Science desk
< September 22	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 23

Follow-ups to the Kinsey Reports...

I've always been a huge fan of the Kinsey Reports (once upon a time they helped me realise that I was bisexual) and always had the greatest respect for them as science. My question is this: there must have been subsequent studies on the same scale regarding human sexual behaviour, right? I mean, they came out more than 50 years ago now, someone must have done similar studies since. It's not like it's an insignificant area of study. But I've never really heard of any, people always just quote Kinsey's stats (like the one about 10% of males being exclusively homosexual). It's not that I don't think his findings are incorrect (quite the opposite), it would just be nice to have some confirmation. Have subsequent science generally confirmed his results? 83.249.113.29 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's always Masters and Johnson. Most scientists are afraid to study this area, however, as they may be thought of as perverts and belittled by their associates. StuRat 02:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still that taboo? Seriously? I thought this was a whole field now :S 83.249.113.29 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's taboo in a different way. Other scientists will think "Oh, they just want to get some cheap headlines and be asked onto Oprah, they aren't REAL scientists". And would you rather tell your parents you study to find cures for cancer or study why people perform analingus ? StuRat 02:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pah! Studying analingus is for pussies. If you want to reap the whirlwind, these are the guys you should work with. [1] Rockpocket 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those researchers established that pedophiles are less turned on by adult porn, that deserves a big fat "WELL, DUH !". Is there going to be a brilliant follow-up that attempts to show that they are attracted to children ? StuRat 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sayin', it's a pretty fundamental part of human behaviour, it's something that should be studied intensely. 83.249.113.29 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious problem when the thing that is doing the studying (ie one or more human beings) is also the subject that is being studied (humanity). There is a certain 'uncertainty principle' to this. The observer watching a human mating ritual will both embarass the participants - and get somewhat aroused himself/herself. This is simply guaranteed to skew the results. Secretly monitoring such behaviours with hidden TV cameras (which might be one way to avoid perturbing normal behavior if one were studying - say Chimpanzees) is a crime when you try to do it with humans! Maintaining a unbiassed view is impossible - especially when taboos are being violated and things that one has a strong inclination to do in private have to be done in public in order for measurements to be made. People routinely lie about sex - so merely surveying them without actual observation is meaningless too. It is highly doubtful that any of these studies are ever really good science - or that the results will be widely accepted - for precisely that reason. This isn't just to do with sex. We cannot study (for example) genetic differences between people with skins containing different proportions of melanin because we have a taboo on saying things like "Black people can run faster than white people". A scientist wishing to study the genetic basis of some significant parameter such as intelligence is going to find it very hard to publish results honestly if they come out with controversial results. The reason scientists are reluctant to work in these fields is simply a realisation that one cannot do good science or publish honest results in these fields. The reason other scientist disparage the results is the honest realisation that these 'findings' are pretty much guaranteed to be wrong. SteveBaker 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. StuRat 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, there are plenty of scientists who study human sexuality. There are academic programs in it at many universities and they are not bereft of members. I'm not sure why you seem to think it is taboo or that any of them are afraid of being seen as headline seekers, but I don't really think you know what you're talking about. Google "human sexuality site:.edu" and you'll find many such programs, professional organizations, and other resources. --24.147.86.187 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely studies into human sexuality. However as others pointed out, this doesn't mean their research doesn't sometimes attract controversy and ridicule. For example, when one group received a grant for research involving 'the hustler, the modern orgasm' and 'the sexual culture of Auckland' it was used by the opposition party here to attack the funding process [2]. While the attack itself had little to do with the research, the fact it was used as an example of potentially poor quality research shows IMHO on reason why perhaps people may be reluctant to study this area. (To be fair, in some cases their choice of titles may not help.) Admitedly in this case IIRC the attack back fired and I'm pretty sure that the politician who made the attack backtracked and said something like as a doctor he knew of the importance of the orgasm and wasn't saying it was unimportant. (Indeed if you look at a more recent response he's a lot more careful not to attack any specific project [3]) Nil Einne 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth FHSS sync

Any idea how do frequency hop devices get synchronised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.240.252 (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Frequency-hopping spread spectrum article suggests that the receiver and transmitter have a shared order of hopping. The receiver simply listens to a single channel until it hears the transmitter come by. Then, they can stay synchronized from then on. --Mdwyer 05:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color wheel

