What did Wow! sushi do? Can we please correct it. Thanks. Anton [[Special:Contributions/81.131.40.58|81.131.40.58]] ([[User talk:81.131.40.58|talk]]) 09:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:05, 16 January 2020
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.
Thank you. and for answering to such a rough-cut (or to say, "large-cut") question. Wow! sushi (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 9
Minimising water wastage
I may have asked a related question some years ago, but in any case let me rephrase it.
When I turn my shower on, there's a short lag while the hot water reaches me. If my aim is to minimise water wastage, is it best to have the volume turned to high, or low, or some optimal point in between, or does it make zero difference what I do? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 19:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the volume makes a negligible difference. I start at maximum heat and adjust as it goes to reduce water waste. Your best option would probably be to install a different kind of water heater that doesn't have lag due to pipes. One behind the showerhead rather than in the cellar or what have you. These exist, I don't remember the name for them. But: one is unlikely to affect much of anything by their shower duration. One's cumulative water use depends much more heavily on the products and foods they consume, and the companies they patronize. The shift of the burden of environmental damage from corporations to individuals is a bamboozle. Temerarius (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a measure to reduce an individual's total cumulative water use Temarius is doubtless correct. But JackofOz did not raise the issue of environmental damage, and may (as I do) inhabit a domestic property whose water use is metered and charged by volume, in which case measures to reduce the water usage of that property can impact significantly on the wallet of the person who pays its water bill.
My domestic supplier (Southern Water, in the UK) includes in its bills a table of daily water use for "typical" households of from one to six persons, viz: 6 - 548 litres, 5 - 493, 4 - 438, 3 - 370, 2 - 274, 1 - 178. My most recent bill, covering April–September inclusive 2019, shows my (single-person household) usage as 22 litres/day, around 12% of "typical", so clearly there is considerable scope for reducing one's domestic water usage (and resultant bill).
Regarding JackofOz's hot-water lag period problem, one possible measure might be to hold a bucket under the shower head until it begins to flow warm, and re-use the collected water for some other purpose, such as watering garden plants or filling the WC cistern. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.182.54 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If taking a bath, the too cold water that comes out first can be mixed with the too hot water that comes out later to produce just right water, with no waste. However, the cold will tend to stay at the bottom and hot at the top, so mixing will take some effort. NonmalignedNations (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's about 20 seconds typically at full blast, that's 3 or 4 litres. It makes no difference volume-wise whether you open the tap fully or not, you need to expel all that cold water between the hot water source and the shower head. I'm on rainwater, so towards the end of the summer I have to get used to starting my showers icy cold! Greglocock (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might make a difference volume-wise depending on the heat capacity of the pipe (thermal mass, insulation in cold spaces, etc) because it's not just "hot pushes cold" (volume is the pipe volume), but the water cools down as it heats the pipe along the way until the pipe is up to equilibrium temperature. @Temerarius: seems to be thinking of a tankless water heater. DMacks (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the predicament described by JackofOz. Some of the hot-water taps in my house are a long way from the water heater (gas-fired.) During the protracted period of drought and water restrictions in 2003 everyone in my house got into the habit of putting an empty milk carton under the hot tap and filling it until the hot water arrives. Later, the milk carton is emptied into a watering can for use on the garden. It proved to be such a good idea that we keep doing it, even though the drought and water restrictions ended after 4 or 5 years. Dolphin(t) 04:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collect the initial cold water in a bucket and use it to flush the lavatory.--Shantavira|feed me 09:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In luxury yachts there is the option for instant hot water as the hot water pipe circulates continuously to the boiler, called hot water circulation. That would solve your problem, but it is probably not a cost-saver Rmvandijk (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the shower is used in a morning shit-shower-shave routine, the hot water lag will waste less water if the toilet can be flushed from the hot water supply. (A special plumbing arrangement would be needed, possibly as a third option on a Dual flush toilet).
