Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 4

Red blood cell production following blood loss

Hi. Multiple sources say that the about 2 million new red blood cells are created every second in the human body under normal circumstances. But what is the corresponding figure when the body needs to replenish its red blood cells following significant blood loss? Thanks.

• I seem to recall that the body does not increase the rate of production of rbcs, but rather decreases the rate of destruction of rbcs in the spleen until the low blood count is improved. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• The body most certainly increases the production of red cells following significant blood loss. In cases of chronic blood loss, yellow (inactive) bone marrow may be converted to red (active) bone marrow, to increase the volume of blood-producing tissue. In extreme cases, tissues that normally do not produce red blood cells in the adult (liver, spleen), may start doing so (extramedullary hematopoiesis). The count of recently-produced red cells (reticulocytes) in the blood increases. Red blood cell production, as measured by bone marrow iron consumption, can increase up to 10-fold (reference). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What does "acceleration" purpose in mechanics?

We say acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/sec2. But I say speed of freely falling object on Earth is equal to 9.8 m/sec without using acceleration. So What does "acceleration" purpose in mechanics? Rizosome (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

9.8 m/sec² can be said as "nine point eight meters per second, per second", meaning that the velocity increases by 9.8 m/s every second (ignoring air resistance). That's the difference between velocity ("speed") and acceleration. Speed is a constant, whereas velocity isn't. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:1110:9627:D5D8:97F4 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)^

You must have meant to write "Acceleration is constant", not "speed is a constant", I think. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What about speed of freely falling body? Is it undetermined? Rizosome (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The speed will change (accelerate) until terminal velocity is reached.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So for a free falling object have two values: speed and velocity? Rizosome (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Speed and velocity are essentially the same thing. Acceleration is change in speed over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If there was no air resistance then a falling object would accelerate with 9.8 m/sec² until hitting the ground. That means that if it starts at rest then after 1 second it would have velocity 9.8 m/sec. After two seconds it would be 19.6 m/sec. After 3 seconds it would be 29.4 m/sec, and so on. (Some small factors are ignored here). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted in Gravitation of the Moon, its number is 1.625 m/s². Since there is almost no atmosphere on the Moon, any object falling toward the Moon will continue to accelerate at that rate until it hits the surface. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand this. A quadratic equation (involving x squared) presents on a graph as a parabola. If you plot the figures presented by PrimeHunter (velocity against time) they present as a straight line. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The quadratic equation graph is of displacement(i.e. distance covered) against time and Prime hunter told about velocity against time which plots as straight line -- Parnaval (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So is the velocity increasing at a uniform rate or not? If it's plotted against seconds (1, 2, 3 etc) then it's a straight line, but if it's plotted against seconds squared it can't be - after 1 second the velocity is x, after 2 seconds 4x, after 3 seconds 9x, and so on. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The velocity is increasing at a constant rate; if you plot the speed vs. time on a graph (assuming acceleration is in the same direction as the motion) then the line will be straight and the slope of the line is the acceleration. If the line were not straight, that would mean that the acceleration were changing, and then we go another level deeper, there's a function called Jerk, which is the change in acceleration over time, and ITS units would be distance per unit time cubed (i.e. m/s/s/s or m/s³). There are even functions if jerk varies with time, see Fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position, and after that it's turtles all the way down. --Jayron32 13:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If it had been presented as 9.8 metres per second per second I think that would have been clearer. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. m/s² = m/(s⋅s) = (m/s)/s. Physicists prefer to only write a unit once, and often to use negative exponents instead of division. m/s² = m⋅s⁻². It can get much worse. From farad: In SI base units 1F = 1s⁴⋅A²⋅m⁻²⋅kg⁻¹. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

From a mathematical point of view, it makes no difference. The notation is unconnected to the operation, and you can write it as m/(s^.s) or m/s² or m/s/s or (m/s)/s or m^.s^-2 or whatever works for you. It's all the same. It's the distance, divided by time, divided by time again. Or square the time and take the distance and divide it by the result of that. As long as the dimensional analysis works out, it's acceleration if the units reduce to m/s². Now, the meaning of that acceleration changes depending on how you calculate it; it can be instantaneous acceleration or average acceleration (of which there are several ways to mean "average") or initial acceleration, or whatever, and the meaning of the calculation will change depending on the method used to calculate it (including being relatively useless for modeling real behavior...) but it's still acceleration if it's got that set of units. --Jayron32 11:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Primehunter actually reminded me of a side discussion I sometimes hold in my chemistry class when we discuss the universal gas constant and why it shows up BOTH in the ideal gas law, AND in several different equations where energy pops out. The units of the standard form of the gas constant, R, are something like (liter^.kPa)/mole^.K) when you use it in the Ideal Gas Law, but are something like J/mole^.K when you use it in thermodynamics applications, and the reason for that is that volume times pressure is energy. The fact that this doesn't seem to make physical sense (volume and pressure are bulk properties of a gas, whereas energy tells you something about how an object will move) is not really that important here; volume times pressure is energy because the units are the same (energy is J, which is a N^.m, and since a Newton is a kg^.m/s² that means a joule is a kg^.m²/s². Pressure is measured in pascals, which is N/m². That's means a pascal is a kg/m^.s² and volume is m³. So pressure times volume has units of kg^.m²/s² the same as energy, QED. --Jayron32 12:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32! Bernoulli's principle is sometimes written as follows:

