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

March 6

Better quality rest giving better quality work

Your demanding day job makes you feel tired. Is there any scientific evidence (rather than speculation please) that better rest in the evening results in better work the following day? If you spend evenings feeling bored and physically uncomfortable, is there any significant difference work-wise from evenings when you are entertained and physically comfortable? Thanks 92.29.117.180 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The articles Sleep deprivation and Effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance provide reliable sources. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is talking about how well you relax in leisure time, not how well you sleep. 90.195.179.167 (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is tritely obvious that the OP is not interested in how I personally sleep. Sleep is the major remedy for feeling tired and its quantitative relation to work efficiency has been studied extensively, whereas subjective evening notions of boredom, entertainment and discomfort do not provide hard scientific evidence. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not asking about sleep, thanks. Let's assume you are getting enough sleep. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is this potential cycle: stress → increased stress hormones → insomnia → fatigue → decreased productivity. Try stress and productivity on Google Scholar or try these articles from LiveScience: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is water taken up in the digestive system?

Where is uptake of water in the human digestive system mainly taking place? The stomach, the small intestine or somewhere else?

From digestion: "Other small molecules such as alcohol are absorbed in the stomach, passing through the membrane of the stomach and entering the circulatory system directly." The water molecule is even smaller than alcohol, so I presume water is taken up by the stomach.

From small intestine: "Water and lipids are absorbed by passive diffusion throughout the small intestine."

--Mortense (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The stomach and the small intestine will absorb some water but the large intestine is where the bulk of the water is absorbed. Dauto (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise the intestinal contents would be too thick to flow around the sharp bends of the small intestine. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

See colon, the first line confirms Dauto's answer. Richard Avery (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the article specifically does NOT confirm that answer. The first line makes no statement of the proportion of water absorbed; moreover, the section on colon function specifically states that 90% of the water has been absorbed prior to entry into the colon. The article might be wrong, and a reliable source would be great here, of course, but I don't think the answers above (nor our article) settle the question. -- Scray (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The question needs to be clarified somewhat: each segment of the digestive tract deals with what arrives into it. This is complicated substantially by secretion, i.e. the mouth produces about 1 liter of saliva per day. I would guess the OP is asking about net absorption of ingested water in the digestive tract. -- Scray (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Still looking for a reliable source, but this page states: "An important function of both small intestine and colon is the absorption of water and electrolytes. Approximately 2000 ml of food and drink is ingested daily, and the volume of gastrointestinal secretions (salivary, gastric, biliary, pancreatic and intestinal) is about 8,000 ml daily; therefore, approximately 10 liters of fluid enters the intestine each day. Of the 8 liters secreted, about 1-1.5 liters enter as saliva, 2-3 liters are secreted by the stomach, about 2 liters enter as bile and pancreatic secretion (about 1 liter each), and about 2 liters are secreted by the small intestine. (Please note that these figures are approximate, not absolute. Volumes may vary, depending on experimental method and conditions.) Of the 10 liters which enters the gut each day, only about 1 liter passes into the colon, about 90% having been absorbed across the small intestinal epithelium. Only about 150 ml is lost in the feces daily, with the remainder being absorbed by the colon. It should be obvious that any derangement in intestinal fluid absorption would profoundly influence the balance of fluid and electrolytes in the body, and that the normal functioning of the intestines plays a significant role in regulating water and electrolyte balance." This strongly suggests that the small intestine is a better answer than the large intestine/colon, but is probably not the final word. -- Scray (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the net absorption of water in each part of the digestive tract is the relevant info we need here. You listed 1 liter going into the large intestine, and 0.15 coming out, so that means 0.85 liter of net absorption. That, divided by the 1.85 liters that enters the mouth and doesn't leave the other end, gives us approximately 46% of water being absorbed by the large intestine. If we can come up with comparable figures for the stomach and small intestine, we will then have a way to determine where the net absorption of water is greatest. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we stick with stomach vs small intestine vs large intestine, the answer is pretty clear - the stomach secretes 2-3 liters and is well-known to absorb very little, so its net absorption will be nil. That leaves 54% to the small intestine. -- Scray (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Absorption of nutrients often depends on whether they are water-soluble or fat soluble and this also applies to vitamins. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Two questions about filters

(1) Why do filters for digital cameras exist? Can't you process the pictures after shooting them with a software filter?

(2) Is there a filter for glasses to make everything look black and white? Quest09 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

1)You can process color images with Photoshop or other software and gain many of the advantages of using color filters, such as if the image is transformed to black and white, after a yellow filter effect is used to emphasize clouds in an outdoor color photo. Actual filters can achieve some effects which would be difficult or impossible with Photoshop, since a filter might have a very narrow bandwidth, while the three channels of color info in a digital image are very broadband. 2)Kodak produced a "viewing filter" which made it easier to visualize how a B & W image of a color scene would look. The name of it is a "Kodak Wratten 90 filter." If memory serves, it might have been brown or orange. The scene did not really look black and white through it; that is impossible. See also [6]. Edison (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

UV, infra-red and polarizer filters cannot be emulated in software. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

1) One other advantage would be to get the filtered results immediately, and thus know if another photo should be taken, while the subjects are present and the lighting is still the same. Here I'm assuming that the software filter is used later on. If you apply it as the picture is taken, then that's good, too. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As the preceding responses note, there are some filter effects that cannot be employed after the fact, because the camera doesn't record the information required to reconstruct the 'filtered' image. Typically, the camera will collect just three pieces of information about each pixel: the intensity of light in that spot as seen through a red, a green, and a blue filter (built into the camera's sensor). This is usually enough to reproduce the color and brightness of the pixel as our eyes would see it, but can still leave much to be desired. For instance, specular reflections of light will be polarized to some degree; a suitable polarizing filter allows the photographer to suppress (or enhance) the appearance of this reflected light. Here are some examples. Since your digital camera's sensor doesn't record polarization information, you cannot reconstruct the polarized-light image in software.

Similarly, with only three color channels recorded, a great deal of information about the spectrum of the light observed is lost. This is usually not particularly important, but it can have significance under unusual lighting conditions or with particularly novel subjects; astrophotographers can have a particularly complicated toolbox here. To take an extreme example, look at the sun. (Figuratively only — don't actually go out and stare at the sun, please.) If you photograph the Sun – with appropriate filters so that you don't cook the camera's optics – you'll get a yellow-white blob, which may have some discernibly-darker patches: sunspots. Photograph the sun through an H-alpha filter (which extracts just a narrow window of light around 656 nm wavelength) and you'll get a much more richly detailed image. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A graduated neutral density filter can help digital cameras with a restricted dynamic range cope with a bright sky etc. If the sky gets burnt out, then no amount of post editing of the RAW file will bring it back. Yet if the sky is brought within range, the ground can become too dark and noisy. WP as ever, even has an article on filters in general.--Aspro (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, some digital cameras have settings to enhance colour contrast in a live photo or to make it appear B&W or sepia. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's a heart defibrillator, why isn't there a brain defibrillator?

So a defib paddle can restart a flatlined heart; why isn't there a defib device that restarts a flatlined brain?

What would it take to invent a device that would restart a flatlined brain? What obstacles would it have to overcome and how would it overcome them? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The heart has a beat to restart, the brain doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

CF, what does the brain have to restart then? It must have something to keep going. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: I'm no expert, so take the following with a boulder of salt. Compared to the brain, the heart and its operation is a lot less complicated. It follows a repetitive, relatively simple cycle, which somebody has discovered that a jolt of electricity can restart. Various areas of the brain, on the other hand, fire off at different times, intensities and combinations depending of the stimulus. There is no set pattern AFAIK for you to kick start. Also, I'm guessing that neurons are a lot more fragile than heart muscle, and would not take kindly to being zapped. As a rough analogy, kicking a malfunctioning washing machine has a much better chance of working than (physically) booting your PC. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this question isn't entirely off base. The heart doesn't usually stop beating entirely, but rather goes into an abnormal contraction pattern, called fibrillation, and the shock stops that and allows the normal beat to return. Similarly, the brain sometimes has abnormal electrical patterns, and some attempt has been made to stop those and allow the brain to "restart", via electroshock therapy. While this therapy has a bad reputation from being used improperly, it still has it's advocates, especially when compared with brain surgery. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I know little about it other than you would need to get the the neuronal ion pumps to start working again but the IP may be interested in having a read around the subject of cortical spreading depression in the visual cortex. It's kind of like part of the brain flatlining for a while (in the sense that neurons remain excessively inhibited) after a hyperexcitability phase (a spreading jolt of electricity). Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What does it mean to re-start a brain? We re-start heart because they are fibrillating and you could die. If the brain is not working properly there are other means to 're-start' it. If you mean re-starting a brain without activity, I have to say that you should have re-started the heart earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.187.20 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I will note parenthetically that a defibrillator cannot restart a 'flatline' rhythm (asystole). This is a popular myth perpetuated by the lazy or inept writers of movies and televised medical dramas, where the flat EKG and beeeeeeeeep of the monitor are a convenient and widely-recognized device for plot advancement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why a brain dead person is often considered deceased even in cases when the heart continues to beat. The brain and heart are also co-dependant in some processes. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

weather

If we wanted to know everything about the weather to predict it w/ 100% accuracy, would it be better to ask all the inhabitants to hold their breath and stop moving or include those interactions in our analysis? by better i mean to predict the weather, not for the inhabitants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the animals, continental plate movement, variable solar activity, the odd earthquake, even plant growth? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How would you even model interactions between humans and the atmosphere? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You could build a scalar field of global baked bean sales. That would be a start. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

To actually answer the question, no, because of the butterfly effect.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes all those things also. how can you answer no to an "either or" question? Just b/c it might be totally impossible to do does nto change whether we would need it for the 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe 98.221.254.154 is making a valid point if he/she is saying that all factors would need to be accounted for if we are to achieve 100% accuracy in a prediction. By the way, please "sign" your posts with 4 Tildes. See WP:SIGN. (Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)). Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to lift Mount Everest, would it be better to remove the snow from the top or lift harder in order to take the snow into account? There is no sensible way to answer questions such as this. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If by better you mean easier (less work), then most likely lifting harder, because it is extremely unlikely that the work needed to remove the snow before lifting it would be equal or less than the same work associated with the snow portion when lifting it with the snow in place.98.221.254.154 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If both methods are 100% accurate, then they are equally good at predicting the weather. Your question makes no sense. --Tango (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking if attempting to artificially isolate certain phenomena at the expense or exclusion of other valid ones in order to only understand the isolated ones is as fruitful (if at all) as attempting to identify and combine all possible phenomena as they exist entangled.98.221.254.154 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The effects of human breathing are typically considered negligible on global weather and thus are not included in numerical weather forecasting methods, even as it contributes to the butterfly effect. Human-made contrails, effects of greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic haze, dust from overgrazing, reduced evaporation from deforestation, the Asian brown cloud, soot in the atmosphere, the ozone hole and even wind farms likely have a much greater effect on weather than breathing, and those are usually not included either. It's not useful to consider any and all possible influences on weather, as that would amount to trillions of co-interacting and co-evolving factors even boiling down to the movement of every individual organism in microscopic gut flora in each of the nearly 7 billion humans on Earth having an effect on weather...so you get the idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just b/c those are not usually included doesn't mean they shouldnt be.

Just because they do not feature explicitly in the equations doesn't mean that human breath and a thousand other factors are not implicitly included in the mathematical model. All such factors contribute to the initial conditions that are used as a starting point for the forecast, and they are possibly included in the constants of the equations. Perhaps an expert in weather forecasting can confirm this? The forecast might be rendered inaccurate if the whole population of a large city decided to take vigorous exercise simultaneously for a few hours, but I expect that the effect would be more from the extra heat generated than from the breath, unless they all faced in the same direction and blew hard! Dbfirs 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Reputable scientists are in agreement on this one: there is no practical benefit to over-parameterizing global models of climate. See, for example, our article on Global climate model. Here are several actual models in use. If you can extend any of those models, or the computer-code implementations of them, you can probably make a career for yourself as a climate scientist. But if your suggested model extension is totally infeasible and incompatible with today's theory and practice, (like your current suggestion to model microscopic effects due to human breath), you will have a hard time making a scientific case that you are modeling and predicting meaningful parameters. Being able to test your model against some parameter is a requirement for scientific research. Nimur (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Testosterone as an anti-depressant in men

Has any research been done on using testosterone as an anti-depressant on men with or without low testosterone levels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of research showing a small but statistically significant decrease in bioavailable testosterone levels correlated with depression (such as [7]), but the only research I can find on treatment of depression with testosterone has actually been done on women to treat symptoms of menopause (such as [8], if you're allowed to access it). Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemicals that mimic testosterone are used in anabolic steroids. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Period & Bloating

When a woman gets bloated during her period, is the bloating all blood or water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's water retention. Surprisingly little blood is lost during the menstrual period - about a teacup over the average 5 days. Most of what you see is endometrium, or the lining of the womb. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Sorry, I meant an eggcup. The Menstrual cycle article says 10 - 80 ml. (Note to self: wake up before you start posting!) --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Life on meteorites?

