounds like a really weak just-so story - if there was a doctrine of signatures explanation for it you certainly haven't convinced me. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily CNS adult apoptosis VS Daily CNS adult neurogensis

Approximately, and assuming there's any approximation on this, how many neurons die daily from apoptosis and how many created daily due to adult neurogenesis, in an adult human (usual age >=21) that does many non identical actions, at least like learning new environments, whether virtual or not, hearing new lectures, and smelling new smells, and also, what about reading new articles as well? ClinicalCosmologist (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This question is almost unanswerable, as assessing both neurogenesis and apoptosis in the intact brain is impossible. However, we do have the classic work on carbon dating neurons in the post-mortem brain from Frisen et al (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4394608/), which suggests there is a fairly constant addition of approximately 700 new neurons per day in the hippocampus, with a slow tailing off in the ageing population. This does not directly tell us anything about apoptosis, but we know from rodent work that the majority of the newly generated neurons do not survive, and we can indeed see this in Frisen's work as well, where they show the number of immature neurons (marked by expression of doublecortin) is a lot higher than the numbers of mature cells, indicating significant apoptosis is likely to be taking place. Now, you are correct that it is likely an enriched environment will increase these levels of neurogenesis, as has been shown in rodent work. However, this has not been shown yet in humans as far as I'm aware, and this would be very difficult to do, due to the aforementioned difficulties in assessing the rates of neurogenesis in humans. Fgf10 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Outside the hippocampus neurogenesis is probably zero in adult humans. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Whilst the classic SVZ-RMS-OB niche has no functional reason to exist in humans, and doesn't appear to do, there is quite likely some neurogenesis in the striatum: http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(14)00137-8. Fgf10 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What normally happen to micro foreign bodies that penetrates the skin?

Many times it happens that thorn or piece of glass penetrates the skin, it happened almost to anyone. Now my question is what happens when the it stays inside, under the skin. I've listened that the body react by making pus and by it it pushes the foreign body outside of the body. Is this pathopathology true? when can I read about that? 185.191.178.183 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this article "the clinician will try to create an opening to drain it". hydnjo (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the article you want is Splinter. Henry^Flower 16:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the object material and shape and what place of your body. Usually it will simply get incorporated. Ask around about war veterans who still have shrapnel's of bombs and mines in them. If the object is to sharp and in a place that is stretched frequently or even mildly toxic it may cause pain and ongoing damage. Then there is a chance of infection or at least swelling and the person will get it cut out. In many cases it wont change anything and the person may even forget about it and live on without any urge to get it out. --Kharon (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Shrapnel is prone to "migrate" over time, sometimes for the better [13] and sometimes for the worse [14]. Note that the body will tend to wall off almost any foreign body -- for example, macrophages tend to surround tattoo ink particles [15] - actually, that doesn't tell it the way I was expecting, and [16] disagrees, but also not in the way I was expecting. I was on the impression that multiple macrophages joined together to surround the ink particles and tried, long-term, to break them down without luck; the Atlantic reference makes it sound like one can surround multiple particles while the other ref makes it sound like the particles are free between collagen fibers. Something else I should look into further at some point... oh, but anyway, to get back to the point, the macrophages should be able to marshal cytokines and matrix metalloproteases; the latter are empowered to break down the physical structure that holds cells and tissues together, at least potentially allowing any foreign object a way to have tissue in its path be deconstructed (and, hopefully, regenerated afterward, or perhaps more likely replaced by scar tissue) Wnt (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Chronic irritation is a known cause of cancer. Horses and dogs can develop cancer from chronic irritation from restraints. Asbestosis results from the chronic irritation of the lungs by asbestos fibers. See these articles at google and the classic case in JAMA here.

