Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/S

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.

March 5

Jet stream clouds?

Can a long, straight cloud like this be associated with the jet stream (upper left to lower right)? It went for as far as I could see in both directions. This was the widest I could get with the lens I had on. This is today's jet stream and the blue area in the southeast US is where I took the photo. (Sorry, it won't let me put in a shortened URL.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a jet contrail, not a cloud. Clouds are never that long, straight, and narrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But jet contrails can cause clouds to form in their wake. Those clouds are initially long, straight, and narrow, but then tend to diverge in shape. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I see such a long URL, I like to try deleting each field to see which of them are redundant. —Tamfang (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I converted it to a tiny URL, but Wikipedia rejected it, saying that it was a blocked site. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A different type of "jet stream", apparently. On youtube I saw a clip that some alert person had uploaded, from a Daniel Boone episode, where someone says goodbye to Fess Parker and heads off into the distance - with a jet contrail clearly visible in the bright blue sky. There weren't really all that many jet airplanes in Boone's day, ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of cancer from oral sex: Mark 2

Will I be able to find the lifetime risk for people with more than 5 partners (I misread the article) by simply adding 250 percent to 1.1 percent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.115 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime risk of what ? What article ? StuRat (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent continuation of #risk of cancer from oral sex. There is no need to start a new section, just add to the existing one. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, 250% increase means 2.5x more. So if 1.1% of the population has a condition, and some behavior shows a 250% increase, then you would expect 2.5x1.1% = 2.75% of the people who exhibit the behavior to develop the condition. For this example, lets say that of 1,000,000 people, 1.1% develop cancer. That would be 11,000 people. If all 1,000,000 people performed the risk behavior, that would result in 27,500 people now developing the condition. That doesn't, of course, mean that all 1,000,000 engaged in the risk behavior. Let's say that only 1 in 10 exhibited the risk behavior, that would now result in an extra 2,750 people developing the cancer, on average, of our initial 1,000,000 people. The numbers scale accordingly for your population. --Jayron 32 12:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the OP feels the need to duplicate their questions. But anyway, just to re-iterate a point I made above, I think it's safe to assume the average 1.1% risk includes people who have more than 5 partners/show the risk behaviour. So even if we ignore the problems combining different results (of uncertain reliability), simply multiplying the risk isn't going to I think produce an entirely reliable answer since the 1.1% would be lower if we take out those who have more than 5 partners.

Taking random numbers as examples here, it may be that if no one showed the risk behaviour/had more than 5 partners, the actual average risk would be 1%. So for 1 million people, 10,000 would developed cancer. Under this made up example, those who do show the risk behaviour would have a 2.5% average risk. The reason edit: the average risk is ~~it's~~ 1.1% or 11,000 people out of a million would be because some people are in the higher risk category and some people in the lower risk. (Remember of course we are only talking about one risk factor and averages, in reality, some people would be higher and lower regardless of how many sex partners due to other reasons.) If you do the sums for this random made up example, you end up with roughly 66,670 / 1,000,000 being in the higher risk category for us to end up with the earlier 1.1%. (Meaning ~933,330 people in the lower risk category of which ~9,333 develop cancer, and a further ~1,667 from the 66,670 developing cancer in the higher risk category.)

The numbers who are in the higher risk category are probably small enough that it doesn't make that much of a difference but you'd need to at least look in to this. If most people do have more than 5 partners already, then the number for the average risk for people with more than 5 partners won't be that much higher than 1.1%. Of course just to repeat one more time, combining results from different things like this is not likely to produce a good answer even if you take care.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're at exponentially much greater risk for STD's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone needs to learn joint probability. The way to find out if you get hit by A or B (e.g. cancer from him, cancer from her) is to take 100% - (neither A nor B). That's (not A) and (not B) and you can figure out those probabilities by just multiplying (bearing in mind of course that "percent" means "per 100", i.e. 100% == 1. So if something has a 1% chance of killing you, and something else 1%, and something else... for 100 times, that doesn't add up to a 100% of being dead. Rather it is 1-( (1-0.01)**100 ) = 63.3%. (To calculate things like this on your own I recommend downloading R programming language. You ought to do many wondrous programming tasks with it, meanwhile it makes a heck of a desktop calculator) Wnt (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venus and Uranus conjunction

There was a conjunction of Venus and Uranus today, when they were only about 0.1 degree apart (see List_of_conjunctions_(astronomy)#2015). I tried to photograph (just my camera - no telescope) it about 5-1/2 hours after closest approach, but I don't know if I got Uranus or something else. I got something other than Venus. I measured the distance in the photo, considering my camera and lens, and came up with 0.29 degree separation. Since it was about 5-1/2 hours after the closest point, could they be 0.29 degrees apart, or was the next-brightest object something other than Uranus? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long was your exposure? There is a very easy way to resolve this if you install a program like stellarium. I have it at home but won't be home for a few hours. In this program you simply put in your location and the time and it shows you exactly what the sky looked like. From there you shold be able to compare your photo and fairly confidently say if what you captured was in fact uranus or not. Vespine (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exposure times ranged from a fraction of a second to about 1 minute. I'll check out that program. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is a nice program. That program shows that they had moved a little farther apart. Uranus looked like the right direction from Venus, but the distance seemed wrong. But there was nothing else it could be. Then I realized that when I did my calculations based on my lens' field-of-view, I forgot to take into account the extra factor because the camera uses an AP-C sensor. So it is Uranus. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i for one am impressed! can you upload the pic somewhere? I know it'll probably be just dots but i am a bit of an amateur astronomer (I own a 12" Dob telescope). Vespine (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need no stinkin' telescope! (Actually I have a 6" refractor, but I don't use it for photography.) These were taken with just my camera and what my daughter calls my "big ass lens". At first I could see Uranus only in long exposures were it made a streak. But then I could see it in others when I enhanced them. A link to dropbox. Venus was 9,100 times brighter than Uranus at the time. I think I calculated that Uranus is about 3 pixels wide. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I especially like the star effect you're getting on venus there from your lens. Quite beautiful. Vespine (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the star effect is from the stopped-down lens. I've seen Neptune in a telescope, but I don't think I've ever seen Uranus before. Actually I only saw it in the photos. I need to take the 'scope or binoculars while it is somewhere that I can perhaps spot it. At first I could only see it as a streak in the long photos. There were some thin clouds (as you can see in one of the photos). Enhancing the shorter exposures brought it out.Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another one "Venus Low ....jpg" when they are low on the horizon (uncropped but enhanced). The light from Uranus is going through a lot of atmosphere, and it is a speck just barely visible to the left of a tree branch - just barely distinguishable above the camera noise. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the thing that causes to contact lenses to be connected to the eyes?

Is it the surface tension?149.78.32.22 (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read this --Jayron 32 12:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean very connected, read this. Usually dryness. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

See Wetting. Surface tension makes things worse, not better, because it decreases the contact area and hence the total adhesive force. -- BenRG (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an advantage to living in one location at all times?