Hi. Could this be evidence of panspermia? Please refer to this unpublished article from the Journal of Cosmology (no Wikipedia article), as well as this older similar discovery from 2004. I'm not asking for opinions here, just an overall analysis of the articles presented here (is JoC a reliable source?), and comments on whether any information from these studies once peer-reviewed and published are to be included in Wikipedia articles. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If they are truly bacteria (a big if there) which really originated from outer space (another big if), and if they appear to be based on the same "code" as we are (e.g. they look more or less like life on our planet), I'd say that would be pretty suggestive towards panspermia, assuming that the probability of us finding similar designs on meteorites is low (which I think is a reasonable assumption at the moment, but it might be the case that our "template" for life is more common than we realize). If they don't look like they're on the same template as the rest of Earth, then probably not — could be independently developed somewhere else. I lack the technical ability to judge the article, but as a layman I would worry that humans are extremely good at looking for recognizable patterns, and are seeing bacteria where they might otherwise just see random structures. Lots of things look like bacteria at scales like that, when all you have access to are morphological structures and relatively clunky things like how much nitrogen or carbon are in them. But again, I'm no scientist — but these seem like the obvious things to be concerned about. The JoC looks legit as far as I can tell — peer-reviewed, non-nuts running it, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of Cosmology looks extremely non-legitimate to me. Did you look at the other articles it's published, such as these ones? The editorial board includes Subhash Kak, who also frequently publishes in the journal (as do other board members). The board also includes Roger Penrose as a "guest" editor, whatever that may mean. The "author guidelines" page contains the remarkable phrase "Do Not Use "Latex" Word Processing Programs". The "manuscript preparation" page says that authors should include with their submission a list of qualified reviewers. And they charge for submission and publication. This looks for all the world like a vanity journal for crackpots. -- BenRG (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak to the crackpottery (not yet having investigated the journal), but charging authors for submission and publication has long been the norm in academic journals. Typically, charges are made per page, for preparation of illustrations, and so on, and are quite steep. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out: Fox News Publishes Fake ‘Exclusive’ About Discovery of Alien Life for a bit more on this subject, this scientist and the journal. Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That link doesn't take me to a specific story. It also seems to be a gossip mag. I think relying on a gossip mag to debunk Fox News is a sure route to madness! --Tango (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Link takes me directly to the story. To summarize, he appears to have already announced this discovery on panspermia.org in 2004 and in 2007 in a paper at a conference for the Society of Professional Instrumentation Engineers. But necver in a top-line journal like Nature. He also appears to have claimed that the fossils are older than the solar system. Rmhermen (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that gawker is saying is that Fox is ridiculous for calling this "new" or "exclusive." That the guy has been shopping this theory for years doesn't really count against him. JoC seems to have reviewed it rather thoroughly before publication, if one takes their editorial note as being accurate. That doesn't mean it is right, but it also means that it shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand because it is unusual. The gawker criticism of the JoC is entirely on the basis of their webpage design — I hate to inform them that most academic journals have pretty lousy web designers. They then back up their evidence by linking to another blogger (who is a biology professor, good for him) who says it is not true. All in all, fun commentary, but not science. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article can also be found here. -- BenRG (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some ways in which the bacteria may not be extra-terrestrial:

1) Fraud. They could have been placed there by the scientist who "found" them.

2) Accidental contamination. It's difficult to prevent Earth bacteria from getting onto a sample. Even with careful decontamination procedures, bits of bacteria may remain.

3) The meteorites may have come from Earth, as a result of an ancient meteor strike, similar to the one that may have hit to form the Moon, and only recently have fallen back to Earth. I'm unsure if the composition is consistent with a meteorite from Earth. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I say JoC looks about as genuine as a thirteen dollar bill. But don't take my word for it - read PZ Meyers at [9]. Note, however, that the scenario of finding life preserved in just the right meteorite is genuine - this was claimed before for a Martian meteorite - but this just isn't meeting the threshold. Wnt (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why take PZ Meyer's word on it? He seems to me as partisan as any blogger, and willing to make gigantic claims that he doesn't bother to support with evidence. His objections to JoC is "it's online", "it has stuff in it I don't like", and "it has an ugly website." That's not exactly a scientific critique. It might be fringe, but I don't think you can tell that from its webpage alone. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, did you actually read PZ's article? He's taking the paper apart. He might be a bit loud at times, but his objections are much deeper than "I don't like the website". PervyPirate (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

weird question about evolution

Did Human being become more sophisticated and intelligent by becoming omnivores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.4.211 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe that being omnivorous leads to intellectual attainment? You may be right—I don't know. But we have List of omnivores with a mix of creatures of various intellectual capacities. I'm curious to know how being omnivorous may have spurred on humans to evolve to have intellectual capacities at the upper end of the range. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's some discussion on the evolution of eating meat by humans here and here, without any reference to cranial capacity. Personally I kind of doubt it — it's not clear to me when you want to say that "humans" evolved to be omnivores anyway, and we have evidence from other great apes that being an omnivore or a vegetarian doesn't seem to push you into the human range at all. (Chimps are omnivores; gorillas are vegetarians. Bugs not included.) It's clear that evolving to eat meat was important for human evolution more generally, especially by allowing them to expand into different ecological niches, but I'm just not sure it can be called a main or prime motivator for our big brains. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather say humans are omnivores (= opportunistic feeders) because they are intelligent. However, I don't see how diet can have an influence on your intelligence as a species. Proper diet is determined more by your intestinal track than by your brain. And along evolution, you tend to adapt to be able to digest the food available to you. Quest09 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there an argument that by eating meat, and/or by inventing fire and cooking, humans have been able to get more nutrition from a given quantity of food, and thus spend less time foraging for food, and more time in activities that would make use of their bigger brains? (not sure how that would impact the evolution of the brain, however). --rossb (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Any change that requires an increase in the complexity of behavior and of decision-making ought to generate evolutionary pressure for an increase in the sophistication of brain structure. Since omnivorous behavior is more complex than consistently eating a single type of food, it ought to create a pressure for increased intelligence. Whether this pressure is significant in comparison to other factors, though, is far from clear. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that being omnivore, as I said above, is not exactly our nature. We are opportunistic feeders, so there is less pressure on us, since we can eat what's available. Quest09 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Animals that have always been herbivores (meaning no omnivores or carnivores in their evolutionary past) do tend to be less intelligent than omnivores and carnivores (or those species descendant from them), but there doesn't seem to be as much difference between omnivores and carnivores. I'd say that this is because hunting requires more skill than foraging. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephants are reputed to be herbivores, and are very clever animals, as apparently are many parrots. However, I should say that I am always skeptical of claims of absolute herbivory in any animal. An angry elephant can supplement its diet with more than a bit of meat,^[10] and as we know from the mad cow disease outbreak, even cattle feeding can involve substantial amounts of animal byproducts. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephants are not going to eat too much meat. They don't have the teeth or habits for it. I do think, though, that in general, hunting requires more brain power than running away, though there are some important exceptions where the impetus for more brain power seems to have come from elsewhere. (And comparing it with cows is a complete non sequitur. Cows are herbivores. That we feed them meat tells us only about us and nothing about them.) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "hunting requires more brain power than running away"; that's an invalid comparison, as being a hunter does not exclude one from being hunted, and vice versa. I would also argue that being hunted is important to developing intelligence, and humans likely were considered prey for large predators for most of our evolution. Thus, being both hunter and hunted might lead to the most intelligence with being neither predator nor prey leading to the least, such as the infamous dodo. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some stupid hunters, like crocodiles, which would eat more intelligent animals like zebras. Quest09 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some would take exception to your claim that crocodiles are stupid hunters. See here. Lsfreak (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Although we classify them as herbivores, hares occasionally eat meat." Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some pretty vicious rabbits have been observed, too. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Being intelligent also implies having a big brain, which implies lots of energy, which implies some calories rich diet, which contains at least some meat. Quest09 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The troodon was considered the smartest dinosaur prior to its extinction, and it was also omnivorous. Feral cats eat both meat and grass. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that grass is part of the normal diet of cats. Both feral and domestic cats do eat grass, but probably only as a medicine? Can an expert comment on this? From observation, domestic cats eat grass only when they are about to be sick! Dbfirs 09:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

These cat experts give several theories as to why cats eat grass, of which one is that it induces vomiting which helps the cat bring up hairballs. Other sources including The new Encyclopedia of the Cat (Fogle) advise offering grass to indoor cats for this purpose. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

While a common claim, I think the 'sick' part is perhaps a little simplistic particularly if you're thinking they do it because they need to or are about to or already have thrown up. Plenty of cats seem to eat a blade of grass without outward signs of being sick and not all seem to vomit afterwards. A lot of claims are made of the reasons why, but as with many claims about pets, I think there isn't actually much evidence or research. See also [11]. More interesting is [12] which is also covered in [13] and while primarily about dogs they do mention cats, in particular an ongoing study is mentioned (I didn't find evidence has been published yet but didn't look that hard). The hypothesis presented would support a 'medicinal' function I guess. In any case while eating grass is apparently 'natural' and not that uncommon, I wouldn't call cats omnivores and would be careful about giving too much emphasis to them eating grass. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

When talking about carnivores, perhaps a distinction should be made between predators, scavengers, and others, like filter feeders (or are they considered to be omnivores ?). Predators presumably would be more intelligent, as hunting requires more brain power than the others. Note, however, note that baleen whales are filter-feeders, which doesn't seem to require much brain power. I believe, however, that they evolved from fish-eating whales, and retained the brain structure developed for that. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

lamps

what material are lamp shades made from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdk789 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The variety would be very vast. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We could roughly cover the entire spectrum of material science: fiber, polymers, glass, or metal. Almost all day-to-day materials fall into one of those categories. Nimur (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

... and bacon! --DI (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Human skin (must be jewish). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

[14] confirms human skin but suggests it wasn't possible to determine the ethnicity of the human. Given the source, Jewish is probably more likely to be right then wrong, but we still can't be certain. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Human skin (goys OK). --Sean 15:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

florida homes

do florida homes have insulation in walls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdk789 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick google search for "Florida building code" + "insulation" provides several hits that suggest that insulation is required to meet the building codes. Such as: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fbc/committees/energy/energy_forms/New_Energy_forms/600C_04Nrevised.pdf

--DI (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Many Florida homes however do not seem to have basements. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I live in Florida and I can attest that basements here are exceedingly uncommon. Dauto (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting I'm sure but I don't get the relevence. No one mentioned basements before you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The presence or absence of insulation would depend on when the home was built, and that would apply anywhere - insulation did not come into general use until the 1920s, and wasn't required until the 1940s or 50s in most of North America. In Florida, I'd suspect it wasn't required until somewhat later. Acroterion _(talk) 05:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Energy Densiy of Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations

How can I calculate the energy density of vacuum quantum fluctuations using quantum electrodynamics? Luthinya (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, understand that quantum electrodynamics is a very difficult and subtle subject. If you aren't familiar with it, it will be unwise to try to learn a small piece of it, and attempt to apply some textbook-equation to a particular problem where it might be invalid. Next, have a read at vacuum energy for a conceptual overview of the topic; and read the research publications and textbooks at the bottom of our article. The key is to apply physical constraints to calculate an upper bound on the energy density; our article suggests that modern researchers use the cosmological constant as the upper bound constraint on the vacuum energy. Finally, note that different approaches result in estimated values that differ by hundreds of orders of magnitude. As a general rule, when separate well-known physical theories disagree so significantly, it is a clue that our current theoretical understanding of the relevant process is incomplete - in other words, even the best and brightest physicists who specialize in this field don't know the answer to your question with a great deal of certainty.

As a consequence of this question, I am now reading The Structured Vacuum: Thinking About Nothing. This monograph was written by a professor of physics at University of Arizona, and seems to be an excellent resource for the advanced undergraduate physicist. Without solving the Dirac equation, the chapter on vacuum polarization describes the necessity of a virtual particle plasma of virtual electrons and positrons; these inherently have a statistically fluctuating vacuum polarization (and hence, embodied energy); I suppose to solve for the magnitude of that energy, you must solve the Dirac equation for the virtual particles, subject to physical constraints. Nimur (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nimur, I see that The Structured Vacuum is over 25 years old. Has the subject evolved much since it was written? -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely - the subject has surely evolved. I am not an expert in this field, but as I understand, recent experimental measurements of the casimir effect were made in the last few years (our article mentions a 1997 experiment, but I seem to vaguely recall some more recent "earth-shattering" news on this subject). The Rafelski book is very entertaining, but it's probably the most up-to-date or mathematically-rigorous text on the subject. Nonetheless, I don't think anything is invalid in what I've read so far. The authors present a bit of speculation about how a high-energy particle collider could be used to experimentally verify some energy-bounds assumptions - and now that we have a Large Hadron Collider, I bet there's some related work on that area. Nimur (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The vacuum energy of electrodynamics like the vacuum energy of most quantum field theories is formally divergent. That is not a serious problem for a theory that does not include gravity. That is one of the many theoretical reasons that make supersymmetry a popular subject. Supersymmetry allows theories with finite vacuum energy to be built through a careful cancellation of formally divergent terms with opposite signs. These cancellations depend on the existence of superpartner particles that are yet to be detected experimentally. Dauto (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

March 7

Reactions with super-heavy elements?