Trazodone#Priapism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to Trazodone#Priapism, it says that the "risk for this side effect appears to be greatest during the first month of treatment at low dosages (i.e. <150 mg/day).". Does this mean that this side effect goes away after a month or if higher dosages are taken? Pealarther (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• More likely those that will experience the side effects will already have experienced them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Acute untreated priapism doesn't repeat itself--it causes permanent impotence or worse. From our article

Because ischemic priapism causes the blood to remain in the penis for unusually long periods of time, the blood becomes deprived of oxygen and can cause damage to the penile tissue itself. Should the penile tissue become damaged, it can result in erectile dysfunction or disfigurement of the penis.[6] In extreme cases, if the penis develops severe vascular disease, the priapism can result in penile gangrene.

You definitely need to talk to your doctor or pharmacist, whether your concern is a symptom you have or want but don't have. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 22

Hawking radiation

I have read the article about Hawking radiation. I did not understand why it exists. The description is that pairs of particles and anti particles are created by quantum theory and one escapes while the other is caught by the black hole. However which particle escapes seems to me to be random. Therefore, there should be an equal number of particles and anti-particles. Those should annihilate each other yielding no escaped particles. Where am I wrong? Is there some preference to which type of particle escapes?

Thanks, Avi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.140.132 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if they annihilate the energy that they have is still outside the hole (as EM radiation, generally). The particles that are caught are stranger still: they have an effectively negative energy, and reduce the mass of the hole that incorporates them. --Tardis (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) There are a number of factors, some of which are implied at Hawking radiation.

• The rate of particle emission for massive (non-primordial) black holes is rather low, and it's just plain unlikely that a particle and a corresponding antiparticle would appear at the same point and mutually annihilate.
• Relatedly, some radiation will be in the form of particles with ridiculously tiny cross-sections – e.g. various neutrinos – that almost never interact with anything.
• Some radiation will be in the form of uncharged particles – e.g. neutrons – which have the same charge as their antiparticles, and so won't suffer from fatal electrostatic attraction.
• Some radiation will be in the form of particles that are their own antiparticle – bosons – and which can't mutually annihilate.
• Even if there is a particle-antiparticle annihilation event, the product isn't nothing. Depending on the situation, you get anything from a couple of photons up to a whole shower of particles, photons, and decay products. Some or all of those products can still escape.

Consider the simplest case: an electron–positron annihilation taking place just outside the event horizon, involving particles with a relatively small amount of kinetic energy. Their mutual annihilation will result in a pair of gamma ray photons. Significantly, for conservation of momentum reasons, those photons will be emitted in opposite (antiparallel) directions. (This handy property makes positron emission tomography possible.) No matter how you orient that emission, at least one photon will be pointed away from the black hole and can escape. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OP, it's hard to make sense of a lot of quantum phenomena, because they are solutions to equations, looking for an explanation in more familiar terms (particles, waves, antiparticles etc.), rather than the other way around. Consider for example that the existence of black holes has only recently been confirmed, while the solution to the equation (a compact massive object having a surface escape velocity greater than c) dates back to John Michell. 78.1.153.199 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Does being drunk increase the smallest earthquake you can feel?

Just a little or multiple Mercalli scale numbers? 107.77.161.11 (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely. In my very limited experience (ahem) an alcohol level >0.05% does not make one more sensitive to anything. Including troll detection. Greglocock (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A few drugs can increase sensitivity but most, including alcohol, do the opposite. However many drugs also cause illusions, including a feeling of increased sensitivity. --Kharon (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. When you're drunk enough, you can feel earthquakes that don't even exist. Looie496 (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And while there aren't all that many earthquakes in Cincinnati, there's plenty of drinking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Increase as in make the limit bigger so you'd miss one you wouldn't miss sober. 107.77.161.11 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the question is asking how well we can detect an unexpected acceleration when drunk versus when sober. I managed to find this 1995 abstract from Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine that doesn't look at earthquakes, but does look at how sensitive their test subjects were to angular acceleration. (In context, the experimenters were interested in how well pilots could sense – 'by the seat of their pants', if you will – changes in the orientation of a simulated aircraft.) They found that even modest alcohol consumption was sufficient to cause markedly worse performance in their test. At a blood alcohol concentration of 0.037%, the subjects' sensitivity was about 30% worse—that is, it took an acceleration about 30% greater to be perceptible.