${\rho }{\frac {v^{2}}{2}}+\rho gz+p={\text{constant}}$

where the first term is the kinetic energy of a unit volume of fluid; the second term is the potential energy of a unit volume; and the third term is simply static pressure. It shows that static pressure is a measure of some of the energy in a unit volume of fluid. Dolphin (t) 12:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the things that makes energy so hard to grasp as a concept is that energy is not itself observable, it is an abstract property of a system, and it isn't "stored" or "created" and doesn't really even have an existence, though we tend to visualize it as a fluid that can move from place to place or some substance we can store like phlogiston or caloric or Luminiferous aether or something like that, it's just a number we assign to a system that quantifies how much that system has the potential to cause a change to occur. Energy as a concept has certain mathematical properties and symmetries that make it a conserved quantity, and that make it a transferable quantity, but it's not a tangible stuff or thing or anything. It's just a number we assign to a system of objects or particles that says "this system has the ability to alter motion in by a certain amount". That number has units of mass times velocity squared, but merely because it has units doesn't mean it is tangible. Any mathematical operation we can do with other measurements that spits out "mass times velocity squared" is, by definition, a calculation of energy content. That energy content can, hypothetically, be transformed into other energy content, though whether that is practical to do or even physically possible is a different story, but it still is all just energy, whether it is the Bernoulli term you brought up, or the pressure times volume of a gas, or a massive object moving at some constant speed, or a photon of light, it's all energy. --Jayron32 12:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of "aeroplane"

The word "aeroplane" was apparently coined by French sculptor and inventor Joseph Pline in 1855. What was that paper? Is it available online? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The term preceded the modern usage.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The self-published page you link to gives "French aéroplane (1855)... Ancient Greek had a word aeroplanos, but it meant 'wandering in the air'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your uncited claim about the origin of "aeroplane" is likewise self-published. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It was in a patent apparently:

M. Joseph Pline , breveté en juin 1855 , pour un système mixte l'Aéroplane , dont je me réserve de dire quelques mots , avait fait du plan – le nom de son appareil l'indique , - la base d'un système absolument différent de tous ceux qui ont l ' aérostat pour point de départ... Il proposait de construire un appareil dirigeable : - la confiance et l'argent firent défaut ; – et douze années d'efforts furent englouties dans le gouffre du néant , faute de manifestation suffisante.

"Mr. Joseph Pline, patented in June 1855, a mixed aeroplane system, of which I may say a few words, had made the plan - as the name of his device indicates - the basis of a system absolutely different from all those who have the aerostat as a starting point... He proposed to build a steerable apparatus: - trust and money were lacking; - and twelve years of effort were engulfed in the abyss of nothingness, for lack of sufficient demonstration".

Aviation ou Navigation aérienne (p. 167) by Guillaume Joseph Gabriel de LA LANDELLE; Paris, 1863.

I found a "snippet view" of Gothenburg Studies in English, Volume 7 (1958) p. 229:

Pline's design was presented at the Exposition Universelle in Paris in 1855, and an abstract of his patent specification was printed in the catalogue of the exhibition (off - print in the library of the Musée de l'Air, Paris), but it appears to have been too impracticable to have been widely noticed.

Apologies for the rubbish translation, perhaps someone else can do better... Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the word plan in the first quotation refers back to the plan incliné ("inclined plane") mentioned in the preceding paragraph – where "plane" simply means a flat surface. My attempt at an (also not superb) translation: "Mr. Joseph Pline, who had, in June 1855, obtained a patent for a mixed aeroplane system, of which I may say a few words, had made the plane – as the name of his device indicates – the base of a system ...".  --Lambiam 15:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The 1855 Exposition Universelle official catalogue is here if anyone has time to wade through it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've done several searches of the text form of that and can't find anything pertinent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I've found several references that indicate that the paper in question was actually a patent application (brevet in French). This may be as close as we can get, No.554, 12 June 1855, although this description only mentions appareil aéronautique. And this may contain direct quotes from the patent: la notion de forme plane par opposition à la notion d'aérostat ordinaire sphérique — "the notion of a plane form in contrast to the notion of the ordinary spherical aerostat" (a balloon). --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Further searching has thrown up a mention of Stubelius, Svante (1958). Airship, aeroplane, aircraft: studies in the history of terms for aircraft in English. pp. 226–229.. Google Books only has a preview; IA has nothing. I've requested a copy at WP:REX. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There is also a book Gilbert, Louis (1965). La formation du vocabulaire de l'aviation [The formation of the aviation vocabulary]. Vol. Volume 1. ISBN 9780828867184, {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help) of which I only see snippets, but I think that I have pieced together an essential sentence from the description of the invention in the patent: D'après cette comparaison des différences qui existent entre la forme d'un navire aéroplane et celle d'un aérostat ordinaire, on comprend que cette forme plane, horizontale et tranchante puisse être entraînée dans une direction voulue par des hélices ou organes propulseurs, avec beaucoup plus de facilité que les aérostats sphériques ou cylindroconiques dont la forme n'a aucune analogie avec la fonction que nous cherchons à leur faire remplir. Pline contrasts his aéroplane vessel with an ordinary aérostat, which makes me believe that -plane was meant to be in opposition to the staticity of -stat. Monsieur Gilbert seems equally tempted to believe this. After revealing that (according to an 18th-century etymologist) the component -stat signifies "to remain stationary", he writes on page 118, On serait tenté alors d'opposer plane du verbe planer, qui signifierait « en planant comme les oiseaux ». (One would thus be tempted to see an opposition of -plane from the verb planer, which would signify "gliding like birds". However, the author continues by pointing out that this interpretation can be countered by objections of two different orders. What these are, is hidden behind the veil of GBS. But I find a connection with the (attested) Ancient Greek adjective ἀερόπλανος^[2] not implausible; in writing navire aéroplane, Pline also uses his neologism as an adjective. There is no direct connection between Ancient Greek πλάνος (cognate with "planet") and the French verb planer and Latin planus, except that both may ultimately stem from a Proto-Indo-European root pleh₂-.  --Lambiam 17:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