Hi there, just wondering if any reactions have been done with super-heavy elements that have long enough half-lives. (I'm guessing this would be done to see if they have similar properties to other elements in their respective groups.) If so, what reactions have been done and what been the outcomes? I'm also wondering if there is good reason for trying to create 'new' elements e.g. Element 119, i.e. are scientists looking for anything in particular, or is it just done in case these elements can be used in the future for something? If that is the case, what are the expected applications of these super-heavy elements? I've had a good search of Wikipedia but can't really find anything to help so any answers or thoughts would be much appreciated. Kind regards, Raywil (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Island of stability. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply: I know about the island of stability but didn't realise that the article described the potential applications of elements that make up the island. Now for the rest of my questions... Raywil (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd give this a sort of "bump" to see if anyone else has answers. Thanks. Raywil (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think practical (chemical) applications are likely, any time soon, since the cost of such lab-made chemical elements is likely to be prohibitively high. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also it's too early to answer those questions. Till we make macroscopic amounts of those elements it's pretty hard to figure out applications for them. As for why they are making them, it's mainly curiosity, but also, maybe there will be some awesome application. No way to know till you (they) try. Ariel. (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts; much appreciated. Raywil (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The highest temperature

Is there any point such as kelvin zero for highest temperature?a. mohammadzade iran--78.38.28.3 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No.--Srleffler (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You could consider -0 (negative zero, or zero approached from the left) to be the highest temperature, which like absolute zero, is unachievable. See negative temperature. Although depending on the system, positive infinity could be the actual maximum (and unachievable) temperature. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A rather poor article but perhaps Absolute hot may be of interest. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

By the current theories, temperature is the measure of the average speed of the particles. An approximate formula is $T={\frac {v_{avg}^{2}\pi M}{8}}$. (M is molecular mass). By this definition, you can have absolute zero with molecules of avg speed zero. Now, your maximum speed is the speed of light, and you can maximize temperature by plugging it in, but, this is the maximum temperature for a molecule with given molecular mass. Take a bigger molecule, and your temperature increases. So there's no maximum temperature. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 12:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's almost never a good idea to 'plug in' the speed of light if you're not very sure of the assumptions underlying a formula. Temperature is a measure of the average thermal energy per particle, which for a gas under reasonable conditions is roughly proportional to the average kinetic energy per particle. In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of an object is proportional to its mass, and increases with the square of its velocity; that's were the v² term comes from in the equation you've used. This falls apart when you get to temperatures high enough that special relativity rears its ugly head. As you put more kinetic energy into a particle in order to increase its velocity, there will be an associated increase in its relativistic mass. The effect is negligible at any reasonable velocities and temperatures, but the particle's mass (and its kinetic energy) will asymptotically approach infinity as you bring its velocity closer and closer to the speed of light. Any hypothetical molecule travelling (impossibly) at the speed of light would have an infinite kinetic energy and therefore an infinite temperature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed not only that but the aforementioned equation is missing a Boltzmann constant, and if true, would imply and absolute hot, as there exists only a finite mass; but alas, it is all irrelevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.37.227 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, the basic statement is wrong. Temperature is not a measurement of the average speed of the particles.

This is something that needs to be emphasized every time it comes up. The direct relationship between temperature and kinetic energy works only in one very simple, idealized case — an ideal gas made of individual particles (at normal temperatures, this means a monatomic element like helium or neon). In all other cases, the relationship breaks.

What temperature really is is a statistical concept. It's not about kinetic energy per se. --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Temperature, despite the fact that we use it every day, really IS a very hard concept to get at. Personally, I find the explanation afforded by the Zeroth law of thermodynamics to be most satisfying; the general concept that temperature is defined in terms of thermal energy transfer; two bodies are empirically defined as the same temperature insofar as they are in thermal equilibrium; the temperature at any equilibrium can then be defined as dH/dS, (or dq/dS if you prefer) the relationship between heat and entropy at a particular thermal state. --Jayron32 06:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See a previous discussion at: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 July 14#The Limit of heat?. Staecker (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You might say "absolute zero". Minus absolute zero, that is! See negative temperature. But that is a specialized usage of the idea. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

exploding of supernova

how dos explode a supernova and how will be the fragment of its inner matter i couldn't find perfect explanation of this in encyclopedia. akbar mohammad zade iran march 2011--78.38.28.3 (talk) 04:18, 7 March2011 (UTC)

In existing nebula if the star matter be powder and dust or it remain molten?a. mohammadzade--78.38.28.3 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A supernova explodes when the core of a star collapses, causing extremely high pressures. These pressures cause the star to "bounce" back, blowing it to bits.

Stars are made mostly of hydrogen and helium, and the core of a star gone supernova has some carbon, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, and iron. Many of these are gases at most temperatures and pressures, and in the vacuum of outer space, most of them will be gases. Does this answer your question? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks i think that might have gathered pieces ,then this gathered pieces will be molten, because of its condensed early condition and first density what have been observed in crab nebula .if that be gas then in which density?and how can it have 11000 degrees temperature?a. mohammadzade --78.38.28.3 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The density is very low - the only reason we're able to observe it, is because the nebula is so big. The temperature of the nebule is a measure of the average thermal energy per particle. (molecule, atome, etc.) Since the nebula is so sparse, an observer located inside the nebula would not notice a difference in temperature compared to outside the nebula. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To help to explain this, think of putting your hand into an oven at full temperature. If you touch something dense inside, like a pot, your hand would burn instantly. If you only touch the less dense air, then your hand heats up more slowly, and you might be able to take a few seconds without getting burnt. Now imagine that the air is a trillion times less dense, and your had wouldn't get hot at all (except for radiation from the sides of the oven, but we'll ignore that). StuRat (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Petrochemical Distallation

Is it possible to sort a mixture of waste plastics using fractional distallation under an anoxic atmosphere? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, no, because plastics tend to decompose when heated, producing hydrocarbons and other products. You may get useful fuel out, but not gaseous plastic that you can then condense and reuse.[15][16][17][18] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Would increasing the pressure to several times atmospheric pressure have any effect on the rate of pyrolysis? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are the batteries on this bike?

Where does the energy come from for this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10858682 I cannot see any batteries. Can anyone explain what this is supposed to be doing? Thanks. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

They're in the pedal. You can see them on the video - they're the two objects on either side of the pedal, wrapped in a black shrinkwrap. The pedal has had a motor and batteries added. Assuming the user resists the attempt of the pedal to turn, the pedal and foot combined will drive the crank. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I expect batteries that small will last about two minutes, so they are practically useless. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

They probably didn't developed the bike to be run all the time with these tiny batteries, but only to give you an added push. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Excavations at ancient battle sites

What are the odds of finding the helmets, shields etc and human remains at the sites of ancient battles (such as Thermopylae)? Also I'm curious what would be the depth of digging to reach the weaponry and human remains in case of Thermopylae? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to note here that the helmets, shields and such would have been recycled by the victors and so you wouldn't have much chance of finding them. In Repton, UK, a number of male skeletons were found near the parish church in the last century, and it is speculated that these were victims of a Dark Age skirmish.Repton Church --TammyMoet (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what you're referring to is looting and/or grave robbery (depending on the circumstances) and is considered unethical and/or illegal depending on the jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the illegal antiquities trade has been going on since the "antiquities" were brand new, meaning that many, if not most, archaeological sites have been pretty seriously plundered of what non-archaeologists would consider valuable (cool stuff like weapons are in almost a high demand as the shiny stuff). I don't know the depth of the soil at Thermopylae, but our article at least indicates that the water levels have dropped since the battle took place, so at least they won't be underwater. Matt Deres (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think many other people have thought about this in the past and the likelihood of finding any remains now is, well, slight, and that's being optimistic. 86.4.187.76 (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's not unethical to dig up ancient artifacts and treasure; it's only unethical for poor people to profit from them, rather than license-holders and established institutions. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just incorrect; the problem has nothing to do with who profits, it's with what happens to both the artifacts and the state of the site. The people who raid such sites just dig holes all over, grab whatever they figure they can sell, and make off with whatever they can carry away, paying no attention to recording provenience of the pieces, horribly contaminating the site and artifacts to render most dating techniques unreliable, and literally destroying whatever gets in their way of making a buck. The pots and jewellery and neat looking human remains get sold off and lost from the archaeological record, to the detriment of everyone. Matt Deres (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just like to point out, the person asking didn't say they were going to dig up battlefields, they just asked a hypothetical question about what might be found at old battlefields. There's no need to get on your soapboxes, people. Pretend he/she is an archaeologist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No soap-boxing intended. The OP's specifications on looking for the "cool" stuff are highly indicative of someone who isn't planning a proper dig. Not that I think they're actually planning on flying over with a pickaxe to start treasure hunting, but I wanted them to at least be aware that it's unethical (and usually illegal) to do so. Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder; if helmets, armor, shields, and weapons were there, if they would be totally corroded by now. I believe the Battle of Thermopylae occurred during the Iron Age, so it may have all rusted away, by now. Perhaps some high ranking soldiers might have had some gold accents on their items, but then those would have been even more likely to have been stolen. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Iron and bronze can indeed rust away, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be gained from it. In a proper excavation, even artifacts which have nominally been rusted away can still provide information by way of the rusty stains they leave in the soil. Estimates of counts, the metals used, the size and kinds of implements left behind, and more, can all be inferred from examining the soil closely. That could then be compared against other sites to provide evidence of changes in material culture, advance in metallurgy , and trade routes. Provided that someone hasn't dug the entire site up looking for a cool skull to stick on their mantle. Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Budgerigar 'charming'?

How/why does this work? I think that this effect, or something like it has been discussed on here before in relation to other bird species. The guy in the video is a real veterinarian, who also has some 'mystic' beliefs which he draws on, alongside the traditional medicine (AFAIK) - but I'm personally sceptical that this is actually a 'mystic' phenomenon. Something is clearly happening here though, to render the budgie still and docile. Any ideas? --95.148.106.17 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He also does the same thing with a lovebird here while trimming its beak. --95.148.106.17 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.. Wonder if it is something similar to Chicken hypnotism.. That's what really annoys me about stuff like this, there's obviously something very cool and interesting going on and then he has to go and say that he's seen John of God do it to people who then have surgery standing up without anaesthetic, what a crock. Vespine (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This one is even more extraordinary. It certainly seems woo-ish from the way he describes it - but he's obviously doing *something* that works. A parrot flipped on its back would normally bite (hard) and struggle to escape. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Parrots peacefully scattered around in the landscape on their the backs (drunk) isn't an unusual sight in Queensland so they seem to have a "I'll just have a bit of a lie down for a while" mode. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I can think of two triggers that might calm a bird:

1) The "time to sleep" trigger might occur when the light level goes down, such as covering the eyes (or entire cage) of a diurnal bird. This doesn't seem to have been used, in this case.

2) The "preening" trigger might occur in social birds, where they are preened by others. This might apply here, as stroking of the feathers may set this off. Thus, those birds which calmed down, when being preened by others, might have been more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those that became agitated. Do budgies preen each other ? StuRat (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not very impressed with this video. The bird tries to get away again and again and again, and he has to hold its wing awkwardly at one point to contain it. It's not obvious to me that a bird has to struggle to escape continuously, as opposed to once a minute as this one does, especially not when it's an old arthritic bird that has lived most of its life in a cage. It is apparent, of course, that the feel of a hand around its wings and/or being upside down has some effect, but this is scarcely magical. It reminds me of something from mouse work - supposedly, holding the mouse by the scruff of the neck keeps it from trying to get away when injected, but honestly, I suspect that any pain equivalent to such a pinch makes the mouse briefly play possum (or otherwise stop moving), and the specific technique is unimportant. Wnt (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the grabbing by the scruff of the neck is a method used by some mammal moms to carry their young with their mouth. I've seen it used on kittens. I believe this is another of those automatic signals that causes them to go limp, as kittens that struggled might have been left behind and died, while those that went limp survived to pass on their genes. However, I don't think this applies to any birds, since they don't carry their young in this manner. StuRat (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere (about 542 years ago?) that signficant pressure applied to the skin and soft tissues on the scruff of the neck of an animal induces the release of a bolus of endorphins and other, similar compounds into the bloodstream of the animal, generating a calming effect. If you would like me to find a recent reference, hit me up on my Talk page. CAVEAT: I've tried this with my wife when she becomes enraged with me, but it doesn't seem to work very well :-O

Best regards:

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Acrylamide in commercial breads

I buy 100% Whole Wheat breads from supermarkets, and try to purchase as few sugars as I can, but I'm not sure if anything can be done about acrylamide. Is making my own bread by boiling the only way to avoid the substance? (And no, I don't believe epidemiological studies.) Imagine Reason (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How does one boil a bread? Dauto (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC

A bread what? I think we usually call it a loaf or a roll (or bap) 86.4.187.76 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bagels are boiled. Ariel. (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea with boiling is the temperature, not the actual boiling. All you need to do is cook the bread till it's cooked, but not browned. So avoid a heavy crust, and take it out when it's still pale. You should also make smaller bread, so the inside is fully cooked without having to heat the outside very much. If you are really worried, then cut off the crust. The inside of bread doesn't really go much above boiling (if it did it would dry out and become crust). Ariel. (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So maybe picky children (who want their PB&J with the crusts cut off) were right all along. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed various brands of crustless bread in the supermarket - some new process, I think. 81.131.26.97 (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I assumed they just cut the crusts off and used it for other things, like bread crumbs or animal feed. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried two brands: one seemed to have the crusts cut off as you say, the other had a thin layer of dense but pale bread instead of crust. 213.122.24.251 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I investigated this myself in the past. There is such a thing as steamed bread, and there are steamed bread rolls which are a Chinese thing.

I've never seen either of them for sale anywhere, but if steamed bread was done at high pressure it may be no better than ordinary bread. Steamed bread redirects to Chinese steamed rolls. Frying them as the article shows would introduce acrylamide into them.

Wholemeal bread has more acrylamide in it than white bread. Soda-bread has less acrylamide in it. Since acrylamide is associated with browning (by heat, not enzymic browning) then pale un-browned bread such as some pitta bread is likely to be safer. Any manufacturer who can supply acrylamide-free bread will make a fortune. By the way, crispbreads have very very large amounts of acrylamide in them. Cooking food in a microwave also results in acrylamide.

