Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 22

Bug identification

I found this little guy under a rock in the water. Does anybody know what it might be? Sorry about the blurry picture; it didn't like to stay put. Djk3 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a Dragon fly larvae. But that's a big ballpark. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an earwig. Dragonfly larvae don't have such antennae AFAIK. If you want to be sure, dragonfly larvae have a very peculiar "mask" (labium) which can project forwards to catch prey; you can't see if it is present in the photo you posted, but this is how you can tell the dragonfly larva from anything else on this planet. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an earwig. It was definitely some sort of water-dwelling thing. It was completely submerged, and when I lifted the rock out of the water, the thing went right back under water. Djk3 (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a stonefly nymph [1], which despite its name is not a fly but a member of the order Plecoptera.--Eriastrum (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! That's it. Djk3 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One of my favorite flies to try to tie. They're pretty amazing; some of them build little stone pebble fortresses around themselves. And the troutses just love 'em. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Local mean time

Is there a way to find out what is the correction for local mean time for a given locale or longitude? For instance, although Boston and Philadelphia are in the same time zone, local noon (when the sun is highest in the sky) will occur at different times because Philadelphia is maybe 200 miles west of Boston. In the days before time zones, there must have been charts or guides for travelers, no? Woodlore (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Every 15 degrees of longitude equals a 1-hour difference. Every degree of longitude equals a 4-minute difference. And so on. So if you know the universal time (which is the time at zero degrees longitude, you can easily calculate the "local" time at any longitude. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect-- thanks amatulic Woodlore (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Equation of time.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The "equation of time" represents the difference between local mean time and local solar time. Woodlore asked about local mean time, for which Amatulic's answer is the complete one. --Anonymous, 20:30 UTC, May 22, 2008.

Ok, so in my example, disregarding the Equation of time: for Boston, at 71°W, local noon occurs at 11:44 AM; for Philadelphia at 75°W, it is 12:00; and for say, Louisville at 85.7°W, which really shouldn't be in the same time zone, but it is, local noon occurs at 12:43 PM. Have I got this right? Woodlore (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding the definition of what exactly 12:00 means, your time differences look right to me. Franamax (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In winter, you do. During daylight saving time, add an hour — 12:44, 1:00, and 1:43 PM. --Anon, 06:01 UTC, May 24, 2008.

Magnetic Moment

What is the magnetic moment of a single iron atom. Also, what is the spin? Thanks, *Max* (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC).

This question is very difficult to answer fully. The term symbol for the ground state of atomic iron is ⁵D₄, so the quantum numbers are S = 2, L = 2, and J = 4. (S is what's usually called "the spin", because it involves only the intrinsic spins of the electrons, but J is the total angular momentum.) By my calculations, that makes the Landé g-factor equal to 3/2, so the total magnetic moment is 4 * 3/2 = 6 Bohr magnetons. In SI units, that's $5.6\times 10^{-23}$ J/T. However, this is only valid for a single iron atom that is isolated in a flat potential, i.e. a tenuous vapor of neutral iron atoms. If we're talking about a crystal of iron metal, the situation is totally different and you have to use high-powered condensed matter physics to work out things like the magnetic moment. In this case it's especially complicated because iron is a ferromagnet. —Keenan Pepper 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reason I want to know about iron is because of it's ferromagnetic properties. Would the value of 6 Bohr magnetons be a good (order of magnitude) approximation? Would it be better than the value of 1 that I am currently using? What would the analogue of the Dirac equation or the Klein-Gordon equation for a spin-2 4 particle like iron be? Thanks *Max* (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC).

I have no idea. Why do you want to use a relativistic equation anyway? I would definitely start from the Schrödinger equation, not a relativistic equation like Dirac or Klein-Gordon. —Keenan Pepper 20:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I don't need relativistic effects. I meant to ask for an analogue of the Schrödinger equation for spin-4 particles. Thanks for your help anyways. *Max* (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC).

i need help finding the name of a fish

it lives in brazil and i think it lives in lakes and rivers. if a man pees in the water the fish will swim up his penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.178.218 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 May 2008

You'd be thinking of the Candiru. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Truck Slipstream

This morning it so happened my sister was involved in an accident, when she lost control of her small rental car after being dragged into the slipstream of a passing tractor trailer in Tennessee. ( Miraculously, she walked away with only minor injuries despite her car being dragged along by the truck, flipping, and hitting a tree.) But in the course of her talking with people in the area, there seemed to be a consensus that this happened more frequently with 'fully loaded' trucks. I think the implication is that the weight of the truck somehow affects the strength of the slipstream. I'll admit I'm no graduate student in physics, but this doesn't make much sense to me. While a fully loaded truck would have more kinetic energy and momentum, I would think that the shape of the truck and its speed were the only factors affecting the slipstream, and while I could come up with something involving momentum and collision with air molecules, I don't really buy it. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.229.82 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The only way someone could even know a truck was "fully loaded" would be an open-bed trailer loaded with cargo. In that case, there would be much more turbulence than from an empty flat-bed trailer. A closed van would create the same air disturbance, no matter what was inside. However, I'm not a PhD either ;) Franamax (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your sister was affected by the same phenomena that racecar drivers and bikers use when drafting. -- JSBillings 12:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How come there's never a physicist around when you need one? Our article "Sonic boom" mentions weight (in two places) as a factor in the strength of the boom. It does not, however, explain why weight matters. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How much force does an aircraft have to exert on the surrounding air in order to maintain a constant altitude? How does that force vary with the weight of the aircraft? Now, how much force does a truck need to exert on the surrounding air to keep from losing altitude? Eureka.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Weight only matters in aircraft because it alters the wing-loading...but it's a much more complex matter than that. For a truck, weight is definitely irrelevent. Shape and speed are all that matters. 71.155.164.147 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps fully-loaded trucks ride lower to the ground and that has an effect? I don't buy it, either: the much simpler explanation is that people often "know" things without any evidence. --Sean 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Most trucks use air suspension, so the ride height is constant. For a spring suspension, that's a possibility: if the unloaded ground clearance was 30" and loaded was 26", that's a 15% difference. If the calculation of the slipstream force depends on the ground clearance cubed (let's say), that becomes 50%. Just speculating on the numbers of course. Franamax (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we never feel stupider than when we pooh-pooh an old wives tale that turns out to be true. About the sonic boom thing: So, momentum plays no part in the collision between a moving object and the air molecules it is pushing out of the way? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Momentum does play a part, in that a more massive object will be slowed less by the wind resistance, but this just means that less engine power is required to overcome the wind. The cross-section and speed of the craft are what determines the intensity of the turbulence behind it. The reason mass matters in a sonic boom is a heavier craft will have a larger cross section because it has to fly at a different angle of attack to provide more lift. -- Mad031683 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean mass-times-velocity collision momentum between the truck and each air molecule.

The truck continues to exert enough force on the ground to keep it moving at a (effectively) constant velocity. So in essence momentum isn't conserved in this problem (unless we want to include the rest of the planet in our closed system). Because of that and the fact that the truck's mass is huge compared to an air molecule's, I think it is best to approach the problem in a way that doesn't depend on the truck's momentum. Think of the air molecule as a small mass colliding with a solid wall. Does the wall's mass/momentum matter? --Prestidigitator (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't look for weight to be a factor either, but different trailers would be a factor, and weight would vary with them also. Surrounding wind conditions could definitely be a factor though, and this would easily account for why this effect is sometimes worse than others. Friday (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these types of accidents common? I drive a medium-size car, but I've never experienced a slipstream anywhere close to being strong enough to drag me out of a lane. It's hard to imagine how driving a car even half the weight of mine would make much difference. And if the slipstream from a truck could be strong enough to drag a small car, wouldn't anyone riding a bicycle along a highway be blown around like a feather by passing trucks? --Allen (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I drive one of the smallest cars in North America and I don't generally have problems, but you do need to be aware and ready to react. If it's very windy and there are large trucks around, there can be some large buffets as the truck passes. Of course, it's usually me passing the truck, so I'm prepared ;) Franamax (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It still makes me wonder about bikes... are they safe because they lack big impermeable surfaces? --Allen (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've heard stories of people being strongly affected/pulled into trucks on bikes and especially motorbikes. No accidents but enough to seriously frighten people. I guess it's worse for motorbikes because they're much more likely to encounter trucks and they're also likely to be a lot faster which I presume (can't be bothered thinking of the physics of it) would make it a lot more of a problem when they hit a slipstream. These stories are from Australia and NZ, I presume it's worse in the US given that trucks tend to be larger and more common in the US Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My parents tow a travel trailer around, and passing trucks can be a tricky proposition. The large side area gives the Bernoulli effect plenty to work on when passing a truck going the same direction, and when passing a truck going the opposite direction, the bow wave can cause the trailer to fishtail. --Carnildo (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Tennessee, "fully loaded" and slipstream? Was it a coal truck? Those trucks have the big box trailers but the top is open, so coal can be dumped in. They also (nowadays) have a canvas that gets pulled over the coal when full, due to regulations. When the truck is empty, they typically have the canvas pulled up so that the empty trailer is exposed, which means air is getting pulled into the trailer and circulated there. Full trucks, because of the tarp on top, cause the air to pass overtop, just like a normal tractor-trailer. That probably does make a difference in how other cars can draft with the trucks, but the big thing is that loaded coal trucks are much harder to drive than the empty ones. Likely, what happened was a combination of the air turbulence coming off the truck combined with the truck veering a little too close is what caused the accident. Living in Kentucky, I'm all too familiar with the way air off those trucks can either blow you aside or pull you close, and even experienced truck drivers can sometimes get out of their lane on windy/rainy days. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Loaded trucks have a greater inertia than unloaded ones; so they move less when hit by a gust of wind. Also they shake less in response to wind gusts and when passing other facing trucks. The leaning and shaking of an empty truck as it passes (or experiences a wind gust) may well lessen the wind speeds around it. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fleas

How long does an adult flea, which has had a blood meal, live ? (ie. If there are adult fleas in my house, how long do I need to vacate the house before they die of starvation ?)

How long does a newly hatched flea live without a blood meal ? (eg. if my house is vacated for a week, then I visit to jump about and make vibrations to cause any unhatched fleas to hatch, how long to I need to remain absent to cause the new hatched fleas to die die of starvation ?)

How long does it take to drown a flea ? (ie. could clothing be submerged in water for,say, 2 hours to drown fleas and ensure their removal ?)

Signed:Jennylindmac (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, fleas. Don't scratch the bites. If the flea has had a blood meal, it will be in position to lay eggs. According to this, the adult can live two months to a year without a meal. According to the same link, the flea can develop to adulthood inside the pupa and survive for months as long as they don't emerge. Running your clothes through a normal wash and dry should take care of any adults and eggs on the clothing.

I went through a bad experience with fleas (I now know why they call them "flea-bag motels") that got in my bedroom at home. Washing, vacuuming and putting down powder would work for about three days, then I got bitten again. Eventually, moving and leaving the bed unslept in for three months solved the problem. Hopefully your experience will be better! Franamax (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot depends on the species of flea as well because fleas are "preferential" about who they'll feed from. So, for cat fleas on an "indoor cat", for example, you can eventually eliminate them by combing your cat every day (or more often) with a flea comb, flushing all the captured adult fleas down the toilet, and vacuuming every day to eliminate from the floors as many of the eggs and immature fleas as you can. Meantime, the fleas probably won't be bothering you so much because they'll be busy bothering your cat.

Atlant (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You want a bad experience? We had a mother cat leave a litter of kittens in the bushes out front when I was a teenager. I had to get them out, and they were coated in fleas. Stupid me wore shorts, and my legs were covered in the things. Had to hose myself off and run straight to the shower after that. Kittens wound up going to the vet and were so anemic the vet said they'd have died in a couple days if we hadn't brought them in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

With fleas being able to live up to a year without a meal, you would have to leave your home unoccupied for a very long time to be sure of getting rid of fleas. The apartment I lived in had a flea problem once. I used flea powder on the carpet and upholstery (twice), washed all affected clothing and bed linen, and treated my cats with Nitenpyram (Capstar). That Capstar stuff is amazing. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found flea bombs work wonders Nil Einne (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RTI International

RTI International is

The second largest independent nonprofit research organization in the United States....

— RTI International

.

Which is the first?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[2]--71.236.23.111 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, MITRE has 6,700 staff. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

SRI International. MITRE is not considered independent for these purposes, I think, because it is an FFRDC. Nimur (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

explaining science to kids

Can anyone help me explain to my 5 year old daughter why it's still daylight when we send her to bed? Obviously this is not because we send her to bed in the afternoon - her bed time is 7.30/8.00pm, it's just light in the summer and dark in the winter.

thanks spiggy 83.104.131.135 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Got a globe and a torch ? Turn the lights off and give her a visual demonstration of time zones and axial tilt. Oh - hang on - you'll have to wait until it's dark ... Gandalf61 (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf, thanks for the links. However, I can barely get my brain round the concepts outlined there - I don't expect my 5 year old to be able to. I have a globe, and a torch. I get that I can use those to explain day and night on opposite sides of the world. But how do I explain shorter days in the winter/longer summer days? thanks 83.104.131.135 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a clearer explanation and a diagram here. So here's an idea for visualising what is happening. Find the location of your home on the globe and put a line/rubber band/piece of string right around the globe at your latitude - at a constant distance from the equator. Then show how more than half of this line is lit up when your hemisphere is tilted towards the torch/sun (when it is summer in your hemisphere). And less than half of this line is lit up when your hemisphere is tilted away the torch/sun (when it is winter in your hemisphere). So days are longer than nights in summer, and vice versa in winter. Mid-way between summer and winter, at the equinoxes, there is a point where exactly half the line is lit - so day and night have the same length.Gandalf61 (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Take the globe and place a table-lamp (with no lampshade) in the middle of the room. Turn off all the other lights. Put a "You are here" dot onto the globe where you live...a sticker or something. Now, hold the globe at the same height as the table-lamp bulb - and tilt it so that the imaginary line between the north and south pole is not quite vertical - the real world is tilted about 14 degrees...you don't have to be exact! Now you can walk around the table lamp to represent the earth orbiting the sun - each lap around the room is a year. You can spin the globe to show a day going by and watch your "You are here" sticker go through day/night cycles. As you walk around the tablelamp, it's VERY important how you hold the globe. Assuming you live in the northern hemisphere, during the "summer" the north pole should be closest to the lamp and the south pole furthest away...keep that tilt so that in the "winter" (when you are on the opposite side of the table lamp) the north pole is furthest away from the lamp. If you get that right then it will be possible to show that in summer, the lamp illuminates your "You are here" dot for more of the daily rotation than it does in winter. You may need to slightly exaggerate the amount of axial tilt to make that obvious. 71.155.164.147 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And then of course in many places they use daylight saving time to shift some of that extra summer sunlight from the early morning when most people are asleep into the evening when they are up, so increasing the effect on daylight vs. bedtime. --Anonymous, 20:35 UTC, May 22, 2008.

Even if your kid doesn't understand it all now, she will at least learn that science can be fun, mysterious things can be explained, and her dad is the smartest man in the world. --Sean 14:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks guys. 83.104.131.135 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Or her mom. Zain Ebrahim (talk)14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

and girls 83.104.131.135 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let her stay up late one night (until it is dark) then in the morning, asker if she is tired. Voila! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.202.222 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you aren't a parent! Jeez - make one mistake like that and you're doomed! She'll swear she's not sleepy even the forth or fifth time you had to wake her up to give her supper. Then, every time you try to put her to bed in daylight she can say "Well, I wasn't tired so I can stay up until it gets dark this time." and you have an argument on your hands...noooo - don't go there. Trust me. Get out the globe and the table lamp and do only experiments where you KNOW the outcome in advance! 70.116.10.189 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ARUN S BAGH QUES ABOUT THING

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT THING USED IN SPORTS ON WHICH FIRST SECOND THIRD POSITION WINNERS STAND ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.159.68 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

a podium? 83.104.131.135 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have this question on one of the desks recently, as in the last week?--Fribbler (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly last fortnight, but yes. --Tango (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Algebraist 12:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL...BUT EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER Ziggy Sawdust 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Bomb

Say a Nuclear Bomb was set off and 80% of the human population was dead. Say that some hardy plants and some other forms of animals and bugs survived as well. What characteristics would the humans have to have to survive to say the age 70 during this time? --Vincebosma (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They'd have to have had their 69th birthday party 51 weeks ago. 71.155.164.147 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well one nuclear bomb wouldn't take out 80% of the human population. If you are going to have a real scientific discussion of this you need to set the parameters more realistically about how people died.

Let's say it was a full nuclear exchange. Lots of people died either from direct blast/heat/fire effects, and lots more died later from drifting fallout.

Let's assume the population who survived were mostly those who did not get hit directly by the weapons but were instead subjected to fallout. The biggest problem for long-term survival in that sort of situation would be that most of the ground would be salted with radioactive fission products. That means that any food grown from the ground would have a high uptake of radioactive products as well. Which means that eating them would likely deposit many of said products into your bones, blood, etc., leading to cancer.

So if I were to hypothesize about their survivors, I'd say they had an alternative food supply, or had the infrastructure or means to filter out the upper layer of topsoil.