By various dark arts, I have been able to wring out a few more sentences from Monsieur Gilbert's book...

"Cette interprétation peut être contrebattue par des objections de deux ordres. D'abord l'intention de signification du créateur ne semble pas avoir été celle - là; ensuite pourquoi l'élément plane aurait - il pris la forme avec un e plutôt que la forme sans e comme aérostat. En faveur de la thèse de l'élément d'origine verbale, Portier avance les éléments graphe, vore, fère, ou phore comme dans planophore. De telles dérivations suffixales sont courantes dans les vocabulaires scientifiques et techniques. En faveur du second élément à caractère nominal, on pourrait invoquer une forme féminine résultant du rapport de signification avec forme dans le texte du brevet (la marque du genre masculin du signe dans sa totalité résultant de..."

That's all folks! Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The OED says aeroplane was "formed within English by compounding; partly modelled on a French lexical item". From aero (of, from, or to do with, the air) and plane (a flat surface). DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Which squares with what Etymology Online says. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Then I'd really want to know what that "French lexical item" was.  --Lambiam 06:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

From the continuation revealed by the dark arts, I see that I misinterpreted the preceding sentence. Given that Pline explains the superiority of his invention as deriving from its "forme plane", Gilbert surmises that one might be tempted to oppose the theory (which he may have mentioned in an earlier passage) that plane refers to the action of planer. But, says Gilbert, if it comes from the forme plane (in which the French adjective plan ("flat") has an ⟨e⟩ because forme is a feminine noun), there should have been no ⟨e⟩ in the masculine aéroplane, just like aérostat has no ⟨e⟩. Furthermore, Gilbert continues, one Portier has pointed out that suffixes derived from verbs often end on ⟨e⟩. (Of the latter's examples, I think planophore is interesting, because -phore is unambiguously derived from the Ancient Greek suffix -φορος.) Clearly, the etymology of aéroplane has been widely discussed, and it seems that Gilbert prefers derivation from the verb planer. As far as I can see, Gilbert does not consider the Greek theory. I see no argument for dismissing it out of hand; I think it deserves serious consideration as being at least one possible explanation for Pline's choice of his neologism. I do not know in which edition of the Great Scott the word ἀερόπλανος first appeared, but it was included in the 1855 edition,^[3] and would not have been hard to find for someone with an elementary understanding of the Greek alphabet. Interestingly, in the earliest use of French aérodrome, from ἀερόδρομος, a synonym of ἀερόπλανος, it referred to a flying machine, "l'aérodrome du professeur Lengley".^[4]  --Lambiam 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See Langley Aerodrome. Dolphin (t) 08:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May 5

Heat pump

[5] If I understand what the specs section of this is saying, you put 1KW of electricity in and about 2.5KW of heat comes out. That is thermodynamically possible because it's a heat pump of course. Does the temperature of the outside air make a big difference to that conversion factor? Is there a standard temperature difference that they rate the things at? My mom (getting up there in years) is chilly all the time and always running electric heaters in the house, so this might be a good thing for her. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the graph on this page illustrates that: Looking at the NIBE COP curves versus temperature. At very low outside temperatures (-19 C or -2 F) the efficiency is still around 1.75%. The graph shows how more powerful heat pumps are more efficient at lower temperatures, but slightly less efficient at warmer temperatures meaning that the pump size should be matched to your climate. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See coefficient of performance. Dolphin (t) 08:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The unit of power is kW, not KW. Capitalisation matters. Even more when using mW and MW.

Efficiency depends on outside temperature. That's already the case for the theoretical maximum efficiency, the Carnot efficiency. The larger the temperature ratio (expressed in absolute temperature), the lower the efficiency of a heat pump.

To reduce greenhouse gas emission, it's good to move from gas heating to heat pumps, so there's a significant push from governments in that direction, but many people are of the opinion that heat pumps fail to deliver to their promises. Most heating in western Europe is required when the outside temperature is between -5°C (because it's rarely colder than that) and +5°C (because you don't need much heating when it's warmer), at a relative humidity of around 90% (because the sea is never far away and warmer than the land). When you try to extract heat from such air, the water vapour in the air turns into ice, providing additional heat, but also clogging the heat exchanger. That makes it hard to extract a lot of heat from cold, moist air. Heat pumps use electrical resistors as backup heat source if they can't get enough heat from the air. Something to think about.