I'd be very interested to learn of any practical recipies for home-steamed bread or even rolls. 92.29.127.85 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Boston brown bread or hobo bread. Rmhermen (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The three and a half hour cooking time is something to think about, although on the other hand my bread machine takes longer than that. 92.15.0.66 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the acrylamide scare is the unwarrented-panic-du-jour. If it is present in baked starchy goods, then it has been there for thousands of years, or roughly as long as humans have been baking bread. Whether or not, and at what levels, it is carcinogenic isn't nearly as important as the measurable health outcomes of consuming acrylamides on baked goods such as breads. In other words, does the eating of bread have a measurable impact on your likelyhood of dying of cancer, solely from the acrylamide content? How many cancer cases per year can be traced to acrylamide consumption from ordinary baked goods? I think you'll find these numbers to be vanishingling small, close to zero. On the list of risks to your own life, in terms of both length and quality, eating whole grain bread falls somewhere near the bottom. --Jayron32 04:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Our physiology has evolved for many millions of years since the beginning of life. We only started cooking bread very recently. Evolution is not very sensitive to early deaths after you've had kids. 92.15.0.66 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We've been drinking alcohol for a long time, too. Ok, so it's much safer than beer, but we've been ignorant for most of our history. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Romans did not live very long because they were unwittingly poisoning themselves from the lead in their pipes and drinking vessels. I think they may also have added it to wine, not sure. They did not detect it was poisonous because everyone was consuming it. Before acrylamide was found in food, it was classified as a probable carcinogen. Now that its been discovered in food, then all of a sudden it becomes harmless? Can I remind you that a large proportion of people (do not recall exact proportion) die of cancer. So, probable carcinogen in food, and lots of people dying of cancer - surprised? 92.15.0.66 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could be a problem, but we need more info to know if it really is a problem. That is, just how carcinogenic is it ? It would be impossible to avoid all carcinogens entirely, as you likely inhale several with every breath. So, then, since we can't avoid all carcinogens, the issue becomes avoiding the worst ones. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Just how carcinogenic is it" you ask. "The European Chemical Agency added acrylamide to the list of substances of very high concern in March 2010.[5]". 92.15.20.212 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your footnote didn't copy, do you have a link ? StuRat (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Go to the Acrylamide article and find footnote number 5. 92.15.20.212 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, following the link I found a study that showed no evidence of it causing cancer in humans, but they did find it caused cancer in rats when given at the rate of 3 mg per kg of body mass per day. So, then, the question is whether the amount in bread comes close to that. I didn't find info for bread, but this site lists the level as 1.57 mg/kg for French fries ("chips" in British English): [19]. However, this is per kg of food, not per kg of body weight. So, you'd need to eat twice your weight in fries each day to have the same exposure level as rats had in the study. If bread has comparable levels, then the results should be similar. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is "no evidence of it causing cancer in humans" because no one would do such an unethical experiment. The mice would have been fed acrylamide for a short time (they only live a year or two, maybe less) which is not the same as eating it over more than fifthy years for a human. The mice can show it is carcinogenic to mice and by inference mammals, but the dose in relation to bodyweight cannot be extrapolated due to the different time-scales inolved. 92.24.191.116 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They had results of 2 studies from chemical factory workers who had been exposed, but they showed no signs of any problems. Mice have much faster metabolic rates, which should cause them to show signs of cancer far quicker than in people. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood that. The study that resulted in acrylamide in food being discovered was a study of the workers in a factory that dealt with a lot of acrylamide. The big surprise was that the control group (people who did not work at the factory) had just as much acrylamide in them as the factory workers. You say "no signs of any problems" yet as said above, lots of people are dying of cancer all the time. The number of everyday things once assumed to be harmless but now believed to be carcinogenic is slowly increasing: for example cigarettes and asbestos. What's next?

Some third-world and other countries have much lower cancer rates than europe and north America. They could be countries were lower amounts of acrylamide are consumed, due to different customary diets. I'd be interested to read any cross-cultural study of acrylamide consumption.

You say "mice have much faster metabolic rates". The only thing that would speed metabolic chemical reactions would be a higher temperature. I don't think the body temperature of mice is much different from humans, particularly when considered on an absolute Kelvin scale. They are not red-hot. I do not think their slightly different temperaure would compensate for their lifespan of a year or two compared to the 50 to 100 years of humans. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If the cancer develops by mutating a gene when a cell duplicates, then it will happen quicker if the cell duplicates more often, much as happens in animals with faster metabolic rates, like mice. As for there being less cancer in third world nations, that just because they die of war, malnutrition, and infectious diseases before they get old, when cancer is more prevalent. Also, while everyone may be exposed to some, the factory workers were exposed to much more, so should have shown increased mortality, if it really was dangerous at those levels. StuRat (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to think, apart from your imagination, that cells divide more frequently in small adult animals than large ones. You make assertions about cancer in the third world, but what evidence is this based on? Your imagination I presume. As far as I recall the factory workers and the control had similar amounts, so the factory was not contributing much. 92.15.6.232 (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you will tell me which part you doubt, then I will be glad to provide proof:

A) Cancer is more prevalent in the elderly.

B) Third world nations have fewer elderly people, as a percentage of their populations. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop speculating all the time, the repetition is boring. OK, please quote the statistics that lead to your conclusions regarding 3rd. world cancer. Or could they be all in your imagination? 92.24.190.23 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You failed to tell me which part you doubt ? Is it A or B ? StuRat (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You've avoided quoting any stats as requested. Where are they? Why cannot you provide them? I believe its customery and rather obviously required to compare cancer rates of populations at the same ages. I cannot see how listing a couple of platitudes has any significance. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, then, let's see your proof that cancer rates are lower in 3rd world nations, when adjusted for age. You are the one who made the claim, not me, so you prove it. StuRat (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above: You've avoided quoting any stats as requested. Where are they? Why cannot you provide them? Stop trying to change the subject. Boredom, lazyness and the time of night here disincline me to search for that on Google. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As for mice having a higher rate of cell division: "...metabolic rate and the rate of germ-cell division increase in smaller species...", from [20]. Now, if you are going to accuse me of "speculation", I will do the same to you. You can start by proving that cancer rates and acylimide consumption are lower in third world nations. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That paper is mainly about DNA maintenance and DNA evolution. Where does it say that the cells of small animals divide more frequently that those in large animals? Cannot see that anywhere. It says that smaller animals use more oxygen per unit weight, but you'd expect that as they have more surace area per unit volume so they have to burn more energy to maintain their body temperature. In any case, knowing oxygen usage per unit weight is a very very long way from allowing you to calculate the comparative dosage lethality of mice and men. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence on page 4090. StuRat (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that it could still be highly carcinogenic if you have a bottle of it, and yet be completely insignificant as a food safety risk, if the quantity in bread is small enough. For example, ozone is also a health risk, but the amount in the air we breath is typically low enough that it's not a concern. Only when we have elevated levels, as in cities with a pollution problem, do we need to do something about it. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, tell us, how little is harmless? How many scientists do you have working at the StuRat Laboratories? You must have a secret underground headquarters like Dr. No in James Bond. 92.15.20.212 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to that...I'm too busy petting a cat with one hand and adjusting the calibration on my missile launcher with the other. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be that there is no lower safe limit. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The only way a single molecule could kill you is if it can reproduce and your immune system had no protection from it. And if one molecule could kill you, then all the people who ever ate burnt bread would drop dead immediately. Even the most dangerous substances almost always have some level of safe dosage. Many poisons are even given as meds (in a safe dosage, of course), like warfarin. StuRat (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"And if one molecule could kill you, then all the people who ever ate burnt bread would drop dead immediately." I understand that cancers take 10 -20 years or more to kill you, so that dosnt make any sense. 92.24.190.23 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, they would drop dead in 10-20 years, then. That still doesn't happen, does it ? StuRat (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know? 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A single molecule of plutonium might be effective. With cancer-causing chemicals, the less chemical the less risk, but a single molecule would still have a small risk. 92.15.6.232 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A single atom of plutonium wouldn't cause much harm. We are constantly bombarded with radiation from external sources, which would far outweigh that one atom (get a Geiger counter and listen to all the clicks, some time). As for increased risk, when you get to the point where, if everyone on Earth had that level of exposure, not one of them would be likely to show any effect, that's no longer worthy of being considered an "increased risk". It would also cause many deaths to spend scarce resources to eliminate such a minuscule risk, when those resources could be better spent to reduce major risks, which kill millions each year, like smoking. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"A single atom of plutonium wouldn't cause much harm." Please give the research papers that provide the evidence for that conclusion - imagination dosnt count. 92.24.190.23 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that we already have far more than on atom of plutonium is pretty good evidence that any one doesn't do much harm. I don't think you appreciate just how many atoms are in the human body. There are so many that pretty much some of any naturally occurring element is bound to be present. At this site they ran various calcs, and the lowest result was that the average human body would have about 197 atoms of plutonium: [21]. StuRat (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not "pretty good evidence" at all. You can make an analogy with asbestos and asbestiosis (sp?) - the risk increases with exposure, but even people who have had a tiny exposure may sometimes get it. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what? Instead of using the whole number scale, I think your reasoning is based on just three "numbers": more, same, less. Or perhaps: lots, average amount, small amount. Fascinating! 92.15.8.206 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on proof that anything YOU say is anything beyond wild speculation. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad loser, lol! 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Post hoc ergo propter hoc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Everybody dies. 2. Death always has a cause. Given that "1" and "2" are self evidently true, IMHO, eating well is a higher priority than going to extreme weirdo paranoid lengths in a probably futile attempt to avoid just one of the practically infinite number of causes of death, particularly if that one happens to be responsible for a vanishingly small proportion of the total number of (human) deaths that have ever occurred. Don't sweat the small stuff, live well, die happy. Roger (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning bones

Hello. I have some friends who found a coyote skull, broken into four pieces. I was thinking of gluing them together and making a stand for a nice display, but I need it cleaned first, and I need some small, invertebrate help to do it. If I were to put it in a terrarium with either mealworms or crickets for a while, would they get it all nice and clean for me, similar to Dermestidae beetles? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 19:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly, we have already answered this question on the Reference Desk. See "Help Cleaning a Dog Skull" from May 2008, and "Part Two" of the same. Nimur (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This subject actually comes up a lot - Rabbit, February 2008 (discussion regarding the use of beetles)... Nimur (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, the above links were helpful, but you still did not answer my question: could I use either mealworms or crickets to clean a skull without damaging it? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Crickets are omnivores and will apparently eat decaying organic matter. Our mealworm article indicates that they prefer vegetarian fare, so I'm unsure if they will be useful for cleaning your specimen. Previous responses have suggested ants. Nimur (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) The articles to which you have already linked both suggest that these insects are primarily herbivores that may eat insect remains if that's all that's available, but do not mention any propensity for eating mammalian organic remains, which seems to me unlikely as it's far from their normal diet. You could simply try them both out - the bones are not going to suffer if either or both don't perform, and you can then try one of the other methods.

You might find some useful information in this post. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Hmm, i'm not an expert but I don't think so. crickets and mealworms mostly eat vegetable matter, not decaying meat.. I just use flies and ants. if you have any "yard", buy a cheap bucket, put some holes in it, cover the skull and put a brick on it so a cat or something can't drag it off. Vespine (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if it gets to the stage where you are gluing it back together, I read that bone collectors use regular PVA glue: It's transparent, doesn't damage the bones, bonds well enough and can be washed off if required. Vespine (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is there anything wrong with your standard housefly/bluebottle maggots? Or how about simply boiling the skull? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Normal house flies would take too long and the place would stink while they did their work (If THFSW is in the northern hemispeher, there also might not be many flying around at this time of year). Boiling the skull would be quick, easy, and thorough, so long as you don't mind a little grossness. FYI, the bones might not fit back together as neatly as you might hope; in living animals, the bones can bend slightly before breaking - if this critter was hit by a car or something, you might end up with a skull that looks warped or deformed. Matt Deres (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen the skull, some friends of mine found it. i don't know about the condition, it might not even be worth it to try to piece it together again. Just one question: will boiling the skull (sounds barbaric!) get rid of all the flesh and dirt? I think that this skull may have been underground for a long time, so cleaning it may be the only issue. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, boiling in water alone will remove dirt but not all the flesh. The flesh does become softer and easier to remove, after many hours of boiling, and the skin and muscles fall off, but other parts remain attached, including cartilage and especially the marrow insides bones. Perhaps boiling it in bleach might be more effective. This would have to be done outside, say on a fire pit or grill, as you don't want your home filled with bleach fumes. Also, avoid using an iron pot, as the bleach would cause it to rust. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sad story: I recently shot an 800 lb boar hog. I couldn't make head cheese from it for boring reasons, so I just put it in the woods for critters to eat the flesh off and I'd have an epic skull with enormous tusks. I screwed an eye hook into the skull and wired it to a tree. When I went back a week later it was gone. The wire had been broken off. :( --Sean 14:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A rotting boar skull covered with maggots and flies sound very Lord of the Flies to me. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If only you had the foresight to embed a transmitter with a GPS device in the brains! Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of bleach use strong ammonia solution. It will dissolve the fat. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pistol shrimp & goby fish

The pistol shrimp often lives in symbiotic life with the goby fish. The pistol shrimp is almost blind, but is able to dig long galleries for their common home; the gobi does nothing, but watchs around with his big eyes, should a predator be approaching, in which case, he gives the alarm and quickly leads the shrimp back home. The shrimp also carries a kind of big and loud gun in one of his claw, that uses to shoot down his preys (the continuous gunshots of these guys even interfere with submarines' sonar system, they says). Apart the obvious side remark that God is apparently an addicted Marvel Comics reader, I wonder: how does the goby avoid being shot by his blind gunslinger friend? Thanks. --pma 22:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but this has been sitting here a few hours now and I just have to say: this is the funniest, cutest and quirkiest subject / question I've seen here for a long time. I've probably read past it ten times and it still makes me smile, absolutely love it. :) Vespine (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean DC Comics. According to the goby fish article, the symbiotic gobies are known as Watchmen. ;) (Sorry, no real answer yet - though I should say that the shrimp apparently knows how to target its prey) Wnt (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am shocked to learn that the pistol shrimp is blind, when that other famous slinger of shrimpoluminescence, the mantis shrimp, has the most complex eyes in nature. --Sean 15:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Still no solid responses, so here's my (educated) guess:

• First, all sources I've seen describe the symbioses as being very species-specific, meaning that not just any goby will pair up with any tunnel-building shrimp. Thus, goby species specializing in pistol shrimp pairing probably do have behavioral or morphological ways of avoiding damage.
• One organ system that may be specialized to be resistant to shock is the lateral line. Although other systems are effected as well, this seems to be the most sensitive to shock, so that's the first place I'd look for shock resistance.
• The shockwave produced is directional according to this paper, [22]. So Wnt may be on to something: the shrimp may just keep the cone of damage away from its friend (which is often in actual physical contact with the shrimp, making this easier).