That's just one approach. If this is for sci-fi you can say they had an "increased resistance to radiation" but that's just hand waving. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine that even a cobalt bomb would kill all life in the oceans, though I've never seen calculations. I imagine that eating things from the deep, low on the food chain (to avoid biomagnification), would be a reasonable attempt to avoid contamination. --Sean 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably if your survivors were a tribe of subsitence farmers or hunter gatherers on some remote island in the Pacific or some out of the way place. If by some miraculous coincidences they survived the fallout scenario of 98's objection and the Nuclear winter didn't affect their place. Getting agriculture going from scratch is a lot harder than people think. We're not just talking one harvest or back yard size additions to what you buy at the supermarket. Even if your survivors had studied the subject in detail that would not guarantee success. (see Biosphere 2) Fungi could be grown underground as a food source, which might let them evade soil contamination. But your survivor would have to have had an established mushroom culture, might face nutritional deficiencies and would probably get tired of mushrooms very soon. Society wise an established unit like a tribe has a better chance of not having it's members go on a murdering rampage out of sheer despair. Survivors from a high tech culture depend on a social structure that would also have been wiped out, like law-enforcement, penal code, prisons. Moral dilemmas we usually only have to deal with theoretically come knocking at the door. Experience has shown that some individuals react to the trauma of having their social rug removed from under them by taking up arms and limiting their chances for survival even further by eliminating others who might be able to lend a hand. An established tribe would not face any of these problems. Just a couple of thoughts. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the problems above, one of the biggest problems is that very few people are likely to survive to such an age without the advanced medical care and access to food we have nowadays, which is likely to disappear. Even if your survivors are remote subsitence farmers or hunter gathers as suggested above, they're probably not generally living to 70 already and this isn't going to change with the bomb Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

oil shortage.

apparenlty oil will run out in 40 years and I guess that petrol will be too expensive before that happens.

So are we looking at a global shift in transport and work patterns?

Are electric cars going to be the norm in my lifetime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.138.155 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oil has been going to run out in 40 years for at least the last 40 years... It will run out, or at least get too expensive, at some point, though. Electric cars are a possibility, but I expect biodiesel and similar fuels are more likely. Electric cars just move the power generation back a stage to the power station - quite a few of those are oil powered as well, so without a massive increase in renewable electricity generation the price of electricity will also increase substantially (I'm sure we'll get that massive increase eventually, but probably not until after the prices go up - no real incentive until then). --Tango (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dodo

Oil will never "run out". It's not like there's one big reservoir in the ground and when it's gone, it's gone. There are myriad reservoirs, each holding oil with varying difficulties of extraction. But as we exhaust more and more of the "easy" oil and therefore need to extract the more and more "difficult" oil, the price will rise, pretty much inexorably for a while. Liquid oil alternatives like oil shale and tar sands also fall under this general rubric. You might want to read our article about the "peak oil" theory. And then there are paradigm-shifting events like the likely onset of commercialized nuclear fusion power sometime mid-century; that may remove many of the current markets for liquid fuels, substantially reducing the demand for oil. See our ITER article for a possible timeline. Another, much-more-grim paradigm shift might be a massive die-off as a result of Oil War III or starvation as a result of the rise in oil prices leading to Mad Max-like scenarios.

Atlant (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Be aware, of course, that people have been expecting nuclear fusion right around the corner for over 60 years. Each success is met with new difficulties. And in any event, it will never be as cheap as the optimists have hoped. So we'll see how that turns out. I doubt it will be paradigm shifting in any case—at best it looks like it will be low-emissions form of centralized electricity generation. That's well within the same paradigm. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There will be a point, though, where it takes more energy to extract the oil than the oil will provide. Then we have essentially run out. Djk3 (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Peak oil is more about when oil will no longer be an effective source of energy, than an actual "zero oil" state. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely you mean Peak oil is more about when oil will no longer be an effective source of cheap energy, than an actual "zero oil" state. 202.168.50.40 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about being cheap, it's also about the difficulty of getting to the oil, and the extra refining necessary as we start to use lower and lower quality oil. At a certain point, it's just no longer worth it in time, effort and (yes) cost. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Time and effort are usually measured in terms of cost when you're talking about big business. As it gets more difficult to extract and refine, the cost will increase which will limit demand and will presumably mean we will never actually run out completely. Demand may drop to 0, though. --Tango (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But if it costs more energy to extract then you get out of it, then no amount of time or effort is worth it to extract the petroleum, at least as a source of energy. Of course, improvements to technology has changed that. BTW, peak oil isn't about zero oil OR when oil will no longer be an effective s ource of cheap energy. Peak oil is the hypothetical state when we can no longer increase our level of production of oil in response to increasing demand. For the reasons outlined above, it's arguably a bit of a pointless concept but there you go... Nil Einne (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Watermelon seeds

Seeds are surely very nutritious. Would it be much better for you if you eat your watermelon seeds? Pound for pound, would it be better to eat seeded watermelons with seeds than seedless watermelons and then seeded watermelons without the seeds?

I guess if all else being equal, seedless watermelons may store a little more "seed" nutrient in the meat than seeded watermelons. However, you don't get the seed-only nutrients, such as watermelon seed oil from the meat. You probably get a little more sugar and maybe some vitamins from the meat of the seedless ones. -- Toytoy (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have specific answers to your questions, but I do want to point out some perhaps unfounded assumptions you are making when asking them (which may affect the validity of answers, etc.). "Seeds are surely very nutritious.". There are surely chemicals in there, but how do you know that it's mostly useful as human nutrients (and also that it is not balanced by other toxins)? "seedless watermelons may store a little more "seed" nutrient in the meat than seeded watermelons." Do we know that seedless fruits the same as seedy ones except that the "seed contents" are dispersed, or is the "seed stuff" itself completely absent? DMacks (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Watermelon seeds do indeed seem to contain some nutrients. I'd watch out for the 4.7% Arginine if you're a guy or are pregnant. If you'd plan to eat more than about 12kg in a day, Tyrosine might also become a problem :-). People with Phenylketonuria should stay away from watermelon seeds because they contain Phenylalanine. Don't know at what dosage the 1.5 % Alanine might become a problem for people with high blood pressure. Glutamic acid, Lycopene, Methionine, Phosphorus ,Serine, Stearic acidand Threonine don't seem to be causing any problem and are actually good for you. Watermelon seeds act as a diuretic, so drink lots of water and keep a bathroom close by. One source said there was a suspicion watermelon seeds might cause liver damage, but gave no specifics. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that there appears to be little evidence, from the article, that arginine is actually like to cause any problems for most men and definitely not at such a low concentration (I suspect other things will become a problem long before the arginine does if you really eat that many seeds) Nil Einne (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that unless you actually chew the seeds your not likely to get much of the nutrition Nil Einne (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Careful now folks. Some seeds are actually toxic, such as apple seeds. It is believed that consumption of toxic seeds resulted in the death of Christopher McCandless. Of course, wild plants are surely more dangerous in general than domesticated. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Cooked watermelon seeds are sold in the Philippines as a light snack. I haven't heard any news here that it has an adverse effect on your health.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But they are used in folk medicine to induce abortion. (No research evidence I know of, though).--Lisa4edit (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard that property yet but then again there are a lot of folk "menstrual cycle inducers" sold here. Maybe the chemical that induces miscarriage is destroyed as the seeds that are sold in the market are usually served roasted.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Riding a Bike

So I noticed on my way in to work today how difficult it is to keep my balance on a bicycle while it is stopped at a light, and was wondering why this is? 142.33.70.60 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, we have an entire article on the subject: Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. In particular, the Balance - Forward Speed section. --Tango (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Animals and earthquake

There are many reports tha animals may be able to sense a coming earthquake. I am not going to argue over this. I just wonder why couldn't us sense earthquakes if many other animals could?

Then, how about animals from areas with very few earthquakes? Do they have any earthquake-sensing instincts? How about the birds? How about the freshwater/saltwater fish? There's an old Japanese saying that catfish can sense the coming earthquake. How about other catfish species around the world?

Can anyone induce animals' earthquake symptoms in a lab? Maybe if you expose pandas in some crazy magnetic field ... I don't think I can buy a panda in a pet shop and do the experiment by myself. -- Toytoy (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The ability of animals to sense earthquakes has been long speculated. However, it's by no means scientifically accepted. Per this National Geographic article (which provides an excellent overview), "the United States Geological Survey, a government agency that provides scientific information about the Earth, says a reproducible connection between a specific behavior and the occurrence of a quake has never been made." As such, very little of your follow-up questions can be answered. Since the behavior can't be reproduced and no one can establish what the active mechanism actually is, there's no way to state whether certain animals can detect earthquakes, and no such experiments have been successfully defined. — Lomn 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a little off-topic, but I found it neat: we can't sense coming earthquakes, but our laptop computers connected to the internet can, via the Quake Catcher Network. Franamax (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Animals have lots of useful abilities that humans don't have. Elephants and other animals can hear infrasound. Bees can see infrared. Bats and dolphins have echolocation. Some animals are able to sense magnetic fields. If it weren't a trade off for hands and arms wings might be nice to have. As Lomn said we can't reproduce the effect, so we don't know what trait, if any, it is that we are missing out on. You could catch or buy a catfish, but just warn us before you create an earthquake to study their reaction :-) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a nit: Bees see into the ultraviolet, not infrared. Pit vipers, on the other hand...

Atlant (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Talk about "the other end of the spectrum". I guess one of my gears got stuck on the "infra...". Thanks for supplying the viper. (Eeek, snakes!) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Long-Life Milk

What is added to the milk to make its life longer? Is it more healthy than normal milk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.210.227 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything is added; I think it's just ultrapasteurized. But I could be wrong. --Allen (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-high-temperature processing has quite a lot of information, including nutritional details. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You might be looking for ESL milk. Check in Pasteurization. The description hidden in the text isn't great and we don't seem to have a page. One of the steps that can be used is Microfiltration. (NB. That abbreviation is also used for English as a Second Language.)--71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ESL is the same as/similar to UHT (Ultra heat treatment/ultra high temperature processing - as mentioned above) nay? Fribbler (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar, yes, same no. The Europeans distinguish 3 types: pasturized, ESL and UHT. Pasturized ("fresh"} has a shelf life of only about 5-6 days, ESL 15-20 or even 40 days under ideal cooling conditions (constantly at 5 deg. C). Both need to be kept refrigerated. UHT keeps between 3 to 6 months and doesn't require refrigeration. I tried to narrow down the differences, but some of the sources I found seem to contradict each other. Since the milk we buy in the US keeps longer than 5-6 days something seems to be different in treating it, here (We just bought a gallon that's labeled with an expiration date in 10 days).--71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that in the US there are (at least) three types of processing too. Ordinary pasteurized milk has the shortest shelf life, which seems to be somewhat longer than 5 or 6 days. Organic milk, kept refrigerated and sold in cartons, typically has a shelf life of about a month (based on my recollection). UHT processed milk, kept unrefrigerated and sold in "juice box" packages, has a shelf life measured in months. --72.78.237.229 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Multivalent Ionic Charges

Hello. How can a multivalent element's ionic charge change during a chemical reaction for example (my guess) 2Cu₂O + 4H₂SO_4(aq) → 4CuSO₄ + 4H₂↑ + O₂↑? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple case of redox. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird growth on agar plate

I grew e coli on an LB agar plate. When I checked for growth, I thought I got some colonies (only 3 white spots), but what looked like colonies were actually beneath the agar surface touching the bottom of the plate. What are those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.224.198 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The simplest explanation would simply be air bubbles left over after pouring the agar. They usually masquerade as colonies. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And another explanation: contaminant microbe colonies growing inside the agar (fellows who fell into the agar after it cooled and before it was poured). Or detritus. Woodlore (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If in doubt, don't wonder what it is, just toss it. However, if it's a reeeeeeeally important dish, then you're on your own ;) Sjschen (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thing Fleming didn't have that attitude.Woodlore (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May 23

How heavy should a healthy, adult male captive-bred Budgerigar be?

I have been told that my budgie looks overweight. I managed to get him on some kitchen scales and saw that he weighs about 55g (that might not be 100% accurate tho). According to the budgerigar article, they should weigh 30-40g. I don't know if this figure is referring only to wild birds though. Captive bred budgies are larger anyway. Anyone know how much a pet bird should weigh?

I'm not even sure how you can really tell if a bird is fat under all those feathers. He looks fatter when he puffs them up. Any ideas? --81.79.249.53 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Left a note with our resident bird and budgie person so he might be able to help you. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I got your message, Julia. Thanks.

Now, a 55g budgie *could* be overweight, depending on the size of the bird. A long, broad framed 'show bird' would probably be fine at that weight, whereas a smaller 'wildtype' bird would be rather fat indeed. One indicator of obesity in budgerigars is the amount of fat on the chest. Run a finger down your bird's keel (i.e. breastbone) if he'll let you - if the bird is fat, the bone will be indented into a furrow, with flabby flesh rising on either side (think of how an 'oven stuffer' turkey looks in the supermarket). A healthy budgie will all hard muscle and fairly flat in this area. Just FYI, if the keel bone is very prominent, he's underweight and probably ill.

If you're unsure, get your veterinarian to do it. Overweight budgies can suffer from a multitude of health problems, not least lipomas, which can grow to enormous sizes in this species. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical science-related job?

For a science project in school, we need to write a report on a science-related job. I was wondering if anyone could help me choose a job that is related to philosophy. Maybe a job that studies the existence/non-existence of God/gods or something similar? I will elaborate if you need me to, which I can definitely do, thanks! Voyaging^(talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bioethicist? [3] --zenohockey (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

God-wise, there's lots of interface with cosmology, though my impression is that this is elaborated upon by philosophers and theologians more than working cosmologists.

Also see philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. --zenohockey (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget History and philosophy of science or history of science. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re cosmology—I should have mentioned this first—some writers think that they can prove (or at least bolster the argument for) the existence of God by examining the facts of the physical universe; some think just the opposite. --zenohockey (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the existence/non-existence of gods is outside the purview of science. It's unfalsifiable (see Russell's teapot). Bioethics is probably the best, current one; however, I could see a field on the ethics related to the use of robots, AIs and the like. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the answers, guys! I'm now trying to decide between bioethicist and cosmologist. Which is more based in science, and thus have more factual information to write about? Which would you say is more important to the world and life in general? Thanks again! Voyaging^(talk) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always assumed medicine to be a good career for science and ethics ;) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 08:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That said it doesn't really have anything to do with religion. That should be duly noted :P Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 08:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll deal with more actual science by going into philosophy of science. Even more science is involved in being a scholar in Philosophy of physics or Philosophy of biology. To see if you're really interested in those two subfields I'd suggest books like An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Fields, Energy, and Mass by Marc Lange and Making sense of evolution : the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology by Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Kaplan. Both are rigorous treatments of philosophical issues surrounding both sub-fields in philosophy. They also are good examples of the level of comfort you need to have with the associated science topics in order to make contributions to the sub-fields.--droptone (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side-branch of bioethics, have you thought about looking at genetic counselors? They have to deal with actual genetics all the time, and attempt to explain the implications of it to the "common man" in terms that don't actually predestine what choices are taken (they are, in theory, non-directive). The profession itself grew out of the old tradition of family counseling done for the purpose of eugenics, but tried explicitly to go in a different direction than the eugenicists did. Anyway, it is an interesting and thorny issue, in my opinion, with lots of potential science to be talked about. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of bioethics and cosmology cosmology is the more scientific by far, but I don't see how cosmology touches on religion or philosophy any more than any other science does. Maybe it gets more attention from religious groups than most sciences in the present era, but the interest isn't mutual. Cosmologists are far too busy right now coming up with precise numerical models and analyzing the flood of data from experiments like WMAP to philosophize about what it all means. Every field of science has intruded on religious territory in some historical era just as much as cosmology is doing now. Religions try to explain the same world that science does, and when scientists come along and find better explanations the religions are forced to retreat into figurative interpretations of texts they'd formerly interpreted literally. As a result religions become increasingly divorced from empirical reality, but it's not in the nature of religions to be like that, it's just a position they've been forced into. Modern cosmology would have been considered utterly at odds with the religious beliefs of a thousand years ago; today they coexist uneasily, with various religious groups trying to find confirmation of their beliefs in cosmology; in the future I suppose it'll be as uncontroversial (and unphilosophical) as the craters on the moon and the irrationality of the square root of 2. -- BenRG (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fields such as artificial intelligence and consciousness studies have a strong philosophical bent to them. ike9898 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher of science should be just fine for your purposes. Here are som folks involved in consciousness research to help give you an idea of what the field is about: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Patricia Churchland, Daniel Dennet, Benjamin Libet

Philosophers are a waste of space. They make wild guesses based on the flimsiest of arguments that last only until we have REAL scientists come in and provide a REAL answer. "God Exists" is a fundamentally unfalsifiable claim - but how many thousands of Philosphers have debated it over how many millenia? In the field of cosmology, they have absolutely nothing to contribute. In the field of Bioethics they are making arbitary distinctions - which are (at best) based solely on what the general public seem willing to tolerate - a simple opinion poll would be a better way to decide. It's becoming a case of the "Philosophy of the gaps" (analogous to the "God of the gaps"). Bah! Fire the lot of them and spend the money on a shiney new particle accellerator. 70.116.10.189 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think dollar-for-dollar it'd be easier to argue philosophers are more useful than particle accelerators, if you're accustomed to thinking in terms of economic analysis. What have particle accelerators gotten us, lately? Not a whole lot, not since the 1940s anyway. Philosophers can at the very least sell books, and quite a few people have no doubt decided to pursue their lives differently on account of said books, not to mention the use of philosophy as a convenient step on the way to a legal career. (And let's not get into those border cases, the people who are labeled as "scientists" but would be nowhere without their knowledge of philosophy, like our friend Einstein.) In any case, I doubt firing all the philosophers and pooling all that money would pay for very much—philosophers are cheap, and there aren't all that many of them. The LHC is going to cost at least $5-10 billion USD—far more than all humanities research in the world put together, without question—and will we get anything from it other than a potential confirmation of a few esoteric theories that have no real-life consequences? (Other than, of course, helping to pay for a few thousand researchers for a few years, who may or may not turn out something useful over the course of their careers.) I don't read professional philosophy journals—they are unreadable to all but the most initiated—and I don't think it gets terribly close to any profound truths these days (but then again, neither does most science), but I think the idea that scrapping philosophy is foolish and ignorant. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right we don't need a supercollider, we'll send our physicists to Europe. Oops, can we? And what about young people from abroad wanting to go study? U.S. or Europe - who's got the tools? Europe does. But who needs foreign students. Our own students will surely still want to go for physics with the nation so far "ahead" towards the bottom, won't they? Nope they're studying liberal arts and philosophy. I hope the Chinese will buy lots of books, because we'll have to sell them something to buy their engineering products. I know particle physics is a far cry from engineering, but things can't trickle down from the top if there is none. Just deliberating philosophically on how technologically advanced we are won't help keeping/getting us there. If we're not willing to build any monuments we can't bask in their glory. Sorry if this is a bit incensed, but you lit a very short fuse there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC) darn bot --Lisa4edit (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want engineers, ask for engineers. Don't ask for particle physicists. If you want practical results, ask for people to study practical things. Particles physics is not, and has never been, practical. All of the things that were practical about it quickly were "reduced" to engineering questions. People love the idea of particle physics as a romantic scientific enterprise, but in terms of anything other than growth of esoteric knowledge, it is not very useful. People don't pine for chemists or civil engineers, but they have a lot more day-to-day effect on our lives than particle physicists do. Particle physics is not too far up from being very, very expensive philosophy, is all I'm saying. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Who where the first people with acne?