BTW, is your mom's house well insulated? Getting better insulation usually pays off more than getting better heating. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that the efficiency is related to the ratio of the temerature across the heat pump, not the ratio of the inside and outside temperatures. This means you can improve efficiency by having larger but cooler radiators. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

t

"Sun poster" - today's featured picture

In today's featured picture, , I am confused by the layers.

The white triangle is presumably the centre of the sun, working out to the dark red triangle with the yellow/gold shell colouring. Then there is the orange circle (sphere) around that. But the yellow/gold shell doesn't appear to me to be concentric with the orange sphere. Indeed the curvature on the yellow/gold shell makes it seem bigger than the orange sphere. Am I not seeing something, or is the image flawed? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the photosphere? It might help if you could point out which layer you are referring to, since they are all labeled. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that the diagram presents some interpretation confusion. I'm guessing (because it's not completely certain) that it's attempting to show a segment of the orange chromosphere peeled away to reveal the underlying yellow/gold photosphere. The depiction lacks any cues to help this depiction, such as an edge to the "cut" where the chromosphere was removed (presumably because, drawn to scale, the chromosphere lacks any significant depth), hence the possible confusion. (I could, of course, have misinterpreted the diagram completely, in which case it's much worse than I thought and not really a candidate as a featured picture.) Bazza (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the issue. The Chromosphere is 3000-5000km think, which sounds a lot, but is less than 1% of the radius of the Sun, so its essentially just a thin skin over the photosphere. So what the image is showing is a segment of the chronosphere peeled away to reveal the photosphere underneath. But because of the way it is drawn, my eyes/brain want to interpret the image as showing a vertical cut through a thick chronosphere. Iapetus (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The yellow/gold shell is labelled Photosphere. The orange sphere is labelled Chromosphere. (I have no idea what "Temperature minimum" is pointing at and why it doesn't say "Minimum temperature". The "Transition region" appears to be the same as the Chromosphere.) -- SGBailey (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the distinction is that "minimum temperature" means the lowest temperature, whereas "temperature minimum" means the place (either the actual physical location, or the point on a graph or log) where that minimum temperature occurs. Iapetus (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for stock image showing relative size of ISS orbit compared to Earth's diameter

I'm writing a school report about the "no gravity in space" fallacy, and I'm looking for an image which highlights the ISS's orbit relative to the size of the Earth. Where might I find something like that? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 22:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a live tracker here with a few different views: [6]. The top left view shows the size of the orbit compared to the size of the Earth. --Amble (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many times I've had to explain this. "Gravity at the altitude of the ISS is approximately 90% as strong as at Earth's surface, but objects in orbit are in a continuous state of freefall, resulting in an apparent state of weightlessness. This perceived weightlessness is disturbed by five separate effects..." See International Space Station. See vomit comet. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ask them what keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth, or the Earth around the Sun. Then have them read this. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Gravity Inverse Square Law might be useful to you. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What about the images at List of orbits? --47.155.96.47 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Numerically it's pretty straightforward. If you drew the Earth 30 cm wide, the ISS would be almost 1 cm away. The Earth has a radius of about 6,371 km, so that's how far away from the centre of mass you are when standing on the Earth's surface. The ISS is orbiting at an altitude of 408 km, about 6,779 km from the Earth's centre of mass, which is only about 6.4% further. nagualdesign 23:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

May 6

Butterfly ID requested

Yesterday my father told me that when taking his afternoon walk in North San Jose/Milpitas, he saw a butterfly which he is sure was a swallowtail (he described its shape as "strictly triangular", which in my experience is only ever seen in swallowtails and very rarely in nymphalids), but rather small by swallowtail standards (he estimated its wingspan at about 2 inches, or as he said it was "about the size of a cabbagefly") and with a solid yellow coloration (like a brimstone butterfly) with no tiger stripes. I think it could have been an anise swallowtail (and told him as much) -- can anyone verify? 2601:646:8A01:B180:A990:90F3:3BA2:4FBB (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A colour abberation that extreme seems unlikely to me (though I'm not saying it's impossible). I think it more likely that it was a normal specimen of an entirely different species (perhaps even a day-flying moth – I first thought of the Brimstone moth, but realised it's not found in the Americas). As I'm really only familiar with British, and to a lesser extent European, lepidoptera, someone from the US will be better placed to suggest possible candidates: nothing obvious in List of butterflies of North America or the family articles linked from there jumps out at me. I would note that due to climate change, many species are beginning to be seen beyond their previously normal ranges, so maybe check out List of butterflies of Mexico in case there's something that's made its way in there but not to the NA list. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, so can anyone familiar with North American butterflies verify? And BTW, here's something which might be relevant: from time to time (and especially in the summer of 2017), I've seen butterflies of a similar description in the San Jose area -- swallowtails (I'm 100% sure they're swallowtails, I've seen the hindwing spurs, which are rather long and prominent) with narrow sharply-pointed forewings, about 2 1/2 inches across (i.e. about the size of a red admiral and too small for my old "friend" Papilio rutulus, much less the dreaded P. multicaudata), and from a distance they look almost completely yellow (except that the rearmost part of the wings is black, including the spurs, and there is a little bit of black on the leading edge too, but no tiger stripes like those of P. rutulus) -- so the question is, might these be the same as the one my father saw? 2601:646:8A01:B180:4418:4F68:23D:D201 (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Never mind -- I saw this critter just this afternoon, and the size estimate given was way off (I estimate it as about 3 1/4 to 3 1/2 inches, or about twice the size of a cabbagefly), so I've positively identified it as a Papilio rutulus (and a fair-sized one at that) -- and yes, it did actually have tiger stripes, just not very visible from a distance! 2601:646:8A01:B180:C02F:4D92:1D13:D06D (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there any difference between capacitors and batteries?