Often hot water is supplied from a tank where it is heated to a higher temperature than used for showering. The water loss during the delay in the pipe before tolerably warm water flows in the shower can be minimised by starting with 100% hot / 0% cold mixer tap setting. To control this manually risks scalding but Thermostatic mixing valves can be fitted to achieve it.
The "Navy shower" method conserves water and energy by turning off the flow of water in the middle portion of the shower while lathering.
If you are able to and it's not already done, consider insulating your pipes. According to [1], the water will still only stay hot for about 30 minutes or so, but may still be useful especially if there are multiple people using your shower, or you take a while to lather etc with the shower off. And if you have access to the pipes and sufficient mobility, it's a relatively easy and low cost DIY task. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The insulation will have a secondary benefit. That is, it will reduce heat loss from the pipes after they've reached maximum temperature. With a long path of uninsulated pipes, you might notice that the maximum water temperature at the tap is considerably lower in winter, due to this heat loss. NonmalignedNations (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 10
Effects of aviation on climate change via contrails
Aviation is supposed to cause climate change not only due to CO2 emission, but also through other mechanisms, such as forming of contrails, cirrus clouds and ozone. However, these effects are short-lived. As far as I understand, when calculating the global future effect of a flight, say for 20 years from now, one takes the effect of, for example, the cotrails formed, multiplies by their duration, and then divides by 20 years.
This seems great if I want to either calculate the average effect over the next 20 years, or if I want to see the effect of trends in global aviation.
However, ignoring the differences between day and night, summer and winter etc., if I am interested in the effect of my next flight on the climate 20 years from now, this seems like a wrong calculation: Any transient effect lasting hours, days or even a year, will most probably fade away totally by the time 20 years have passed. Thus only the CO2 emission will actually have any effect 20 years from now.
Is this true? Thanks! Dan Gluck (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the effect isn't transient in the bulk; one flight may leave a transient amount of cloud formation which would dissipate if that were the only plane in the air. All flights together, taken as a group, are essentially permanently adding that effect to the atmosphere, because the effect never dissipates. --Jayron32 17:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you are likely describing countering effects. Contrails and cloud formation increase the Earth's albedo, which has a local cooling effect. This could, on the short term, seemingly mask or reduce some of the warming effects of the CO2, but once the clouds and contrails dissipate, the albedo drops, and the warming effects are not masked. Your one flight will not have impact from controls and cloud formation directly during the flight in 20 years. Its carbon output might still be felt. However, even that is overly simplistic. If we stopped all industrial activity, all transportation activity, all agriculture, all aviation, etc., i.e. if we stopped all anthropogenic carbon emissions today, CO2 in 20 years might drop (possibly significantly). That is, unless we have already passed through a tipping point. It isn't the one flight or the one driving your car that's the issue in 20 years, it's the constant/increasing levels of carbon output that's the issue. To take one action and try to measure the 20 year impact ignores that the levels are a result of constant, and not transient output. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but you haven't really answered my question. Obviously one flight doesn't do much - it's the aggregation of flights that does. But one still may ask what is the contribution of one flight to that aggregate. The constant rather than transient effect you are referring to is due to the fact that there are flights all the time, but that is not what I've asked.