I would like some information, possibly links to websites or names of specific books as to who the first people in human history, known/recorded history that is, with acne were. Thanks.75.163.86.247 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Xolotl

Our article on acne says that several Egyptian pharoahs had the condition. It doesn't cite a source for that claim, unfortunately. — Dulcem (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there's any evidence to support the idea that acne is anything "new"; it probably exists outside of our species as well, but there's not as much money to be made selling Stridex medicated pads to gerbils. That is, I think a question that asks when it originates is meaningless. A question that asks when it was first recognized, on the other hand...

Atlant (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind of course that humans are one of the only land mammals with very little hair/fur on most of their skin. Clearly even if a gerbil or whatever has acne, it's going to be a lot harder to see because of the covering of hair/fur and the hair/fur may retard the growth. Even apes which have significantly reduced fur covering the face may not have a smooth face and with a face like this Image:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg, Image:Young male chimp.png, Image:Young male chimp.png, Image:Chimp.jpg acne is probably not going to make a big difference anyway (same with say, an elephant)... Also all (most?) animals lack the long puberty period humans go through where human levels fluctate widely and acne most commonNil Einne (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They probably escape it due to nutrition[4] not having a culture that emphasises dairy intake. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to post some proof that there's an acne/dairy link? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cats get it. So do dogs. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Plausible Theory

All right well I have set my sights on the beautiful dwarf planet, Pluto. And then I came to a theory of my own. Because Pluto has some terrestrial parts to it. I thought that maybe Pluto use to be either one part of another terrestrial planet or was a terrestrial planet that got knocked off orbit in the very early stages of the solar system. Would this theory be plausible?Rem Nightfall (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall

Outside the orbit of Neptune is a belt of small rocky objects (like Pluto) called the Kuiper belt. Pluto is part of this belt and has similar origins to other objects in the belt, it just happens to be a particulary large object in the belt. These objects (like those in the Asteroid belt never coagulated like the terrestrial planets did. I'm not sure why this is, I think it has to due with ratios orbital radius and speed.. --Shniken1 (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Pluto isn't even the largest, it's just the first one we found. As far as I know, that's its only claim to fame. --Tango (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from being awesome, of course. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Xena can kick Pluto's butt anytime! It's bigger has a more sensible orbit and a proper sized moon. AND a stupid cartoon dog stands no chance against an Amazon princess when it comes to "awesome". 70.116.10.189 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon dog? Surely you jest! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do jest...and in any case, the dwarf planet Xena is now officially known as Eris - the Greek goddess of strife and discord...who'd stand no chance in a stand up fight against Pluto (whos' more familiar Greek name is 'Hades', the God of Hell). But Xena is still bigger than Pluto. 70.116.10.189 (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Size matters little in the wars between Gods! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was what if Pluto use to be a bigger planet. What if the Kuiper Belt had been together in the younger solar system, but something disrupted it only leaving a small size planet instead of the large planet. What if they couldn't form with each other or something. Also I love Pluto its a fascinating planet. Its maybe the only planet we don't know about. Pluto is a wonderful planet may it be small or not.Rem Nightfall (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall

What will happen if a virus leaves its host cell for a long time?

and what will happen in terms of its chemical structure? - Justin545 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably it wouldn't be able to replicate as it has no access to RNA, but i'm not sure if it would stop functioning (it certainly won't 'die' since it isn't alive in the first place).

A virus can surely "die", that is, lose the ability to replicate in a host. I believe most animal viruses live for very short periods--hours at most--outside the host, unless they are being coddled in a lab. Woodlore (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is dispute in the scientific community to whether or not viruses are actually "alive" in the biological sense of the term. However, viruses can certainly be rendered inert or destroyed if they are left exposed outside of the body. Disinfectants, ethanol, bleach etc.. can certainly disrupt the lipid envelope of the virus and denature its protein coat and inner nucleic acids. Such things will also occur over time without the use of exogenous chemicals. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually the lay community that's concerned with the notion of whether or not viruses are "alive"; scientists pretty much know that it's not a useful term to be using about viruses. As Wisdom points out, what happens to a virus is a direct result of its environment: many remain unchanged, and remain infective, for quite a period of time. Others rapidly become non-infective. But heat and the chemical environment can change the speed at which this happens. (The virus, btw, can't replicate because it lacks ribosomes and has no way to produce proteins - that (and not lack of RNA) - is the reason that viruses are obligate intracellular parasites.) - Nunh-huh 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Tobacco Mosaic Virus" is the one they always teach about in school. When you extract it from it's host, it crystallises into rather gorgeous crystals of completely inert-seeming stuff. There you have something about as inert as you could imagine..."dead"...like a grain of salt. But let it dissolve in water and spray it onto a plant - and it's back to being an active, reproducing, disease-causing agent. It's right on the edge between being a "poison" and a "creature". Humans are very interested in putting up hard and fast barriers between one kind of object and another - where often, no real distinction exists. Consider "Planets"...is Pluto a "planet"? Well, the truth is, we shouldn't care - it's a big rock or a small world - but there is no hard line between rocks and worlds in nature - we see every possible value inbetween. The same is true for "life". Dogs and cats are obviously "alive" and crystals of NaCl (table salt) are "not-alive"...but the Tobacco Mosaic virus sure behaves like it's alive when it's taking over a plant...but when you crystalise it, you pretty much have to say it's a bunch of inert chemicals...but it's not "dead" because you can easily revive it. So viruses are to the "alive/not-alive" debate just as Pluto is to the "Planet/Not-planet" debate - whatever we decide to label them is entirely a linguistic convenience and tells you nothing whatever about what's going on in the universe. 70.116.10.189 (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether weather

Climatologists have stated in the past that global warming will bring about an increase in hurricanes, as documented for this year by the NOAA (approx. 9 to 12). Yet Knutson says that global warming may well bring about fewer hurricanes. Who's right, and how can such arguments be proven?--WaltCip (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Such things can't be proven - even waiting and seeing won't work, since there's no way to know it's global warming and not something else, or even just coincidence. The best we can do is gather evidence to support one view or another, but proof doesn't exist in science. --Tango (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientist run weather models (see Numerical weather prediction) But weather is such a complex, chaotic system that, as Tango says, you can't be sure what happened or is going to happen. It's not like you warm air here, it's going to get warm. The warm air may rise and change some arctic flow pattern and all of a sudden it gets a lot colder instead of a bit warmer. You can look at lots of measurements but it's pretty much impossible to say if A caused B and B then caused C or if A caused C directly and B just happened at the same time. So it's not like one scientist fed the correct data into his model and is right and the other made a mistake and is wrong. Both models are probably "correct" and either one has a bigger influence or they may even both apply in alternate years or months. Forecasters have become pretty good at finding patterns and coming to a conclusions about what might happen next that then actually applies. But we can never be sure that it wasn't something else that caused the observed results, or just coincidence. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Global warming means more hurricanes: Global warming puts more energy in the atmosphere, leading to warmer water in the hurricane-forming regions. Warmer water makes it easier for tropical storms to form and reach hurricane strength, so there are more hurricanes.

Global warming means fewer hurricanes: Global warming puts more energy in the atmosphere, allowing non-hurricane methods to distribute heat efficiently. The water in the hurricane-forming regions doesn't get as warm as it does now, and it's harder for tropical storms to form and reach hurricane strength, so there are fewer hurricanes.

There's no way to know which will happen. There are numerical simulations that support both, and it's entirely possible that something else entirely will occur. --Carnildo (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, could someone take a look at Political effects of Hurricane Katrina and Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. These two sources appear to present the idea that global warming has contributed to an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes in recent years as fringe theories. Yet from Effects of global warming from what I can tell this is not the case, global warming having a contributing effect is definitely accepted as a possibility by a number a scientists and there was even more acceptance of the idea at the time, in particular from Kerry Emanuel et al's research (although he has now done further research which has lead to a rethink, this was not the case at the time of Hurricane Katrina) Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky - we can predict 'climate' but we can't predict 'weather'. We know for 100% sure that CO2 traps sunlight. We have a reasonable estimate of how much - so we can say with an amazing degree of certainty that the earth will get hotter if there is more CO2 up there than there should be. But then we get into the ugly details. We know (for example) that increasing temperatures will melt polar ice. But know exactly how much is tricky because it depends on how the extra heat is distributed - will it get a lot hotter at the equator - but hardly any hotter at the poles - or will it be the other way around? It's tough to figure out because it depends on wind patterns, ocean currents and deep ocean currents - and once things get hotter, those will move around. If we don't know accurately how the heat will be distributed, we can't easily calculate the rate of polar ice melting. But worse still, as the polar ice does melt, it makes the planet less 'shiney' so yet more energy from the sun is absorbed by the dark oceans - and now you have solar heat intake going up much faster than you'd predict from CO2 levels alone. These lesser details get harder and harder to predict. We constantly hear about how the polar ice sheets are retreating much faster than scientists predicted...and that's because this math is hard. We knew that they WOULD be melting - that much was for sure - but exactly how much is almost impossible to know. The situation with hurricanes is even worse - those depend on even more subtle things - and there are numerically so few of them each year that randomness can easily overwhelm the underlying trend of increase or decrease. If there were (say) 15 of them last year and 18 this year - is that a 20% increase in one year - or is it just luck? So scientists make their computer models and run them to figure out what might happen - but if someone misses a key factor (like maybe the amount of salinity brought up from deep ocean super-haline layers by the change in ocean currents due to some yet other effect) - then their model won't predict things accurately. So it's true to say that science doesn't have a DETAILED picture of what will happen. However, we can be absolutely certain of the basic fact - which is that more CO2 means more heat being absorbed - which MUST mean that the planet will heat up. Exactly how fast and with what measure of impact on human society and biodiversity...those are open to debate. 70.116.10.189 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Models have to be tested against reality, for which you need enough observations. Hurricanes have been observed by satellites for 35 years and there are only a few every year. That gives a way too narrow statistical basis, unless there is a really strong change. Such as hurricanes appearing where they have not appeared before, which I've heard has happened off the coast of Brazil. Anyway, abovementioned Kerry and another researcher have both made a model that seems to be (partially) supported by the observations, and both predict fewer hurricanes in the Caribbean, especially small hurricanes. But they also predict that the big ones will become bigger. My layman's interpretation is that hurricanes form less easily, but when they do, they suck in more energy. However that may be, that is bad news. The little ones we and nature in general have adapted to. We can live with those. But it's the big ones that cause the trouble. And if they get bigger, they're megadisasters waiting to happen. Maybe Katrina was jut a foretaste. DirkvdM (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Record Cumulonimbus

What is the highest top recorded for a cumulonimbus cloud? Sancho 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Carpet / R-value (insulation)

Here we say that "per inch" values are not allowed and here they give thermal conductivity (not R-value) "per meter". In R-value (insulation) we link to [5], where they claim that a not further specified "carpet with fibrous pad" has more than 50% of the R-value of 2.54cm thick "Rock Wool Batt", although carpets are so thin and allow air exchange... Why dont they put carpets on the roof then? Can someone explain me what I understood wrong here? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the measurement for bulk material is not linear. Twice the thickness doesn't necessarily give you twice the amount of insulation. Imagine (for example) aluminum kitchen foil that's much less than a hundredth of an inch thick. It reflects a lot of heat back to the source and thus performs the task of home insulation reasonably well (my roof is decked inside using a product called "CoolPly" which is plywood laminated with some kind of reflective metal foil). But a solid slab of inch thick aluminum is not significantly better than 100th of an inch of the stuff. So describing the R-value of aluminium foil "per inch" is horribly deceptive because it would make it seem 1000 times better than it really is. However, other materials (insulating glass wool for example) have insulation properties that do get better the thicker they get. My house has three layers of the usual 4" thick wool insulation - and my roof's R-value is three times better than my neighbours house which has only one layer. In that case, you most certainly want to specify the R-value per inch of thickness. Expressing "thermal conductivity" in "per-meter" (or "per-inch") units is fine because thermal conductivity (even for aluminium) is directly proportional to the thickness of the material. The problem is that "R-value" is NOT a direct measure of thermal conductivity because it includes things like infrared reflectivity and the ability to limit heat loss by preventing the physical movement of air (convection).

Now - as to the question of carpet...remember that 2.54cm (an inch) of rockwool doesn't give you much insulation. As I said - I have the stuff stacked literally a foot thick in my attic. To do that with carpet, assuming it's 50% as good as rockwool as you say. I'd need 24 layers of the stuff with "fibrous pad" also 24 layers thick. But carpet is heavy and it's a lot more expensive than rock wool! Even cheap carpet is a couple of bucks per square foot. At 24 layers thick, that would add 50 bucks per square foot to the cost of my 3,000 sq.ft house - that's $150,000 on roof insulation! That's more than the entire house cost to build!

So that's why they don't use carpet! 70.116.10.189 (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought is was because of this guy! But nicely explained. I'd also add the concept of air infiltration; this is one of the things that makes spray foam insulation so effective: It has myriad air spaces, but no or very limited mobility for all that air.

Atlant (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May 24

Concrete dampening and evaporation

Recently I witnessed some light rain which evaporated fairly quickly after landing on the concrete. However, I noticed it on two sections of the sidewalk which were of about the same color and exposed equally to the rain, and one looked much wetter, as if the rain wasn't evaporating as fast. Why might this happen? What hidden variables might be in effect? 69.111.191.122 (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the roughness of the surface could affect the evaporation rate, or your perception of its wetness. -- Coneslayer (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the damper part of the pavement was a little rougher, so that might have been it. Otherwise, they were about the same in terms of exposure to both sunlight and rain. 69.111.191.122 (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

not to mention the possible absorbancy of the micro-surface of the concrete. Richard Avery (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Before the rain, was the sun out and was the wet pavement in the shade then? DirkvdM (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also one part of the pavement might be above someone's basement or a sewer tunnel and the other have earth directly underneath. --Lisa4edit (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could be due to the porosity or the concrete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.141.94 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Studies

Are there any studies being conducted (besides this one: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050193&ct=1#journal-pbio-0050193-box01) that are looking for the effect of bisphenol a in humans through out the lifespan? They must be looking at only bisphenol a's effect, I don't want any other chemicals in the study being studied for their effects.68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are more studies on this subject than you can possibly read. Searching Google Scholar for recent articles on bisphenol toxicity in humans returns 2890 hits as of today. Hope this helps ;) --Dr Dima (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with very recent developments? Pulser pump, mechanical mathematician, accumulating solar barbecue, dripper trackers.

I tried a couple of years ago to add the pulser pump to wikipedia. It is a simple river driven pump for 3rd world use that has no moving parts. I made one in Ireland and it is now 20 years old and still working. I have posted details on the web including video but for whatever reason, nobody in the scientific community has ever bothered to independently verify it. Its component parts are well know. (Trompes and airlift pumps). So it is a very short mental hop to realize that they actually work. But nobody has bothered verifying it. I invented the mechanical mathematician in late summer 2007 and it is now on solarcooking.org It is a tool for making parabolic dishes and moulds from clay. I invented the dripper trackers early this year and solarcooking.org put them in their recent news section. Dripper trackers are appropriate tech timer/counterweight devices for tracking solar reflectors. There are no patents involved. Is there any way to fasttrack them onto wikipedia so more people can make and use them? Brian White BC Canada Gaiatechnician (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiatechnician (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles on things other people have reported on through reliable sources. We don't publish original ideas. What you need to do is either A) get your idea published in a respected engineering journal or B) get major news sources to publish articles about your idea, probably by proposing it to governments or corporations. Wikipedia isn't the place to come to promote your concept, I'm afraid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, no! Wikipedia has strong policies that require that articles are about 'notable' subjects, that can be 'traced back to reputable sources' and are not 'original research'...your proposed articles fail all three tests - and if you wrote them, you'd probably fall foul of the 'no self-promotion' and 'anti-spam' guidelines too! That's mostly because we aren't going to take your word for it that these things work - we need to have 'references' to books and magazines that have independently reported on these things.

A better place to promote and discuss your ideas would be somewhere like World Changing - a Wiki designed for accumulating information on 'appropriate technology' - or Green Technologies - another Wiki which has similar goals. I'm sure there are others. Google 'Wiki Green Technology' for example. 70.116.10.189 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, the pump has been on the internet glossary of pumps for about 5 years. Does that count for anything? Also, since people who might use the pump often use wikipedia for reference, is there any chance that you can add a proper definition of trompe to wikipedia? They were widely used in Canada, spain, france, and the USA before hydroelctricity. In mines especially and even to operate pneumatic equipment for building alpine tunnels! Gaiatechnician (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And with regard to your "pulser pump", have you seen our article about the well-known hydraulic ram? Two moving parts, but it sounds quite similar.