Many animals live in the open. If they are always on the move, then there is less chance that lurking predators will prey on them and their young. So, why are humans different? Humans have two legs. They CAN move around, if they want to. But they usually stay in one location. Humans are apex predators, but even apex predators must move and follow the prey. Otherwise, they will starve. Perhaps, planting seeds forced early modern humans to settle down and guard the food supply? But what happens if the soil becomes eroded and can no longer support the same crops? What if the sky pours down heavy rain and drowns the crops? What if there is a volcano that destroys all the crops? What if a nearby population of humans spies on another population of humans and conquers the latter tribe and steal their crops? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Agriculture and Hunter-gatherer for possible insight on why a given culture might choose one or the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And see drought, erosion, flood, famine and theft for what happens after those things happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sedentism seems appropriate. For the question, anyway. Better article within the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

Staying in one location allows you to build up the defenses there, for one. Castles don't make much sense if you don't stick around for a while. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask the blue-throated Common side-blotched lizard, there are advantages and disadvantages. — PhilHibbs | talk 13:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A huge number of animals give birth in a maternity den or live in burrows. Some go nocturnal for the sole reason that their predators aren't. If you can get food without exposing your tasty side, your species will outlive the ones it has delivered.

If we tear down the walls now, we wouldn't see the sort of "apex predator" you think we are. We only got that far by being cowardly. Relative to tigers, lions and sharks, anyway. Very few of us want to be persistent when we can set a trap or shoot from afar, and get back home. That's why they don't name "energy drinks" after us. Only "luxury drinks". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Most of what's in structures built by animals applies to you, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

March 6

Can regular cheetoes use really stain your fingers orange?

Question as topic. Sort of along the lines of how smoking unfiltered can turn your fingers brown... Just something that I was discussing with a friend today. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily, certainly. Surface stains on the skin don't usually last very long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I know that they can make your fingers orange until you wash it off - but I was meaning long-term, like with cigarettes. Yaknow, if you were to eat cheetoes every day, would little bits of the orange colour stay on your skin and gradually build up? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetos' dyes are presumably excretable; certainly this is true of their "red hot" dye, which in a scene straight out of Cujo sent kids to the emergency room because parents thought they were bleeding internally (difference being that in the real world, this generated nothing but a passing news blip, no "I'm sorry" campaign needed!). The regular version contains (at least) Red 40 Lake, Yellow 6 Lake, Yellow 6, Yellow 5. [1]; in order for it to stain fingers one or more of these would have to find some way to pass into the dermis without interacting with the outer layer of skin, and stably bind onto cells there so that it wouldn't be destroyed. Can I rule it out? Well, no... not without a whole lot of data. But it's hard to picture. To begin with, those sorts of snacks don't even really stain fingers, not like a pomegranate or something (I mean, the old-fashioned super red pipped ones that seem to grow ever rarer; nowadays they don't seem to leave me yellow-fingered at all). You wipe your fingers after Cheetos and the color leaves with the crumbs, is my impression. What the dye does internally is apparently the topic of more spirited discussion, but you didn't ask that. Wnt (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The top layer of skin is regularly shed, so it would have to get below the growing skin to become permanent, like a tattoo. I have a splinter that managed to do that, and the wood stain on it is still there some 30 years later (although greatly faded). So, I suspect a puncture would be needed to get the orange dye that far in. StuRat (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And I would like to see some evidence that cigarette smokers have permanently stained fingers. More likely they appear "permanently" stained because they continue smoking. Like with teeth stained by tobacco use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a *permanent* stain. It just a stain that takes a while (two or three weeks, I think it was whenever I've stopped) to disappear entirely after you stop smoking. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It goes faster with whitening toothpaste and steel wool. I still smoke, but don't like the look. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. And if you were eating Cheetos constantly for some stretch of time, you might encounter that same problem (among others). Did you try soaping up with the kind you can use to wash off grease and the like? Or maybe a soap like Lava which has particles of pumice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds of daylight gained or lost

How many seconds of daylight are gained or lost each day after solstice?Joey13952 alternate account (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a constant number per day, and it varies depending on your exact location on earth. This website has all sorts of tools for calculating all sorts of things, I've linked directly to the page where you can search for the data you seek. Just enter your location, and it will give you tables of sunrise & sunset times, along with calculated time of daylight for any given date. --Jayron 32 02:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's sinusoidal, so there is very little change around the summer and winter solstices, and rapid change near the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly it is, but because the Earth's orbit is not perfectly symmetrical, it means the behavior of daylight also isn't regular. See Analemma for a related discussion of the apparent position of the sun at various dates. --Jayron 32 15:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the fine detail. The broad effect is simply the inclination of the rotation axis to the plane of orbit. Dbfirs 16:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into Vesta

The protoplanet 4 Vesta is said to have a differentiated interior - mantle and iron core. It has a radius of roughly 260 km. With gravity just 1/40 that of Earth's (and considering that it drops to zero at the middle) that should be the rough equivalent pressure of 3-4 km depth on Earth. Which is to say, it should be physically conceivable for a tunnel boring machine to grind its way steadily to the core (with rather more difficulty than crossing the English channel, and I imagine the iron would tax the blades terribly once it reached the core). So...

1) Is the core cool? It was once liquefied by Aluminum-26, which should long since have decayed... since 4 Vesta is so small I'd expect it to be cooler inside, but how cold?

2) Would any sort of caverns be expected deep in Vesta, perhaps analogous to the cenotes of the Chicxulub crater?

3) Was there ever a sort of plate tectonics on Vesta during its initial cooling period?

4) Is there pressure, even atmosphere and water, in void spaces within the asteroid? That 3-4 km to essentially hard vacuum means that air would rapidly be lost from an open tunnel, but would the cooled exterior layers of rock be impermeable to their loss even over billions of years?

5) Would the complete cooling of core and mantle, if it happened, make for deposits of unusual minerals? For example, when freezing an iron core slowly, do vast layers of solid gold and platinum come out, or do they stay mixed in to the end? Would differential contraction create a fracture zone at the core/mantle boundary?

Wnt (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I added numbers):