When refering to policy-making, there is not much of a difference. But When thinking about how personally I should change my behaviour in order to reduce my personal contribution to the climate change, it does matter. Dan Gluck (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are changing your personal behavior to be flying 10 times per year every year for 20 years vs not flying, no, you aren't really doing much through your personal action alone. The climate impact in 20 years of a SINGLE airline flight is not something measurable as its impact doesn't last 20 years. The aggregation of flights occurring every day, constantly, is the effect. I'm sorry if that's not an answer that you like, but that is the answer. If you want to know what the impact of your next flight, and only that flight, is in 20 years, then the answer is "basically none." If you want to know your impact of changing your behavior to not fly on vacations every year for 20 years, then we can start talking about impact. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To use a metaphor on this, lets say you want to know the impact in 20 years of you taking a cup of sand from a beach. The answer will be "essentially none." In those 20 years, that sand will have more than replenished through things like weathering and breakdown of rocks, deposition of material, etc. Now, let's change the question to be "what is the impact, in 20 years, of me taking a cup of sand from the beach every day for 20 years." Well, now you might be removing sand at a faster rate than replenishment, so you might, in 20 years, have a measurable impact. Let's change the question again. Now, "what is the impact in 20 years of 500 people each taking a cup of sand from the beach every day for the entire 20 years." Well, now the impact might very well be that the entire beach has no sand left by 10 years from now, and is never able to recover, or at least not until several decades (maybe centuries or more) after human activity has ceased, assuming it can at all. Do you see why asking "what is the impact in 20 years of my taking one cup of sand from a beach today" seems like a non-nonsensical question, one that is not even measurable? The damage threatening the beach in 20 years isn't one cup of sand today. It's 500 cups of sand, every day, constantly. Now, if we take away the "impact in 20 years" part from your question, the CO2 output and immediate impact of your airline flight is measurable. Asking about its impact in 20 years is the problem, because the effects are too transient for that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2007 IPCC summary cited in the article section has a positive (0.01 [0.003 to 0.03]) value for radiative forcing, but a "Low" assessed level of scientific understanding. Another source, from New Scientist[2] states On average, both thin natural cirrus clouds and contrails have a net warming effect. The discussed study is here, maybe it or one of its references may help.—eric 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 11
Quark Magnetic Resonance
Could an X ray laser, or someday a gamma ray laser, be applied to a bunch of protons, and although xrays are probably pretty weak and long wavelengthy compared to quarks size, gradually excite the quarks inside the protons until they emit a signal? I’m thinking of an immobile grid of hydrogen ions trapped on a sheet of insulating material, and pulses of xrays shot at them at some fraction of a resonant frequency.Rich (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This excited proton would be classified as a different particle, the Δ+ . See Delta baryon for more info. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the idea is to get a signal from the quarks inside the proton, this can be done by high-energy collisions of other particles with the proton. You thought of using photons (which in a classical approximation are seen as "x-rays" of "gamma-rays"), but most convinently it is done with electrons or similar more massive particles. See Deep inelastic scattering. Dan Gluck (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't primates live in Europe and the Middle East?
I know that humans are primates, and I know that there are a few apes on Gibraltar and in Saudi Arabia, but given that monkeys are so versatile and adaptable, why aren't there monkeys or apes living in European countries or across the Middle East? They live in hot, dry parts of Western India and in the Yemen, and they've adapted to live in cold parts of Japan, so why have they never come further north into Europe, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.37.255 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe they were wiped out by Ace Ages. Ruslik_Zero 18:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There should have been more than enough time for nonhuman primates to move back into the rest of Europe and Asia since the ice ages. Thus, there must be some factor which keeps them from moving north. The obvious difference is the climate. While it gets somewhat cold in Japan, it certainly gets far colder in northern parts of Europe and Asia. The central regions of Europe and especially Asia, not having temperatures moderated by air coming off the ocean, can also suffer from extreme temperature variations. But there are certainly some regions of Europe, like southern Italy, where the climate would be acceptable to many primates. So, some other explanation is needed there, perhaps hunting from prehistoric humans or predation from animals such as dogs. NonmalignedNations (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's due to human predation, another question would be why monkeys haven't been hunted to extinction in Africa, as humans originated in Africa as well.
Let's suppose the answer is that the tropical conditions in Africa just allow a higher density of monkeys while humans don't have as much of an advantage compared to cooler climates.