If someone could find an equivalent study involving linear accelerations, that would be better, but I frankly wouldn't expect the result to be qualitatively different. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Having lived in California for many years, I can tell you that detecting weak earthquakes is very tricky. Quite a number of times I have felt an odd sensation and thought, hmm, was that an earthquake? Sometimes it was, most often it wasn't. I think it would be very difficult to answer this question in any sort of rigorous way. However, given that alcohol impairs balance, I think it must make it harder to detect the sort of subtle swaying that is often the only indication of a weak and distant earthquake. Looie496 (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Religious views on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

Besides Mormonism, are there any other religious systems that make specific claims about pre-Columbian contacts? I.e., not what is implied by young earth theories, but actual claims of specific peoples or events? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your question better fits in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. --Kharon (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, because I want people familiar with science to bring forth specific falsifiable-type claims with scientific implications if they are aware of them. Not literature. I don't want Tower of Babel, or Noachic stories or the like. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about Jesus coming to America, or Leif Ericsson coming to America? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If you know of the Church of Leif Ericsson, please provide a link. I know we have a user who regularly posts the Jehovah's Witnesses' view of various issues, they may have some information. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm just a little confused because the cited article appears to be about regular explorers. Or are you trying to find claims similar to what the Mormons claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to find out if there are any other religious/ideological groups besides the Mormons making what are scientifically investigable claims. There is an intersection here between the humanities and science, but I don't want to hear about Turtle Island or September of 4,004 BC and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Roger. Sorry for being denser than usual. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It is posited that Central American natives used African religious symbolism and African linguistics: Paul A. Barton (February 28, 2001). "The Olmecs: An African Presence in Early America". www.theperspective.org. —

Possibly Musa I of Mali? "Africa's 'greatest explorer'". BBC. 13 December 2000. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly the article posits a Chinese influence on the Olmecs, given a jade mask which is illustrated there. I'll read the Musa article out of simple curiosity--but again what I am looking for is some set of "believers" who make a "falsifiable scientific claim". The closest I can come to in my mind is the insistance of some Objectivists that American natives were savages without the concept of land ownership or private property, and hence were rightfully subjugated by the civilizing forces of European colonizing states. But that's not a claim about pre-Columbian contact, just a myth some people still insist on. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, IP 2606, that was interesting reading. I wish Will Durant had done a book on African Civilization comparable to his on Rome, Greece, and The Age of Faith. I'll have to comb the library's African History section next time I am there. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the sort of thing you're looking for, but see Ten Lost Tribes#Native Americans for a theory that at least implies a pre-Columbian migration to the Americas. As I recall, Frankie Ballou in Cat Ballou was a proponent of some such theory, repeatedly speaking to his hired man, Jackson Two-Bears, in Hebrew. Deor (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes Deor, thanks! That is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I considered mentioning the 'ten tribes' (i.e: Tribe of Ephraim), but you specified "besides Mormonism". However, evidently, the concept of Jewish tribes arriving at a fourth place in a New World, predates Mormonism. See:

• "Jews Come to America - Judaic Treasures". www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

December 23

The † symbol in biological nomenclature

The standard orthographical dagger symbol when not identical in form to a cross.

In the course of editing, I've come across sources that place the † symbol in front of the name of an order or clade or family or genus in the biological nomenclature for organisms. Example: †Name. Here's a link to one such source: [17]. I've been looking for a definition of what the symbol means, and have been coming up blank. Can anyone point me to its meaning? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would presume it means "extinct" (compare https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lepisosteiformes without the cross in your link and https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semionotiformes with the cross). 78.1.153.199 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it means extinct, and the dagger symbol (with illustration) is also used (I don't see that in our markup palette) which is an inverted dagger that looks like a cross, except that the top is thick, like a dagger's handle. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It reminds one of a tombstone, which seems fitting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Last sentence of Extinction's lede: "A dagger symbol (†) next to a species name is often used to indicate its extinction." -- ToE 12:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Fun fact: the dagger † is also sometimes called obelisk. Some of you will now go "Oh!". —Tamfang (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Another fun fact: † often marks the second footnote on a page, after asterisk. —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have added the dagger as a png file so one can see the normal figure when it is not printed identically to a cross, as often occurs in non-serif fonts. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It is important to note that not all extinctions are the result of animals being stabbed to death. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Spartacus. That's the second time in a week someone has made me snort out my coffee. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Note the term "endaggered species". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Both informative and entertaining. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Can ultracold neutrons form into pairs of neutrons that would be proton-free nuclei?