Atlant (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, it isn't a ram. (The ram is also in the internet glossary of pumps).

I dont care what you call it, You can call it a combined airlift pump and trompe if you like but why not have at very minimum a definition for trompe on wikipedia? Trompes are real things that were used for over a hundred years and which are documented in engineering reference books. Pulser pump (I do not care what you want to call it) is a combined airlift pump and trompe and has no moving parts.

The difference between 2 moving parts and no moving parts should be enough to make people understand that they are different things but apparently not. It has nothing whatever to do with hydraulic rams and the tiniest bit of basic research would make that clear.

(http://members.tripod.com/~nxtwave/gaiatech/airliftreferences/trompinfo.html) is trompe info supplied to me as a result of a web request. but of course wikipedia cannot use it because it comes from my webpage and not from a book that I have. It is clear that nobody is bothered to get the info themselves. I am sorry to be annoyed but rams are absolutely nothing to do with trompes. I am done being bated by people who will not do their research. Gaiatechnician (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you find that your attitude commnly leads to success? It seems not, based on what you've said here. Just "a word to the wise"...

Atlant (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowelege of trompes can help riverside people in poor countrys have better lives. You can either provide them with that information or hide it from them. Feel free to concede that it is not a ram and lets make progress here. Why hide useful information away from poor people? Trompe still does not have a proper definiton in wikipedia. Why? It has been 5 days. Ample time indeed Gaiatechnician (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE HYPOTHALAMUS

Have you tried.... hypothalamus? :-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

More simply, it is the part of the brain that sends the signals from your nerves to your hormones. Rockpocket 07:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Earwax

What is the best way to prevent a buildup of earwax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.238.57 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean your ear canals regularly with cotton swabs. —Keenan Pepper 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

...But do read the instructions, and don't be an idiot and puncture your ear drum like this man. —Keenan Pepper 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was told never to put anything in my ear that was smaller than my elbow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.238.57 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's pretty borderline medical advice there. I don't clean my ear canals with cotton swaps any more after I crammed so much ear wax that I couldn't hear out of one ear till a $300 doctor's visit (paid for by insurance, I think). I don't clean them at all any more and I haven't had any problems in 3-4 years (since the doctor visit). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything I've ever read or heard about this states pretty clearly that cotton swabs are a bad idea. They remove some of it, sure, but they also push the wax farther in and pack it in more tightly. In fact, even our own article on ear wax says, "Cotton swabs, on the other hand, push most of the earwax further into the ear canal and remove only a small portion of the top layer of wax that happens to adhere to the fibers of the swab." -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

those cotton swabs r no good for that purpose, i have been told by an ear doctor (Otolaryngologist? ear MD?)... i personally use my shower head (where the water comes out) with low pressure and direct it in various angles at my ears... yesterday my ear doctor found nothing in my left ear (after more than a year) and in my other ear he found something that he removed with a special "shower head"... furthermore i think that apes wont do anything about their ear wax... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of relatively safe dissolving preparations available over the counter from chemists. A few drops of solvent is dripped into the ear canal and the canal is then lightly plugged with cotton wool. The dissolved wax runs into the cotton wool. Do it at night and one ear at a time and you should be wax free in no time. Richard Avery (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Any oil akin to say, soy oil, will produce similar results. Use a proper tool for the job, and inject a wee few drops before going to sleep. Use cotton to keep it in, and repeat next evening. At the end of the treatment (my doctor told me to do it three evenings in a row) some comfortably warm water should be used to rinse the ear canal. Showerhead excels here. Not too much pressure, as Homer pointed out, but enough and from many enough angles that you cover it all. You can use a cotton pin to check how much is left, a day and two after. Removal of earwax is nearly as easy as removal of snot, so I wouldn't mind the medical advice disclaimer. Scaller (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I use 70% isopropyl or ethyl alcohol to wash off my earwax, free disinfectant too.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

New portal

Hello every one! I've created a new template on molecular and cell biology. Since, I do not have much experience and confidence in editing such sophisticated material, and also don't possess the requisite expertise in the field, I request others to go through the template and edit it in accordance. Moreover, I felt this was a very fundamental topic, which didn't have any template, so created that.

I don't know if there is a provision to notify users accessing articles related to the template that such a template has been created, and that it could be included on the pertinent pages.

Regards.

KetanPanchal^talk-TO-me 07:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology - the talk page there would be the best place to contact people involved in the articles your template would be useful on. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed?

[6]

I'm confused by the article. Are they saying that bisphenol A actually occurs naturally in the environment? Chemical reactions actually happen in the environment to creat bisphenol A with or without catalysts? And if so, is this peer reviewed?

Another entirely different question:

Does industry funding have any importance once a piece is peer reviewed?

I mean, if a piece is industry funded, and the funder decides that results are not in its intrests, they can pull out funding, or if in the middle of the research, they can decide not to pay for the rat, and then even if the piece get's peer reviewed, the peers would obvious see something wrong, and the piece would have to be revised.

If the piece is industry funded, and then it gets peer reviewed, if say the rat cage was not cleaned (and this was on purposely not cleaned, so that the results would indictate not bisphenol A release (let's just say)), the peers would find it and the piece would have to be revised anyways.

So is there any way that from where a piece is funded is important to know on top of peer reviewed statusstratification?68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the implication (from reading the abstract) is that it occurs naturally. I think they are suggesting Bisphenol A is made synthetically, but then leaked into the environment where humans and other animals are exposed to it. It would appear that the greatest exposure comes from our diet.

On reading the information for authors, its not entirely clear whether review articles are peer reviewed in this journal. Some journals do peer review reviews, others do not. You could always email the editor and ask him or her.

Authors typically have to declare any conflict of interest at the end of a manuscript, where industrial funding would be declared. However, since this is a review article (rather than original research) the scope for COI is limited. The authors are simply summarising the literature, rather than reporting new findings. However, to address your concerns. If you wanted to purposely hide or lie about some information then it is unlikely reviewers would be aware of that on a one off occasion. In time your work would be discredited though, as other people in the field would not be able to repeat your experiments. It is reproduction and repetition that determines the authenticity or scientific reports in the longer term (which is why you should take conclusions of any single paper at your own risk). Cheats may prosper in science for a while, but eventually their work will be marginalized. That all said, most scientists do factor in COI when reading articles. For example, I also treat research on lung cancer that is funded by the tobacco industry with a healthy dose of skepticism. There are also conditions factored into corporate funding sometimes. The money men may have the final say on whether you can publish some data, so if your findings are not strategically favorable to them, they could stop you from publishing it. So its very much in your interest to ensure that the funders like the outcome. For this reason, a lot of scientists refuse to accept corporate funding: because it can leave you in a, shall we say, morally ambiguous situation. Rockpocket 07:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the source for exposure is enviroment or food, but the bisphenol A in the enviroment and food does 'NOT occurs naturally in this sources, but is added by pollution through human products and waste.--Stone (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that peer review does not guarantee anything is correct. It also does not really attempt to spot deliberate falsification. All it does is try to make sure that the article can pass a very elementary analysis by people who are versed in the same knowledge. They are just checking to make sure it isn't totally worthless, totally embarrassing to the journal it is in, or taking up space that would be better served by just about anything else. I'm not knocking peer review, though it is hardly the wonderful system that many of those who are not involved in it think it is. It's one way of handling the question of what should be published; it is also somewhat of a deliberate screen to keep out "cranks" and non-professionals. It does not, and never has, guaranteed validity, freedom from bias, or even something simple like coherency. Don't over-trust in it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

automobile wheel size

I am buying a car soon and I have a choice between the base model and a higher model.

They are practically identical except that the base model has 15 inch wheels while the higher model has 16 inch wheels.

Does this mean that the base model will run at a higher rpm (engine speed) for the same on road velocity?

Does it mean that the base model (15 inch wheels) can accelerate faster because it can put a higher torque on the road due to its smaller wheel size? 122.107.199.2 (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The "15 inch" and "16 inch" numbers are the diameters of the wheels (tire rims). The size of the wheel does not by itself determine the diameter of the tire, because the height of the tire walls are not taken into account. See the Wiki article on tire specification for more details. --71.162.249.240 (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The larger rims have skinnier tires - which gives the car a more agressive look that's very trendy today.

Sadly, the people who go for bigger rims and skinnier tires are not physicists. Rubber (even with steel 'belts') weighs less than aluminum so the 15" wheels (having more rubber and less aluminum than the 16" kind) are typically lighter. Whilst the difference isn't all that great compared to the weight of the entire car, driving experts like to distinguish 'unsprung weight' from 'sprung weight'...the weight of things like wheels, brakes and axles that are not being isolated from the road surface by springs and shocks is much more important to performance than 'sprung weight' - the engine, transmission, body, etc. Saving even a few pounds of unsprung weight can have a big performance impact. Also, the heaviest part of the entire rim/tire assembly is further out from the hub in the case of 16" wheels - which gives them a higher moment of inertia - which makes them harder to start and stop spinning - so you actually get more accelleration and better braking from 15" wheels than 16". The only benefit (performance-wise) of 16" wheels is that the side-walls of the tires are shorter so they flex less while cornering and braking - which somewhat improves handling but produces a slightly harsher 'ride' than the 15" wheels.

One cool trick is to buy the 15" wheels - but then swap out the tires for skinnier ones and sell the old (but unused) tires on Craigslist or whatever. Now you have the 'look' of the 16" wheels but a smaller diameter. You truly get the best of both worlds AND the reduced overall diameter gives you better accelleration (although a lower top speed) - and has the effect of lowering the car a half inch - without the cost of 'lowering springs' which looks cool (if you like that kind of thing) and typically produces better handling. The only real downside is that you have less ground-clearance and (strictly speaking) your speedometer and odometer need to be recalibrated. 70.116.10.189 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Studies

I know there are no completed studies that are looking for the effect of bisphenol a in humans through out the lifespan, but are there and studies in the progress or are planned (besides this one: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050193&ct=1#journal-pbio-0050193-box01)? They must be looking at only bisphenol a's effect, I don't want any other chemical(s) in the study being studied for their effects. Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You just asked that, and got an answer, 7 sections up. --Tango (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Water Clouds

Recently returning on a flight i just happened to notice that flying at 37,00oft there was on the wings what seemed to be water but it was moving more like a gel ???? At this altitude the temperature is as far as i am aware about between -80 to -100 . Surly the rain droplets would have frozen then fallen to earth??? Which technically would mean that the clouds would become too heavy and (fall from the skies)??? How is this???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmm311068 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Water droplets won't get any heavier when they freeze - as long as it's a very small frozen droplet it will still be suspended in the air. When the droplets get too large, they will fall from the sky as rain. I don't know why the water droplets on the wings would act strangely - my guess would be an aerodynamic effect. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What you saw on the wings might not have been water (particularly not that high up) but rather Deicing fluid. That will get gel-like when you freeze it. --Lisa4edit (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dosage of a Drug

When dosages of a particular drug are calculated such as "1mg per kg" does it matter that someone may be 60% fat and another 20% fat but weigh the same?

What is really being estimated by using the weight, is it total blood volume, metabolism etc? 78.148.84.63 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacokinetics#Compartmental_analysis should give some hints... surely adipose people with liver damage need different dosage and sometimes even different medication... dosage is often symptom based, too... i think those "per kg body weight" numbers r just a rule of thumb and that doctors often cant even measure the weight of the patient when they "compute" the dosage (e.g. in case of an emergency on the street...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually the dosage is given as "mg per kg of ideal body weight". Often this is just ignored, as there are only certain drugs for which the adjustment for obesity is crucially important. The volume of distribution for lipophilic drugs may be greatly increased in the obese. - Nunh-huh 15:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientists

Are doctors or engineers considered as scientists? If not, what are they considered as. Clover345 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An engineer isn't a scientist, they're an engineer. It's a separate category. I'd say a doctor probably does count as a scientist though - they certainly are if they're involved in research. --Tango (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is that most doctors and engineers are considered to be doctors and engineers. A more detailed answer would depend greatly on the nature of the work that a particular engineer or physician did, as well as how broadly one chose to define the term 'scientist'.

If we say that a scientist – roughly speaking – is someone who is paid to employ the scientific method to answer questions about the way the world around us works, then some physicians and engineers would fit the category while others would not. While engineers often are involved in using known principles to solve specific problems, there absolutely are engineers who conduct basic research into metallurgy, corrosion processes, aerodynamics, semiconductors, etc. Many doctors use established techniques and protocols to treat patients, but at least some participate in clinical research projects. (Any large medical research institute will have at least a few 'double docs' floating around: individuals who have both MD and PhD degrees.)

It might help if you could give us some idea of why you want to put each of these professions into a 'scientist' or 'not-scientist' box. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

More generally, people who are researchers are often considered scientists. Doctors and engineers, as trades, are not researchers. There are people with MD degrees and all sorts of engineering degrees who are researchers, though. And sometimes they put on different hats and become doctors and engineers, practicers of a trade, as well. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Engineers read; scientists write. --Sean 00:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And vice-versa. Both engineers and scientists contribute to original research frequently, but the distribution of publication frequency and the (direct) applicability of their publications differ. Depending on the field, this line is often quite blurred. Sjschen (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Metallurgy

I have to do a presentation about metallurgy, and I need a good demo to accompany the presentation. Any suggestions? --Sturgeonman (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a shape memory alloy demo. --hydnjo talk 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Spin

If I was to throw an object at a certain speed and spin, what angular velocity would I need to spin it at such that it comes to a rest? I worked it out to 5v/2r, but I'm not sure whether my answer is right. During the calculation, I saud that F=ma, and so F(k)=Ma, μMg=Ma, a=μg. Is this right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.241.74 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Whatever speed and spin you throw it with, it will come to rest quite shortly afterwards, but I guess the quickest way to achieve this is to throw it with zero speed and zero spin.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry the question's badly worded. If I wanted to throw a ball at velocity v (say 5 m/s), what angular velocity would it need to have so that it comes to rest and doesn't roll afterwards (for example, if I spun it faster it would roll back towards me, and if I spun it slower it would continue in the same direction, just slower). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.241.74 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a case where friction is causing a force to be applied to the lower edge of the ball in the direction opposite both the ball's travel and the spin. You want that force to zero out both the momentum and angular momentum at the same time. One critical factor is the mass distribution of the ball. Is it uniformly dense, or is it a hollow shell? The relationship between mass, spin, and angular momentum are different for each. (That said, someone else will have to work out the mathematics - I'm too rusty for that.) -- Tcncv (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably also take into consideration the coefficient of friction of the ball and of the surface as well as the air resistance on your ball. Bastard Soap (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm assuming air resistance to be zero. As per friction, I did take it into account, for friction is a necessary component for this to work. That's what F(k) is (force of kinetic friction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.241.74 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the air resistance would be negligible assuming a smooth ball (such as one of plastic) that is not light. However, air resistance would probably need to be calculated on something such as a tennis ball or other "fluffy" ball. It definitely would need to be taken into account for a light-weight, "fluffy" ball. For simplification of the situation, though, I would have assumed the OP to be negating that (which s\he is). Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we leave the force of friction unknown for the moment, but simply assume it creates enough of an impulse while the ball is in contact with the surface to negate the ball's forward momentum? Ignoring deformation due to the impact, what will the ball's angular momentum then be as a function of its initial velocity and angular momentum? That might be an easier way to approach the problem I'd think. I'll think about that some more though. Hmm. --Prestidigitator (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Think about the problem in reverse. The ball has just stopped. Immediately prior to stopping, the a force due to friction was being applied to the bottom surface of the ball in the opposite direction of its motion (and backspin). Any such force would (I believe) affect both momentum and angular momentum in some proportion. That proportion would be independent of the amount of force involved. Calculate the relationship between that force and changes to both momentum and angular momentum, and then combine to eliminate force, and you should have the answer. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said earlier, I already got an answer (5v/2r). I just wanted to know if it was right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.241.74 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the answer doesn't depend on the coefficient of friction. A completely smooth ball won't stop regardless of the amount of spin you give it and I would expect the required spin to vary continuously with friction (this expectation could well be wrong), which would require it to either be always impossible (doesn't seem right to me) or be non-constant. --Tango (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My calulations involved cancelling the coefficient of friction, such I guess it's assumed to be non-zero (0/0 is indeterminant). If I'm right, friction only affects the time it takes (t=v/μg).

Well, here goes. Analyzing the angular momentum about the center (of mass of) the ball:

$\Delta p=-p_{0}=-mv_{0}$

$\Delta L=-L_{0}=-Iw_{0}=r\Delta p=-mrv_{0}$

$w_{0}={\frac {mrv_{0}}{I}}$

Using a list of moments of inertia, for a solid ball:

$I={\frac {2mr^{2}}{5}}$

$w_{0}={\frac {mrv_{0}}{2mr^{2}/5}}={\frac {5v_{0}}{2r}}$

And for a hollow ball:

$I={\frac {2mr^{2}}{3}}$

$w_{0}={\frac {mrv_{0}}{2mr^{2}/3}}={\frac {3v_{0}}{2r}}$

which seems to agree with yours, if you were talking about a solid ball. --Prestidigitator (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's only a coincidence that we got the same answer this way. When using the equation ΔL=rmΔv, the v refers to the tangential velocity of the ball, which is only equal to its actual velocity when the ball isn't slipping.

I got an answer using the following method:

Στ=Iα, F(k)R=Iα, α=F(k)R/I.

ΣF=ma, F(k)=ma, a=F(k)/m.