1) A body that small which existed since the formation of the solar system, should be quite cool by now, unless it was actively heated by some means, such as tidal heating from a nearby planet. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: That's what I'd expect, but is there an actual model or empirical rule to go by? (Conceivably there could be long-lived radioactives inside, etc., and I don't know if a lack of plate tectonics or a more solid mantle slows the rate of cooling, etc.) Wnt (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The square-cube law explains why smaller bodies cool more quickly. However, in the case of planets, there may be an effect which counters that a bit. When still hot, convection moves heat from the center to the surface, where it then quickly escapes into space. However, once a thick crust solidifies, that stops convection from reaching the surface, slowing the rate of cooling. So, if a smaller body initially cools faster, it would also form that crust sooner and thus slow cooling more quickly. However, since all the planets, moons, asteroids, etc. have long ago formed a thick crust, that effect is likely negligible now. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But mantle convection... on Earth, the thin layer of crust is 24% of Earth's internal heat budget. If the entire mantle cools and forms "crust" (i.e. non-convecting material) that is 100 km thick or more, 10 times that of Earth, how much heat escapes? Those sort of considerations make me want to see a better calculation. (a pre-Dawn paper here provides some info, but doesn't seem to tell me much about the expected core temperature now, and in any case ... one hopes that the models have improved now that we know what it looks like, e.g. I imagine the metamorphism is easier to understand now that the whole asteroid is known to be circled by ridges from giant impacts ;[2] is more up to date but stops at core formation. [3] is interesting but focuses fairly much on early history - alas, most of these researchers have to focus on accounting for characteristics of observed meteorites rather than catering to sci-fi fantasies - but gives a figure of roughly 100 million years for the iron core to freeze.) Wnt (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If one assumes that Vesta is a solid sphere, then the cooling time scale is of order (thermal conductivity) / (specific heat) / (density) * (radius / pi)^2, which gets me to about 10 billion years if I plug in rock values. Suggesting it is roughly half cooled at the present day. Dragons flight (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we compare the internal structure of the Moon and Earth, we see that the core on the Moon is much smaller. Since Vesta 4 is much smaller still, and lacks the tidal heating from Earth, I doubt that it would have any liquid or molten core. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the moon being small is explained by the giant impact hypothesis. The general view being that the impact occurred after the Earth had already mostly differentiated, so the moon forming debris was low in iron and other elements that would typically participate in planetary differentiation, leading to a small lunar core. The respective cores are about 28% of Earth's mass, < 5% of the Moon's mass, and an estimated 20% of Vesta's mass. More relevant, the temperature at the core of the Moon is still estimated at 1400 C [4]. For the record, I didn't say Vesta was molten. I suggested it was half cooled, as in its core temperature might have declined by about half relative to its temperature at formation. Dragons flight (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned with the temperature than the material. That 1400 C spread over a small core is a tiny fraction of the total heat retained by Earth's core, and the total heat contained within the Moon is also tiny compared to the Earth. When we then extrapolate to Vesta 4, the total heat retained in it's core and entirety ought to be far less, still. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a source with some modeling rather than dimensional guessing [5]. It places the interior temperature today between about 75 and 180 C, depending on structural assumptions. In their model, Vesta's core has retained between 20-30% of its initial temperature since differentiation. Dragons flight (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check-engine lights

In general, when did American-market cars change to the present type of malfunction indicator lamp? My 2009 Hyundai has the new type of "icon" that appears at the article's top right, and it took me forever to identify what it was (reading through the manual multiple times), because I'd never noticed such a thing before, although apparently lots of newer cars have these. Conversely, my previous car had an easy-to-understand verbal warning, simply "Check Engine"; it was a 2000, and other cars of the same period appear to use verbal indicators too. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a much broader problem. Manufacturers want to be able to sell their products in all markets without modification. Since different markets speak different languages, they therefore want to remove all writing from their products, and replace it all with icons. Sounds good, except that only the simplest concepts can be shown with an icon which is universally understandable. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The engine lamp is used to indicate several malfunctions. If the oxygen sensor, in Europe mysteriously called "lambda sensor", is broken or shortcut, the amount of oxigen in the exhaust can not longer be sensed to reduce the fuel injection into the engine. Values from preprogrammed memory are used instead as a running the engine in a backup mode, sometimes consuming more fuel. The former contact breaker to trigger the ignition on the spark plugs, today replaced by the dead centre sensor metering RPM and zero degree as beginn of a engine cycle. If this sensor fails, it is indicated by the engine lamp and the engine can not run, cause the engine controller can not know when to inject fuel or ignite a cyllinder. By turning the key the starter motor is operating only, turning the engine which will not start. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 14:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This link says lambda is the symbol for air/fuel ratio (in automotive or mechanical engineering, presumably). That's probably the reason behind the "lambda sensor" name. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for the existence of the scientific meaning of scientific discoveries (explanations)

1) Did it true the assertion, that failed to comply with the Law of conservation of energy in scientific discoveries (explanations) is always been denied the possibility of the existence of the scientific meaning (know) of these scientific discoveries (explanations)?

2) If magnetic (electromagnetic) fields are always been moving in space at the speed of light or even at the much faster speed, so why did in these magnetic (electromagnetic) fields, the electric current did not had the same speed?--85.141.236.107 (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) If any magnetic (electromagnetic) fields are always been moved by speed (work) of the electric current, why did the electric current did not had the same speed (work) as had the magnetic (electromagnetic) fields?--83.237.208.214 (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) If the properties of all substances in nature are always been depended on the properties of the electric current which was had in these substances, so is it possible that the electric current in all environments is always been behaved in the same (identical) way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.201.125 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC) --83.237.201.125 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is always assumed, that in nature the speed (work) of the electric current is always been absolute, that is, the speed (work) of the electric current is never been depended on the properties of the environments in which the electric current is been.--83.237.201.125 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try writing your questions in English. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m always assume that in nature all physical and chemical environments are always been conducted an electric current, because in these environments is always been an electric current!--85.140.143.233 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you find electricity just about everywhere, and it travels fast like light (see Speed of electricity), and the associated magnetic effect travels at the same speed, but, of course, the electrons themselves (if you can distinguish them) flow at a very much slower rate DC (perhaps a quarter of a millimetre per second in a copper wire) and not really at all for AC where they oscillate a couple of micrometres. Of course the electrons are also "rattling around" within each atom at a speed determined by the Fermi energy if you interpret it that way. Dbfirs 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case is not been in the speed of the electrons in AC or DC, but the case is been in the work of these electrons - the work of the electric current, as the form of electric energy. I’m thinking, that all substances in nature was always had existed under the laws of the electric current!--83.237.218.93 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physics did not excluding the scientific fact that different kinds of energy could done its work, including the work of the AC and work of the DC!--83.237.218.93 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m suppose, that in your's countries there are be universal generators which simultaneously generate as AC and as also DC, and of course there are be such universal transformers which simultaneously transform as AC and as also DC.--85.141.232.34 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of universal generators and universal transformers. I suppose Switched-mode power supplies are capable of that magic in a sense. As for all the rest, I haven't the slightest idea what you are going on about, Alex. Dbfirs 18:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m suppose based on that, since the work of the electric current (AC and DC) is always been only the kinetic potential of energy (energy - work of dynamics), so in this kinetic potential could always been the potential of potential energy (energy - work of kinetical statics), which as also could been done the work of electric current (AC).--85.141.235.69 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any cases, in nature the electric current is always been the dynamics of electric charge, so that in nature all substances (physical environments) are always contained in self an electric current, because in nature all substances (physical environments) are always been electrified.--85.141.238.46 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dynamics of electric charge was always had a electrify(-ing).--83.237.207.17 (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let us know why you think you should be permitted to continue to use this page as a forum for your unintelligible ramblings? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, these questions are not soapboxing, trolling, disruptive or discourteous. —Tamfang (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell they are not questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry for my mind suppose discussion, but I must said that the nature of magnetism and electromagnetism is always been the same (equal), as which was always had been the nature of electric current and electric charge. Sorry!--85.141.236.38 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User is been obvious troll, did not speaking English or Russian, never the yet geolocate to Moscow but never answer if been asked Russian been being language native. Is having been banned on ru.wikipedia accords to other editor. OP speak nonsense about nonsense but not even speak Russian. Never answer he direct answer of this question. Его попросили, если он говорит на русском. Fools continue. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholic pickles