Can ultracold neutrons form into pairs of neutrons that would be proton-free nuclei?\\\\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.232.149 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Ultracold neutrons —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

??obviously I would know that article, you sarcastic discourteous linker. Doesn't answer question, but it could mislead others into thinking the answer was at that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.232.149 (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Hey I wrote the above angry reply and I'm really sorry for being like that. Just really hyper and paranoid yesterday. By the way though, my device won't let me do brackets for linking or even girlies for signing. Sorry again! — Preceding curly is spellchecked into girlies!unsigned comment added by 96.82.242.226 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"Courtesy links" provide access to article(s) mentioned but not already linked in the query; not intended as an answer. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC).

Yes; they're intended as a courtesy to other editors, not to the OP, who should arguably have made the link themself. An alternative would be to Wikilink the words in the OP's own text, but this would violate the convention that we don't alter another's post in any way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with modifying the header to include the link, that's the best place for it anyway, and headers are not the poster's property, per MOS. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Our Dineutron page tells us that there is no attractive force, but it nearly exists. However in the case of dihelium it was supposed to not exist also, but was made. So I would not bet too much on non-existance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There should be some neutron electric dipole moment, though technically that would be a dispersion force at the Van der Waals radius I suppose.... or it would be, if nucleus-nucleus "noncovalent bonds" were a thing. Hmmm. Also, while in theory molecules are defined by electrons, so no electrons means... I suppose there is some very small chance that an electron + positron (virtual pair) exist near a pair of neutrons. You might also say the neutrons would be brought together a little by Casimir effect, which is also a virtual particle effect ... but the metal plates in a usual Casimir effect aren't normally defined as a molecule. But what if the virtual particles can exist in real orbitals for a moment, is that Casimir effect or something else? No "orbitals" in a Casimir effect that I know of! Obviously I'm in no position to answer this but I hope the links/ideas might be a starting point for further consideration. But I'm a little off topic for the sort of nuclear interactions you're most interested in. A search for dineutron observed pulls up a bunch of interesting papers like [18] but I'm not the one to rate their quality/believability. P.S. neutrons have spin 1/2, so there should be two nuclear isomers of any given "dineutron", one with spin 0 and one with spin +-1/2; are both accounted for? Wnt (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, He₂ is not so much a molecule as a van der Waals molecule. MO theory, or at least as used for He₂, is focused on covalent bonding; which is a reasonable approximation for most "normal" molecules, but for something like He₂ where no covalent bonding is possible and only the van der Waals interaction is feasible, it is clearly not the best approach. A similar idea is not inconceivable; the dineutron does become stable on the surface of neutron-rich nuclei (a pretty direct quote, but there's no sensible way to paraphrase this – it's a footnote to the paper, which is itself pretty interesting, being about the consequences a stable dineutron would have on BBN). Double sharp (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, this says "The dineutron, a member of the nucleon-nucleon isospin triplet, is a spin singlet". I would think that means that dineutrons are defined as made up of neutrons with opposite spins, and the ones with same-sign spins are called something else? At best guess, those others would be less stable since spins ordinarily like to pair, so it may be something more obscure? If we can clinch this we might be able to upgrade our article. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ocean photographs

What is the deepest photograph that has been taken anywhere in the ocean? JohnDoom (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

With artificial lighting, the bottom of the Challenger Deep, part of the Mariana Trench. If you mean with sunlight, you'll need somewhere with very clear waters. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget that neither artificial lighting nor sunlight are required for photographs of bioluminescent organisms.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Feynman Lectures. Exercises. Exercise 15-1 JPG 2

. .

...