Good question, but there seems to be a dearth of organismal biologists and ecologists here. Let us know if you find out any better answers. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I suspect the folks at the fishbase forum might be able to provide more information [23]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

doxycycline

What was the antibiotic doxycycline first isolated from? 82.132.248.19 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Tetracycline_antibiotics#History has some background. While doxycycline is not directly covered, it seems that the tetracyclines in general seem to derive from various strains of Streptomyces bacteria. --Jayron32 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Doxycycline is a semi-synthetic antibiotic: it can't be isolated from any organism because it doesn't naturally occur in any. I believe but can't find a reference, that's it's produced by chemically altering the naturally occurring tetracycline (obtained by fermentation with Streptomyces species). You may be interested in the history section of this article- Nunh-huh 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI ... Having been awake for like 5 minutes, and with virtually zero brain function, I quickly type in the Google search phrase "Invention of Doxycycline" and got the WORST result I've ever SEEN from Google! It was so goofy, I just HAD to post it here. WOW! I think I will now make an attempt to re-boot my brain, and move on to something else. LOL!

Best regards

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

March 8

Blood erythritol

The polyol erythritol is used as a sugar substitute. Although it is absorbed by the body and passed through the kidneys, it is not metabolized. It does not increase "blood sugar", i.e. blood glucose, it is a sugar alcohol. Even so, it actually has anti-oxidant effect.^[24] Even so, I have to ask: is erythritol also a kind of "blood sugar" -- i.e., does erythritol have any properties that duplicate those of an equal amount of glucose? For example, does it increase blood viscosity, cross-link proteins, or add to strain on the kidneys? Wnt (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Gear trains

actually i have solved a gear train questions which is giving negetive value for number of tooth for one of the gears.what could i interpret from that. should i take absolute value of the number of tooth. 59.93.130.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

We would need more information about what great train question you solved (i.e. what the math was). A negative number could mean you have an error, or perhaps it means the gear is rotating in reverse. It's impossible to say without knowing what formula you used. Ariel. (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Q.

The annulus A in the gear shown in the figure rotates at 400 rpm about the axis of the fixed wheel S which has 80 theeth.The four armed spider is driven at 180 rpm.Determine the number of teeth required on wheel p. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.134.20 (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the image to make it viewable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for tweaking, Here when we solve we get number on tooth on annulus gear(red one ) to be -24.82.to solve remaining problem should we take modulus value of number of gears.Or it is having any significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.134.20 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't you worry about the fractional number of teeth as well? Dauto (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Which gear is S and which one is p ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Typically "S" is the "Sun" (center) and "P" is the "Planet" gear (by analogy to orbits). See Sun and planet gear. In this case, we have one sun, four identical planets, and an outer-ring that the OP is calling the "Annulus" (A). Nimur (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And can you show us your math ? StuRat (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ariel seems to be right. Epicyclic_gearing#Gear_ratio says that a negative result means rotation in the opposite direction. --Heron (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think the funny result is due to the given velocity ratio being impossibly high. By my reckoning it cannot exceed 2 and the question requires it to be 20/9. SpinningSpark 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Autotrophic respiration

We don't seem to have an article on root respiration (autotrophic respiration), although it seems to be a fairly mainstream topic. I am curious about the interaction between scion and rootstock on tolerance to waterlogging and couldn't even find the relevant mechanisms defined here. DId I miss it or could someone who has a clue (unlike me) start one? --BozMo talk 09:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the articles Autotroph or Photoheterotroph may help? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Flight angle

An accident occured in which the vehicle was twisted at flight angle. What does the term "flight angle" mean technically and also how is it used on day to day basis? aniketnik 16:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniketnik (talk • contribs)

Probably, "flight angle" refers to either the angle of attack (the angle of elevation of the wing surface, relative to horizon, as a rotation along the pitch-axis); or to the pitch angle (the angle of the aircraft airframe, measured relative to the horizon, along the axis designated as the "pitch axis"). In the case of a catastrophic accident, those two angles might not be identical! See our diagram for the conventional layout; and on most fixed-wing aircraft, note that pitch and angle-of-attack of the wing surface are fixed relative to each other. Other important "angles" are described in our aircraft flight dynamics article, with animations. Your exact quote, "twisted at flight angle", sounds very ambiguous - it is possible that the intended meaning is that the aircraft was within its normal operating orientation limits and should not have stalled. If you provide a source for your exact quote, we may be able to interpret the intended meaning a little better. Nimur (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

spin

How can they force the spin axes into a horizontal alignment by imposing an electric field that alternates at radio frequencies like it says in this article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n11_v133/ai_6507705/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lufc88 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help us to better answer this question if you were to explain what exactly you are having difficulty with in that article. You might find what you are looking for in magnetic moment and Electron magnetic dipole moment. Simply put, a spinning electron is equivalent to a circulating loop of electric current and consequently has a magnetic field identical to a small dipole magnet. For this reason, the electron will be acted on by external magnetic fields and, in particular, will tend to align the axis of spin with the field. At least, this is the situation with classical field theory, to get the full picture quantum mechanics must be applied. When this is done it is found that the dipole moment can take on only certain quantised values. SpinningSpark 00:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a question.

Elements which make life possible

Which element or elements makes life possible? I am also wondering if life can be inorganic instead of organic? Matthew Goldsmith 19:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight (talk • contribs)

This is covered in some detail in the article Hypothetical types of biochemistry. Short answer: there may be all sorts of different chemical configurations that can make life happen, but we haven't observed them yet. (Except maybe GFAJ-1, but that's a small modification of the general template, if it is real.) --Mr.98 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a better (sub)title; please try to make your title more useful in the future. Also, a question: Do you mean chemical elements, or "elements" like light, heat, water, and gravity ? StuRat (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, (phosphorus or arsenic), and sulfur are all necessary. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't silicon based computer technology not qualify as life when it become self supporting? E.g., in the near future we may have robots that maintain themselves and the infrastructure that sustains them. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

efficiency

how efficient are steam power plants like coal in converting heat to electricity in percentage? how efficient are antennas in converting em waves to electricity in percentage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lufc88 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer is, of course, "it depends." Practically, a coal power station is about 40% efficient, per carnot efficiency and engineering practicality. Antennas can be very close to 100% "efficient," if your amplifier and signal path are impedance-matched to free space (377 Ω), if you count all power out in any direction. Read thermal power station efficiency, and antenna gain. Do you need help understanding those articles? Nimur (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks i think i understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lufc88 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Standardization in Redox Titrations

Hello. Is standardization of KIO₃ necessary before titrating against ascorbic acid if I am preparing KIO_3(aq) from its solid? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mayfare. I think you have to ask yourself what reasons might mean that weighing solid KIO₃ might not accurately tell you the molarity of the solution. Here are a few to consider...

• Purity of solute (KIO₃) as sold. Was the solute intended for use as a primary standard or is it just a ground-up radiation pill, etc?
• Storage. Has the solute been kept in an airtight container so that it can't react with atmospheric gases around the lab? Would that be an issue?
• Humidity. Is the solute totally dry? If not, how might you dry it before use?
• Purity of solvent (H₂O). You might get an extra mark for mentioning this!
• Accuracy of weighing. How much solute are you weighing out? What is the precision of the weighing device?
• Accuracy of dilution. What errors might you expect here?

Hope this helps. Try estimating the cumulative effect of the last two (Accuracy) points. - Pointillist (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Inheritance traits and DNA

Is it possible to determine the skin tone, hair/eye color and blood group after studying the inheritance traits during DNA analysis? --89.76.224.253 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is in the DNA somewhere (barring the use of hair dye, colored contacts, and such), but I'm not sure if we know exactly where. It's sometimes vastly more complex than just one chunk of DNA which sets each trait. There might also be certain diseases or environmental factors which might have an effect (like sun-bleached hair). StuRat (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There are some claiming to do this.[25][26] This is fairly embryonic, and I would keep an eye out for chicanery. Genetic testing to determine the blood type shouldn't be difficult, but I can't think of many situations in which it would actually be useful. After all, if you have blood, might as well go for a DNA match. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article is (no surprise) extremely misleading. It says that theoretically in the future you could reconstruct certain details about a person's face from DNA. (Granted in theory you could do this to some degree — but we're a long way away in practice, and it's unclear if those details you could extrapolate would actually be useful in identification.) Then it says something like this was already done... because they used DNA to determine that a suspect was Black rather than white. That's not the same thing at all; it's relatively easy to guess what ethnicity/racial category someone would fall in based on their DNA (it's probabilistic, but you can say things like, "you carry genes are extremely prevalent in people from this part of the world as opposed to this part of the world" — which, in some situations, is probably enough to say, "this guy is probably pretty white looking or Asian looking or Black looking" — which is not terribly precise, but could be useful in identifying a suspect). It's totally different — one is modeling development (which is hard), the other is tracing origins (which is not as hard). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not easy to say exactly where this line is crossed, because any statistical fact is meaningful. We shouldn't expect that one day the genetic information is worthless and the next you can draw the suspect's face - rather, there is a period when it can rule out some possible suspects and provide "most likely" values for some features. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that even ruling out suspects (or matching DNA) is (under currently used practices) still probabilistic. They do not currently sequence entire DNA sequences (though someday they may do this, once it gets really cheap), just a finite series of markers within them. The odds of two different sets of DNA being seen as identical under these procedures is small but not impossible. (And calculating those odds depends on what assumptions you make about the target populations.) It is to my understanding still quite rare to use DNA testing to say something about what your suspect should look like — usually DNA analysis is useful after you already have samples to compare against. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Speed of back-and-forth motion

How to measure the speed of continous back-and-forth motion? One b&f move per second? -) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How about dividing the total distance traveled per cycle by the time for each cycle ? This will give you the average speed. However, if you want the instantaneous speed, which would be expected to be zero at the furthest extensions and (normally) at maximum in the center, that gets trickier. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If I continously make for example 0,5 m back and forth per 1 s, that would be 0,5 m/sec per cycle, I guess? But what about instances where speed is inequal? --89.76.224.253 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If it goes half a meter one way, then half a meter back, that's 1 meter total. If that happens in one second, then that's an average of 1 meter per second. However, the speed WILL be uneven. That is, it must stop and turn around at the end of it's motion at each end. This is what I was getting to with "instantaneous velocity", which is the speed at any given time. If we make some additional assumptions, like constant acceleration/deceleration and no rest time at each end, we might even be able to come up with a graph of the instantaneous velocity at each point in the cycle, from the data you supplied. StuRat (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Hertz? You could say that the motion has frequency v and then calculate the position = K sin (2 pi vt) and therefore velocity = 2 pi K v cos (2 pi vt) [the derivative]. (K is half the total distance moved; the 2 pi factor converts cycles per second to radians per second, which can be multiplied by seconds and input into the sin function) But only if it moves sinusoidally. It could just bounce back and forth at constant velocity, for example.

To elaborate, suppose you have a piston that is driven by something that circles 0.25 m away from a central pivot once per second. Therefore the piston moves 0.5 m back and forth once per second. (Depending on the linkage I don't think this is precisely sinusoidal, but it could be) Time zero is the piston half extended, moving outward. The position of the piston is simply 0.25 m (2 pi t). When t = 0.25 it is 0.25, 0.5 it is 0, 0.75 it is -0.25, 1 it is 0.25 again. The velocity of the piston is (2 pi radians/cycle) (0.25 m) (1 cycle/second) cos (2 pi radians/cycle * 1 cycle/second * t). At t=0 this is 0.5 pi "radians" m/s = about 1.57 m/s. The decision to use radians in the velocity is momentarily confusing (both radians and cycles are in a sense "dimensionless") but radians signify the actual distance traveled, whereas cycles are merely a count of events. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Only a massless object could do that. Any real world object takes some time to accelerate and decelerate. However, the instantaneous velocity profile isn't necessarily sinusoidal, that's only true under constant acceleration. In the case of a ball being batted back and forth by a cat, for example, this wouldn't be the case. StuRat (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I just edited the above a little, but to address your point, yes, there is at least some period of acceleration. But if the impact is elastic at either end, it would be a very small amount of time. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So, we should ask, what's driving this object to move back and forth ? This may help us to determine what type of motion and acceleration we're dealing with. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on the simple harmonic oscillator. This is the simplest type of "back and forth" motion modeled in physical systems. More complicated models deal more accurately with other types of motion. Nimur (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You may need a stroboscope to measure it. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

March 9

dust mite covers and bed bugs

Will a special mattress cover designed to keep out dust mites (for those who are allergic) also keep out bed bugs, so that if bed bugs appear in the apartment, the person who lived there wouldn't have to throw out the mattress after eliminating the bed bugs? I guess I want to find out if a dust mite mattress cover could be part of preventative measures. I'm not asking medical advice. Thanks, 74.14.13.241 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it might act as a partial barrier, but bed bugs are particularly resourceful in gaining access to the sleeping body. There are accounts of them climbing up the bedroom wall and jumping off onto the bed, having calculated the appropriate parabolic trajectory! (No, I don't believe that, but I do believe that they will find their way round most obstacles to gain access to their food.) Treatment with insecticide is much more effective, but even that is not guaranteed. Dbfirs 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually asking if the cover will keep them in? i.e. the bed bugs will be locked under the cover and can't reinfect the room? Assuming you kill all the ones in the room? It seems unnecessary to me - killing the bugs in the mattress is pretty easy compared to killing the ones hiding in the room. Also they can live for a year without food, even under that cover. As a general answer, the cover will do nothing, since the bed bugs can live in the room and then walk over to the person on the mattress. (Unlike mites they don't live inside the mattress, they hide on the mattress in seams.) And they can also hide in cracks in the floor or walls, etc. Ariel. (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Antimatter explosion