Then, using the equations of motion, I solved ω=mRv/I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.241.74 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with slipping or not slipping. I used $\Delta L=r\Delta p=-rmv_{0}$ because you stated the ball was to stop both its linear and rotational motion. You did exactly the same when you stated $F_{k}R=I\alpha$. --Prestidigitator (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

May 25

Genetics: Linked genes

I would like to know if there are any linked characteristics with a particular gene, is ther a good resource for this? In particular I would like to know if there are any traits associated with curly hair and pointed canines in humans. Bastard Soap (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well first you have to find out whether there are known genes that have a phenotype resulting in curly hair or pointed canines. Then you can you find the other traits associated with those genes. A good way to do this is is via OMIM. A search for "curly hair" reveals a number of genes that have alleles associated with curly hair, these include the plakoglobin gene which is responsible for Naxos disease. In these people, curly hair is associated with palmoplantar keratoderma and cardiac abnormalities. However, these alleles tend to be rare, extreme examples. Genetic association with "regular" curly hair is unknown, See: Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM): 139450 Rockpocket 07:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Transformers

Do the actual number of turns have any effect on the general system, or is it only the ratio that counts? 2000:1000 is equivalent to 2:1 in all respects? Bastard Soap (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The greater the number of turns in the winding (other things being equal) the greater the inductance (and resistance). If you took a transformer designed to be connected to a 120 volt source in the primary winding which had 2000 turns and connected a 1 or 2 turn winding across the same 120 volt source, with no load on any other winding, I would expect extremely high current to flow due to the low inductance, causing a fuse to blow or the winding to burn out. The higher number of turns in the original transformer would have limited the no-load current to a safe value due to the higher no-load inductance. Tinkerers have sometimes taken a transformer and left the 120 volt (240 volt in other countries than the US) primary winding alone, since it has enough turns to work properly, then changed the number of turns in a the secondary wound over it to produce a high current-low voltage secondary, or a high voltage low current secondary, as desired. In summmary, a transformer with too few primary turns would draw excessive current even when there was no load on the secondary, but the no-load voltages would still vary pretty much as the turns ratio. Edison (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual number of turns does have an effect. The number of primary turns must be sufficient to avoid saturation of the core or keep down the magnetising current. This is one reason that, generally, one cannot use a step down transformer backwards as a step up transformer.

Also, increased turns will, of course, put up the winding resistances. This is important when you consider losses and heat generation etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.141.94 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen lots of utility power transformers and instrument transformers which worked fine to step up or to step down voltage. Step-up, step down, or unity isolation transformers. Edison (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the point though? You can design a transformer so it's suitable for stepping upping a voltage say 22kV to 44kV. This will work fine for other things like 44kV to 22kV, 22kV to 11kV, 440V to 220V etc. But you wouldn't want to use it for 44kV to 88kV or 88kV for 44kV Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For one thing the strength of the magnetic field in the core will be different between those cases, and I think it might be possible to saturate the material in the transformer's core if the magnetic field strength is too high. But I'm not sure. I don't see any allusion to it in the articles I've looked through so far. I might have to go digging through electrodynamics textbooks at some point. --Prestidigitator (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Therefore assuming that there are enough turns to limit the current and prevent saturation of the core, there would be no advantage what so ever in addind more turns? 88.203.106.28 (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First, in response to Nil Einne, I agree that the 44kV to 22kV transformer can step down 44kV or step up 22 kV equally well. The problem with applying, say, 44 kV to the 22 kV winding is that the voltage stress would exceed the insulation level and could cause a short between turns or to the core or a flashover of the insulators or bushings. I would also expect the exciting current (with one winding energized and no load on the other windings) would increase with a higher than rated voltage applied. With a utility transformer, there is quite a bump when the voltage is applied, with the mechanical shock to thr transformer causing dust to fly off, and sometimes causing protective relays to trip because the harmonics or inrush current seem like there is a fault, with normal voltage applied. If it did not fail instantly from higher than rated voltage, it would at least have a greatly decreased service life. In response to 88.203.106.28, remember that each turn takes up space. If the conductor has to be of a certain diameter to carry the rated current, and the insulation has to be of a certain thickness to withstand the turn to turn and winding to winding potential differences, then having more turns per winding (while keeping the turns ratio constant) would mean a physically larger, heavier and more expensive transformer. Edison (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops you're right, I got somewhat confused while writing that, too tired or something perhaps. I'd intended to say you could design a transformer to step down 44kV to 22kV and you could use it for 22kV to 11kV, 11kV to 22kV etc, but you wouldn't want to use it for 22kV to 44kV (unless it was designed for that as well). Similarly you could design a transformer to 22kV to 44kV and use it for 22kV to 11kV or 11kV to 22kV etc etc but not 44kV to 22kV. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So turns are always kept at a minimum which doesn't saturate and limits the current? Bastard Soap (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much true. But it's also worth noting, especially for high-frequency transformers (that aren't so limited by the need for a large inductance) that transformers are basically "whole number" devices where each winding is counted in full turns around the core. This may keep you from using a transformer with a two-turn primary if the voltage ratio you need is a step-down of 50 volts to 40 volts. Fractional turns can be hard to realize in practice, especially when you consider that the external wiring may also act as part of a "turn" of the coil. So you tend not to see too many transformers with really low numbers of turns, even though they are theoretically possible. (Interestingly enough, really high frequency DC to DC converters now use transformers where the windings are a very few "turns" formed by circuit traces on the printed circuit board.)

Atlant (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Signal fade

How far away from the Earth would you have to go before TV signals etc become indistinguishable from natural background noise? (Assuming that we are waiting long enough for the signals to actually arrive.) --Fangz (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't imagine it to be very far. Giving the signal such a boost for space travel would be wasted energy after all, a useless added cost for the company (assuming E.T. doesn't pay for satellite). Bastard Soap (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no electrical engineer, but I believe that the ability of an antenna to pick out a point signal source from evenly distributed background radiation is in some proportion to the antenna's size or dish diameter. Theoretically, given a sufficiently large (and perfectly constructed) parabolic dish antenna, the TV signals could be resolved at any distance. Other factors might come into play though, such as the effects of interstellar gas and dust or gravitational distortion. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

TV signals are Electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light but at radio frequency (see: Radio propagation). As light propagates through free space, its intensity spreads out, according to the Inverse square law which states that the power density of an electromagnetic wave is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance from the source. So, "doubling the distance from a transmitter means that the power density of the radiated wave at that new location is reduced to one-quarter of its previous value." Consider the radiation from the sun. The intensity of the radiation from the sun is 9 times greater than that at Earth. At Pluto, which is approximately 39 times further away from the sun than the earth, the intensity is reduced to next to nothing, the sun just appears like a star. However, there is still some solar intensity getting to Pluto. Since radio waves are the same as light waves, the same applies. So on Pluto, you would get a very weak TV signal from the Earth (which would also be delayed since light travels at a finite speed, however if Plutonians have a decent receiver and amplifier, they will be able to watch their favourite programs. In the same way that we can see distant stars and galaxies using powerful telescopes, E.T. will be able to pick up radio transmissions from the earth using a radio telescope. The cosmic background radiation is incoherent noise, whereas the TV radio waves will contain a coherent signal, which theoretically, could always be extractable from the background noise, using a specialised Low-noise amplifier for example. Astronomers are able to detect and extract radio signals from stars, galaxies or other cosmic bodies, that are billions of light years away. I hope this helps, Jdrewitt (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But the sun emits a much stronger signal (by many orders of magnitude) than a man-made source, so your analogy fails. We cannot detect individual stars as far away as the furthest detectable galaxy. Another example: when the sun enters the field of view of a VSAT antenna, the VSAT cannot detect the signals from the geosynchronous satellite because the sun is so much more powerful than the (much closer) satellite. This occurs for brief periods once a day near the equinoxes. -Arch dude (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't the companies transmit the signal at the minimum power possible which allows clear reception over their area of operation? 88.203.106.28 (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They probably do, but the signal will propagate in all directions, including into space. Electromagnetic radiation will continue to propagate indefinitely through free space, and with powerful enough receivers will be detected from any distance. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Free space" is only a theoretical idea, though. This paper from NASA about SETI estimates that beyond about 1000 light years, signals outside the range 10^-3 Hz to 10⁶ Hz would be lost to space dust, free electrons, and stray fields. Beyond a certain distance, the signals will lose their coherence and no amount of signal processing will be able to recover them. --Heron (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Our Fermi paradox claims :

SETI estimates, for instance, that with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light years.[44] Clearly detecting an Earth type civilization at great distances is difficult.

No idea how accurate that is. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's yet another fly in the ointment, of course. Let's consider American TV channel 7. There isn't just one transmitter (on the entire half of the planet facing ET) that is transmitting on Channel 7; there are probably a dozen or more. And at great distances, your antenna needs to not only be able to catch enough signal to distinguish the signal from the universe's noise, it also needs to have enough angular resolution to be able to separate Boston's Channel 7 (WHDH-TV) from New York City's Channel 7 (WABC-TV). Otherwise, about all you'll be able to decipher from the signal is that there are a bunch of different signals sharing the same frequency allocation and modulation methods, but you'll have a very hard time demodulating them.

Atlant (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry.

If one takes a thin layer of water (say 3-5 mm thick) and pours a bit of isopropyl alcohol in it, the line of the water recedes as the alcohol spreads out and at the boundary there is vibration in some spots. What causes this? Also, what allows some things to evoporate (water, alcohol, gasoline, etc.), while others can't (oil)? Thanks in anticipation, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 01:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Surface tension, Evaporation--Lisa4edit (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, would anyone like to explain? From the surface tension article: "Its cause is a complex interaction between the differing surface tensions of water and ethanol." Please explain this complex interaction. I knew it had something to do with the surface tension; I just don't know what. I couldn't find anything pertaining to my question in evaporation. Well, except it does say that if the interactions of the molecules are strong enough, the substance will not evaporate. Is this the case with oil. Please explain, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your quote from the article relates to "tears" in alcoholic drinks. I think that description is missing a bit about capillary action, which draws the water-alcohol azeotrope up the walls of the glass. The higher vapour pressure of the alcohol causes it to deplete more rapidly, and then the surface tension of the remaining water causes it to form droplets or "tears".

To your first question, adding alcohol to the water changes the surface tension, and as the shape of the meniscus changes, the area occupied by the given volume will change.

To your second question, pretty much everything evaporates, some things much faster than others, vapour pressure is what makes it happen, you can also look at partial pressure. Franamax (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaky o-ring

Why is is that steatorrhea is so often associated with fecal incontinence, while diarrhea is not (or is less-so)? Tuckerekcut (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because of the oily nature of steatorrhea as it contains undigested fats and oils by definition. It acts as its own lubricant.Fribbler (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I change reality?

I'll be honest with you. My life is miserable and sometimes I get tired of scientific laws.- i.e. "the way things are". Facts, nature, atomic structure, etc. Science says that one day we'll be able to create a universe in the labratory, so is there hope for dreamers like me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Carefree (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You cant change reality, but you can change your mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.141.94 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. There's always mind altering drugs. --Fangz (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You can change a lot about how you as a human interact with reality. You can't change reality at the physical level. Sorry. It would not be a good idea if you could—lots of problems would result. (Imagine if you weakened the strong nuclear force and all the atoms fell apart. Total bummer. No dreams, no nuthin'.)

Here's a wild idea, though: have you read any somewhat radical philosophy of science? Give Paul Feyerabend a whirl—especially Against Method. You might feel comforted to know that there are some compelling arguments out there (not compelling to scientists, of course, but who asked them?) that reality ain't all that it's cracked up to be, that facts are less concrete than they appear in textbooks, that the way of making something into a "fact" is a bit more complicated and fraught than the scientists let on. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned that you were a dreamer. Well, you could try Lucid Dreaming. That way, instead of having to obey scientific laws, scientific laws have to obey you. Digger3000 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

- Philip K. Dick

It was always my hope, in writing novels and stories which asked the question "What is reality?", to someday get an answer. This was the hope of most of my readers, too. Years passed. I wrote over thirty novels and over a hundred stories, and still I could not figure out what was real. One day a girl college student in Canada asked me to define reality for her, for a paper she was writing for her philosophy class. She wanted a one-sentence answer. I thought about it and finally said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That's all I could come up with. That was back in 1972. Since then I haven't been able to define reality any more lucidly. - Philip K. Dick 1978

202.168.50.40 (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephens aldehyde synthesis

In the Stephens aldehyde synthesis, we have a nitrile. Nitrogen is more electronegative tha Carbon. So it will develop a partial negative charge and the Carbon will have a partial positive charge. So when H⁺Cl^-reacts with it, Cl^-must attach to the carbon. But the hydrogen(H⁺)only attaches? How does this happen?

Can you kindly explain the mechanism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.106.218 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Stephen aldehyde synthesis page and Tin(II) chloride? It seems that the Cl^- does bond to the carbon atom, and then the tin(II) chloride reduces it (I don't know how exactly the reduction occurs though). --Mark PEA (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Name

How is L'Hospital (the mathemetician)'s name pronounced? Does it go like "L-apital"?? 117.194.226.87 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced Low-pi-taal. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it was pronounced in his day, but I've always heard (an English mangling of) the usual pronunciation of the word. Algebraist 09:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally hear people say either "Le-hop-it-al" or "Lop-it-al" - which, as Algebraist says, are probably English manglings of the correct pronunciation. --Tango (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Education & Career

What are the prospects of the animation industry in the next ten years? 117.194.226.87 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You might have more luck with this question at the Entertainment desk unless you'd be looking for Forensic animation maybe. --Lisa4edit (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I copied your question over there. You can click this link Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment to look for answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonder bar

How is it that bacteria(?) can develop immunities to various medicines like penicillin, but not against the lowly bar of soap? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Penicilin and other medicines work on bacteria that have already infected your body. Soap reduces the number of bacteria on your skin [7]. That reduces the number of invaders your immune system has to deal with. --Lisa4edit (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Up to my knowledge it is because the soap doesn't fragmentate, it remains of a certain concentration. While medicines, anti-bacterial soap and other stuff fall to concentrations low enough that don't finish off all bacteria. The bacteria which remain have a higher resistance to the agent (otherwise they wouldn't have survived it). These bacteria then reproduce and you have a population which is more resistant than before. Soap on the other hand just kills all the mos before they can do anything. 88.203.106.28 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As Lisa4edit says, it is because of a different mechanism of action. Regular soap is a physical weapon of hygiene - it is a surfactant that helps wash bacteria away. Its very difficult for anything to evolve immunity to that (beyond getting better at attachment, I suppose). In contrast, antibiotics are like chemical weapons. Because bacteria can evolve quickly as a population, they are pretty good at adapting their biology so that our chemical weapons are no longer effective. Rockpocket 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't soap lyse open their cell wall as well? In that sense isn't it a weapon as well? Frankly I don't see any difference with regards to evolution in inside the body and outside. 88.203.106.28 (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

With antibiotics you create Evolutionary pressure. Only resistant bacteria survive and multiply. And they are already in the body. With soap everything gets flushed down the same drain, no matter what variation evolved. Even if bacteria somehow developed a superior attachment and thicker cell wall, they'd still have to get into the body and battle the body's defenses. The intent of soap is to prevent infection, antibiotics are used to fight it. Lisa4edit (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There's another reason for this, that you seem to be overlooking. Inside the body, there are lots of delicate things, so any antibacterial weapons we feed into our systems have to be very selective, or they'll kill us as well. Our cells are based on similar principles to those of the bad guys. It's easy enough to get resistant to something that targets, say, DNA transcriptase, or some other wacky enzyme that might be found, in a particular form, in just a handful of species. It's a whole different ball game trying to build up a resistance to acid, heat, cold, or just plain washing stuff down the sink. 203.221.126.247 (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words (and I don't think this goes quite so far as to be medical advice, as it falls pretty well under the category of common sense), don't eat soap. ;-) --Prestidigitator (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Striking out medical advice. ;-) --Tango (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

'Lest you go blind from Lifebuoy Poisoning!