15-1. Solve the Lorentz transformation for x,y,z,t in terms of x' , y' , z' , t'.

—  R. B. Leighton , Feynman Lectures on Physics. Exercises

It seems that paradox described in previous question on 17.12.2017 is that the observers can not see both ends of the ruler at the same time. My new question is: Is it possible to adjust clocks such that at coordinates x=x'=0 we have readings on clocks t=t'=1? From Lorenz transformation it is impossible, but why can't we adjust clocks by our wish in single point of space ?

Weird space launch shot

There was a news story about a space launch [19] that Los Angeles citizens reportedly thought was aliens arriving. [20] Now I assume this is a bit of "product placement"; I would be flabbergasted if some of the photographers were not both paid and prepared in advance with an ephemeris. Even so ... how did a space launch generate this kind of blimp-like "structure" in the sky, with a bright glowing bit in the middle? I mean, if this was a shock wave it shouldn't have outrun the rocket ... I'd think... also, if it was that powerful a shock wave, why didn't it create a huge boom that would have been commented on in the article? Wnt (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a rocket/missile contrail. A very similar trail was left after the launch of Russian RT-2PM Topol intercontinental ballistic missile which some folks also believed was an UFO. See also Petrozavodsk phenomenon, but there I'm unsure, as UFO arguments in that case are equally strong. Brandmeister^talk 16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• This was a Falcon 9 launch. These are a lot more complicated than normal launches. After stage separation, the first stage quickly flips around through almost 180 degrees with nitrogen thrusters, and reignites 1-3 engines to cancel the downrange speed for lading (this particular stage didn't actually do a full landing, but still went through these phases). This means that the engine plumes of both upper and lower stage are firing 'into each other', which lead to all sorts of complex interactions you don't see in normal launches. The bright glowing bit is the first stage, either thruster firings, or most likely the boostback burn. Don't see why you assume there is product placement? Everybody carries a camera with them in their pockets these days. Only need <<0.1% of people to see it to get multiple videos. Easy enough, as the trajectory is visible from a major population centre. Fgf10 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wnt, you are so gullible. Once again you have fallen for the CIA's propaganda. This was not a failed private launch or a publicity stunt! It was a NASA first-stage booster launching Stephen Paddock to rendezvous with last week's Earth-grazing asteroid, where he'll live until 'Oumuamua returns to defeat the Trump Dynasty rulers of the Planets of the Solar Federation in 2112. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no... this is obviously part of the Left Coast Sheeple Project -- there must have been a small pocket of folks there who have not yet succumbed to the machinations of the liberal elite. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Vonnegut, Trump, Tesla and Gorsuch? Of course that piece is as coherent as the ramblings of a schizophrenic in a full psychotic break. I need an Excedrin. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Our relevant articles for this launch: List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#2017, Iridium satellite constellation#Next-generation constellation. NSF article: SpaceX close out 2017 campaign with Iridium-4 launch.

The time and date of this launch was publicized over two month in advance. Here is Iridium's press release from 19 October. Given the clear forecast and the launch time scheduled for shortly after sunset, space enthusiast boards were abuzz with expectations of a spectacular display, though the actual event exceeded most already high expectations. If the local media failed to discuss the launch in advance and suggest that local residents consider checking out the show, then they dropped the ball. -- ToE 20:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, the local news here has lots of very important car chases to cover! Also who pays any attention to the local news anymore? We all get our news from Facebook, which takes care to not disturb us with anything outside of our personal bubbles. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Breaking news: The crew of an arcraft have been offerd emotional and psychological support to help them come to terms with an inccident where their arcraft recently made physical contact with a UFO over Scadinavior. Photo of damage.. The Inrernational Civil Aviation Authority has issued a statment, to the effect, that in order to avoid widespead concern and panic, it is not going to comment just yet untill all radar images of the collition have been anylised but assures the public that this UFO possesed no danger to the general public as it never came lower than roof top level. Aspro (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you meant to say: "Braking gnus: ecru oven irk raft of bin overt a motion'll end sigh collegic's a port...." μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I stand currected. I hefe-a a beet ouff truouble translating zee language-a ouff Swedes und Turnips intu Ingleesh. ispeceelly after sampling their Akvavit.. Bork Bork Bork! Aspro (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As a So Cal resident, every time anything is launched from Vandenberg you have people freaking out. Breaking news: a lot of people are dumb and/or ignorant. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 24