Is it possible to determine/make an educated guess as to what a (hypothetical) antimatter explosion in air would actually look like? Would it appear similar to a nuclear bomb going off - but larger for the given mass of 'explosive' material? Would there be a mushroom cloud? Would the explosion be the same colour? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It should look more or less like a nuclear explosion, which itself (from a superficial point of view) is just the creation of a gigantic expanding ball of heated air. The mushroom cloud is caused by it being close to the ground, and is not unique to a nuclear explosion (any explosion of a sufficient size will cause one if it is close enough to the ground to suck up dirt). I don't know about the color — nuclear explosions generally just look like the standard black body spectrum (a ball of fire), but you do get weird cloud colors because of the radiation involved, ionization of the air, etc. I don't know what kinds of things you'd get from an antimatter explosion but I'd imagine they would mostly look pretty similar, since the essential thing responsible for the appearance of a nuclear explosion (lots of heat energy all at once) is essentially the same. (I would not expect all of the effects to be the same, mind you. But you can't see neutrons, for example, so the fact that nukes let out gobs of neutrons doesn't really change how they look.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, while a nuclear mushroom cloud can contain particulate material pulled up (and/or vaporized) from the ground, this is not required to form the cloud. When warm, moisture-laden low-altitude air is rapidly lifted up by the fireball and then cools, fine droplets of water condense out, forming the cap of the mushroom. (Even in the absence of soil and dust from the ground, the vaporized remains of the bomb and its casing rapidly condense to provide a rich supply of condensation nuclei for water droplet formation.) While very-high-altitude bursts won't form explosions, it is because they are unable to draw up enough warm, humid, air from lower altitudes—not because they can't suck up dirt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have to suck up something to get that mushroom stem. If you have an aerial burst (not even high altitude), you get a cloud, but not a "mushroom", like this.--Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are reacting exactly equal amounts of the same element (rather than anti-matter in air) it will make almost 100% gamma rays (assuming you can mix the two fast enough, which is NOT easy). That type of explosion will not look like a normal explosion. It will ionize air to a tremendous distance, and will look more like an aurora than a fire. If you just drop anti matter through the air it will look either like a meteor, or a series of explosions (probably depending on how fast it moves through the air). It won't explode all at once, since the initial explosion will push away all the matter, leaving nothing to react with the antimatter. The explosion will then stop, letting matter back in, and it will cycle. If it's moving fast, then the fresh air arriving at the front will constantly provide matter to react with, and it will leave a trail of light. (But because most of the energy is being released in the front, it will rapidly slow down.) I am assuming it will take the form of fire because the two elements being reacted are not the same, so you have residual particles to carry energy as heat. If things match up however (perhaps you pick anti-silicon which has twice the atomic number of nitrogen in air), then you'll get mostly gamma rays and bursts of auroras (aurorae?). Ariel. (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it would look like an aurora? What I'm imagining would happen is that said gamma rays would collide with said air and heat them up (e.g. via Compton scattering), making it look like a pretty regular explosion to the naked eye. Similarly the bulk output of energy from a nuke is in the form of neutrons and rapidly moving fission products, which looks, to the naked eye, just like fire when it is done in an atmosphere. The only place you'd notice the difference is if you did it in a vacuum, with a nuke. But I'm not a physicist; this is just my understanding of the visible effects. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not sure (I never got a chance to test the one we built in StuRats lab). But Compton scattering does not heat up air - rather it makes light that looks pretty much like an aurora. And unlike a nuke there aren't any neutrons or other particles left to cause heat effects. It's all neutrinos and photons. Ariel. (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. Gamma rays don't release their energy by Compton effect. They release it by pair creation that produces a particle shower which efficiently delivers the energy to the medium. I don't think your aurora-like explosion makes any sense whatsoever. The result would be very much like a nuclear explosion. Dauto (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Because you have anti-matter (either from the original or the pair production) you can't have a proper particle shower - the shower is annihilated. Maybe some of it heats up the matter, but most will end up as gamma rays again. As further evidence, I heave never read anywhere (and I just checked again) that actual gamma rays from Gamma-ray bursts cause particle showers. If they did then the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory would not need to be in space, they could do it on the ground. Cosmic rays, i.e. protons do. But not gamma rays. Ariel. (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote my question, I was thinking something along the lines of an antimatter bomb of comparable physical size to that of a nuke, dropped on an enemy city from a B-52 (or whatever). I suppose that merely allowing the bomb to hit the ground and break open, exposing the antimatter (hitherto contained by a magnetic field in vacuum) to the air would be sufficient for the purposes of mass destruction? That said, what physical effect would a bomb that worked by colliding an equal quantity of elemental matter and anti-matter have on a city and its population - supposing that this massive 'gamma aurora' (and little else) was produced upon detonation? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

See Gamma-ray burst. It would sterilize all life. It probably would not do a lot of destruction, because while all those gamma rays eventually end up as heat, they travel quite far and the energy would be spread out. The ground right under the bomb would get hot, but again, the gamma rays would travel deep underground. Note: I'm speaking relatively - it would still be a massive bomb, just not as big as the energy calculations might lead you to expect. If I were designing an anti-matter bomb I would make two types. In both of them I would place the anti-matter in many small containment structures, and place matter right near each structure. The idea it to try to get the two to mix as thoroughly and rapidly as possible. In one type that would be all. I would let them mix, and let the gamma rays sterilize all life. In the second type I would surround the bomb with a tamper designed to absorb as much gamma ray energy as possible. This will turn it into heat and cause a massive physical explosion. This is good for attacking fortifications. StuRat can I join your lab? Ariel. (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm always looking for new henchmen, since they occasional make mistakes and thus must be liquidated. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rough plot of Earth's atmospheric transmittance (or opacity) to various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light.

I'm not so sure about your speculation here, Ariel. The graph at right suggests gamma rays are absorbed by (transfer their energy to) the atmosphere pretty well. It's hard to say exactly what would happen, but I see no reason to doubt an antimatter weapon would be far more destructive by weight than a thermonuclear weapon no matter where or how you set it off. Please cite a source if you really believe otherwise.WikiDao ☯ 02:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well by weight no question at all. I was saying by energy. By total energy released, an anti-matter bomb would be less effective than a nuclear one, which in turn is less effective than a chemical bomb. But of course the available energy is far higher so that outweighs it. As far as the graph, that's for the entire depth of the atmosphere. Gamma rays are able to travel in air. Ariel. (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems to imply a kilometer for gamma rays, which I guess isn't much. Ariel. (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption that it's almost 100% gamma rays is incorrect; a significant amount of energy will be carried away by neutrinos. Nucleons and anti-nucleons create pions. While the neutral pions decay largely into gamma rays, the charged pions decay mostly into muons and muon antineutrinos; the muons in turn decay into muon neutrinos, electron antineutrinos and electrons. Icek (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: And I forgot the positively charged pions, which decay into antimuons and muon neutrinos; the antimuons decay into muon antineutrinos, electron neutrinos and positrons, which can annihilate with the electrons. But the neutrinos will carry away some energy, as they hardly interact with matter. Icek (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Our Antimatter weapon article says: "The effect of a large antimatter bomb would likely be similar to that of a nuclear explosion of similar size." WikiDao ☯ 01:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. As Icek explained above, the matter-antimatter reaction produces mostly mesons, not gamma rays, and as I explained further above, gamma rays are absorbed by air just fine. Dauto (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As others have said, the explosion should look similar to a nuclear explosion, but if you want a different looking explosion, an impact from a large object like an asteroid should produce a different looking explosion since the fireball would have a tendency to be sucked up into the ionized wake created by the asteroid as it traveled through the atmosphere. See, http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Planet-Killers.html#Asteroid ScienceApe (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Aftertaste

Why does chocolate have such an unpleasant aftertaste? Some other sweet foods have similar, but not quite as strong, aftertastes, as well. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Try a different brand of chocolate. Also, personally, if I eat too much chocolate in a short period of time it starts tasting sour, so perhaps let your tongue rest first. Ariel. (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But it's happened with other foods too, not just chocolate. Most foods with sugar or (to a lesser extent) starch also seem to have a bad aftertaste. Do the carbohydrates break down into acid? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I find that an aftertaste is usually a sign that they added some nasty chemicals. Read the ingredients. If there are things in the list you can't pronounce, try a different brand without all the nasty added chemicals. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't rule out that some (thin) person gets an aftertaste from sugar. But U.S. chocolate lovers should beware: believe it or not, there are grinches making chocolate out of castor oil! (See PGPR) I'm talking about the main brands you see in the store aisle - check the ingredients.

Actually, what I really wonder is, what do they do with all the leftover ricin? Where do they farm all those plants? They must have accumulated enough to wipe out a large country by now, if they didn't throw it all out... Wnt (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It really depends what kind of "unpleasant aftertaste" you're talking about. Cacao itself has a complex and bitter flavor, and so high quality chocolates with a high percentage of cocoa mass have a sharp bitterness that is considered part of the complexity of the flavor. Milk chocolate, especially of the Hershey's variety, has a somewhat sour taste which is considered characteristic of its process of production. Some of this is just how chocolate tastes — it is not a simple "sweet" flavor, but a mix of lots and lots of complicated (natural) chemicals that makes cacao such an interesting appeal flavor. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I get unpleasant aftertastes and sometimes tongue pain from various foods (chocolate being one of them). But, I have geographic tongue, so it is just a side effect. If I continue to eat bad foods, I get tiny white bumps all over my tongue and it takes many hours for them to go away. -- kainaw™ 17:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The story I heard was that American chocolate has a bad taste because the milk supplied by rail to an early factory would go rancid on its way there. This bitter taste became stuck as the flavour Americans expected in chocolate. European chocolate does not have a bitter taste, although european brands sold in North American have the bitter taste that Americans expect. I remember when out of curiosity I bought a Hershey bar being sold as a novelty here in the UK - I thought it had gone bad. I've never seen any other American chocolate being sold on this side of the Atlantic. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds plausible (an early processing method introduced a bitter flavour that is now expected by the consumer in modern equivalents). Unlike any other country I've been to, I find it more difficult in the US to find chocolate I like. Hershey's being particularly nasty I agree. M&M's are ok though and seem to taste the same as they do in the UK. Best place for chocolate? Belgium. Even the cheapest most generic chocolate based confectionary I could find (bought in their equivalent of Aldi or Lidl) was absolutely gorgeous! 213.120.209.248 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The rancid milk sounds like an urban legend, but Hershey is famous for having developed a cheap alternative process. There are many steps involved in making a good chocolate - the kind of cocoa bean, the kind of processing, and the ways in which greedy manufacturers try to replace the cocoa butter; whenever possible, American manufacturers choose the worst possible option. I suppose the real mystery is why Americans haven't learned to import chocolate like we do everything else. Wnt (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Activity series

Hey all. I am a first-year chemistry student and right now we are studying single-replacement reactions (example: AgNO₃+Na→Ag+NaNO₃, Na "replaces" Ag) and predicting products. In the reactivity series the teacher gave us, lithium is listed first before all the other metals; this version is also widespread around the internet ([27], [28], [29]). But, why is lithium above sodium and potassium? I thought metals lose electrons more easily as one moves down the table, and thus potassium should be more reactive than sodium should be more reactive than lithiu,m, and a professional chemist concurs with my reasoning. However my teacher insists her table is correct. Who is right? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactivity series has a quite different order. It also mentions that there are three different ways to define the order, so perhaps that explains the difference. (The article should really clarify which order the chart at the top uses, and ideally include 3 charts, one for each.) Ariel. (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Equivalence at Inflection

Hello. Why is the equivalence at the point of inflection on a titration curve? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagishsimon (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

When you have a neutral solution and you start adding 3M base, the solution becomes basic, but no matter how much of the base you add, the solution will never exceed 3M - the more you add, the slower it approaches that concentration. Similarly, you can add a 3M acid and watch the solutions pH lower, but never quite reach that of the original acid. Titration is taking this process in reverse, so the equivalence point is also the point where adding just a bit of acid or base makes the largest change in pH - the change slows down from there - hence the point of inflection. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

aransremen

aransremen Penulisan lagu untuk menyingkat APA Yang disebut bertujuan Penulisan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.15.21 (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Google translate reckons this is Indonesian, and translates it as "aransremen Writing songs to abbreviate the APA The so-called -objective writing?" --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a Indonesian reference desk. 118.97.15.21 might be better asking there. Or, if he can write in English, ask on the Humanities desk if the question is about music. CS Miller (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. The Indonesian desk appears not to be used often. CS Miller (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the question is something like what's the purpose of abbrevating/condensing song arrangements but I'm not really sure. Although I don't speak Indonesian it's not that dissimilar from Malay and while my Malay isn't that great, the grammar and sentence structure seems wrong. It doesn't even seem like the sort of informal language you may expect on the internet, it's almost like half the question is missing. BTW aransremen probably means wiktionary:aransemen and I'm pretty sure the apa is probably just wiktionary:apa i.e. what. I'm not sure why the 'yang' (that/the) and 'penulisan' (writing) are capitalised either. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Life expectancy according to age

Is the life expectancy is 80 years, what can an 80 years old expect? 80.58.205.34 (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on Life expectancy might be reasonably useful for you to look at, but the article on Life table may be even more so (and the pictures and graphs used there-in). If I am reading the table correctly on the 'Life table' article, then it suggests that if you were a 66-67 year old living in the US, you would have a 0.01624% chance of dying before your next birthday, and would be expected to live for a further 17.7 years. I know that you asked specifically about somebody at age 80, but the table only goes to the 66-67 range.