Capacitor stores electric charge. Isn't that same thing battery stores? Both are storing energy in a form of electricity. Rizosome (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I would look at battery and capacitor. While capacitors do store electric charge, batteries do not. Batteries generate a potential difference (voltage) through redox chemical reactions at an anode and a cathode. They do not store "electric charge," but rather have potential energy due to their non-equilibrium state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OuroborosCobra (talk • contribs)

@OuroborosCobra: Does removing capacitor from circuit will make any difference in current flow? Does circuit consume more voltage than before? Rizosome (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Capacitors have a lot of different uses (see Capacitor#Applications) and if there is one in your circuit, it is there for a reason, removing it will have deleterious effects on whatever device it was in, usually. Electrical systems are finicky, and just yanking devices out willy-nilly is likely to go badly. In terms of the effect of the capacitor on the flow of electricity (i.e. on the voltage and current in the circuit), it's complicated, but if you want to dig into it, you can get all of the details at Capacitor#Theory of operation. The actual voltage drop across the capacitor has a lot to do with the specific design of the capacitor and the design of the rest of the circuit. --Jayron32 18:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The main difference between batteries and capacitors is that the voltage across a capacitor is proportional to the charge it holds, whereas the voltage of a battery is approximately constant until it's almost depleted. I suppose you can treat the reciprocal of the slope of the voltage-v-charge curve as being the battery's "effective capacitance" in some sense, though I wouldn't be surprised if the slowness of the chemical reactions made that a not-so-useful thing to do for a lot of purposes.

I think electrolytic capacitors split the difference in some sense. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP still doesn't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration? (Or for that matter, the difference between speed and velocity.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I understand pretty well, capacitor and batter are almost equal. Both stores electrical energy but in a different way. Rizosome (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Batteries do not store electricity. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Now that that issue is settled, we need Rizo to explain the difference between speed and velocity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

With batteries, more capacity is usually better: they last longer. That's why alkaline batteries have largely replaced carbon-zinc ones. With capacitors, bigger is only better when they are being used to store energy, to smooth the output of a rectifier for example. In most applications, capacitors aren't used to store energy, but to block (attenuate) or pass (amplify) signals above or below a certain frequency, or to oscillate at a certain frequency, and that frequency depends on the capacitance: a higher capacitance takes longer to charge and discharge, so the frequency is lower. The capacitor in the tuning circuit of a transistor radio for example determines the tuning frequency, change it and you receive a different station (most variable capacitors used in tuners have a maximum capacitance below 1 nF, less than one millionth of a typical smoothing capacitor). The high-pass RC (resistor-capacitor) filter in a loudspeaker protects the tweeter by blocking the low frequencies. In oscillators, increasing the capacitance will lower the frequency... Prevalence 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Side comment: In the Canadian TV series Murdoch Mysteries, set in the late 19th and early 20th century, the title character is a detective who very much enjoys science. There's a scene in one episode where he is telling an audience of police officers about an incident where a man was electrocuted by a Leyden jar, an early type of capacitor. Told that a capacitor stores electricity, one of the officers says "So it's a kind of battery, then." Murdoch says no, and the next thing, he's finding it necessary to explain the difference... --184.147.181.129 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Prevalence: My question only on electricity not signal processing. Rizosome (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A capacitor is nothing more than two metal plates with an insulator between them. Charging it means moving electrons from one plate to the other. The plate that has lost electrons is positively charged (has more protons than electrons), the other one is negatively charged. The more electrons you move, the harder it gets: it becomes more diffult to remove electrons because the positive charge attracts them, it becomes more difficult to add them to the other plate because the negative charge repels them. So the voltage goes up (because that's the definition of voltage: the amount of work needed to move a charge). A charged capacitor carries a static electric charge (static because it's not moving). If you short ( = put a metal conductor between the two leads) a charged capacitor it will discharge in an instant, often with sparks flying (those aren't electric sparks, but tiny pieces of white hot metal caused by the high current melting and evaporating the metal at the point of contact). A capacitor can release most of its charge in microseconds, the rate is only limited by the resistance and inductance of the plates and the wires.

A battery doesn't store charge, it stores energy in chemical bonds. The anode and cathode form a capacitor with a very small capacitance, and the battery keeps that capacitor charged. If you take away charges (discharge the battery), the voltage drops, the lower voltage between anode and cathode causes the battery to generate more charges (electrons) to raise it again. If you apply a higher voltage to the battery, the extra charge is converted into chemical energy (charging the battery).