Can homemade pickles contain alcohol if no alcohol was originally added to the mixture during preparation?73.160.39.193 (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are traces of alcohol in vinegar.

http://www.drgourmet.com/askdrgourmet/cooking/vinegar-alcohol.shtml#.VPmO8SzLyJ0

http://www.islamawareness.net/Alcohol/fatwa_vinegar001.html

"Acetic acid is produced by the fermentation of ethanol by acetic acid bacteria." If a foreign yeast contaminated your mixture it is possible that fermentation (of the pickles themselves) may produce ethanol (or even methanol which is toxic). Your pickle jar will probably explode.196.213.35.146 (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What would vinegar do to a breathalyzer test result?2601:C:3600:46B:34DF:F9E6:2B0F:22E5 (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that the amount of alcohol in most vinegar would even register on the breathalyser, but if your pickles have fermented and you are in a country with a very low breathalyser limit, then perhaps you shouldn't eat a whole jar just before driving. Dbfirs 12:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

per Dbfirs, we can't give advice on what you should or shouldn't do. Be aware that many foods contain non-zero amounts of ethanol, but the amounts they DO contain is, while measurable, too small to have an effect on you as you couldn't physically consume enough of the food to have a marked effect on your blood alcohol level. Just because something contains any amount of something doesn't mean it contains a meaningful amount. For example, here's a study: [6] which measured the amount of ethanol in found in the juice of freshly picked oranges and grapefruits in California, and it found about 40 mg/100 mL concentration. For comparison, 5% ABV beer contains about 264 mg/ml concentration (see here for calculation). Thus, you'd need to consume 6.5 times as much orange juice to get the same amount of alcohol as a typical beer. Thus, a non-zero amount, but quite literally almost impossible to get drunk on; you'd need to drink nearly 1/2 of a gallon of orange juice to get the effect of one can of beer, for most people that isn't enough to go over the blood alcohol limit, and consuming that much orange juice would likely make you sick. Additionally, just about any fermented foods, including but not limited to, yogurt, bread, cheese, etc. also probably contain measurable (but insignificant) amounts of ethanol. --Jayron 32 15:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two quibbles:

There's a factor of 100x difference between the units mg/mL and mg/100 mL, so it's 650x rather than 6.5x.
The figure of 264 mg/mL is not the alcohol content of the beer, it's the blood alcohol level resulting from drinking the beer.

We want to compare the alcohol content on an equal footing. 5% beer is 5% alcohol by volume. It should have alcohol content of (0.05 mL/mL) x (density of alcohol = 789 g/mL) = 39.45 g/mL. This is about 100,000x more than the orange juice. It's like in the old commercials for Total cereal: You'd have to drink a lot of orange juice! --Amble (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my math, but now i need to correct yours. Density of alcohol is 789 g/L. 789 g/mL would be far denser than lead (11.34 g/mL). So, the alcohol content in orange juice is 1/100th that of beer, not 1/100,000th. Which makes it even MORE impossible to get drunk by eating oranges. Still, even at 1/100th, it is STILL impossible. --Jayron 32 17:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turnabout is fair play :-) Thanks. --Amble (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non water based life

Is non water based life possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See non-water based life. Possible, yes, known, no. Tevildo (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, we don't know if it is possible. Looie496 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think of course – Yes, because same chemical reactions in nature could been done without water (or without any more liquid).--85.140.131.223 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so, the life on the planet Earth is not been depended on the Sun and water, because in deserts (shadow deserts) the life are been.--85.140.131.223 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All life we know is cellular. Cells consist of small bubbles with a bi-lipid layer which contain metabollically active molecules, keeping them together and preventing their dilution in the ocean or evaporation in the atmosphere. It seems likely that cells could form in an ocean of ammonia NH3, rather than in an ocean of water, OH2. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It perhaps be, that a biochemical protocells are also been possible.--83.237.196.48 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You get into trouble with deciding what constitutes "life". Virusses, for example, are not cell-based. Are they "alive"? That's more about the arbitrary definition of that word than about any actual scientific fact. Some people would argue that self-reproducing entities inside computer software (artificial life) is life - and such things can certainly survive very well without water. We could easily imagine an artificially intelligent robotic civilization living on a distant alien world without water...but other people would say "Oh, no! Those aren't alive!"...so without a solid definition for the word, this question is unanswerable.

Our Life article talks about the 'biological' definition of 'life' - which requires that living things are made up of cells...which seems like an odd requirement. If some green skinned alien were to step out of it's flying saucer on the front lawn of The White House and say "Take Me To Your Leader", I doubt we'd say "It's not alive" just because it didn't have cells...so the 'biological' definition isn't what common usage would suggest. An alternative definition is "Life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form"...which would certainly allow artificial life inside a computer - or self-reproducing nano-machines - to count as "alive" without water. But yet another definition is "Living beings are thermodynamic systems that have an organized molecular structure."...which would allow virusses and nano-bots to count - but not software entities or clanking metal robots with artificial intelligence.

So for some definitions of the word 'life', the answer to your question is "yes" and for other definitions "we don't know" - and for yet other definitions "no".

SteveBaker (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker, please add to this the possibilities of gravity.--83.237.196.48 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses still have envelopes, SteveBaker, and they could not exist without cellular metabolism to hijack for reproduction. Indeed, that's how they are defined. Earth-based life is dependent on the existence of cells in a water matrix with bi-lipid layer containment. Insofar as such cells could exist in a matrix of ammonia, water-based life would not be all that's possible. Methane is also similar, but lacks the polarity of water and ammonia, so it would lead to a radically different type of life. Methanol is polar, but it is also complex, having more than two constituent elements, and the likelihood of an inorganically caused methanol ocean is rather small. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all viruses have envelopes - some have nothing more than their 'capsid'. Check out Viral envelope for details. I, personally, agree that all known earth-based organisms that I'd normally consider to be "alive" have cells and water-based chemistry...but I wouldn't want to rule out hypothetical non-earth organisms that were not cellular and didn't require water. This is especially the case in synthetic organisms. But it all depends on the definition of this highly slippery word: "life". Mostly, the definition boils down to "We know it when we see it"...which causes problems for this kind of hypothetical question. Since science has no solid definition that everyone agrees upon, we have to first establish what our OP means by "life" before we can answer the question adequately. Is an intelligent robot "alive"? If "yes" then you don't need water for life. If "no" then...we don't know. SteveBaker (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By envelope I did not mean bi-lipid layer, or I would have said so. I find it ironic that you point me to viral envelope to explain this. Nevertheless you do point out something which I did not go into depth on, and which the OP may find helpful, thanks. The basic concept is, life ase we understand it requires a locally contained self-replicating metabolic agent. Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order is still the seminal work on this issue. And, of course I won't rule out anything a priori, but I think cellular life with an ammonia matrix is a lot more likely than non-cellular self-replicating 'naked' sulfur or silicon molecules. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Methane-based life with membranes based on nitrogen compounds suitable suitable for worlds like Titan: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/02/life-not-we-know-it-possible-saturns-moon-titan μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that gravity are always been determined a new possibilities (opportunities) of alive and technics, and as also a new possibilities (opportunities) of mind (new mind apparatus) of intelligent alive forms.--83.237.192.255 (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, are possibilities (opportunities) of gravity are always been infinite (are more without less), even in the world of biology (biochemistry)!--85.140.136.25 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The induction (inductance) of the core of atom (molecule) is always been the same as gravity.--83.237.216.191 (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about life based on radioactive elements such as uranium instead of carbon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, the radiation is a weak factor of influence (determine) on alive as opposed to (at different of) the powerful factor - gravity.--83.237.211.217 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about whether fission could be used as an energy source, then you could just construct large self-reproducing robots that use fusion reactors to run turbines, something along the Doomsday Machine episode of Star Trek.