Also, I believe that in the context of your question, the life expectency of 80 years is the life expectency at birth, not at the point when somebody is 80 years old. Hope that helps to a certain extent. Darigan (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I supposed that the life expectancy is at birth, not when you turn 80. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, as a further reference - There is a complete table here http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html (goes up to 119 years old) that gives the expected life expectency for US males and females from ages 0-119. So, a direct answer to your query - In the US, 80 year-old-males have a life expectency of 87.78 years (At birth it is 75.1), and females of 89.33 (at birth, 80.21). Those tables are quite interesting, thanks for asking that question (I wouldn't have come across them if you hadn't). Darigan (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if many 80-year old males would expect to live for a further 87.78 years. Perhaps a further 7.78. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the meaning was understood, I wasn't aware that by saying that an 80 year old US male had a life expectancy of 87.78 years meant that I was suggesting that he would live to counts fingers... not enough, shoes and socks come off.... be 167.78 years old - But happy to be corrected if that was the case. Darigan (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

According to life expectancy (as linked above) it does mean that, the source you used does also apparently use it with the same meaning. Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the term is widely mis-used to mean "expected age at death". I was interested to see that the life expectancy of a US 80-year-old male was almost exactly the same (at just under six years) in 1950 as it was in 1850, and has subsequently risen by less than three years, so the answer to the OP's question is "less than nine years" for a male, and "about ten years" for a female American. Dbfirs 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ants that like sweat or human sweat?

This problem has bugged me for months: ants swarming my hands and feet for my sweat. Just today my laptop keyboard was intruded for that reason (I'm aware there's something like a keyboard sheet/protector but I like to touch the keyboard directly, and this isn't the main point), and I've tried doing Google search and searched archive here for an answer but no avail (unrelated: found sweat bee though, what an interesting world). A friend suggested it could be termite since the table-cupboard is made of wood, but I don't think they look like termites, and I've tried Googling termite sweat but no relevant results as well.

Situation: My campus hostel had a renovation and I moved in after, we got a new table-cupboard (err table + cupboard above, 2-in-1) and I'm using it. On the first few days I noticed ants were swarming the floor even after we cleaned the room. Sometimes they swarmed my feet when they're on the floor, and you know, you'd kill the ants without a second thought - that's when I realised they smell bad. The odour resembles one that's secreted by some other insects perhaps, I'm not sure. You'd definitely get the strong odour if you try killing like 5+ at once, and killing a swarm will definitely make you go "uuuuuuurghh".

These ants are black, with whitish yellow abdomen. They're quite aggressive towards me, but I'm sure it's because of my sweat that they bite me all the time.

How do I find out they're after my sweat is a long story... but an interesting point to note: while trying to find out, I purposely left my cup unwashed after drinking Milo (Nestle product, chocolate drink). After a week, only 2 ordinary black ants came, 1 of which I left it there for hours to see if it'd call its friends, but it looked like it just kept it to itself lol.

I've also tasted my sweat to make sure it doesn't taste sweet, and yes it's very salty as expected (fortunately!).

Now actually I'm just curious if they're an undiscovered species or if there's a new discovery for ants' behaviour.

Any thought is welcomed, thanks. — Yurei-eggtart 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you are in Malaysia, this may be helpful. Malaysian ghost ants stink and are heavily attracted to water sources. -- kainaw™ 16:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am from Malaysia. Thanks a lot for the link, I think this is the one, except the fact that I'm not used to seeing them up close. The ones I have here seem to be darker (oh my, does that mean they're more experienced?). I'm just a little bit disappointed they're already discovered and even known as pest. — Yurei-eggtart 16:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're very likely to be Tapinoma melanocephalum. A keyboard sheet/protector won't help. Your best bet is to do what other ant species do and use chemical interference. Since they rely on a hydrocarbon based trail system a giant wet soapy cloth washing away their lines of communication causes havoc. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How many human species coexisted with eachother?

How many different human species lived during the same time period. I know the Homo Neanderthalis and the Homa sapien sapien were around at the same time. Except I am wondering if there are any others. Matthew Goldsmith 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Our homo article covers this thoroughly. The picture I've attaching shows the most important species but leaves out a lot of minor ones. Looie496 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The nice graph at Human evolution says it's just the Neanderthals. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The graph leaves out both homo floresiensis and the Denisova hominin, though. Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I don't think that that nice graph is meant to be comprehensive, Comet Tuttle. From the figure attached by Looie496, plus generally available information, it seems likely that Homo neanderthalensis in Europe and early Homo sapiens in Africa and beyond coexisted in time with late Homo erectus in Asia, and perhaps Homo rhodesiensis in Africa. To these we can add the disputed Homo floresiensis and the recently discovered Homo denisovan, if they prove valid taxons. It seems quite possible that further new human species also coexisting in time with H sapiens will be discovered in the future. Bear in mind, Lightyearlight, that since various of these species emerged from various others and there are no agreed on sharp boundaries between some of them, there may be valid disagreement over which ones certain coexisting individuals belong to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.135 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If we include Australopithecines in the definition of "human" then there were several species sharing the plains of Eastern and Southern Africa too. Roger (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't various of these different "species" likely have interbred and had fertile offspring, such as modern humans and neanderthals, if not for geographical isolation from each other? Edison (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Premature babies

Why isn't it yet possible to set up artificial transfer of oxygen and nutrients to a premature baby through its umbilical chord? Or even by setting up transfer through the placenta? Since they stick breathing tubes in and try to get the babies breathing with their under-developed lungs, I assume it's completely impossible at the moment. But, on the face of it, it would seem quite feasible given current technology, even if the complete artificial womb is a long way away.

So, what is specifically so difficult about this? 86.163.4.134 (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered this too. The umbilical cord would not be possible (it closes), nor the placenta. But you can set things up just like in dialysis except with oxygenation instead of filtering. After some searching I found: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which says: "Newborns cannot be placed on ECMO if they are under 4.5 pounds (2 kg), because they have extremely small vessels for cannulation, thus hindering adequate flow because of limitations from cannula size and subsequent higher resistance to blood flow". Seems to me this should be solvable, but I guess it isn't possible now. Ariel. (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would they fool with tiny blood vessels when a premie is dying? Why not put in a PIC line like they do for an adult when the peripheral lines aren't adequate? Edison (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

N.B. We have an article PIC line. Wnt (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently came acrros a documentary series called Baby ER on Zone Reality. Among other things medical personell was collecting blood for testing from a baby and explained that as the blood vessels are small their needles get cloged pretty fast, so they may need to take blood for testing from several sites. I guess drawing blood dosen`t take much time, so it might be yet another reason why they prefer ventilation and feeding tubes over trying to enrich blood with something ~~Xil (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Airbus 321, air speed

Resolved

 – thanks to Dolphin

When I was flying an A321 I observed a sharp shift in the refractive index of the air around the plane on two occasions.

1. In normal flight in a vertical line above the wing near the leading edge.
2. Outside the front of the engine when in glide flight before landing.

I assume that this is a shock waves indicating that the flow on one side is supersonic relative to the air plain. Is the flow supersonic before or after the shock wave?--Gr8xoz (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume it's supersonic? I don't know what caused it, but two other possibilities come to mind: The air is being compression heated, or the air is being compressed (or both). Either of those would cause a change in the refractive index. Ariel. (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Gr8xoz is correct. This phenomenon is readily visible when travelling on any of the swept-wing jet airliners, providing you are sitting in a position that allows you to look along the wing, parallel to the leading edge. These aircraft are not supersonic but when flying at their cruising altitude they are transonic. This means the aircraft itself is not supersonic but as the air flows over the top surface of the wing at high speed, for a short distance it is supersonic relative to the wing. The air accelerates progressively as it passes the leading edge of the wing but it does not decelerate progressively. A shock forms, and as the air flows through the shock its speed (relative to the wing and the shock) suddenly decelerates to subsonic. Any gas, including air, approaches a shock at supersonic speed but the instant it emerges from the other side of the shock it is moving at a slower speed. The flow downstream of a normal shock is subsonic. (The flow downstream of an oblique shock is still supersonic but it has changed direction and is slower than the speed at which it approached the shock.) On either side of the shock there are different speeds, pressures, temperatures and densities. The difference in density on either side of the shock explains why the shock is sometimes visible, looking like a crack in a pane of glass. Dolphin (t) 02:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK so the speed is supersonic in front of the shock wave.(Relative to the wing) Thanks.--Gr8xoz (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

March 10

Cyclohexane smell

Why does cyclohexane smell like acetone? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that they do. Cyclohexane has a sweet smell like benzene while acetone has a harsh smell. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It has the same sort of "chemical" smell as acetone (and many other synthetic organic compounds, like paint, paint thinner, etc.). --70.244.234.128 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A "fuel savings device" question

I've read the articals here on fuel saving devices and understand that there is limited to no evidence of the value of the devices or the claims made by manufacturers. It appears that virtually all fuel saving devices are either additive based or impact the air flow and fuel mixture. However, I came across this (http://www.gfchips.com/fordf150.aspx) device that uses a computer chip to improve fuel economy, etc. Is there any validity to this company's approach (especially given the old adadage: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is . . .")? 99.250.117.26 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if that chip really worked Ford would have done it already. Especially 60 more horsepower? They would love that. Even if this company thought of something Ford didn't, Ford has to be aware of it and would reverse engineer it. But one thing that really stood out is that they have a chip for every car in existence, and I'm sorry but there is no way in the world that is possible. Ariel. (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a scam. See reviews here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't speak to this specific chip-model, which may be a scam. But electronic engine control is a real thing, and does improve fuel efficiency. Ford calls this EDIS and VCT; Honda calls it VTEC; and so on; these are special cases of an Engine Control Unit, a sophisticated computer/electronic box that "makes the engine go." The auto manufacturer usually "tunes" the car's ECU software, hardware, and the engine's mechanical systems for the best average performance. However, after-market "engine-chipping" is also a real thing - especially on the performance auto-enthusiast circuit (amateur racers and the like). You can tune for best performance for certain driving conditions. Here's a brief article Chip the engine which should give you an overview of the subject.

Will engine chipping give you 60 extra horsepower? Unlikely. Your engine has peak performance numbers; you can mechanically alter the engine to improve those specs, but not by a whole lot; and playing with your valve-timing isn't going to give you 50% more gas-mileage or horsepower. Custom engine-chipping will do things like moving your torque curve around so you get the car's peak performance at a different engine RPM; and it definitely can change your fuel efficiency (for better or for worse)! And as always, mucking with your car's ECU can be risky - if you screw up, you can permanently damage your car's mechanical systems, requiring costly repairs. Nimur (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

cdma2000

Hi there. Not really a _science_ question, but does anyone happen to know the theoretical ratio between the channel power (1.23 MHz bandwidth) and the RMS power for a cdma2000 SR1 signal? 80.254.147.84 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CDMA-2000 is pretty spectrum-filling, so I would "assume" for theoretical purposes that the spectrum is "flat" across the entire channel, and has a specified 3-dB frequency (or specified frequency rolloff rate). Since the signal is a digital QAM constellation with ~64 elements, it is actually pretty nasty when viewed as a pure frequency-spectrum; "theoretically" you should have 64 perfect frequency spikes; but as you of course know, the practical reality is that you have a fuzzy signal whose frequency-spread is determined by your QAM circuit's phase-noise specification. I doubt there's any use to construct a "thorough" theoretical model of the channel power - can you measure it? Otherwise, I'd report the channel power in watts per hertz (or mW/MHz, or other convenient unit), by "assuming" total RMS signal power divided by bandwidth; and spend some time spec`ing the out-of-band frequency rolloff to clean up my estimate. Two app-notes I found on the web search: Linear's AN99 LT5528 WCDMA ACPR, AltCPR and Noise Measurements discussing practical details for measurement; and Tektronix Digital Modulation technical series, Measuring ACPR of W-CDMA Signals with a Spectrum Analyzer. Don't underestimate the power of vendor app-notes - no matter how specific your need, you can probably search the major spectrum-analyzer manufacturers' public libraries, and if you've bought their equipment, you may be able to phone one of their engineers to discuss horrible engineering details with an experienced person. Nimur (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

entanglement

would entanglement support the conclusion that given two entangled particles at some large distance apart, if one of the particles were to somehow cease to exist that the other would simultaneously cease to exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Ariel. (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably you want a longer answer, and to start with particles can't just cease to exist - they always turn into something else. And even if they did it does not mean the other one will too. If anything it would be the reverse - one particles ceases to exist, the other ones doubles. (That doesn't actually happen, but it's more realistic than the reverse.) Ariel. (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly misleading to comment on what physics would do if you forced it to violate itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.37.227 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - Ariel's first response, while ultra-brief, was probably the appropriate one! Trying to trace out the consequences of a physical contradiction only leads to more bizarre contradictions. Particles can not cease to exist. If you come up with a realistic physical scenario, we can apply some established rules of quantum-mechanics to model what would happen. For example, if a particle decays, then we can model the trajectories of the decay products, and see how the quantum wave-functions would propagate to (and affect) the entangled partner particle. But when you ask a "what if...", all we can meaningfully say is "then our rules don't apply, so we can't answer that." Nimur (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought one of them could be annihilated with antiparticle?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what annihilation means. Please see Annihilation - at least the introduction. -- kainaw™ 18:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is thinking of one particle falling into a black hole? I have a meagre understanding of QM but wouldn't then the entanglement be destroyed but not the particle? Blakk and ekka 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No effect of entanglement is detectable with measurements on only one particle. So if you "throw the other particle away" in the sense that you never measure anything about it again, entanglement ceases to matter, though it's theoretically still there. Throwing a particle into a black hole is one way of getting rid of it, but there are easier ways. -- BenRG (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles. Antiparticles have exactly opposite additive quantum numbers from particles, so the sums of all quantum numbers of the original pair are zero." OK, So one particle could be made into new particles while the other might not be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If the two particles are entangled, then any operator that acts on the wavefunction of Particle 1 can cause the wavefunction of Particle 2 to change. That is not synonymous with "the decay of Particle 1 forces the decay of Particle 2." It means that the operator must modify both wave-functions. Tragically, in efforts to "simplify" descriptions of quantum-mechanical treatments, pop-science books do not emphasize the precise nature of this statement: both wave-functions may be affected is not the same as information was transferred, nor the particles are linked together, nor the action on particle 1 caused an action on particle 2. Two entangled particles form a composite quantum-mechanical system. Certain operators must act on the composite system. The composite system's final result will depend on the operator and the composite system's prior quantum state. The state of either particle is a subset of the composite system. Nimur (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Any operator that acts on the wavefunction of Particle 1 can cause the wavefunction of Particle 2 to change" is incorrect. There's only one wavefunction, which describes the entire system. If the particles aren't entangled then you can factor the wavefunction into a product of separate wave functions for each particle, but if they are entangled then you can't. That's one way of defining entanglement. -- BenRG (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes or no, can one decay and not the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one can decay and not the other. For example, one could be an electron (stable) and the other a neutron (unstable). They don't have to be particles of the same type. But "decay" doesn't mean "cease to exist". Decaying doesn't destroy entanglement. -- BenRG (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, so there could be more than one "particle" in an entangled "pair"?98.221.254.154 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any number of particles can be entangled. -- BenRG (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Myasthenia Gravis