Atlant (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Some very good points and I'd also like to say who said bacteria aren't 'resistant' to soap (in as much as this has any meaning which is not much). If I get a resonably deep wound from a dirty sharp object, I'd take the antibiotics over the soap/soapy water any day you force me to choose Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

NE, I think you'd be fighting against every tenet of medical practice - first, you cleanse the wound from the outside. Antibiotics are the last line, not the first line of defence, for reasons of evolution of antibiotic resistance given above. In your deep-wound case, you might do both, but surely you'd wash yourself off first? Franamax (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well as I said, if you FORCE mt to choose I would choose the antibiotics. You're right that antibiotics are supposed to be the last line of defence, but if you're force me to choose only one option, most people who know abit about bacteria, antibiotics and soap (I think even most doctors) would choose the antibiotics (particularly if it's one with a low level of resistance in the environment) at least for a deep wound from a dirty object. My point was that antibiotics are far better at killing bacteria then soap (since of course soap primarily washes away the bacteria, as has already been discussed) so it's even more meaningless to say bacteria has no 'resistance' soap then it seems from the discussion. (Of course bacteria are not likely to develop greater 'resistance' to soap, for the reasons already highlighted.) This doesn't mean you should go around using antibiotics willy nilly, as you said, it's a bad idea because your going to help the development of resistance. (In fact I personally very rarely apply topical antibiotics and I seem to cut myself a lot. I don't even disinfect a lot of the time which probably isn't good practice but anyway...) N.B. Obviously it's still far better to wash first whatever the case since beyond the resistance, even if you do feel the need for antibiotics, it's far better to wash away (and perhaps then kill with a disinfectant) 95%-99% of bacteria first rather then hope to kill them all/stop an infection with the antibiotics. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. And there I was, thinking soap killed bacteria. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You might find this article interesting [8]--Lisa4edit (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary Anthropology and Psychology

Are evolutionary anthropology and evolutionary psychology legitimate sciences? If not what is the scientific rationale for ethology and evolutionary biology applying to animals but not to humans? 71.231.121.77 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

evolutionary anthropology Evolutionary psychology Evolutionary psychology controversy may help.--Lisa4edit (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are legitimate sciences - they both have peer-reviewed journals, which is one of the defining traits of "good science" (i.e. a lot of people who are educated about the field have come to a consensus about most of the basic facts, and these provide the foundation for published work on the topic). This does not mean that every theory, hypothesis, or publication about evolutionary anthropology or psychology is guaranteed to be accurate or correct; but it has probably passed a review process. Nimur (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is actually debate in contemporary philosophy of science as to whether or not social sciences such as anthropology, sociology, and psychology in general should be labeled "sciences" at all. Just putting that out there, not stating an opinion. --Shaggorama (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"For shaver only"

I have here a NiMH AA batter charger with an ungrounded unpolarized US plug. It says "Input: 100-240 VAC, 50/60 Hz, 0.16 A". I also have a US-to-UK plug adapter which says "250V, 1A fuse, for shaver only". Is there any reason I can't use this adapter to plug this non-shaving device into a UK outlet? And what are the specs of those "shavers only" outlets in airplane lavatories and hotel bathrooms and the like? Thanks. 81.98.253.215 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that the "shaver only" thing is there because it's only rated at 1 amp, which is quite a lot lower than other devices expect (13 amps is the standard for a UK plug, I think). If the charger only draws 0.16A, though, it should be fine. The other problem is that 250V is more than 240V, although it's not far off, so you might get away with it, but if it blows up and burns your house down, don't blame me! When in doubt, follow the instructions! --Tango (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be OK. The "shavers only" plugs are indeed current-limited (on planes due to limited power supply, in bathrooms due to risk of electrocution due to proximity to water), since your charger only draws 0.16A you ought to be fine. Your UK-to-US adapter is probably limited to 1A due to the internal transformer which can't handle higher currents (it would melt if it didn't have a fuse). Bottom line - you should be able to plug your charger into a "shavers only" outlet. — QuantumEleven 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And a typical 240 V "shavers only" wall outlet is limited to 200 mA [9], so you will just about get away with plugging your battery charger into it. --Heron (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have no qualms about plugging a "universal voltage" (100-240 VAC, 50/60 Hz) batery charger into a "shaver only" outlet, but I must relate a cautionary tale to you: While travelling in the UK, I plugged my transformer-equipped 120 VAC-only NiMH battery charger into an outlet that was labeled "115 VAC shaver only" and the transformer in the charger overheated overnight, opening its internal thermal fuse and killing this charger. This was early in the NiMH days so we ended up scrambling through a lot of UK electrics shops before we found another charger. Oddly enough, it was the same model family as our American charger, but equipped with a BS 1363 plug instead. I concluded after the fact that the "115 VAC" shaver outlet probably just had a rectifier diode in series with the line; this would have worked with the motor of an electric razor but was death to the transformer in my charger. Nowadays, in Europe, I carry a universal-voltage charger and plug adapters but for the UK, I'd bring my souvenir BS 1363 charger ;-).

Atlant (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Glass & Acid

Why is glass resistant to acid? I assume it's due to some element or compound not present in other materials. And is this property unique to glass or are there other substances that are not affected by acid? 92.2.194.36 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember my chemistry correctly glass does not react with acid because the electrons of the silicone dioxide that glass is composed of are too strongly attracted to its own molecule. That is they are not available to react with the relatively free protons of an acid. This property is not unique to glass but is the same for any highly non-polar molecule. For instance wax or plastic. 71.231.121.77 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hydrofluoric acid can dissolve glass however, due to the presence of fluoride than can react with silicone dioxide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So why does dishwasher detergent etch glass? Does it contain hydrofluoric acid? Or is some other process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC) oops darn bot Lisa4edit

Abrasives in the detergent. My mom got paid for ruined glassware because they had a shipment of scratchy detergent. But HF does dissolve glass - I worked for an engineering company where we quoted equipment for a confidential process, which turned out to be HF: boom goes all the fiberglass insulation, now let's look at the expensive stuff. Franamax (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The expensive stuff was Grafoil, in case anyone asks :) Franamax (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we have a page on "flexible graphite"? It seems to have unique properties that I can't find covered in any of our articles I looked at. --Lisa4edit (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been out of the refining biz for 10 years, but at least at the time, Grafoil was the go-to gasket, and wildly expensive. Seems notable to me... Franamax (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If dishwasher tablets contained Hydroflouric acid (HF) then they would be extremely dangerous, not only does it dissolve glass but also very small quantities of HF will attack human tissue and bone leading to extreme pain and even death. HF won't dissolve all forms of glass though, only glass that contains SiO2, which is one of the most common forms of glass but there are many other compositions, e.g. chalcogenide glass. Many other materials are resistant to acid, for example most plastics, many chemicals are stored in plastic containers.

I'm not certain of this, but it has always been my impression that ordinary cheap soda-lime glass degrades in a dishwasher because it isn't pure fused silicon dioxide (silica). As a result, some of the other constituents of the glass can eventually be dissolved out of the glass by repeated washings in the harsh chemicals found in automatic dishwashing detergents. I'm disappointed by our article on soda-lime glass to find that even Pyrex is now made of this stuff rather than the tougher borosilicate glass it used to be made of.

Atlant (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip on Pyrex! I share your disappointment, I'm from the "only use Pyrex" school, or I was until today. Another totem toppled :( Franamax (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Same protein with two names?

This question is a little involved: Here is a paper. It talks about PIG2 and says that due to similarity between it and GREM1, that what they found for PIG2 must apply to GREM1. I think that's awful reasoning, but when I follow the given accession numbers I get this and this. Are they actually the same protein? If so, why were they thought to be two "similar" proteins and not one ["exactly the same"] protein? ----Seans Potato Business 21:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you linking the right paper? I couldn't find either of PIG or GREM. In any case, the accessions you give show different genetic loci, different lengths and different sequences. A case of convergent genes/convergent structures? They have different sequences, what is the resulting amino sequence? Franamax (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd linked to the wrong paper (fixed now). There is a string of characters, the translation, which is the same for both proteins, but it's exactly the same (not similar). Could they have been thought to be different but now they're known to be exactly the same? Are you sure that they are different genetic loci? I cannot interpret 'AY232290' as a locus. These databases are very user-unfriendly. Wont someone think of the children? ----Seans Potato Business 23:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's more clear now (or less clear lol). It looks to me like two separate loci with different DNA/mRNA sequences producing apparently identical amino-acid sequences. That would be an example of gene duplication with accumulated null mutations? The essence here is that the CATG sequences are different, but the amino-sequences are identical. Interesting. You're right that we should think of the children, children are our future - "unless we stop them now-w-w" :) Franamax (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Electroelution

In Electroelution, wont the DNA be daamged when it gets free from the gel and encounters the anode? ----Seans Potato Business 23:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and this is based on a quick scan of the document, but this may provide a bit of info on the effects of electricity on DNA. Fribbler (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading it fully, I think the only useful sentance is And biologists have agonised about how conductivity might affect its function. Fribbler (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In practice, electroelutors "catch" the DNA with dialysis tubing or DEAE paper or a salt bridge before it contacts the anode. Woodlore (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May 26

Alka-Seltzer Neutralization

Hello. The chemical equation of Alka-Seltzer's effervescence is C₆H₈O₇ (citric acid) + 3NaHCO₃ → 3H₂O + 3CO₂ + Na₃C₆H₅O₇ (trisodium citrate). If I add hydrochloric acid to a solution of water and Alka-Seltzer, then is the neutralization chemical equation Na₃C₆H₅O₇ + 3HCl_(aq) → C₆H₈O₇ + 3NaCl? If so, then how does Alka-Seltzer neutralize the hydrochloric acid? Isn't C₆H₈O₇ an acid? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If dissolved Alka-Seltzer is trisodium citrate as you have written (I had no idea), then it can't neutralize HCl. I expect Alka Seltzer works because it contains less citric acid per sodium bicarbonate than you describe in your equation; perhaps it's more like 6 moles of bicarb per mole of citric? Woodlore (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

About 4 to one. The result is excess bicarbonate, and that buffers both excess acid or excess base:

HCO₃^-_(aq) + H⁺_(aq) → CO_2(g) + H₂O_(l)

HCO₃^-_(aq) + OH^-_(aq) → CO₃^2-_(aq) + H₂O_(l)

Sound right? So the effervescence is just a nice and flashy delivery system for bicarb. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, as well the carbonic and citric acids makes taking a sodium bicarbonate solution far more palatable. Sjschen (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial UV protection in sunglasses

When a sunglass or any other lens such as contacts offers partial, say 90%, UV protection, is it referring to 90% of the UV spectrum of the less energetic portion of the spectrum? In other words, if I wear a contact lens with 90% protection behind sunglass with 50% protection, am I exposed to .1x.5=5% of UV or closer to 10%? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine Reason (talk • contribs) 03:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Most UV absorbing substances have strong absorption responses with relatively sharp cutoffs as a function of frequency, i.e. everything above wavelength X passes and nearing nothing below it does. As a result, my expectation is that the effects are not additive and that the cumulative effect will be closer to 10%. However, I have no specific experience looking at the frequency response of either sunglasses or contacts, so I could be mistaken. Dragons flight (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Most sunglasses polarise light as well, reducing the overall intensity of the light, see polaroid--Shniken1 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - you take two sets of polarising sunglasses and put them one in front of the other and rotate one of them you'll find at one angle they block virtually all the light, since one only lets through light with one polarisation and the other the opposite polarisation, so no light can get through both. --Tango (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oilfield Volcano

If say a volcano erupts under a oilfield, wouldn't it be possible that phenols be created and keytones be created, and then bisphenol a be created?

If say a volcano erupts under a oilfield, wouldn't it be possible that, phthalate be created?68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The temperature our article gives for magma is 700°C to 1300°C the autoignition point given for bisphenol A is 600°C. You'd need just the right coincidental conditions to create it and then there's a question of whether it would be around long enough for anyone to detect it. (And they'd preferably have to stay alive long enough to tell anyone, with a volcano erupting under their pants and all.) That sounds like an awful lot of "what ifs" happening simultaneously. Lisa4edit (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about phthalate?68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given enough heat and pressure, you'll get one of everything. As Lisa notes though, it will be largely decomposed by the time it gets to the surface - you'll only have to worry about the deadly carbon monoxide gas. And the sulfur dioxide. And the pyroclastic flows. There will likely be a few phthalates in there, but nothing to worry about. Franamax (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

as you may have gathered from the above responses, the short version is: if a volcano erupts anywhere, you have much bigger health concerns than BPA and phthalate, such as lava, fire, earthquakes, flying rocks and toxic fumes. --Shaggorama (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Solar panels on the Moon

Every plan I've seen for long-term human activity on the Moon calls for using solar panels for power. But those solar panels would be exposed to solar flares, cosmic radiation, and other phenomena not present on Earth or in near-Earth orbit. What effect would those have on the solar panels? --Serie (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the articles right, the geostationary orbit is above the Van Allen belts, so we already have many solar panels exposed to full intensity solar and cosmic radiation. Also the SOHO spacecraft is way out there, looking right at the sun, and it has solar panels [10], so they must work. Presumably though, the high-energy particle flux will progressively degrade the panels and eventually, like most other things, they would stop working and need replacement. Franamax (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a feasible idea, theoretically. However, the main issue is down to the economics of it all. Solar panels in space aren't as efficient as those used on the ground and theres a huge cost involved in getting them into space and installed. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Space-grade solar cells are more efficient than typical earth use ones (and much more expensive). Where would the lower efficiency come from? You would have a higher solar influx on a more efficient cell, does temperature variance make them that much more inefficient? Rmhermen (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember efficiency is the amout of energy input that you convert to electricity (your output). It is easily possible I would suspect that current solar panels are significantly less efficient in space because they are generally designed for earth-like conditions (yes you would modify them somewhat for space but given the fact the field is of minute interest it's likely it still lags far behind earth-based solar panel design) including temperatures and light levels (amount and spectrum of light). However it does seem extremely likely that given the far greater amount of light reaching solar panels in space, they will generate a significantly higher amount of electricity per cell even though they are a lot less efficient at converting the solar energy that reaches them to electricity so I'm indeed not 100% sure if CycloneNimrod is correct. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I think it is almost the opposite - that solar cells for space use led the design which trickles down to earth use. At least that is always the impression I was given.[11] Our article on Solar cells seems to support my memory as well. Rmhermen (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This quote is the closest I have come to understanding the efficiencies: "The space solar spectrum or air mass zero (AMO) spectrum is richer in ultraviolet light than the typical terrestrial solar spectrum (air mass 1.5 or AM 1.5). The ultraviolet light is typically converted into electrical power less efficiently than other parts of the spectrum, resulting in lower AMO efficiencies. For example, production muInjunction solar cells are currently -28% AMO, but these cells are over 32% efficient in the AM 1.5 spectrum. Since cells are typically measured under the spectrum for their intended use and efficiencies are not easily converted..."[12] So I still don't know if a panel actually produces less power in space than on Earth. Rmhermen (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The overall efficiency is a little less because there is more UV in the spectrum, but this is outbalanced by the far greater light flux (what with there being no clouds and all). This GaAs 3-layer solar cell for use in space rates 135 mW/sq.cm. at 28% efficiency, whereas this writeup for a terrestrial silicon cell works out to ~9 mW/sq.cm. Check my math on this, but there is a lot more sunlight in space. Franamax (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Solar power is considered more likely at least because launching Radioisotope thermoelectric generators large enough to power a moon base is probably politically infeasible and perhaps environmentally questionable. Rmhermen (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The 28 days of night on the moon make solar cells good for production of electricity, but the storage of the power is more important. The moon station at the north pole with sun at some peaks with no night are the place to go!--Stone (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a nit, but would you believe ~14 days of daylight and ~14 days of night?

Atlant (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why a solar flare would damage the panel. Solar flares can temporarily or permanently scramble digital systems; they can permanently affect analog system performance by introducing a total radiation dosage significant to affect the dopant concentrations; but solar panels are basically the simplest kind of semiconductor - just two layers of material which create current when light hits them. I can't think how a large blast of solar wind (even way beyond the normal levels) would permanently damage the panel. Nimur (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In any event, solar panels on the moon are bound to work far better than would lunar panels on the sun. Edison (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The data sheet I link above for the space-use solar cell has a specific section called "Radiation Degradation". High-energy particles will eventually disrupt the crystal structure of the material. How long it would take for 10E15 1MeV electrons to hit 1 sq.cm. of the panel and reduce its performance by 14%, I have no idea. Franamax (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To what other uses can a water pump/ motor be put to?

I am a resident of New Delhi, India. Due to frequent low pressure of water supply in our pipeline, I bought a brand new self priming mono block pump/ motor a few days back. After I bought it, to my astonishment, water started coming at good pressure. Now it is lying idle.

(i) Can anyone please tell me as to what other uses can the pump/ motor be put to? (ii) If I want to use it as a shower to take bath, what (modifications, if any) should be done? Bye. Signed; Kvees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.5.4 (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One other use would be to set up a storage tank and attach a fire hose so you are prepared for emergencies. If your local water pressure is not enough to get a decent shower, you would need to add a pressure tank to control the pump. I'm not sure that connecting a pump to the waterline will help much when the line pressure is low, you might just cause cavitation in the pipeline. In any case, it sounds like installing a storage tank would be a good idea, waterline -> storage tank -> pump -> pressure tank -> house. Franamax (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You could drop it from the top of a building and measure the time taken for the fall to calculate the height of the building. You'd need a stopwatch 125.21.243.66 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In Turkey they heat their water in tanks on top of the roof. They're just barrels painted black. (See Franamax's storage tank for details). You might try that. A garden water feature would also be possible, but those are rather a bit wasteful water wise (and waste power, too, now that I think of it.) Your low pressure might have been caused by an air-bubble lodged somewhere. Once it became dislodged the pressure went back up. I haven't encountered that with municipal water, but know of it with well water. Dropping a perfectly working object from a roof just to see it shatter should be punishable under some law. You could always see if there's a charity that would like to have it, if you don't want to keep it.71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You might rent it out to other users. Maybe that would give you some extra money.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vesna Vulović's fall duration (pt. 2)

Brought across from the misc helpdesk - How long did it take Vesna Vulović to fall the 10,000 meters? So far, the best guess is about 3 minutes. TIA. Lugnuts (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Using a terminal velocity of 193 Km/h I got 2.77 minutes.61.68.255.246 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Vesna didn't "fall 10,000 m ". She was in a plane that traveled at an altitude of 10,0000 m when it disintegrated. As Algebraist already stated back there, there is no way of telling how much residual forward motion the part of the plane she was in had, nor what it's aerodynamic properties were (see Drag (physics). All we can say is that it probably took quite a bit longer than 3 min. One might get a certain upper range by applying average airspeed for that type of aircraft and treating the plane fragment as if it were a parachute, but it'd be mostly guesswork. --Lisa4edit (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(That's a typo - it should be ~10,000 meters, not 10,0000! Minor typo, major implications!) Nimur (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the airspeed/forward motion important? It would make no difference to the time it takes to fall down, would it? (Unless the airspeed is so large as to make the earth curve under before the aircraft hits the ground)? -- ReluctantPhilosopher (too lazy to login) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.243.66 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As lisa explained, forward motion can generate lift. Almost any shape has at least some aerodynamic lift. This will increase the time to impact because the debris is still partially "flying". SpinningSpark 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I never thought about the lift due to forward motion. Silly me. 125.21.243.66 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

stomach

why do our stomach move like a heart beat when we hold our breathe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miley 7 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What happens when you hold your breath is that you expand your lungs and tighten your diaphragm. This stretches the area around your stomach and now you can feel your pulse more easily. I don't think anything actually changes with how your stomach works, you can just more easily feel the arteries in that area. Franamax (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is SUTWELL Nursing Device?