But there's a reason why plants use visible light and we can see visible light. Visible light is strong enough to catalyze the release of electrons using phot-sensitive pigments without destroying the molecules that run the show. Ultraviolet light is to strong, it disrupts molecular structures. Infrared is too weak, it can't excite electrons sufficiently to power an organism. Vision works on the same principle, visible light can excite eye pigments without destroying the eye structure. This can go up to the lower energy bands of ultraviolet light and infrared canalso be detected, but with a much lower resolution given its lower energy.

Fission produces neutrons, as well as alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays. The first are accelerated helium nuclei, the second are high speed electrons ("ionizing radiation"), and the third are very high-energy damaging photons. That would all be to damaging for cellular life. Gravity is no good, because there's no cycle--it's a one-way trip. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

Movie: X Men, the day of the future past

Has anyone seen this entitled movie?

There is a part where Dr. Xavier communicate with Mystic using a mechanism when she is in the airport.

Q:

What is the mechanism called?
How would you make someone else understand what Dr. Xavier was doing to Mystic? The way he is communicating with her,

a) How would you classify the part where he is using the mechanism on another person to communicate with her, e.g., when the lady was talking to her as they were picking up the boarding/passport together?

b) How would you classify when he was trying to get inside her head...using the mechanism?

Regards. -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I haven't seen that particular X-Men flick, but Dr X generally uses a large spherical room to track and communicate with other mutants. Is that what you mean, or something more portable ? StuRat (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The device in both cases would be Cerebro, and I think that was a more portable version. Other answers should be in there or we might need a Marvel nerd. I'm a DC nerd with a focus on Batman. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 16:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, Flinders Petrie: No, not into any of these now, use to when I was young... I do watch cartoon/animation/movie if they do appear... One thing I still haven't seen in animation/movie is the Centurions. I would love to...

I understand it a spherical room, I didn't know. I wrote 'big round room'...

I'll be reading it tomorrow as I'm too tired tonight!

Thank you both! Regards. -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I am a Marvel nerd. It was Cerebro and the lady's name is Mystique. :) Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real knowledge of the in-world explanation, but often the premise of telepathy is related to Antenna (radio), section "Reciprocity". A radio antenna that broadcasts on a given frequency tends to pick up the same frequency more than others. So, the thinking goes, a telepath might somehow get himself onto the exact frequency you broadcast at, and understand it. Since electroencephalograph signals are detectable, people do broadcast, to a certain degree. The problem of course is that the signal is really weak, reception is really weak (to the point where you won't get meaningful transmission over the airwaves even within the same brain; otherwise the brain wouldn't work at all!) it isn't at one single frequency from one source but from cells all over the brain doing their own thing, people's brains aren't laid out the same way (indeed, brain surgeons have had to paste labels on the cerebral cortex while asking people "is this part of your brain something you'd miss much?" before they start cutting). The underlying pre-scientific principle, which is seen in many contexts in physics but as here with significant limitations, is sympathetic magic. (P.S. My personal opinion is that telepathy, like qualia and other paranormal phenomena, is a manifestation of precognition) Wnt (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry

Why is water of a higher temperature used in the washing of whites? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High temperatures are more effective at removing dirt. The question should actually be why hot water is not used for washing colors: the reason is that hot water is effective in removing dyes for the same reason it is effective in removing dirt, i.e., hot water can cause colors to fade. For whites, fading of colors is actually a plus. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot water also causes elastic to give way, so that's another reason to avoid it. On the pro side, it will tend to liquify fats/oils, allowing them to float away and down the drain. Hot water might also kill dust mites and has the potential to kill molds, fungi, bacteria, and viruses, although the hot water temps in most washing machines are insufficient for this. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surface_tension#Influence_of_temperature points out that the surface tension of water reduces with temperature. The water literally becomes 'wetter' as it gets warmer. That allows it to get deeper into the fibres of the cloths and float dirt and other contaminants away. The main reason we use detergents when washing things is to reduce the surface tension...so using hotter water clearly helps. Chemical reactions also (generally) run faster at higher temperatures, and in washing detergents that employ oxidizers to bleach stains and enzymes to 'digest' them, higher temperatures will usually make those reactions happen faster - reducing wash times. For colored cloth, the concern is that the higher temperatures will facilitate the dissolving and oxidization of dyes in the cloth - which results in fading and color transfer between clothing. Hence the choice of temperature and ingredients in the detergent will depend on the nature of the cloth you're washing. SteveBaker (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money laundering

If paper money is made of cotton, can you wash it with the laundry? --Llaanngg (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left paper money in my clothes with the laundry, and it survived OK, but there's always the chance one end will get stuck under the agitator and be torn. However, one could come up with a safe way to launder money, say for germophobes, although, just like with clothes, if you laundered them often they wouldn't last as long. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To sanitize paper money, a clothes iron is another option. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but there you have the potential to scorch it. Same with a microwave or conventional oven. And I can't help thinking of Felix Ungar as the type of person to do such things. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've straightened wrinkled paper by ironing many times; I've never scorched any of it. I'd say it's pretty forgiving in that regard. (There are, however, other potential issues. Some paper may shrink and do so unevenly. Printer/copier toner may melt and smear. You can mitigate the latter problem by sandwiching the paper to be straightened between 2 blank sheets of paper.) --173.49.18.106 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that money (being made of cotton) launders just like cloth, is plainly false. Money is made from shredded cotton fibres, not woven from twisted fibres like cloth. The wood fibre in conventional paper comes apart when laundered because the binders that hold those fibres in place fails - not because the fibres themselves fail. There are no guarantees that cotton fibres won't come apart in much the same way. So the question is more about the binders used in making money than on the fibres that are bound into it.