Then the question is, why did monkeys survive in Japan? Is 40000 years (according to History of Japan) not enough for humans to have hunted them to extinction? Icek~enwiki (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"About 230 macaques live on the Rock of Gibraltar (=Europe). This population appears to be stable or increasing, while the North African population is declining". (article on Wikipedia). 93.126.116.89 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Oreopithecus, an ape that lived in Italy 7 or 8 million years ago, says that "When a land bridge broke the isolation of the Tusco-Sardinian area 6.5 million years ago, large predators such as Machairodus and Metailurus were present among the new generation of European immigrants and Oreopithecus faced quick extinction together with other endemic genera". So you can't blame us for that - it was them sabre-toothed tigers, they come over here and take our monkeys... ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although that greatly predated the extinction of other primates as RuslikZero's comment implied [3]. BTW this study [4] (news article discussion [5]) came to the conclusion that the main factor in the extinction of the European great apes was a failure to adapt to the food supply after deciduous trees replaced evergreen due to their existing dietary adaptations. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the OP that as per that article and ape, barbary macaques aren't apes under the most common modern definition of the word despite barbary ape being another common name. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Curious Case of the Last ‘Wild’ Monkeys in Europe says that the Gibraltar "apes" were once thought to have been a remnant of the European population which is known to have existed, but recent DNA analysis suggests that they all come from either Morocco or Algeria. There was a large scale reintroduction from Algeria in 1944 (apparently at the instigation of Winston Churchill) in support of the superstition that the extinction of the monkey colony would mean the end of the British Colony. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that there have been enough time for monkeies to repopulate Europe since the last Ice Age. After all they can not swim long distances. Ruslik_Zero 05:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primitive humans also couldn't swim long distances, yet managed to populate the Americas following the last ice age. There may well have been later waves of immigration using boats, but the first waves seem to have been by land bridge from Asia. NonmalignedNations (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What in common to all vitamins B group (except for water solubility)?
I see that all vitamins B group are water soluble (but also vitamin C is). So I'm interested to know the reason that all vitamins in B groups name with the letter B. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly some of them had other vitamin letters. Vitamin B2 was vitamin G. Vitamin B7 was vitamin H. Vitamin B9 was vitamin M. And vitamin B3 was vitamin PP. But there is no vitamin B4 or vitamin B8. Georgia guy (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our B vitamins article says that as a class, "Each B vitamin is either a cofactor (generally a coenzyme) for key metabolic processes or is a precursor needed to make one." That article notes that there are substances formerly known as B4 and B8. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but also vitamin C and vitamin K are cofactors for key metabolic processes. I really don't understand the citation from the article. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 12
Other animals with Sexual Maturity after age 10.
What animal species other than humans reach Sexual Maturity on average after age 10. I'm particularly looking for Mammals.Naraht (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found an answer yet, but you may be interested in Lifespan and sexual maturity depends on your brain more than your body which says: "New Vanderbilt research finds how long humans and other warm-blooded animals live--and when they reach sexual maturity-- may have more to do with their brain than their body. More specifically, it is not animals with larger bodies or slower metabolic rates that live longer; it is animals with more neurons in the cerebral cortex, whatever the size of the body". So we're looking for an animal with more brain cells than us. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could Elon Musk be cloned to help solve more complex problems in the future? 113.23.4.235 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They cloned a sheep so they can clone Musk, I suppose, but why? Did Elon Musk help solve problems of any complexity in the past? 2003:F5:6F05:EC00:D8E2:2B19:6E6D:B96 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]
There's no assurance that cloning someone will produce the same person again. Consider the Canseco twin brothers, Jose and Ozzie. Jose had an impact on baseball, while Ozzie did not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk, just in case you we're wondering. Our human cloning article says that cloning is illegal in most civilised countries, but China seems to have fewer scruples; see Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua who are cloned monkeys. Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume good faith in the questioner, but I will also point out that there have been other (to put it politely) banana-balls crazy questions about the public figure in question from unregistered users recently. Temerarius (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, banana balls are tasty! (Hmm, should banana ball be turned blue?) Anyway, cloning humans is likely feasible in the medium-term future, though I will note the Ref Desk is not for predictions. Human clones already exist and have existed for as long as humans have. We call them identical twins. The act of human cloning would simply entail producing an identical twin intentionally, and probably from a person's existing somatic cells, as opposed to "natural" clones, which result when a human zygote spontaneously splits and develops into two fetuses. Cloning of human organs (as opposed to complete humans) is seeing a lot of serious research, as this would allow an organ "self-transplant", which would solve the problems of organ rejection and limited supply of transplant organs. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even when it is possible to clone somebody precisely, with no genetic problems introduced, there's still the issue of reproducing the exact environment that produced the original. There may be something equivalent to the butterfly effect, where a seemingly trivial event early in life sets the course for that person's entire life. NonmalignedNations (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read at least two stories about attempts to recreate a legendary hero by recreating his formative childhood experiences: "The Blabber" by Vernor Vinge, and another whose title and author I cannot recall; I wanted to say "The Conqueror" by Cyril Kornbluth, but it seems Kornbluth never wrote a story by that title, though at least ten others did. —Tamfang (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 13
Methane
Is Methane gas and (its associated components and) general gas as expelled in the act of flatus and defecation heavier or lighter than air? I need to change clothes daily in a public toilet and it often stinks to the point of having to hold my breath. Am I better off taking a breath when I change my shoes, or by standing on my toes? Google has not been of much help. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Anton. 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Methane is odorless. (Gas as distributed in homes smells because they include an additive so that people can detect gas leaks.)