Military presence on the moon

I realise this might be taken as asking for speculation, but it's actually asking for facts. I'm trying to work out what advantage a country could gain from having a military presence on the moon. Surely it's too far away for any sort of response to intercontinental threats, and not really suitable for surveillance of enemy nations. Maybe it's some sort of psychological thing? Wouldn't the cost and complexity of establishing, and maintaining a defendable military base rather than just a scientific moon base far outweigh any advantage? Thanks in advance 49.197.84.151 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I can’t think of any advantage; and even if there is one, I think it will be outweighed by the cost and complexity. Dolphin (t) 04:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't be directly above latitudes with an absolute value beyond the maximum lunar inclination plus the Tropic of Cancer number plus the Moon semi-diameter. Is there any advantage to that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I could see where a military presence might be needed to protect a scientific outpost to prevent it falling into the hands of an (earth-based) enemy. McMurdo Station, a scientific base in Antarctica, has a significant military presence with flights to and from Christchurch, New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The US Army considered a Lunar Military Outpost: Project Horizon —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

One advantage that is often very underestimated, especially regarding military forces, is prestige. According to historians this already played an essential role in the Space Race in the 1960s, between the Soviet Union and the United States. --Kharon (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Back in the good old days of Project Horizon, the stated purpose was to:

"...develop and protect potential United States interests on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and space, in communications relay, and in operations on the surface of the moon; to serve as a base for exploration of the moon, for further exploration into space and for military operations on the moon if required; and to support scientific investigations on the moon."

The first part of that was made redundant my the Outer Space Treaty, the surveillance and communications are better served by satellites these days (remember that Project Horizon was before the miniaturization of electronics and the computer revolution; the assumption was that surveillance and communications would have to be manned), and most of the rest was covered by the civilian Apollo program. Other military projects involving the moon, such as the Lunex Project and Project A119 had similar goals and/or was meant as technology demonstrators and/or a show of force.

One could view the moon as the ultimate high ground, the control of which would be a morale booster more than a practical issue (even more so today than in the fifties). Arguably satellites have made a military moon base redundant, doing the missions envisioned for such a base back in the day cheaper, better and with less risk. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is instructive. If you want to take out a city on Earth, all you need to do is point a chunk of rock in the right direction. No current weapons, including missiles, can reach the Moon, so you'd be impervious, at least on the Moon. Of course things are a bit different if we're talking about an Earth-based power with an outpost on the Moon, but this is all hypothetical. The Moon would also make a good staging ground for interplanetary travel. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any particular use. However a lot of sci-fi has bases on the moon either for attacks on earth or to defend earth. In Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons the defence forces against attacks by the Mysterons of Mars are based on the Moon, and there's a point there because launcing the Angel interceptor from Earth would take a lot more fuel. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Water on the moon is a key resource for developing affordable interplanetary operations and eventually industries that would rain down minerals on their owners. Whoever controls a few craters near the lunar poles controls the solar system. China is putting a lot of effort into getting to the Moon presently. If you watch a Chinese propaganda film like Beyond Skyline or Valerian (film) you'll see the China-to-the-Moon theme featured prominently (AFAIK all films now are 15-20% propaganda by budget... just a question of which government pays for it). With every American director likely to face sexual allegations if they haven't already, you can expect to see a Chinese moon landing in practically any sci-fi film you watch for the next 3 years or whatever it takes them to get there. Of course, "dropping rocks" on Earth is not that simple; some kind of fancy railgun or other launching system is implied, which is either very vulnerable or very sophisticated engineering to dig out on the moon (though it does have lava tubes, if there's one in the right place...) I think the most relevant military force involves the ability of one country to "claim" the resources and then beat off potential competitors on the Moon, perhaps in what would nominally be a proxy conflict between supposedly independent corporations or entities. Wnt (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Moon offers a selective advantage that the big powers cane exploit but smaller powers cannot. So, as the technology gaps shrinks and e.g. countries like Iran can launch satellites, the big powers cannot count on certain military advantages they used to take for granted until recently. E.g. in case of war with Iran, Iran may well be capable of destroying GPS satellites, or triggering the Kessler syndrome by destroying a big satellite like Envisat: "A collision between a satellite the size of Envisat and an object as small as 10 kg could produce a very large cloud of debris, initiating a self-sustaining chain-reaction of collisions and fragmentation with production of new debris, a phenomenon known as the Kessler Syndrome."