I'd also point out that money around the world is made in a variety of different ways - some are made of various plastics, and doubtless some are made of actual wood-pulp paper. There is likely to be a wide variety of binders in use too. Furthermore, there are a wide variety of exotic inks and other materials built into the surface and bulk of the bank note - and how those might behave under a variety of cleaning methods would be hard to predict in advance. So while our earlier respondents may have found it safe to iron or wash their particular local currency - that doesn't tell you much about how safe it would be to employ those techniques on older banknotes - or banknotes from other countries in the world. SteveBaker (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the OP. The related question about cleaning old paper money is from me, not from the OP. The OP only asked about washing paper money, but made no mention of doing it in the context of conservation-restoration. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Money laundering first. The paper is more resistant than other paper, but a damage – minor or total – will occur. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to the wrong type of money laundering (the type that makes it figuratively, rather than physically, "clean"). StuRat (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning old paper money

Do collectors and conservationists have safe methods for cleaning old paper money, e.g. to remove dirt or stains? If so, how do they do it? --173.49.18.106 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

eHow is sometimes crap, but it has a plan. I tried to link it, but it's blacklisted here, possibly for being sometimes crap. Search for "How to Restore Paper Money", should see it (and others). Probably best to start with a one, just in case. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Found a few interesting articles on cleaning collectible paper money/documents at the website. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology of laundering

Around 1980, when one went on a trip outside the United States, it was usually necessary to carry traveler's checks, which were signed once at purchase and then had to be countersigned when cashing, and were readily convertible into local currency. American Express guaranteed to replace them if lost, stolen, or damaged. (There are now easier ways to convert dollars into local currency. In Europe, an American ATM card can be used at a European ATM to withdraw Euros, at the free market rate, from a dollar checking account.) In any case, I had returned from a trip to Mexico, and had unused traveler's checks in my pocket. However, there had been snow, and, in digging my car out at the airport parking lot, my pants became wet. On returning home, my wife and I changed our clothes into dry clothes and threw our wet clothes into the washing machine. We then discovered that we had destroyed the unused traveler's checks. The next day, I had to go to American Express to request replacement. However, describing what had happened was awkward and required complicated language. The obvious, that I had laundered them, refers to a type of unethical activity, as noted. If I had said that I had washed them, that refers to a different type of activity involving securities, a wash sale, which is also questionable. I said that I had put them in the washing machine in my pants pocket. I did get them replaced. It just illustrates the complexities of words. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive lighting

Last November, in the article Automotive lighting a contibution of two simplified diagrams with imagemaps to explain what the items are and what the technical basics are, were removed. The diagrams were made based on several service manuals to give a basic understanding the way it works with links to the Wikipedia articles of displayed components. It also is a way to bring sourced information into the article. Why do they need to remove this information from the article? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm 100% sure you're aware, the discussion at Talk:Automotive_lighting#Selfish_revert_of_reasonable_edit? explained why. I agree, 100% with the removal reasons. Those diagrams are outdated and far from universal - and hard to follow by a typical reader. For example, in my car, everything is fed with 12volts and connected to the computer through a common data bus - your diagrams are completely obsolete for cars like that.

The article's "discussion" page is the one true place to discuss this - and I'd caution you that "Forum Shopping" (which is what you're doing by attempting to create a duplicate discussion here) is strongly frowned upon here at Wikipedia. SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for feedback. Really not all vehicles use bus system, some still use the old technology. The argument of removal was WP:UGH, non scientific one. The IP editor has reverted all my contribs which is behindediting. Wikipedia is made and known for free knowledge. As the article was left I had the last word with question. Historical vehicles still use this as well. A history section is in many articles. (And what about the Mini you own?) "Forum Shopping" (which is what you're doing by attempting to create a duplicate discussion here) is strongly frowned upon here at Wikipedia." is no nice answer and seems to skip the question of a historical section. Would you contibute more actual information about databus systems in this article? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the diagrams are _wrong_, rather than merely obsolete - I've never seen a car with the brake lights or indicators on the KL30 rather than the KL15. Tevildo (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The modern MINI has used the bus system since around 2001 - so it's not like this is some kind of new-fangled idea that's too exotic to be worth considering. On the other hand, my 1963 classic Mini has only two fuses for the entire car (one for everything that should be turned on *only* when the ignition switch is turned on - and one for everything that should still work with the ignition turned off. It has no hazard light switch and no dashboard tell-tales for the headlights. It's so different from either of your diagrams, I hardly know where to start.

But no matter what - this is simply not the place to discuss it. It belongs on the article talk page - where the discussion is already in progress.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tevildo, this is typical for VW and Audi 80 least in European version. Brake lights work whenever the foot is on the brake even when key is out. Further like wire colors is based on GM. @SteveBaker, do have some sources for me to start? After archiving this section, I will link to it on the article talk page. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article will want wiring diagrams for all gazillion kinds of cars over every year of production! All I'm attempting to convey is the futility of such wild generalizations. FWIW: Classic Mini wiring diagram: http://www.minifinity.com/images/techteam/MFTechWiki/Electrical-ColourWiringDiagram.jpg - the diagram for the modern MINI goes on for dozens of pages in the service manual I have - they are very boring though - nearly every one shows a device or devices connected to power and ground via fuses - and to the computer via the car-wide data bus.

The idea of having some kind of 'generic' wiring diagram(s) in the article is a terrible one because cars over time and across manufacturers vary WILDLY - and the idea of having diagrams for every variation would produce an insanely long and impossibly incomplete/un-reliably-sourced set. So you wind up with a randomly spotty collection that is simply not useful. Hence, the decision by the other editors of that article to remove them. Take a hint! SteveBaker (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traces of water

Are there any traces of water on the surface of an ice cube?--79.119.212.9 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the ambient temperature is above the freezing point of water, your ice cube is melting, there will be water on its surface. At the freezing point, water and ice can coexist. Below the freezing point, water usually exists as solid. Since you're talking about an ice cube, I don't think any surface water can remain supercooled. If your water contains impurities and has a lower freezing point than pure water, it can coexist at the same temperature as ice. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a liquid-like layer of ~~water~~ molecules on the surface of ice (and other solids), even below the equilibrium temperature. See Ice#Slipperiness and Melting Below zero. -84user (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (Edited to remove "water" as that only applies to water ice. -84user (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Are the mostly basic chemicals been the most stable in nature?

What are the chemicals in nature are always been the most resistant to chemical reaction - decomposition (splitting), are it been a simple chemicals which always had like as water or oxygen, carbon a simple valence (simple valence charge) or are it been a complex chemicals which always had like as carboned steel a complex valence (complex valence charge)?--83.237.196.48 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Noble gasses' - helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr) and xenon (Xe) are essentially unreactive - they don't participate in normal chemical reactions at all and are probably completely unchanged since they were formed in the heart of a star a very long time ago. radon (Rn) is also a noble gas - but it's radioactive, so it spontaneously changes into other elements that do react. SteveBaker (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon is a little reactive, when suitably persuaded - see Noble gas compound. Mikenorton (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks! I’m be sure that simple chemicals which was always had a simple valence charge are always been the mostly stable in nature, because they are always been a simple natural of nature.--83.237.196.48 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m thinking that in nature the mostly simple (basic) chemicals are always been a complex chemicals, because they are always been uniquely simple.--83.237.196.48 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider native element minerals, some of these elements are fairly unreactive. Nitrogen gas is also fairly long lived in the atmosphere. Although it does undergo the Nitrogen cycle. In nature you will likely find that xenon never formed the xenon compounds made by humans. However there is a good chance that the protonated rare gases would have existed, eg protonated helium. And even helium in suitable conditions can form dihelium. So don't expect any atom in nature to be completely virgin and unaffected by union with another atom. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some precious metals are also fairly nonreactive, like platinum, and, to a lesser extent, gold. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can animals parent different animals?