Assuming good faith against my better judgement for the last part... It does not fall under "google it yourself" but it still falls under "try it yourself". (The only way to answer from theory would be a combination of physiology of odor perception, chemistry of human waste composition and volatile compounds, and fluid dynamics in a 3D simulation of air motion in the place; the whole edifice would be extremely shaky.) TigraanClick here to contact me 11:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The density of a gas is (to a good approximation, if the pressure isn't too high) proportional to its molecular mass. Therefore, methane (m = 16 u) is less dense than air (average m = 29 u). If you ask about flatulence, this article (which you could have found if you'd have read the article) provides data from 16 subjects - in some of them, there was so much carbon dioxide that the resulting gas mixture would be denser than air, in some less dense. Notice that there will be some water vapor in addition which is less dense than air.
But that's all assuming that the expelled gas and air have the same temperature, which generally isn't the case. Gas in the intestine has body temperature, and the public toilet is probably cooler. However, there will be a slight cooling due to the change in pressure when the gas is expelled (Joule–Thomson effect) - you can do some research on the pressure involved.
Notice that these effects which might make the expelled gases rise or fall are short-lived, as there will likely be convection in the restroom. And also, though slower, gas diffusion.
The other question was about the smell of feces, and I guess that in this case the gases in the vicinity of the feces, a mixture of air and the emanating gases, will typically be less dense than air because most of the emanation will be water vapor, and humidity of the surrounding air may be kept below 100%.
The smell is hydrogen sulfide and other thiols. These are present in low concentrations, but your nose is exquisitely sensitive to them. Given that, I'm not sure there will be much of an effect from positioning yourself differently; the concentration gradient in the room probably isn't very large. If the smell is constant, it's quite likely sewer gas leaking from fixtures with defective traps, or some other plumbing defect that lets the gas in. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tangentially relevant is olfactory fatigue. Smells you have been continuously exposed to tend to fade for you, even if the substance is still present. --Jayron32 15:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - a draft "ScienceNews template" (see copy below) has been created - QUESTION: Is such a template (or equivalent) useful anywhere on Wikipedia? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it would be useful, and even if it was, it certainly wouldn't be in this horrifically sensationalist form. "Awesome facts"? Random all caps? "FACT=>"? I'm not believing anything in this listicle even though I know the facts are true. Fgf10 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgf10: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're appreciated - yes - *entirely* agree - template style could be toned-down and presented better, while maintaining the same facts (template style was somewhat influenced by trying to better communicate with some young students in my local area - but also - to be more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[1]) - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many dubious statements here, and also misleading links. Some is speculation, guesses or estimates. When I see the qualifer "fact" at the front, I can expect to be deceived. I do agree that it is an amazing list however! Also the linking to external sites is not our way to do things here. It would be better to link to an article or subsection that covers this statement in detail.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your reply - and taking the time to comment - yes - also agree - seems the layout, text and links could be better managed - choosing a useful place on Wikipedia to apply such a template, even after all's been sorted out to everyone's likings, may be a challenge - perhaps the "Science" article may be a possibility? - there may be other places on Wikipedia that such a (more finished) template may be useful as well? - iac - Thanks again for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could go on the Portal:Science if it exists. Though I don't know who uses that. Another possibility is that it could make a one time appearance in the Signpost. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, the sensationalism looks very out of place. Also, this is not really the correct venue for this kind of question - we're here to answer fact-based questions. I guess the better place would be on the Village Pump. When bringing the subect up, it would be helpful to include how you intend it to work and what needs it fills. Are you just doing this yourself? How often are you doing it? Are you going to pitch a fit if a hundred people come in and change the entire thing around every minute of the day? Remember that there is no WP:OWNERSHIP on WP so you will have no control over what happens to it. IMO, it has no place here; the fact that you're here looking for a place to shoe-horn it in suggests you already know that. Generally speaking, it's much better to see a problem and then fix it than to design something and see what problems it might apply to. Matt Deres (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt Deres: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - the above QUESTION has now been posted on "WP:Village Pump" as suggested - at => "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Is "ScienceNews template" useful - or not?" - also - no problem whatsoever - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the template contents - or any other contributions I've made over the years - I've claimed no "WP:Ownership" over any of my edits on Wikipedia, and fully understand that the editing process on Wikipedia is a collaborative effort (per "WP:OWN") - my objective here is to see if the concept (in some form) has a place on Wikipedia - or not - it's *entirely* ok with me either way of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when you grow a sunflower plant in the Land of the Midnight Sun? Does it twist itself into a helix or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B14C:1F6C:2402:49B2:19E7:E05D (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it grows toward the artificial light you have supplied or, it does not grow at all or withers very quickly. However you may be interested in reading articles concerning the germination of seeds on Mir (or maybe on the ISS?) Space Station. Due to the lack of gravity, the seed do tend to curl around themselves. Another Wikipedian may be able to source our article for this or provide a general link to valid source. I recall reading about this several years ago and it was very interesting as are many of the experiments they do there, such as hatching chicken eggs. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the Alaska State Fair in Fairbanks, they annually compete for record-setting fruits and vegetables. This year, the sunflowers grew to nearly seventeen feet tall in Palmer, Alaska. The long hours of sunlight affect plant growth profoundly.
This vegetable-gigantism has been studied scientifically and is a major element of popular culture in polar regions.
For more reading on unique features of agriculture in the far North, here is the University of Alaska's agriculture extension website, publishing fun tips for home-gardeners and very up-to-date research for commercial farmers and scientists.
Where do those links address the OP's question about the plant "twisting itself into a helix"? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can guess: The questioner thinks that if the sun never truly sets, it goes from east to south to west to north to east to south to west to north... So, the sunflower will twist around itself, following the sun. But, the sun remains in pretty much the same direction, making an oval. So, the sunflower will pretty much point in the same direction and have no reason to twist. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you're above the Arctic Circle in the summer, the sun does go all the way around the horizon from east to south to west to north to east. You can see a time lapse movie from Spitsbergen here: [6]. Of course, if you're below the Antarctic Circle, the sun goes from east to north to west to south instead. There is no place on Earth from which the sun appears to remain in pretty much the same direction. (That would require the sun to be in geosynchronous orbit.) --Amble (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there is some confusion from the OP about what sunflowers actually do even in countries with reasonable day-night cycles. Perhaps a read of Heliotropism and the associated ref [7] will clear up some confusion. This may also be of interest [8]. If you want more, see [9] and these 2 refs from it [10], [11] and this video [12]. (If the science ref is too complicated for you it received a lot of media attention e.g. [13].) Sunflowers track the sun from east to west during the day, then return to east during the night when immature but as they mature this stops and they only point east.