When you short a battery (connect the + to the - side), a current will flow until the battery is fully discharged (the time it takes depends on the battery type, from a few minutes to several hours).

A battery can hold much more energy than a capacitor. A non-electrolytic capacitor the size of an AA battery would have a capacitance of at most a few hundred µF. A 470 µF capacitor charged to 1.5V has a charge of 0.0007 Coulomb (the equivalent of 4.4*10¹⁵ electrons), a NiMH AA battery with a capacity of 2300 MAh can deliver 8300 Coulomb (or 5*10²² electrons), 11*10⁶ times more.

A mechanical analogy would be: a battery is like a compressor running on gasoline, it can deliver compressed air at a pressure of 16 bar until it runs out of fuel. A charged capacitor is like a cylinder with compressed air at 16 bar: it can deliver much less air than the compressor, and the pressure only starts at 16 bar, it will have dropped to zero by the time the cylinder is empty. But (with the right valve) the cylinder can release the air it contains almost instantly, the compressor would take seconds or minutes to deliver the same amount. Prevalence 18:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I applaud your detailed answer, @Prevalence:, but it is wasted effort. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

decomposite each taste to 5 tastes of humans

It is known that most of human taste is made of just 5 base tastes. I wonder why can't we represent each taste as combination of those tastes, like we do with base colors? And like color, composite each taste by using only 5 base chemicals?--Exx8 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You not only taste food, you also smell it. Without the smell food tastes very bland. (It has been said that if you plug your nose, you can't tell the difference between the taste of an apple, an onion or a raw potato https://www.huffpost.com/entry/without-sight-or-smell-apples-and-onions-taste-the_b_595d40d8e4b085e766b50fd4 ). So to recreate the taste, you would also have to recreate the odor, which is more difficult: we have about 400 different olfactory receptors, each of them activated by a range of different molecules (odors), and one odor will activate several different receptors. So you would have to find a mix that activates the same receptors in the same amount as the food does.. Prevalence 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• The decomposition of vision by three base colors is grounded on the fact that (most) humans have three types of color-perceiving cells. Things are more complicated for taste: from our article, The basic [five] taste modalities contribute only partially to the sensation and flavor of food in the mouth — other factors include smell, (...) texture, (...) temperature, (...) and "coolness" (...) and "hotness" (pungency) (.... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

May 7

Precambrian stromatolithes and salinity

I haven't been able to find any information on this question from Wikipedia and elsewhere, so here goes nothing: Are there quantitative estimates on how saline (or not) the environments of Archean stromatolites such as these at Strelley Pool. Most sources say things like "hypersaline" but without any elaboration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not answering the question, but I thought that the hypersaline conditions prevent animals from eating the bacterial mats. In times before animals that would not have been a problem - eg Cryogenian or before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to answer the question - Allwood et al. (2006) describe the depositional environment of the Strelley Pool stromatolites as a broad peritidal carbonate platform, at one point referring to it as "'normal' shallow marine conditions similar to those that have nurtured marine biodiversity throughout geological history". Allwood et al. (2010) go into the detail geochemistry of the sequence stating "REE+Y and other trace element signatures in member 2 indicate that the chert and carbonate were derived from marine water, with variable but small amounts of terrigenous contamination and hydrothermal fluid advection. The close alignment of carbonate and chert trace element chemistry demonstrates that both mineral phases were derived from the same marine fluids, and neither are diagenetic replacement phases derived from, for example, later intrusive hydrothermal fluids. The demise of the stromatolite reef coincided with resumed stronger hydrothermal input in member3 black cherts." Nothing at all there about hypersalinity. Mikenorton (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

CDC finally admits the coronavirus is airborne

This is not a general forum, and no question has been asked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yep, it's spread by aerosol and social distancing isn't enough. And wear as good masks as you can find. It only took them 16 months to figure out what I figured out. Now, about those respirators... Edit: They still say transmission when far apart is uncommon. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC) This isn't a general forum. Do you have a question? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

May 8

difference between social parasites and adelphoparasitism?

I was reading the wikipedia page on Parasitism and got confused: what exactly is the difference between social parasitism and adelphoparasitism? both seem to involve parasitism of a species closely related to the parasite so I don't understand what the difference is if there is one and I know that people aren't supposed to discuss the topic on the talk page to I thought here would be a good place to ask Feralcateater000 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Feralcateater000: I'm a bit confused as well. I think whoever wrote the adelphoparasitism section didn't quite reflect the cited sources properly. Taking some definitions from the first,

• "adelphoparasite n. [Gr. adelphos, brother; para, beside; sitos, food] (ARTHRO: Insecta) A heteronomous hyperparasitoid."
• "heteronomous a. [Gr. heteros, different; nomos, usage] Having unlike segments; differing in development or function.
• "hyperparasite n. [Gr. hyper, above; parasitos, one who eats at the table of another] An organism parasitic upon another parasite."
• "heteronomous hyperparasitoid (ARTHRO: Insecta) In Hymenoptera, a species in Adelinidae in which the female develops as a hyperparasitoid of one host, while the male develops as a normal parasitoid on another host; an adelphoparasite. see diaphagous parasitoid, heterotrophic parasitoid. "

NB I also notice (after a swift web search) that the word "Adelinidae" only occurs in this dictionary, and is almost certainly a misprint for Aphelinidae.