Search on google and other search engines present SUTWELL as a nursing device. The question is: What really is SUTWELL device? Does it have a generic name? If it does not have a generic name can it be given one? What is the purpose of this invention? Who invented it? How far is it in the development process? Can it pass as another artefact to our stock becoming a household appliance like spoon, cup, knife, chair etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutwell (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's lots of useful information on the Sutwell device at your user page, I'd start there ;) Franamax (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Only Black and White pictures from Mars

Why are the pictures take from new spacecraft such as Phoenix still in black and white (like [[13]]? I have serious doubt that it's due to them not being able to afford a color camera, so is there any other reason why a color camera wouldn't be able to operate on Mars? Is the data transfer rate to slow to support this, or are the technology involved not space-proof (doubtful)? 90.230.54.138 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mars rovers can see in 11 colours from the cameras made for colour vision, but they do this by using filters over the camera. I think the basic reason for B&W is that you can transfer 3 (RGB) to 4 (CMYK) times the information in the same time = higher resolution. Franamax (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How long does it take to send an image through? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot longer than you would on a dialup connection, according to this, except when an orbiter is overhead. Franamax (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason is to get a higher resolution and a greater spectrum range. There is no such thing as a full-color sensor -- your color camera has red, green, and blue sensors in a pattern known as a Bayer array. This lets you take a full-color picture with just a single shot (essential for moving objects), but the interpolation used to give the appearance of full-color sensors makes things slightly blurry and sometimes causes colored fringes to appear that don't really exist.

The Mars landers and rovers use a single wide-spectrum sensor (sensitive to all light from mid-infrared to near-ultraviolet) and a collection of color filters that can be put in front of the sensor. If you want a color picture, you combine a red-filter picture, a green-filter picture, and a blue-filter picture. Since there's not much movement on Mars, this works well, and because there's no interpolation being used, there's no blurring or fringes.

Further, since the camera has a wide-spectrum sensor, it can take pictures using frequencies outside of the relatively narrow visible spectrum. Those "black and white" pictures you're talking about are probably actually near-infrared photos, because near-IR shows better detail in shadowed areas. By using combinations of infrared and ultraviolet filters, scientists can identify ice (ice has a distinctive reflection in certain IR bands), make estimates of mineral content of rocks, measure atmospheric dust, and do other things you can't do with a mere color camera. --Carnildo (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Another note is that these images just arrived. Surely the first batch was a test to make sure the camera was operational after the descent and landing... the faster it could be transmitted to eager controllers, the sooner they could relax and get to serious work. Sending back a black/white image requires lower bandwidth ("smaller file") and thus can be transmitted in less time. Over the next few days, the ground team will have time for post-processing of the data that comes back, and we will certainly see re-colored images (combining the multi-band spectral photos into standard color or false color images). Nimur (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

polymers

what is the identification of hdpe/lldpe —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASIMDASH (talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you type LDPE and HDPE into the Wikipedia search box, you should get lots of information, including the recycling symbols. Franamax (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Article with explanation

I was looking for an article to explain what the difference is beween specific gravity, density and specific weight to somebody who knows even less than I do. I read the definitions in these three articles, but what, in layman's language they mean and how they differ, I am at a loss. (I am not really totally ignorant, but I am not very good in explaining.) Can anyone help? It is almost worth an article, I think. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Density is mass per unit volume – the quantity of something in a certain space.

Specific gravity is this density relative to that of water – how much more (or less, of course) of something you get in a certain space than you would get if you filled that space with water.

Weight is the force that a mass experiences in a gravitational field – specific weight is how strongly something is being pulled by a gravitational field, given a certain volume of the substance.

HTH? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 12:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(since I hate edit conflicts so much, I'll put my answer in too, but I think Angus did it better :) Density is the fundamental measurement, the mass in a given volume - in other words, if I pick up a 1-foot cube of this stuff, how hard it that to do? Specific gravity is a comparison to water - will it float or sink? (If it has less density than water, it floats, the less dense it is, the higher it floats) Specific weight is how heavy the 1-foot cube is on the Earth's surface, I lied a bit about density, which is true everywhere in the universe. Mass is about how hard it is to accelerate the object any place in the universe, weight is about how hard it is to do it here on Earth. Maybe an article, or a mathematical disambiguation page, 'cause they're all the same thing. Does that help? Franamax (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And how does relative density fit the picture? 125.21.243.66 (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It fits relatively. Relative density == specific gravity. Franamax (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because my high school physics teacher scared the bejesus out of every student by asking the difference between relative density and specific gravity. 125.21.243.66 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific gravity is a particular instance of relative density (which is, generally, the ratio, $\rho _{A}/\rho _{B}$, of the densities of two substances A and B) where 'substance B' is water. i.e. specific gravity is a special case of relative density, or relative density a generalization of specific gravity, depending on which way you want to look at it. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Colour photos of Mars

Inspired by the question above, I'd love to see some true-colour photos of Mars; I know that there are colourized versions of the greyscale photos, but does anyone know if there are any 'real' colour photos produced by taking photos with red, green and blue filters separately? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, most of the colour images are done like that. It's a little difficult to work out what "true colour" really is, though - they have to determine how to balance the different images (one in each colour) to try and get it as close as possible to what a human eye would see, and since there have never been any human eyes on Mars, that's a little tricky. I think the modern images are pretty good approximations, though. --Tango (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the colour images were colourized! Thanks, Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some are. Some are certainly as close to true colour as you can get. --Tango (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See [14] for one example of an "(Approximate True Color)" image and a short description of how it was produced. Additionally the calibration target on the rovers includes color samples to provide known comparison values.[15] Rmhermen (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For accurate color you need filters that match the response of the three cone types, which is not red, green and blue but more like yellow, green and blue. Red is used for reproduction because it stimulates the L cones while minimizing crosstalk with M and S; it's not what the L cones are primarily sensitive to. The first page linked by Rmhermen says they used filters centered at 753 nm, 535 nm and 432 nm, which doesn't make sense since 753 nm is way outside the visual range. I assume 753 is a typo for 573. -- BenRG (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

753 nm isn't a typo. Most of the "true-color" photos use near-infrared rather than red, because it shows more detail in shadowed areas. --Carnildo (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing a bit with the claim that accurate color reproduction requires matching yellow, green and blue cone response curves. Edison (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's been a continuous storm of comments from people who are rather unhappy with NASA's ideas and rendering of color. Look at these e.g. [The Colors of Mars: Reality and Illusion Sky and Telescope, volume 97, number 4, page 116], [16], [17], [18] 71.236.23.111 (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo, having now read a lot more about the rovers I see that you're right. But then the whole thing makes no sense. You say they use near infrared for the R channel to show more detail, but if the goal is to make a better looking or more useful image then they might as well go all the way. And they do—the Pancam images also come in false-color versions which are prettier and more interesting than the "true color" versions. I can't believe that the boring brown "true color" images exist for any reason but to satisfy a public demand for pictures showing the colors that an astronaut on Mars would see. And they don't show that. It seems like NASA's best course of action, faced with a demand for true color, would be to educate the public about color vision and why true color images aren't "truer" in any meaningful scientific sense. Then they could pick all their filters based on scientific merit and use the prettiest possible false colors for their pictures of the day. The next best course of action would be to ship the correct color filters and give the public what it wants. The worst course of action would be to try to pass off false color images as true color, which is what they seem to be doing.

Edison: Okay, but the farther you get from the cone response curves the more assumptions you have to make about the shape of the spectrum to get accurate colors. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm missing something fundamental about color photography, though. I can understand a layperson thinking that the best way to get the red/green/blue channels of a digital photograph would be to use red/green/blue sensitive detectors. That's not true, but it's a reasonable mistake to make. What I don't get is that real cameras designed by experts do seem to use RGB sensitive detectors. At least that's what I gather from articles like Bayer filter. Do they really use a red filter? If so, why? Is it just cheaper, or is there something else going on?

Atlant (below): I assume the calibration target is for adjusting the white balance; I don't see how it would help in computing the right tristimulus values if you started off with the wrong color filters. -- BenRG (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The landers have all contained a "colo[u]r test chart" within view of their cameras. This allows the camera (and its "filters of many colors") to be calibrated so we can come up with a pretty-accurate representation of the colors in the scenes as a human would perceive them.

Atlant (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Carrier concentration in doped semiconductors

For Intrinsic semiconductors $np=n_{i}^{2}$ and this makes sense as mentioned in semiconductors. However my textbook states that this is true for extrinsic semiconductors as well. I would say in this case $np>n_{i}^{2}$, but I can't see why that's wrong? Thanks in advance, Gnorkel (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is pure (intrinsic) or doped (extrinsic) the number of electrons (n) and holes (p) must be the same. You cannot have an electron hole without an electron on average in the complete semiconductor. There will be more electrons than holes (and vice versa) in some parts of the semiconductor and this is what give it the properties employed in the semiconductor devices. The doping changes the number not the ratio of n and p. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gravity powered electricity generator

Why isn't there such a thing? Why can't we turn gravity into electricity? I can only think of turbines in adam as a type of generator that uses gravity. Are there others? Thank you. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tidal generators can be said to use gravity as a power source. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is a way of storing energy, then using gravity to recovery most of it. Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Going on the "gravity into electricity means 'dropping things'" idea, the problem is "where do you get the things to drop?" Either you need a steady supply (hydroelectricity, for instance) or you lift things -- which uses the energy you're about to gain, and then some. All practical energy sources have to be built on the former, so unless you've got a ready stream of something falling, gravity won't do you much good for a power plant. — Lomn 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You need some prime mover to put energy into raising the thing that generates electricity when it drops. For hydroelectric, I suppose solar power fuels the evaporation of water which falls as rain or snow and runs down the river to create the head which allows the hydro turbine to operate. A tidal generator is more interesting: it seems to extract energy from the tidal sealevel changes which result from movement of the moon around the earth, which implies that if you harness the tidal power, it would have a tiny effect of bringing the moon into a lower orbit. Edison (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure here. My understanding is that tidal effects are moving the moon into a higher orbit by energy exchange as the Earth's orbit slows in reciprocal action. Physicists needed here: does obstructing tidal changes increase or decrease the energy transfer that extends the moon's orbital distance? Franamax (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It boils down to more drag, which is more energy lost in the transfer, which accelerates the Moon's progress to a tidally-locked orbit. — Lomn 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

flu

HOW LONG AFTER YOU ARE IN CONTACT WITH THE FLU VIRUS WILL YOU BECOME SICK. Does it happen right away or in a week or so? Thanks, \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.149.192 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Our flu article does not say, but accoding to this site it is one to two days. -Arch dude (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pathogens in body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.59.49 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May 27

Mars rovers

If I understand correctly, the purpose of the latest rover is to ascertain whether life was once possible (or present) on Mars. My question is, what is the purpose of knowing whether it was or wasn't? If it was, does that make Mars any more of a candidate for terraforming? Or is it really just an expensive curiousity for scientists? Thanks. Vranak (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If there was life in the past on Mars, it will tell us a lot about the chances of there being life elsewhere in the Universe. The question of "are we alone?" is actually pretty important for many people. Also, finding traces of past life would help us to better understand how life evolved on our own planet. Finding actual existing living things (maybe deep down in the rocks), of course, would be one of the greatest discoveries ever made by mankind. However, it's very unlikely Mars will ever be "terraformed", since it's lost its atmosphere and is really, really cold. Franamax (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The recent lander is not a "rover" although it is a digger and analyzer. It is indeed an "expensive curiousity" for those who are interested in learning about what is "out there" beyond their familiar environment, besides the scientists who build the space probes and operate them. That is one reason they are covered extensively in newspapers and tv news channels, for whom scientists are a vanishingly small fraction of the viewership. This one's chemistry set will not test for life, but it will do some chemical analysis to see if there are suitable conditions for life, or if there were in the past. Determining this will provide insight into whether our planet is the only place suitable for life to evolve. Edison (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Vranak (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone once said something like: "To a scientist, there are only three interesting numbers: zero, one, and many, and 'one' is usually an aberration." That is, scientists are often involved with trying to decide whether a thing is impossible (so zero instances of it exist) or possible (so many instances of it exist). This includes the question "How many planets in the Universe have life?". To prove a second planet has/had life would shift the answer from "one" to "many, and this would require a very significant change in all of humanity's worldwview "universeview".

Atlant (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I had the opportunity to attend a lecture from the former director of Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Can't remember his name, unfortunately). According to him, the motivation for finding life was one of funding! (This should come as no surprise to anyone who works in any scientific field). Surprising (to me at least), the federal government is much more willing to fund Mars missions if the notion of "finding life" or "finding possibility of life" or some such stuff is mentioned in the mission proposal. This has become such a high priority that it defies scientific data... most of the Mars scientists I've ever met do not believe in life on Mars now or ever. (There's a few outliers, of course, and as the adage goes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and so forth). All the NASA releases are careful to word their releases to discuss the possibility of sustaining life, because this is ambiguous enough to allow for many types of missions (after all, what does it really mean to be "possible" to sustain life?) Nimur (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I thought the recent lander was a Canadian weather station set up at 70 degrees latitude to see if water is possible? Or am I confusing it for another lander? Or is it the same lander but different details? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix (spacecraft) is "a partnership of universities in the United States, Canada, Switzerland, the Philippines, Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom, NASA, the Canadian Space Agency, the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, and other aerospace companies." Nimur (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pathogens in body

How would you be able to tell if you body detected a pathogen? I was wondering what would be the tell tale signs or even symptoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.59.49 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fever--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Immune system and infection may hold some answers. Apart from fever there's increased white blood cell count. If you have a wound, pus will show. And there's the signal system reporting pain to rally the troops to the site where an infection has caused tissue damage. (Don't we really enjoy that part.:-) In case of your body detecting cold viruses you'll notice the increased histamine levels by your stuffy head. If your body detects harmful pathogens in the digestive system it will effect a purge. (either up or down). Your body is also likely to produce sleep inducing chemicals. These help the immune response and free up resources for healing. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Revise your understanding. Your body encounters and deals with pathogens all the time. A pathogen is simply an organism that can sometimes cause noticeable harm to some people in some circumstances. Some pathogens are so virulent that the likelihood of noticeable harm is high, others are usually so benign that only people with severely compromised defenses are harmed. 159.14.240.230 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Drunk animals and Marula trees

There is a video on youtube of African animals supposedly getting drunk off the fruit of the Marula tree (www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCu5s80uAMQ) --and apparently the video is a hoax: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1219_051219_drunk_elephant.html But that article doesn't say anything about what's actually going on in the video--does anyone know how it was made? Were the animals just given alcohol and filmed stumbling around or was something else going on? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Marula (see the article under its scientific name Sclerocarya birrea) is the source of berries that makes the delicious Amarula liquor. There was a film that showed animals getting drunk from the fermented fruit but was likely to be staged scenes. Also, elephants would need to eat a large amount to get drunk. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that was all in the national geographic article--I'm wondering if anyone knows what was REALLY going on. Who made it, how and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tasting a meadow in butter

I normally eat margarine, but I bought some organic butter recently. I thought I could taste the grass and flowers of the meadow where the cows ate. Was this just my imagination or not? 80.0.110.30 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flavor shows that what we call "taste" is a 2 part process involving olfaction and taste. Since the smell component are substances that can be "carried" in fat, it's not that far out. However it might just be a clever ploy by a flavorist selecting natural ingredients that have that effect. organic doesn't mean they are not permitted to use additives, as long as those are organic, too. There was an odd experiment they used to do in biology classes when I was a kid. I can't recall what went into the recipe, apart from peas. The end result tasted like strawberries, although there were none in there. You just had to blindfold people or the color would give it away. Although some flowers are edible, most meadow flowers and the grass would probably add up to a taste that would be rather not like the "idea" of meadow taste. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If a cow manages to eat some wild garlic, the flavor shows up in, and spoils the milk. If a lactating female human eats strongly flavored food, the milk produced may be upsetting to a nursing infant. From these observations, it seems plausible that a "meadow" flavor might present in cow's milk and hence in the butter. Or it could be the power of suggestion. Edison (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Milk flavour varies a lot according to season etc., a friend rang the milk company to ask about the different flavour. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, have you ever tasted grass and flowers from a meadow? If no, then how can you be sure that this is what the butter tasted like? If yes... why? Nimur (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's where olfaction comes into it. We are all familiar with the smell of grass and flowers. Scientists should read "I could detect the flavour..."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blowing one's nose

Does blowing ones nose have any real known and scientifically measured effect on reducing the chances of getting a cold (or other infection), compared with people who only sniff the phlegm (?) up and do not blow? 80.0.110.30 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about measured, but it makes sense. The mucous collects all sorts of things from the air, and it's probably better off to expel them rather than to take them into the system. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's been shown that rinsing the sinuses with salt water does reduce the chances of catching a cold. It would make sense that blowing the nose would have a similar effect - removing microorganisms from the body, rather than moving them to the throat or elsewhere. -- Beland (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearing your nose is something your going to do pretty automatically. It's like scratching an itch. There wouldn't really be any way of testing this. The type of experiment you're asking about would require that people not blow their noses, but if your nose is full of snot it's going to come out somehow: either you blow it, snort it into your nasopharynx (spit or swallow is your choice), or it's just going to dribble out. I think more than anything, once the mucus is there, it's just uncomfortable not to blow your nose. --Shaggorama (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with blowing one's nose is that sometimes it blows things into the sinuses. That's one reason I remember being stated for the results coming out ambiguously. (The article I remember predates the internet archives.:-( Salt water has been proven and we have a page Nasal irrigation. --Lisa4edit (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You probably get this question all the time...

... but what would be the Latin name of a species of Woolly Mammoth found only in cathedrals?