Non‐human animals can practise adoption, correct? Are there examples of non‐human animals raising different animals? (I’m especially interested in hominids parenting others.) --66.190.99.112 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably be able to find loads of examples of cats raising puppies and dogs raising kittens - or things like a goat raising lambs, just by using Google, so I won't bother with those. Check this out though - very cool. Or I think so, being a gull enthusiast. Something that I've been meaning to discuss on here for a while anyway... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try Boy raised by apes discovered in Malaysia and Bello And John - The Boys Who Were Raised By Primates. Alansplodge (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best of titles, as a good 99.999997% of boys are raised by primates, with carnivores second and (I think) even-toed ungulates a distant third... Tevildo (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get the carnivore reference, but can you elucidate the ungulate? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.13.204 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Feral child#Documented or alleged cases. Wolves and apes are the most common, but there are a few cases of children allegedly being raised by sheep, goats, and gazelles, and one case (which I must admit places rather too great a strain on my credibliity) of a boy raised by ostriches. Tevildo (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea perhaps —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be afraid to leave boys alone with primates. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I suspect the OP is asking whether interspecies gestation is possible, not interspecies breast feeding. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The OP is actually asking both questions. Obviously, some different species can produce viable offspring. And animals have been known to at least bond with other species, though I can't say for sure about literally raising them. Various bird eggs can be hatched by nesting chickens, though I'm not sure that counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are they? The OP specifically uses the words "adoption" and "parenting" neither of which refer to gestation. Richerman (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said suspect. When someone says A happens. I wonder if B happens. I especially wonder if C happens, then I usually take A and C to be in some way contrasting. He's already said adoption happens, so I assume he must mean something else by parenting. Otherwise it's like saying We know people buy things. I am interested if they shop, and especially if they can purchase things. The OP will have to clarify. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

Vinegar and breathalyser 2

Follow up question was hijacked and taken on tangent: what would vinegar do to a breathalyser test result? There is no legal advice being sought. There is a specific chemical process taking place and the question is what would happen if there was significant vinegar consumption 3 big pickles prior to test? Thanks 66.87.80.255 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would do nothing. Breathalyzers work by oxidizing ethanol to acetic acid, which is the main ingredient in vinegar. A breathalyzer is basically a pocket galvanic cell that generates a small voltage by a redox reaction. When the ethanol --> acetic acid oxidation causes a reduction of oxygen --> water. Since acetic acid is basically already oxidized ethanol, it can't be further oxidized, and the vinegar on your breath has no effect. --Jayron 32 04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question really is how much alcohol is there in vinegar. True diluted acetic acid is generally sold as "imitation vinegar"; the rest is basically spoiled wine or apparently in some cases spoiled beer, etc. There's one site being quoted [7] where the guy claims to have found some paper that found brands of balsamic vinegar with up to 2% alcohol, but I have no idea if that's legit or not; in any case that's an outlier. A lot of it is subjective - when do you open a bottle of wine and say "pee-you, that's vinegar"? The regulatory requirement is vinegar being 4% acetic acid, and to work well for some applications apparently it has to be 5%, which it almost always is; this limits the amount of alcohol present to some degree. Note though that drinking even spoiled wine and failing a breathalyzer might not be a reliable defense! Wnt (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological distance

When cosmologists are recording distances of certain objects which have been determined are in fact moving away from us due to expansion, can they factor exactly how far the object is at present? If yes, which distance is actually used for the record? Or does it depend on what is being researched?66.87.80.255 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. For one thing, there is no universal "present" time. When they say that it is a certain distance from us, that is based on the light reaching us now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but one of the few facts we know about that object is that it is not now where we are seeing it. So shouldn't we say we know it's specifically not there for the record?66.87.80.255 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba73 is wrong—distances reported in the popular press are usually comoving distances, which are distances extrapolated to the current cosmological time, assuming current cosmological models are correct. "Official" distances are normally given as redshifts, since that's what's actually measured. See Distance measures (cosmology). -- BenRG (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time it is most useful to specify where an object appears to be, since that is the information of greatest utility to people with telescopes. We do however have numerous concepts for kinds of astronomical distances. See for example distance measures (cosmology). The main ones are proper distance, comoving distance, and light travel distance. These are related and generally calculable from one another provided basic information is available, though the main examples all tend to deal with the apparent properties of the object. The implied future of the object is generally of less interest. Given velocity and position one can roughly predict where an object X light years away would presumably be X years in its future, but since we can't observe that future or test those predictions (except for very small time durations), such predictions generally aren't of much direct interest. However, astronomers do know very well that what they observe today reflects the universe as it was rather than as it is. Dragons flight (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so is there an instance where the object is moving toward us faster than others or counteracting the expansion where it would be in that same spot "at present"?66.87.80.255 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what I meant was 2 objects that are the same current distance away that are moving away due to expansion but are moving away at different speeds.66.87.80.255 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different speeds compared with what? The speed that other objects are receding? That's the case all over the place. As I recall, the farther away objects are receding faster than the closer objects (or to put it another way, we are receding faster from those farther objects). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes but you misread the question i said the same current distance but different speeds.66.87.82.116 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building Mars on Earth

During the video embedded in this article, there seems to be a woman who is standing next to a Mars rover on what appears to be a Martian landscape. Have researchers at JPL, or anywhere else, been modeling the Martian landscape at a 1:1 scale? Dismas|^(talk) 06:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably easier to use Earth deserts that already resemble the Mars landscape. (Sometimes the only way you can tell the difference is if the sky is blue or red.) StuRat (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The atacama desert resembles mars the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the Atacama is just very very dry. Appearance wise there's this island in Northern Canada, I think that is closest in appearance to Mars and the folks at NASA use it from time to time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 17:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably referring to the Mars Society's Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station on Devon Island, though as Wnt points out, Dismas was asking about a different kind of modeling. -- ToE 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Adar 5775 00:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acchcch, come on people, at least clicka the link before you answer! The link shows a believable simulation of the Martian surface generated by computer, and gives the strong impression they used real rover images to make it. The simulation may be intrinsically no different than any computer game in 3D, but to get the positions for all the rock faces I don't know if they used parallax between many images at known displacements of the camera or had some kind of nifty laser rangefinding or something available (someone could quickly look that up, I'm just being lazy; I doubt it). I don't know how accurate they're trying to make the simulation either, but again, guessing, I'd guess "pretty damn". Anyway, consider yourselves trouted. Wnt (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the quick shot of the woman standing next to the rover at roughly 28 seconds in is just green screening or some similar special effect? The shot is too short for me to really tell if there is green screening going on or if she's at some real/physical test location. Dismas|^(talk) 00:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that appears to be a mock-up they built in Pasadena. I was going to mention it last night (and answer your question in doing so) after watching the vid but was either too drunk or too tired to post. Probably both. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Adar 5775 00:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a real location; I don't know where it is, but I know that there are artificial lunar/martian landscapes used for rover testing, such as the "roverscape" at Ames Research Center. -- BenRG (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA between 0:12 and 0:14 in the vIdeo. I didn't notice the JPL bit the first go around, but that's where it is, whatever it's called. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Adar 5775 00:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the JPL MarsYard III (Google Maps, video panorama). -- BenRG (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The limits of mind