In other words, in adelphoparasites, mated and unmated females exhibit different behaviour, such as in the example given, Encarsia perplexa. Again quoting from the ref, "A mated female lays a single diploid egg in any nymphal stage of the citrus blackfly, but prefers the second stage, and this egg will produce a female [...] Virgin females lay haploid eggs in the fully developed larva of the Encarsia perplexa female (their own species) and thereby produce males (adelpho-parasite). The sex ratio in the field is about 1:7 (male:female)."

As regards the other example, Bonellia viridis, this appears to be a case of Environmental sex determination (ESD).

• "In this species, the vast majority of sexually undifferentiated larvae metamorphose into males when exposed to females, but differentiate into females when developing in the absence of females. [...] In a small fraction of larvae, sex determination is genetic (i.e. the larvae are syngamic); these larvae are predetermined to become either male or female (Jaccarini et al. 1983). In the remaining larvae, sex is determined environmentally (i.e. the larvae are metagamic); the environmental factor that triggers sex determination is the presence or absence of a masculinising stimulus normally due to a substance produced by females. Larvae exposed to females or their secretions thus metamorphose into males, while those that are not metamorphose into females. However, some larvae become intersexes (individuals showing a mosaic of male and female characteristics) and others stay permanently undifferentiated; both these types cannot reproduce and soon die." (pages 1-2 of the pdf)

Again, although I am no sort of expert, I would say this has nothing to do with adelphoparasitism at all: both the examples given produce different sexes, but for entirely different reasons.

Therefore I would say (as a complete non-expert) that the 'Adelphoparasitism' section is slightly misleading at best because it doesn't explain the difference between mated and unmated females in the wasps, and the worms reproduce through an entirely different non-parasitic mechanism. I suggest you should definitely post a question on the talk page, citing my answer if you like, or even make the changes yourself if you feel confident. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't think I understand the concept enough to make the changes but I'll try doing some more research on the topic. Feralcateater000 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any "preening" like behavior in animals?

I really like "preening" behavoir concept in birds. Is there any alike behavoir in animals? Rizosome (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The very first line of the preening article states "For similar behaviour in other animals, see Personal grooming." A fairly obvious hatnote in that aricle points to Social grooming for the general topic among various animals. Go read it. DMacks (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As birds are animals, I am rather confused by your question.--Khajidha (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Scraping fat from animal skin

Why did Neanderthals use their teeth as shown here for scraping off the fat from animal skin, instead of just holding the skin on the ground and doing the scraping on the ground? Count Iblis (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

[Note: People in the UK won't be able to view this clip, because Warner Bros. International have blocked it on copyright grounds. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The voice-over commentary states, "The mother first scrapes off fat and sinews with a sharp flint blade. She uses her teeth as a vice" ("vise" for USians) (4:26–4:44). The latter, apparently, to hold the skin taut (stretching it between her mouth and one hand while holding the blade in her other hand), without which the scraping action is ineffective. Holding the skin on the ground would require a surface that is flat, smooth and hard; also, it might damage the skin and the blade more easily.  --Lambiam 19:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent research suggests that early modern humans used this "third hand" too - Like Neanderthals, early modern humans used their teeth as tools. Alansplodge (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we've stopped doing that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Does Covid immunity cross-protect against MERS?

In this century, we've seen three seriously scary coronavirus-induced diseases; namely SARS (which we should probably now call SARS 1), MERS, and Covid-19 (aka SARS 2). The last time I looked, it seems like SARS 1 has vanished or nearly -- I couldn't find much reference to it after 2017 at the latest. But I gather that MERS is still sort of hanging around with the odd case now and then.

Has there been any study of whether Covid immunity, either natural or vaccine-induced, has any protective value against MERS? Is there any theoretical reason to expect that it does or does not? --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "SARS 1" should be renamed COVID-02, just like some use the moniker COVID-12 for MERS. According to the article Betacoronavirus, "The receptor usage is not very conserved; for example, among Sarbecovirus, only a sub-lineage containing SARS share the ACE2 receptor." This is formulated somewhat fuzzily; I thought that the subgenus of the sarbecoviruses was the same as the lineage formed by the SARS-CoV strains. If my interpretation of the (unsourced) statement is correct that it means the ACE2 receptor is only found, among the betacoronaviruses, for SARS viruses, then this implies that vaccine-induced COVID immunity (based on this receptor) will not offer protection against MERS.  --Lambiam 10:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, "Covid-12" strikes me as an infelicitous name, given that it's more distantly related to Covid (I'm not going to keep putting 19; that's just silly) than the latter is to SARS. I would go with SARS-1, MERS, and SARS-2.