What is the right way of presentation "Myasthenic crisis" or "Myasthenia Crisis"? aniketnik 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniketnik (talk • contribs)

To describe the occurrence of symptoms in a person with myasthenia gravis, you would call it a "myasthenic crisis." --- Medical geneticist (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Feeling cold in the morning and body weight

Hello. When I wake up in the morning, I have a cold sensation that usually lasts an hour or more. When I mentioned about this to a friend, he said he has experienced the same, and it's related to having a metabolism that effieciently converts extra energy into heat, and that this is probably why we're both thin while we eat a lot and don't get much exercise. Could this be the case? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were you I'd see a doctor. We're not allowed to give medical advice. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what "a cold sensation" means. Nearly everybody experiences a circadian rhythm of body temperature in which the temperature drops during the night and rises around daybreak. Whether there is anything unusual about your sensations is unclear without a better description. Lots of people are averse to getting out from under warm covers on a chilly morning. (I don't consider this medical advice.) Looie496 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Global Warming cause the Moon recede faster or slower from the Earth?

Global Warming will cause sea level rise. This will have some effect on the tidal friction the Moon experiences, causing the rate at which it recedes from the Earth to change a bit. Will this rate increase or decrease? Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It will recede faster. With more liquid water instead of solid, the tidal friction will increase, so the moon's recession will occur faster. For partial support of that statement, see the second paragraph of Tidal acceleration#Angular momentum and energy. Red Act (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, by melting ice into water some of the mass that is now near the poles will move closer to the equator changing earth's inertia momentum slowing down its rotation and therefore increasing the time between a high tide and the following low tide reducing the rate of the motion of the tides around the planet and decreasing the pace with which the moon is moving away from the earth :). Dauto (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemical catalog

In a chemical catalog item description, what is the meaning of something like (N/10)? For example, "Hydrocholric acid solution, 0.1N (N/10)". I am looking specifically at Cole Parmer and I've been unable to find any explanation in their information. ike9898 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

N means 'normality'; it's a way to express concentration. See Concentration#Normality for details. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand that, but is "0.1N (N/10)" any but just completely redundant? ike9898 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Solution of NaOH at 40% m/m

I need to prepare a 100ml solution of NaOH at 40% m/m (in water). As NaOH absorbs the humidity in air, I have consulted an old Handbook, section sodium hydroxyde, concentration properties of, in varying concentrations but I am still unsure as to how much NaOH (in grams) I need. Please help.

Thank you very much. --192.197.51.41 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

First, the preparation of weight/weight solutions is tackled by our RefDesk's foremost competitor here.

I should add that I'm a bit surprised to see "m/m" or "mass/mass" coming up. It seems from searches that this is in vogue for recent homework problems. On the one hand, yes, the number on the balance is in grams of mass; on the other, what the balance measures is weight.

Now the real question you have is what the purity of the NaOH is. You could run various tests on it, or try to purify it e.g. by baking it at high temperature to drive out the water, but the traditional chem lab way to handle the problem is to titrate the sodium hydroxide solution after you've made it, against a known standard. In this way you can adjust the molarity to be exactly right, and therefore the m/m value. (Though usually people titrate to get an exact molarity rather than an m/m value) Wnt (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it figured out. --192.197.51.41 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Does copier or printer ink contain metal?

I was wondering whether photocopier ink or laser-printer ink contains any metallic substances or metal compounds?

Thanks. 71.252.113.85 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the ink. Our article toner may help. Most toner is pure carbon (say, graphite powder), or something similar (like carbon black), but may also include a plasticizer, a binder, one or more liquid solvents, and so on. In general, these are synthetic polymers. Colored ink may contain pigment, which may include synthetic polymers, or metallic pigments. Nimur (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for the polymers in black copier or printer ink to be magnetic? 71.252.113.85 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Probability cloud of a free electron?

Would the probability cloud of a free electron look the same as an electron in the ground state bound to a hydrogen atom? ScienceApe (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not as far as I can tell. Until you get a better answer, consider these related questions: why would you think that the electron_cloud would look the same in both cases? Compared to a 'free electron' (presumably with no other particles around), an electron bound in hydrogen has at least a few additional forces acting on it, especially the electric field generated by the proton. Shouldn't this difference in forces change the shape of the probability cloud (and perhaps radically so)? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No --Gr8xoz (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a nucleus to bind the cloud, the autorepulsion will cause the cloud formation to disolve. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem. You can't formulate a wavefunction for an electron in free space. Let's trace out how we do it for a simplified quantum mechanical treatment of an electron in an Hydrogen atom: (see our article on Hydrogen atom, particularly the solution of the wave function.

• First, define a coordinate system by assuming the proton to be heavy and therefore immobile. (The hydrogen proton is located at the origin).
• Now, define the Coulomb potential - for practical purposes, this is $1/r$, where r is the radius from the origin. (How can you define the coordinate-system of the free electron, if there's no reference origin? You have to pick an origin at random, which isn't a problem, but then there's zero potential energy gradient, and so the electron has a probability of being anywhere relative to your undefined origin).
• Solve the Schrodinger equation using the Coulomb potential and normalize using physical constraints (probability that the electron exists somewhere must equal 1).

So, in free space - you don't have anything to define your wave-function, and the electron can be anywhere. The only thing you can do is measure an electron - determine its current state (its momentum and its position, subject to the uncertainty principle), and then you can predict where it will be next (which is, of course, anywhere, since it is unbound). When you measure it again, at some other position/momentum, the principle of indistinguishability means you can not know whether you've measured the same or a different electron! So, there's no way to predict the position of an electron in an unbound system (no defined coulomb potential). It has an equal probability of being anywhere; and anything you measure has a likelihood of being a different electron. Nimur (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. See Wave packet. Truthforitsownsake (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The hydrogen atom orbitals are a complete basis for smooth electron wave functions that approach zero at infinity, so they don't tell you anything about the electron by themselves. An electron that's nowhere near the nucleus can still be described by a sum of these solutions. The only thing that's special about them is that they're energy eigenstates. If you remove the nucleus, leaving the background potential zero everywhere, then it's no longer possible to write down a basis of energy eigenstates, but I think that's just a pathological corner case. You can still work in some other basis like a wave-packet basis, or you can write down energy eigenstates if you add, say, a single nucleus a billion light years away. -- BenRG (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

magnetic earth

will we ever know for sure what is inside of the earth or if it is hollow will we ever know for sure what causes the earth's magnetic field — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lufc88 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're pretty sure about the structure of the Earth. Is there any reason you don't believe the scientific explanations presented in that article? Geology and geophysics are evidence-based sciences, and there is a lot of evidence to back up the current theories. Have a read at those articles for details on the experimental toolkits available to help scientists gather evidence about Earth's interior. Nimur (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We will never know anything about the world for sure, we could just be hallucinating or in a computer simulation. We have a rather good model for the structure of the earth, we may never know some finer details but as long as we can trust the measurements the overall structure are known, it is not hollow and could not be hollow since no known material would be strong enough to keep it from collapsing. --Gr8xoz (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For why we know the Earth isn't hollow, see Hollow Earth#Contrary evidence. Also, the interior of the Earth has been mapped in detail using seismic tomography, without any evidence of any hollow space; see Seismology#Seismic waves.

As per Earth's magnetic field#Field characteristics, the currently accepted theory is that the Earth's magnetic field is primarily due to electric currents in the (liquid) outer core, similar to an electromagnet. This is called the dynamo theory, although a numeric model of the Earth's magnetic field consistent with the dynamo theory has not yet been achieved. Red Act (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

March 11

18 year Lunar Perigee effects on tides?

I saw an article yesterday that said in mid-March the moon will be as close to the earth as it ever gets ("lunar perigee"), and that this is an 18 year cycle. Sadly, nothing of the sort is mentioned in Orbit of the Moon. I have two questions: 1) is this true and where on Wikipedia can I read more about it? 2) will this cause record high tides? if yes, what would the tidal variation be between the moon at its closest and furthest orbital positions? The Masked Booby (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The mentioned 18 year cycle is probably a Saros cycle, which governs eclipses. The moon reaches perigee about once a lunar month, but the exact timing with respect to the phase of the moon changes. The Full moon cycle of about a year-and-a-bit would be the closest connection between lunar perigees and the size of tides -- we get the largest tides when the moon is close to us just at a spring tide. The Saros cycle arises from the interference between the full moon cycle and the moon's periodic movement north and south of the ecliptic (which also happens about once a month but again only roughly, due to the precession of the lunar orbit). –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Diet theory

As far as I remember body stores excess energy in fat. If I have lost weight by eating less, does it follow that my body has used my fat instead of food, and since there is no fat available I should eat more now and I won`t get fat again? 89.235.211.162 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As our dieting article states, weight loss usually means that one has lost both fat mass and muscle mass. Could you rephrase your last sentence? It didn't make logical sense to me. I must mention that your questions about this may be deleted, or go unanswered, if you ask questions about your body, because that touches on our no-medical-advice policy — I would recommend asking questions about a hypothetical generic human instead. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Eating is not a medical issue and it is a biology question. I don`t see what is there not to understand. A person eats less. He or she loses weight. Assumption is that weight loss is result of body being forced to use fat to get necessary energy. Would it be healthier if person wouls start eating more, given that there is no more fat reserves to dig in? Will increasing food consumtion result in weight gain or will the body convert all food into energy stright away? 89.235.211.162 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If a person takes in more calories than they expend, the body will have a net positive amount of "energy" and will store it as fat. If a person takes in fewer calories than they expend, the body will have a net negative amount of "energy" and will respond by breaking down fat stores, then muscle if insufficient fat stores remain. If a person's caloric intake and expenditures are roughly equal, they will remain the same. One of Comet Tuttle's points was that what you (the OP) "should" do is dependent on a whole variety of factors and isn't really in the domain of the reference desk. It is doubtful that you have completely eliminated all of your fat stores, and we don't have any way of knowing whether you have altered your basal metabolic rate in the course of your weight loss (by increasing lean muscle mass, for example), or if your daily activity level has significantly increased (thus requiring higher caloric intake simply to break even). So, whether or not you can "eat more" without gaining the weight back is impossible to answer. The bottom line is that you can simply use a scale to weigh yourself (pick one time of the day and try to be consistent). This will answer your question. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I moved to diffrent town for my studies, the only thing I altered was how much I eat, because I don`t like to cook and was hardly ever hungry. I like the result. However lately I am feeling hungry more often, although I eat as much as usually. Hence I wonder. 89.235.211.162 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

monopole

what would happen if you took a bunch of magnets shaped like a pyramid (with one pole at the top point and the other pole at the wide base) and then glued them together with all the top points facing in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your description of a magnetic "pole" as a point is unfortunately oversimplified. The simplest magnetic moment is inherently described as a dipole. A magnetic "pole" doesn't exist at one specific position in the magnet: it is an effective orientation - a preferred direction - that is built into the magnet. Complex ferromagnets have an effective average dipole moment, and so it's fun to draw this as a "north" pole region and a "south" pole region, but in truth, what you have is an net average orientation of all the individual microscopic orientations that make up the magnet. As such, the "north pole" doesn't exist "at the point" of the pyramid, nor the "south pole" at the "wide base." The entire magnet is polarized. Nimur (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Their magnetic fields would cancel each other out, and only leave a slight inwards-pointing field in the middle of the faces of the resulting polyhedron, and a slight outwards-pointing field at the corners, or vice versa. Some distance from the compound object (say, two radii from the center) there would be practically no net field. –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't actually answer the original question! So, to directly answer what would happen: I can't quite follow the geometry the OP is envisioning, but it sounds like you've got a bunch of magnets oriented so that they want to repel each other. Well, if you squish them together, and maybe glue them in place, the result will be that from far away, you'll have an effectively larger, but weaker, magnet. And if you get really close near any of the individual pyramid-shaped magnets, you will find that your magnetic field is best described as a superposition of several individually-oriented dipole fields. (You might even find a way to mathematically re-represent that as one single higher-order moment, if you're pretty slick with math). Nimur (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It could also be modelled as a superposition of two perpendicular linear quadrupoles, so I suppose it is an octopole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.37.227 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Drugs

What affects do drugs have on the mitochondria in humans? How are other organelles affected? Albacore (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Which drugs? We can't even begin to answer the question without specifics. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Big rip or Big crunch?

Is it more likely for the universe to end in the concept "big rip" or "big crunch"?