Did been a limit of the possibilities of mind?--85.140.136.25 (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the human mind is always been Goodness, so is it an absolute the mind of Lord God?--83.237.216.191 (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please ask scientific questions, and in English. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The natural nature of mind is it been absolute?--83.237.216.191 (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be talking through google translate. It is not possible for people to understand what you are asking exactly. Beyond the rather basic fact that the human brain must have limits on its cognitive capacity, maybe you are trying to see if there are limits to what we understand. This may also be asked based on a confusion between limits on a person's own cognition and limits on the body of knowledge in general (the former not limiting the latter because of the nature of specialisation). If you try to read that through google translate, it will not be possible to follow what I am saying. Second Quantization (talk)

Is it in applied sense the (physiological) properties of the (neurons) neural net, as also as (physiological) properties of the neuron been absolute?--83.237.204.27 (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what the atomic (molecular) particle is the mostly similar been neuron?--83.237.204.27 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post here in your native language and then one of us who speaks it can post a more meaningful translation. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biochemistry papes

Why do many biochem papers not show the chemical structure diagrams. Only the formula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.214.244 (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which paper(s) or publications are you reading?

Biochemistry (journal), a publication of the American Chemical Society, provides author guidelines with instructions on how to submit chemical structure diagrams, and further stipulates that details for complicated biological macromolecules must be uploaded in digital form to computerized chemical databases operated by partner organizations of the publisher.

Other publications may have different guidelines suitable for a different reading audience.

Nimur (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biomaterials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.214.244 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Biomaterials (journal), a publication of Elsevier, here are the author guidelines. There are no guidelines or rules respecting chemical structure diagrams, formulae, or digital database formats for molecular structure. There is, however, a handy ~~buzz~~keyword list provided to authors. I could insert a snide commentary about journal quality and the role that economics plays in consolidating scientific writing into the hands of a very small number of private-sector, non-science publishing houses... but I think the guidelines speak for themselves. My advice, though, is pretty simple, and it comes from several years as a professional editor of research publications: read papers that are good, not papers that are published in "respected" journals. After you read a lot of papers, you will learn which journals (and which editorial staffs) have earned your respect. Nimur (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's assumed that the reader will know the structure from just the chemical formula or be able to look it up easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.214.244 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC rules are supposed to make chemical formulae readily communicable in words. Formulae are often included for new (or newly isolated) compounds, however, because of the possibility of error or misunderstanding. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wind

You are in a field and it is windy. You have two possibilities. 1st: stay in the open, 2nd, enter a tube, which is straight and not perpendicular to the wind. What would be warmer?--Llaanngg (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it cloudy in this hypothetical scenario? What is the wind speed? What is the outside air temperature? Is it day or night?

In all seriousness, we don't have enough information to answer the question definitively. Temperatures - and heat loss, which is actually a distinct phenomenon - are affected by many parameters beyond linear airflow. Why do you want to know, and how technical do you wish your answer(s) to be? Nimur (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curiosity, to understand it. We could use a wind speed of 5m/s, which is a common air speed in many places, and 15 degrees C, and 45 degrees angle, for the tube. And why does being cloudy/day or night affects the experiment? --Llaanngg (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sun is a source of heat! A tube will shade you from sunlight. Heat loss through radiation into space is non-negligible! On a clear night, the interior of the tube may lose less heat (to radiation) than an exposed area.

Start by reading about heat conduction, convection, and heat radiation. These are the primary ways that heat flows. Wind is generally described best by convection (though there is thermal conduction by direct contact with the air mass, too). Ultimately, your tube experiment can be reduced to a more generic question: under what conditions does airflow cause so much more heat transfer that we can neglect all other forms of heat loss? The answer can be paraphrased: when the heat lost to flowing air is much greater than heat gained or lost by radiative or conductive transfer. Nimur (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How big a tube? If I'm able to position myself to block much of its area and it's got a substantial length between me and the upwind end, I could probably prevent having much air move in front and behind me. But "much of" and "substantial" are pretty hard to model quantitatively without knowing a lot of specific details of the surfaces, etc. DMacks (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the tube made of? Is it nylon, cloth, concrete, metal, earthwork...? Is it in direct contact with the ground? Under ground? ... A half-buried concrete drainpipe and a metal drainpipe of equal size will transfer heat very differently. If both are exposed to the same conditions - say, a warm sunny day - a metal pipe can become scalding hot, while a concrete pipe can stay very cold. The air temperature in both tubes might be nearly the same.

Using more technical language: what is the thermal coefficient of the tube's material (how quickly does it transfer heat)? And what is its thermal mass (its heat capacity), or how much heat can it store? What is its albedo, or how efficiently does it reflect solar heat?

Nimur (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wind would be reduced if the pipe is at a 45 degree angle. However, a thick concrete pipe has a significant thermal lag, so that it will get hot later in the day than the air outside, and stay hotter as the air starts to cool. The color of the outside of the pipe also matters, as a black pipe will heat up a lot more than a white one, in sunlight. StuRat (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scarring

Why is it that most infections don't cause lasting damage and once fully recovered the person is just as healthy as before? Surely an infection anywhere, whether it's the stomach, lungs etc causes scarring and subsequently permanent damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.25 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think it would? You have evidence that it doesn't, based on all human history. There's little reason to suspect that it would. --Jayron 32 00:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor injuries, whether caused by injury or disease, can be repaired by replacing the damaged cells. This process happens all the time, when cells naturally die. It's only when too large of an area is damaged at once to use this method that scars are formed to quickly seal the damaged area. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have evolved a way to replace scar tissue with healthy cells later on.

To compare to a scratch on a car, if only the polish is damaged, then just repolishing it repairs it completely. But, if the damage was a tear in the sheet metal, then you might need to patch it with some Bondo, which is never quite as good as it was. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Does height matter when it comes to air pollution?

Does height matter when it comes to air pollution? I'm wondering whether living and/or working on the top floors of rise buildings would mitigate the effects of air pollution somewhat for polluted areas. If so, how high would it have to be to make a difference? WinterWall (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of pollutants by the building's HVAC system would be far more important. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which pollutants you mean. Some are heavier than air, or are produced at the surface (like horse manure fumes in the olden days), while others are lighter than air (perhaps because they are hot) and/or vented in high smokestacks. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How were comic books mass produced at the beginning of the 20th century?

I know with the printing press which of course long preceded the beginning of the 20th century, textual pages could be mass produced by setting metal type into a press, but panels of originally hand-drawn color artistry with hand-written dialogue in bubbles, when Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster made one story, I'm sure they didn't redraw however many hundred or thousand (I don't know what scale "mass production" was at in their days, but I suppose it was more than a handful), how exactly was the load to be sold made? An army of lower-paid re-drawers? If technology, what were they using at that time? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]