While I couldn't find any refs that discuss what sunflowers in places with a true midnight sun, my guess from the earlier sources (and note that several mention, as do others e.g. [14] floral heliotropism is observed in a number of arctic plants) is that they simply do the same thing and track the sun when immature and end up facing east when mature, assuming there's nothing significantly affecting regular growth. As Nimur mention, generally their growth may be somewhat different from place with reasonable day night-cycles. See also [15]
I did try to find images or reports of sunflowers in places with a true midnight sun, especially one lasting weeks. I did find [16] which was interesting but perhaps not very illustrative. While there are many reports of them growing in Alaska as Nimur and the refs mention or e.g. [17] (which mentions it can be difficult for some of them), I'm fairly sure we're referring to places not far north enough for a true midnight sun. Noting of course that Utqiagvik, Alaska is I think the largest Alaskan settlement north of the Arctic Circle per our article. (Despite the claims here [18], I'm unconvinced it was taken in a place with a true midnight sun. See also [19].)
Searching for northernmost is also not very successful e.g. [20]. The fact that sunflowers are a commercial crop for oil production doesn't really help searches. [21] Nor does things like. [22] But the summer climate in some places seems like it should be okay for some sunflowers even without greenhouse assistance like that used in earlier ref for an extreme case, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Just choose ones with a relatively short growth cycle. (You maybe have ~ 3 months.)
What are exactly sea partons/nonvalence partons? Are they real particles or just something that pops up under different sorts of measurement like wave-particle duality? The article doesn't really explain anything.
There has been an evolution to that regard, which it's well explained in Component particles and Reference frame, but you must have some understanding of how things are working beyond of the isospin quantum numbers for making some sense of it. Regarding valence and sea, it's about the degree of freedom of the particle in the considered context. --Askedonty (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first two links are what I meant by "does not explain anything"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.121.5 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting something popping up while making the measurements implies there's has to be something in real as long as the model is keeping enough of its coherence. It's not as far seeking as trying to solve wave-particle duality. Time dilatation was predicted and quantization is not practiced as a random process. --Askedonty (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it seems I'm missing some basic knowledge about this to understand the concept. (not a physics student or anything) 31.45.226.221 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 15
Lye & metal
Is it true that a bottle of Drano could do fantastic damage to a statue made of aluminum/brass/bronze, perhaps even to the level of its collapse? Temerarius (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sodium hydroxide solution certainly does dissolve aluminium, or zinc. Brass or bronze may have enough copper to still remain intact. Also pouring a liquid on a statue will likely have it mostly run off. You would have to dam it up some how to keep it dissolving. Also it depends how big a statue it is, as one bottle will only dissolve so much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
tick bite
This is clearly a request for medical advice as it contains a clear request for diagnosis. Please seek the advice of a medical professional. Random users at Wikipedia are not supposed to look at pictures and diagnose possible medical conditions --Jayron32 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Actually, not a request for a diagnosis, but a request on where to go to get a diagnosis. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A medical doctor. Start with your general practitioner or family doctor, and follow their advice. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
medicine myths newsletter
This was posted on the Wikiversity:Help desk. "Hi,
There is a doctor who runs a newsletter abouth medicine myths. He shows with proofs and articles why some myths are just that: myths.
I received his newsletter but then I cancelled the subscription because I was receiving too many e-mails (not from him but in general).
I need to obtain some info I had read in the past. I cannot remember his name. Do you have a clue who this doctor may be? As I said, I need to re-read one article by him...
Thanks so much,
Leonardo Cardillo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo T. Cardillo (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)"[23] Can anyone help out with this? --mikeutalk 15:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you could give us more information on what this specific article entailed, we may be able to find the article. This may equally elusive to finding said doctor, yet more helpful. Anton. 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a non-medical doctor (PhD) Simon Singh who regularly wrote about holistic medicine myths and debunked them. Many people complained that he was pretending to be a medical doctor, but he repeatedly said that was a lecturer, not an MD. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the Doctor is from England. Or US. One of the myths he talked about is reiki. Leonardo T. Cardillo (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"PERSEVERANCE" Rover & "INGENUITY" Helicopter => 1185 Sols (1218 Days) (3 years, 123 days) (landed February 18, 2021).
.jpg)