E.g., the Moon can be used for hosting back-up communications facilities in case all the low Earth-orbiting satellites are destroyed. The Moon can also be used as a covert construction site. Here one can exploit the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere, allowing transport of materials and equipment from a space-station and the moon and back using micro-rockets. This would allow components like computer chips to be manufactured on the Moon and transported to the space-station covertly. Count Iblis (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Moon is a Harsh Mistress scenario mentioned above is quite relevant. "The military importance of high ground has been recognized for over 2,000 years, citing early examples from China and other early-dynastic cultures who regularly engaged in territorial/power struggles." See also, railguns, which, one presumes, are more effective and easier to construct in vacuum and low gravity than artificial naval islands in the South China Sea. The moon is essentially the top of the tallest mountain on earth. Consider that Robert A. Heinlein didn't write from ignorance. He graduated from the US Naval Academy, took graduate classes in physics and mathematics and was well-versed in ballistics. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't deny the scenario but I think that some of the drawbacks might have been left out to make the novel seem more persuasive. I mean, lunar escape velocity is low, but it is much harder to have lots of power on the Moon. Certainly coal and wind power aren't happening! But using solar panels means having large swathes of expensive electronics exposed to the Sun, or to any microwave or laser projector the enemy might momentarily make much brighter than the Sun. And throwing rocks is... well, still just throwing rocks, no matter how big they are. What are the odds you can precision-guide those meteorites to a target? It has to be a "strategic bombing" i.e. indiscriminate bombing campaign, something which by modern standards would certainly be presented as a war crime. Why not just use a nuke designed for reduced fallout, or if you can manage it an antimatter bomb or induced gamma emission munition? Or if you're serious, designer biological weapons, which offer the best chance to have mass casualties but still be creative and even quite selective. Though I think the biggest threat may be coherent terahertz ... based on some very rudimentary publications from a few years ago, I'm thinking ongoing research might displace particular proteins from the chromatin of the victims, cause custom syndromes, identify them by DNA sequence remotely and harm only the specific 100 million people the software doesn't like, each with different symptoms, from drone or satellite emitters. Cell phone cancers are for ham-handed emitters in broad ranges of frequencies. Or... well, you get the picture, and I haven't even resorted to weapons people actually use yet. That we know of. (What did they do at the U.S. embassy in Cuba?) I think military on the Moon is mostly useful ... on the Moon. Identify its saleable resources and you identify how people will fight over them. Wnt (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"species-preserving captivity"

Some accounts of the death in January of Colo (gorilla) say she was the first gorilla born in "species-preserving captivity". Does that qualifier mean anything? —Tamfang (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That article says first gorilla to be born in captivity anywhere in the world, so probably not. I mean sure, in theory there's a difference between "intending" to raise gorillas with the purpose of killing them all off later and not doing so, but usually a farmer doesn't plan to kill his cattle. But it does sound nicer than saying you're raising it in captivity to keep zookeepers employed. ;) Wnt (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

To me, it means that the species is threatened by extinction in its natural habitat, so some are being held in captivity in order to preserve the species. I don't know whether they are in danger, I'm only telling you my interpretation. Akld guy (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 25

is it possible to upscale old TV series into 4K

Is it possible to use neural network to upscale an old TV series called "six million dollar man" into 4K so that it looks crystal clear on mordern TV set? 110.22.20.252 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)