Anyway I'm not sure I see the relevance of the receptor. The vaccines target the spike protein, and it seems to me that the real question is to what extent the circulating antibodies bind to (or the killer T-cells detect) the MERS spike protein if they're tuned for the Covid one. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The relevance is that ACE2 receptor is what the spike protein binds to with SARS-CoV-2. If MERS spikes aren't binding to ACE2, that suggests a significantly different structure to their spike protein. If that is the case, it would also suggest that COVID19 vaccines would have limited or no effectiveness at conferring immunity to MERS. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

According to this article, MERS spike proteins bind to DPP4 receptors, and not ACE2 receptors. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is unlikely as even the anti-body responses to SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 are not mutually cross-protective. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Though disease induced responses, which are directed against proteins other than spike, can be cross-protective. Ruslik_Zero 19:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 9

Vacuum activity in humans

The article on displacement activity mentions humans have them and gives examples. The article on vacuum activity does not mentions humans. Do humans have vacuum activities? Examples? --Error (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Watching cat videos on YouTube? Many people cannot sit still for an extended time; they get up every know and then and walk a few steps before sitting down again. Others may call them "restless". (The behaviour may be advantageous to the organism, but is not elicited by a stimulus.) But is this an "innate fixed action pattern" (FAP)? As far as I am aware, no FAPs have been reported for the genus Homo, and to be classified a "vacuum activity", the behaviour must be that of an FAP.  --Lambiam 10:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I can barely sit still for 15 minutes without fapping. Honestly, I could be watching TV and the adverts come on and it's fap fap fap. Thank God for smartphones. Those little screens are a real boon for frequent fappers like me. nagualdesign 20:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary: fap (verb).  --Lambiam 08:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• See also fidgeting. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

How can we see light of UV lamp ?

UV is not in our range of visible spectrum. But How can we see light of UV lamp ? Rizosome (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Most consumer-level UV lamps also emit in the visible range. DMacks (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

See blacklight. Essentially, most "UV lamps" are light sources that are not monochromatic, and therefore they emit light over a range of wavelengths. In the case of black lights, even if most of the light is in the UV, some is in the visible. A mercury vapor fluorescent tube black light, for example, while blocking most visible light from the mercury emission, fails to block the 404 nm, giving the violet glow appearance. I imagine this is somewhat intentional, since the UV given by these lights is not that great for unprotected human eyes, and by having the purple glow, you know when the lamp is on or off. Not that traditional fluorescent tubes, the ones commonly used to every day room light, are also mercury vapor lamps. The reason they put out visible light and not UV light is because the glass tubes have been intentionally made to block UV and allow visible, otherwise they too would emit UV light. This is actually not that hard to do; glass in general is poor at transmitting UV light and you need specially made glass to pass UV, such as Wood's glass (which is great at letting UV and IR, but blocks most visible, so good for black lights), or quartz glass, which is commonly used for optics and cuvettes in spectroscopy as it transmits UV light much more efficiently than traditional glass, but also works well with visible light. When I need to determine protein concentrations in samples lacking a chromophore, I will commonly use quartz cuvettes and measure in the ultraviolet, making use of the UV absorption of aromatic amino acids. Back to black lights, as I said, in general, these light sources are not monochromatic, and so emit light that isn't just UV. The exception to this would be lasers, but UV lasers are not very common. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks: I am asking how can we see it? Rizosome (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We have answered you. What part of the answer did you not understand? Honestly, this is getting very tiresome, as you seem to not read any of our answers to you. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: I find it too technical your edit is. Rizosome (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

DMacks answer was not the least bit technical. What part of it did you not understand, since you directly referenced them? Frankly, I'm not buying it, as you've been given simple answers before and still ignore them. Black lights do not emit just UV light. They are not monochromatic light sources. A fluorescent tube black light, for example, also emits visible 404 nm violet light. Please tell me what part of this statement you do not understand. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: I am not asking about black lights, my question related to UV lamp only. Rizosome (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rizosome:, "black light" is a colloquial name for the UV lamps that you can visibly see a purple color, but fine, I'll reword this so you hopefully understand it. UV lamps, if you can see them, do not emit just UV light. They are not monochromatic light sources. A fluorescent tube UV lamp, for example, in addition to UV light, also emits visible 404 nm violet light. Please tell me what part of this statement you do not understand. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra:So we are seeing 404 nm violet light when UV lamp works? Rizosome (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rizosome: If you are talking about seeing the bulb of a UV light. Short answer is yes. Longer answer visible light is from around 400 nm to 700nm. If you read the article on blacklight you will see that most of their spectrum is below 400nm but there is a secondary peak at 404 nm from mercury. If you are talking about when you hold the light over an object in the dark and then you can see it, then read the article on fluorescence. Dja1979 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dja1979:, your answer is likely too technical for @Rizosome:, who does not understand that there is no singular thing called a "UV lamp," and that blacklights are a type of UV lamp. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

May 10

is Vanessa Ferrari a dwarfism?

PROOF! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Ferrari she was 146 cm which means only a centimeter threshold to get away from dwarfism PROOF! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism under 147 cm is for male while the female is for under 137 cm, did you catch up the statement? Oh no...! 146cm means looks like either the beast number 666 or 1946 car one year after ww2 is over.

I don't even know Vanessa Ferrari needs some hormone growth syringe shot. Vanessa Ferrari was a growth hormone deficiency because of almost reached the 147 cm pituitary gland goal.

almost... more like the alamo in texas! Cyberllamamusic (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)