Ta

Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean this cathedral not this one Cathedral. Sounds like an odd thing to happen with a Woolly mammoth find in any case. "Mammuthus primigenius" would be all of them.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean the latter - and not just cathedrals, also large chapels and basilicas - I don't deny it's an odd thing to happen. Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the last Woolly mammoth died around 1700 BC, and cathedrals are decidedly AD, that's more than odd. Can you give a bit of context as to how the two would meet? And, for that matter, why the ones found in cathedrals would be a different species to those found elsewhere? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's for a science fiction novel I'm working on in which some time periods have been mixed up - as for how ones found in cathedrals would be a different species to those found elsewhere, that's a good question, but would take too long to answer here - suffice it that it's a very weird science fiction novel. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. If, suddenly, woolly mammoths started turning up in cathedrals, we'd need to call them something. Due to my basic Latin knowledge, I can only suggest Mammuthus basilica or Mammuthus ecclesia. To be specifically a woolly mammoth, then perhaps Mammuthus primigenius ecclesia would be appropriate. The language desk might come up with something clever. Gwinva (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it - Mammuthus primigenius ecclesia or basilica or basilicensis or something like that - thanks, Gwinva.

If it's a species the name should only have two parts, genus and species. When a third word is added, this indicates a subspecies. The basic rule is that if it interbreeds with other mammoths and produces fertile offspring then it's the same species as them, and if not, it isn't; but this is a simplification. --Anonymous, 23:58 UTC, May 27, 2008.

Yes, I assumed a sub-species of woolly mammoth when I offered the three name version (Adam said they were only found in cathedrals and churches, so they cannot be the same as a normal woolly mammoth. In any case, they can't mate and produce fertile offspring; they are separated by several millenia, after all. Gwinva (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Primates are more often found in cathedrals than are mammoths. Edison (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Had to think about it, then chortled, thanks, Edison. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a cool book, can you tell me when it's done? Ziggy Sawdust 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can something that travels faster than light escape a black hole? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can answer the question, "can something travel faster than light?", you may have the start of an answer. 63.224.79.202 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Particles cán escape from a black hole however: as the article on Hawking Radiation quotes: "Because Hawking radiation allows black holes to lose mass, black holes which lose more matter than they gain through other means are expected to evaporate, shrink, and ultimately vanish." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.39.188 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The particles in Hawking radiation are created just outside the event horizon - they're never actually in the black hole, so don't escape it. --Tango (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how tachyons would interact with black holes. It's an interesting question, though. I suspect they wouldn't be able to leave, either, but I'm not sure why not. --Tango (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Battery sizes

After reading the articles, I am a bit confused about what might happen if I were to use a C battery to power (for example) my mp3 player which normally uses a AAA battery. Since the C is rated for higher current, would that damage the mp3 player? Or would the set 1.5 voltage mean it would give me a longer play time? In other words, does the electric current depend on my device, or the size of the 1.5-volt battery I'm using? 63.224.79.202 (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can use any battery on your MP3 player as long as it is the correct voltage. The larger batteries can supply a higher current and for a longer time but the MP3 player will only draw the current that it needs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion: the "can supply a higher current" part is correct but irrelevant. The larger battery would be safe and would last longer. Of course, it would also be less convenient. --Anon, 00:00 UTC, May 28, 2008.

You can damage the mp3 player with two batteries placed in series (lined up one end to another). If you can somehow get your hands on a lower-voltage battery, the damage will be slower and less predictable. Imagine Reason (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions about acceleration due to gravity

I have two question about physics

(1)where will be the value of "g" high,at equator/poles/surface of earth.

(2)what are the number of molecules in kilometer of a gas.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.74 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) g will be the same anywhere on the surface of the earth (9.81ms^-2. It will differ slightly because of difference in elevation and the fact the earth isn't a perfect sphere, but negligibly.

(2) A cubic kilometer? I can tell you that the number of molecules of 1 mole of a gas is 6.02E23, and 1 mole of a gas occupies 22.4 litres. Try working it out from there. 61.69.132.119 (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) According to our earth's gravity article, variations can indeed be significant depending on the precision required. I'd think that differences on the order of 0.4% would be quite significant for say, missile launching. --hydnjo talk 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If you could get a missile engine large enough to fly in an orbital or sub-orbital path with thrust that could be reliably measured to with 0.4%, you'd be way better than any current system. I think there are many other variations (wind, engine efficiency, target location / trajectory), which introduce errors significantly larger than graviational perturbation. Of course the issue is moot because a modern launcher will use feedback control and some type of tracking (RADAR or GPS) to update its current position and correct for any error from desired trajectory, regardless of the cause... Nimur (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Largest effect on the apparent value of g seems to be the effect due to latitude, with a difference of about 0.5% between poles and equator. Altitude has a smaller effect (about 0.3% difference between sea-level and the summit of Mt. Everest); local topography, atmospheric density and gravitational influence of Sun and Moon have still smaller effects.

(2) Depends on the temperature of the gas, the pressure of the gas and its equation of state. If you can assume that the gas obeys the ideal gas law then this will simplify your calculation considerably. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Car economy accuracy

How accurate are the fuel economy figures that cars report? My car has a little digital display that says I do around 50 miles to the gallon, and I can see this figure go down if I drive faster and up if I keep my speed around 65 miles per hour, but is it reliable? Of course the reliability could vary from one manufacturer to another, but I'd expect the major manufacturers will have been independently checked. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into this in depth but given the improving technology and accuracy of fluid quantity and distance measurement devices I would say there is a good accuracy. (if tyres are correctly inflated of course). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The average MPG display in both my Audi A8 and Dodge Caravan seem to correlate pretty well with the values I compute at the gas station (miles driven on this tank of gas versus gallons refilled). The instantaneous MPG figures are wildly varying, of course and only help to train you to be a more-efficient driver.

Atlant (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah- most cars will have some way of viewing "average" mileage instead of "instantaneous" or "average over the last 5 seconds" mileage. I'd generally expect this to be quite accurate on newer vehicles. On a related question.. I know the EPA has been trying to make their figures more accurate. Does anyone know a source for real-world results compared to EPA ratings? I bought a car a year ago that consistently outperforms EPA rating on the highway (even with a few passengers and AC on). The identical car has a lower highway rating for 08 than it did in 07. It sounds to me like (on this particular car, anyway) the EPA ratings are now unrealistically low instead of unrealistically high. Is this how it goes now, or does it vary from car to car? Friday (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The EPA has just reformulated the way they require the manufacturers to test for and report the MPG ratings. I always found I could meet or exceed the old EPA ratings, at least for the particular American and European cars that I've bought so I am confident that the new rating system is "too pessimistic" for my driving habits. I was down at the Audi dealer looking at the stickers and even the little two-ish litre four-bangers are now stickered as getting lower highway mileage than I routinely achieve in my Audi A8.

Atlant (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Most modern cars use electronic fuel injection, and as such have pretty acurate measurement as to the volume of fuel being used at any given second. (The car's computer needs this information as it adjusts the amount of fuel injected to match operating conditions.) The car also has rather accurate distance measurements through the (electronic) odometer. So as long as your EFI is operating correctly (and if it isn't, you should see a mechanic), and your odometer is correctly calibrated (e.g. you haven't changed your tire size), the miles per gallon should be relatively accurate. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry project Help

I am a 10th grader. My Science teacher asked us students to make a working model on any topic of Physics and Chemistry but I'm confused on which topic to take. Can you please suggest some topics for me to make the projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.98.54 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In before "we don't do your homework". I can't help you on the project itself, however I can give you some ideas. You could try a Foucault pendulum or some such thing if you had enough time, or even just demonstrating that a pendulum's period remains constant. Another idea would be to mix baking soda and vinegar, demonstrating the reaction therein, or Mentos + Diet Coke, or any similar reaction. Ziggy Sawdust 15:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with the Foucault pendulum experiment, is it takes quite some time to show a visible effect and most pendulums that are practical for a high school student to set up in school, will have decayed long before the effect can be seen. However, if you are still interested in the experiment, there are plenty of them set up in various places around the world. There are other experiments you can do with pendulums, such as showing the period is dependant on length and not amplitude, or the effect of drag on the decay of the pendulum's motion. Astronaut (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a steam generator rigged up for electric generation? You can buy a small motor at your local electronics or hobby store, hook it up to a fan, and boil water underneath the fan to spin it. Nimur (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen students make models of trebuchets. Not a very peaceful idea, but probably fun if you're careful. --Allen (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cutting sheet glass under water with a pair of ordinary household scissors usually gets a couple of oohs and aahs. Make very sure to wear proper protective gear (gloves) and don't make uncontrolled movements. Those edges are sharp!!! Somewhat safer and easier to set up: Continuing from Nimur's steam idea, you could also put a couple of mirrors and plates above a steaming pot. Use different materials, temperatures and chemicals like e.g. oil, saltwater etc. on the surfaces and see what happens to condensation. (For a trick show and some laughs you can color the water and show that "the red water will condensate, while the blue doesn't. Just make sure to reveal the solution at the end, to catch the right grade from your teacher.)Lisa4edit (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cutting glass with a pair of scissors - are you serious? Do you have a link to a description or a video? I gotta check it out, sounds amazing. Franamax (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It works. I could never get those glass cutters to work. You don't get quite as predictable a cut with scissors. I came across a demonstration once (must have been at some science fair, can't remember) and then tried it at home. You can also use a hand drill or a hand saw under water. But watch those edges. (3 guesses why I'm stressing that!) You tube has this [19] and this [20]. Lisa4edit (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG! Thanks :) My first guess about the edges would be that when the water is red, it's hard to see the demonstration, right? Kevlar gloves are in order. I found another one, how to cut a bottle with a string [21], also quite cool. If only they'd had youtube when I was a kid, I'd be long since dead :) Franamax (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Even worse for the OP any sight of blood might make the teacher forget to assign a good grade. Back to ideas: I've only seen this done once, but if you're willing to give it a try it can be amazing. It is very difficult to pull off though. You'll need an aquarium, an old pair of headphones (Make sure you get sound out of one side. I don't think earbuds would work)and a balloon. Put the working "speaker" in a balloon (easier said than done!). Inflate the balloon and tie off the end and tie the string around a rock at bottom of the aquarium. Fill with water, add a layer of colored lampoil on top. Play music through the headphone and watch the movement in the water. @Franamax surviving childhood is entirely coincidental when even shoe-polish can become a hazardous material (Without you-tube, and no, I'll not elaborate the details, my backside still remembers 4 decades later, though.) As a relative once commented we should give up sending soldiers anywhere and just send our kids to go wreak havoc :-). Lisa4edit (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

tire/wheel diameter

Why wheel diameter of car, truck and tractor are different?

Why truck can't have small diameter wheels?

Is there any answer in context of radius of gyration? Neel shah556 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bigger wheels are heavier and "waste" more energy. So a given vehicle will tend to have wheels large enough to do the job but not (much) larger. Also, when it comes to things like tractors, the muchlarger outside diameter of the wheel improves traction and ability to get over bumps in the surface or other obstacles. Friday (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tractors attempt to distribute their weight (and tractive effort!) over a large contact patch so that they don't either tear up or compress the soil over which they are rolling.

Trucks, meanwhile, use large tires no only for their larger load-carrying capacity but because, all other things being equal, a tire with a larger circumference will go farther before it wears out. To a first approximation, the rubber of the tire only wears when it is in contact with the road so a larger circumference leads to fewer "touchdowns" per mile which leads to more miles per tire. And then there's recapping/retreading...

Atlant (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified concept car

Hello,

Does anyone have an idea of what this car might be?

• 
• 

Thank you very much in advance ! Rama (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the nearly inscrutable logo behind the car in the pic on the left, it seems to be a Fioravanti Hidra. (see also Fioravanti) --LarryMac | Talk 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Plasma TV surface hot after use?

Is it normal for a Plasma TV to have be extremely warm after watching for a few hours? I'm talking about the actual screen; I can feel it radiate heat. When I hold my hand over the air vents on the top and back of the TV, it's relatively cooler than the screen is. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Plasma screens are noted for their generation of heat, take a peek here. Fribbler (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, they used to get *really* hot. I remember seeing some TV footage from the early 90s where a presenter decided to (for some reason) put his lips against a plasma screen live on air and ended up with his skin stuck to it... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See plasma physics. Nimur (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Early plasma panels back in the 1970's did not generate appreciable heat. Edison (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on Geographic feature

Thank you for your feedback on the meaning and scope of "geographic feature".

The article has been expanded to include your suggestions.

Please take a look to see if it is accurate and complete.

Have all types of geographical feature been included? Is anything missing?!

Are there any errors???

I look forward to your observations and suggestions.

The Transhumanist    00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange parrot behaviour - what's really going on?

Just found this YouTube video of someone's pet Green-cheeked Conure skulking around under a sofa and behaving rather strangely. A few people have commented on the video with suggestions as to what the parrot is doing - but does anyone here know for sure (there's someone here that owns Conures, right)? I've certainly never observed any of the psittacines I've personally owned over the years doing anything that even remotely resembles that. A pattern of behaviour limited to this particular species, perhaps? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May 28

Can you make black holes move?

If you throw something at it... Like the sun, and throw it hard. Like 99.99% the speed of light, what will it do to the black hole? Will it affect the black hole's velocity? 65.41.92.123 (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would work the same way as any other object, assuming the other object would be able to absorb a star. In fact, absorbing any object would make it move, just more slowly. See conservation of momentum. *Max* (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A gravitational tractor would likely be the most reliable way to move a black hole. (Although given the likely masses involved, it would take a long time and a lot of energy.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnetic Moment

In dipole, two equasions for the magnetic field are given; one describes it as a scalar, the other as a vector. They are

$B(\mathbf {r} ,\lambda )={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}{\frac {\mathbf {m} }{r^{3}}}{\sqrt {1+3\sin ^{2}\lambda }}$

and

$\mathbf {B} (\mathbf {r} )={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi r^{3}}}\left(3(\mathbf {m} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf {r} }}){\hat {\mathbf {r} }}-\mathbf {m} \right)+{\frac {2\mu _{0}}{3}}\mathbf {m} \delta ^{3}(\mathbf {r} )$

Setting them equal,

${\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}{\frac {\mathbf {m} }{r^{3}}}{\sqrt {1+3\sin ^{2}\lambda }}=|{\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi r^{3}}}\left(3(\mathbf {m} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf {r} }}){\hat {\mathbf {r} }}-\mathbf {m} \right)+{\frac {2\mu _{0}}{3}}\mathbf {m} \delta ^{3}(\mathbf {r} )|$

Dividing by common stuff and since the Dirac delta will gives zero,

${\mathbf {m} }{\sqrt {1+3\sin ^{2}\lambda }}=|\left(3(\mathbf {m} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf {r} }}){\hat {\mathbf {r} }}-\mathbf {m} \right)|$

Now, $\mathbf {m} =(1,0,0)$ and $\mathbf {r} =({\frac {\sqrt {3}}{3}},{\frac {\sqrt {3}}{3}},{\frac {\sqrt {3}}{3}})$, so $\lambda =\arctan {\sqrt {2}}$. But,

$1{\sqrt {1+{\frac {2}{3}}}}=|\left(3({\frac {\sqrt {3}}{3}}){\hat {({\frac {\sqrt {3}}{3}},{\frac {\sqrt {3}}{3}},{\frac {\sqrt {3}}{3}})}}-(1,0,0)\right)|$

${\sqrt {\frac {5}{3}}}=|\left((1,1,1)-(1,0,0)\right)$

${\sqrt {\frac {5}{3}}}=|(0,1,1)|$

${\sqrt {\frac {5}{3}}}={\sqrt {2}}$

These are not equal. Am I doing something wrong or is one formula wrong? Thanks *Max* (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC).

Isn't $\lambda$ a function of r. For your example r , $\lambda =\arctan(1)$ or 45°. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Second equation is the one I remember since undergrad, it is correct. The first one, as you say quite correctly, gives B as a scalar, that is, gives an absolute value of B. Therefore, m should not be boldfaced in that equation. Now, as you know, absolute value of a vector is a square root of sum of squares of its orthogonal components. Let us take z-axis along m and x-axis in (m, r) plane. B has no y-component then. The second equation gives, for $cos\theta =\mathbf {m} \cdot \mathbf {r} /mr$ and r > 0, the following value of B components:

$B_{z}={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}{\frac {m}{r^{3}}}\left(3\cos ^{2}\theta -1\right)$,

$B_{x}={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}{\frac {m}{r^{3}}}\left(3\sin \theta \cos \theta \right)$.

Root of sum of squares of the two is

$B={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}{\frac {m}{r^{3}}}{\sqrt {1-6\cos ^{2}\theta +9\cos ^{2}\theta (\sin ^{2}\theta +\cos ^{2}\theta )}}$

$={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}{\frac {m}{r^{3}}}{\sqrt {1+3\cos ^{2}\theta }}={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}{\frac {m}{r^{3}}}{\sqrt {1+3\sin ^{2}\lambda }}$.

Thus, the first equation is also correct, provided you replace the boldface m by m in it. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And this is why I shall not be studying physics at anything beyond 'A' Level :| Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Zero point energy

Is there any way to magnify the scalar forces? So that it works on large objects? Like make a car levitate or anything? 65.41.92.123 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject, but Zero_point_energy#Levitation_and_inertia looks relevant. --Allen (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can BritaTM Containters Leach BPA?

Can BritaTM Containters Leach Bisphenol A? Are they made of polycarbonate? Are they made of a plastic that can leach BPA?68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you find the plastic number marking on the container? 2 and 3 are safe, I think. Imagine Reason (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I could not find the plastic number marking on the container.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask the manufacturer. Coincidentally, my brother forwarded this email from P&G: "PUR dispenser bodies are manufactured from an acrylic-based polymer classified as recycling code #7. PUR dispenser lids are manufactured from polystyrene, code #6. PUR dispenser filters are made from polypropylene, code #5, and also contain no BPA." I still won't use it, however, because it no longer filters flouride or even chlorine. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

height nd alcohol

sir i want to know about can alcohol drink related with height increases. if yes how it work and if no so how some body heavy drinke and they become very tall and stong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dss sakti (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC) for any sugesion u mail me plz tolu_1122@yahoo.co.in