Why does the color wheel explain color perception and mixing, when obviously different colors are at different points on a linear spectrum? For example, why does the mixture of red and blue appear purple, when purple is a shorter wavelength than either red or blue? Calliopejen1 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I just figured this out for myself at Color circle and Spectral color. How did I never learn that purple and violet aren't the same, or that purple is not a spectral color? Any other explanatory comments are welcome, if you have good thoughts that aren't at those two pages... Calliopejen1 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has more to do with the way our eyes perceive colors than with the colors themselves. Take a look at our article on color perception. — Kieff | Talk 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you are talking about 'purple' and 'violet' or about 'colour wheels' you are talking about human perception of colour. In the underlying physics of the thing there is simply frequency of light - and it's a straight line, not a circle. You have red at the low frequency end of the spectrum and blue at the high frequency end. The idea that you see 'violet' in a rainbow or a spectrum is a myth. The idea of a colour 'wheel' is a convenient way to represent how humans see colours. We can only truly see three colours - red, green and blue. Everything else that we percieve (including white, yellow, cyan and magenta - which is the fancy scientific name for purples, violets and such) is a mixture of red, green and blue perception. When we see yellow light, our eyes produce a weak response from the red detector and a weak response from green - and our brains have learned (rightly or wrongly) to interpret this as yellow. Cyan (sky blue, baby blue) is a mixture of green and blue and magenta is a mixture of red and blue. There is a certain circularity of the perception of colour red-yellow-green-cyan-blue-magenta-red forms a nice 'spectrum' that you can lay out in a circle - and red through blue correspond reasonably well to the linear frequency of the light. But the 'colour' magenta/violet/purple is not a 'real' single frequency colour in nature - it doesn't appear anywhere on a spectrum of white light split up using a prism for example. It's purely an artifact of how our eyes/brain see a mixture of red and blue light. The colour 'wheel' is still useful as a way of talking about complementary colours (technically: 'hues') and other 'artistic' concepts - and it's even sometimes used in fields such as computer graphics (although not as often as a red/green/blue description which matches both how our eyes percieve colour and how a computer monitor displays it). One should not use a colour wheel concept to describe colour for scientific purposes unless one is strictly talking about human colour perception (and even then, it should only be applied to "normal" human vision because it is totally inapplicable to people who are colour blind or tetrachromats). SteveBaker 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, Steve, but you need to work on being more concise. Maybe breaking it up into paragraphs would help. Anyway, see also CIE 1931 color space#The CIE xy chromaticity diagram and Metamerism. —Keenan Pepper 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his answer lacked concision. It was fact-dense and answered the question fully. --Sean 14:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he was right about the paragraph thing...I'll work to improve on that. SteveBaker 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How were Telegraph Relays (c1890s) used?

I have an antique telegraph relay, known as a ‘Pony Relay’ that has an electromagnet coil that acts on a hinged moving contact with a silver contact on each side, much like any relay. It has two external binding post terminals for the coil and two binding post terminals for the contacts. Also similar to SPDT relays, it has two thumbwheel adjustable stationary (also silver) contacts. The adjustments vary the space between the contacts, and can also adjust the space between the electromagnet and the iron part of the moving contact. When the coil is not energized, the moving contact is pulled against stationary contact A by a thumbwheel adjustable spring. When the coil is energized, the moving contact lands on stationary contact B. These can often be seen for sale on eBay.

It seems strange to me that both the stationary contacts are mounted on (screwed into) a single metal inverted U-shaped support so that both A and B are electrically connected together. In fact, there are only two external connections to the relay contacts, the moving contact and the support for both stationary contacts, A and B. The coil contacts are isolated.

At the instant when the coil current is turned on, or off, there is a brief (maybe 50 mS?) interruption in continuity (depending on adjustments) while the moving contact is making the transition from terminal A to terminal B. Otherwise, (obviously) there is always continuity between the contact binding post terminals whether the coil is energized or not.

So how is this used in telegraph circuits?

John 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pony relay appears to have been used as an amplifier or to connect together two lines with different battery voltages. If the two contacts on the U are indeed connected, then the relay would appear to perform pulse regeneration. Over the miles of cable the pulse would be weakened and spread out. A relay like this could sharpen up the pulses for retransmission. Does that make any sense?--88.109.137.161 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, I expect pulse regeneration must have been the objective, but the output isn't a copy of the input. Remember that when the coil pulse is on, the relay is closed; when the coil pulse is off, the relay is closed too. Only during the instant when the coil pulse was changing state (either on to off, or off to on) does the relay create a brief interruption in continuity. The contact pulses of continuity would not appear to copy the coil pulses, but it would sort of give the absolute value of the differential of the coil pulses, if you are a math person. I must be wrong somehow.

The pulses that telegraph lines transported in 1899 were dots and dashes of current in the wire from a telegraph key to a sounder. Current flowed during the dot or dash, and none flowed between a dot or a dash. I would have expected it to require a conventional SPST relay to ‘amplify’ that. At 20 WPM, a dot should be around 100 ms and a dash lasts several times as long as a dot, easily followed by this relay. But it isn’t a SPST, it is not SPDT either. Its weird. For a normal SPST relay, the coil would simply energize during dots and dashes, and open between. The B contact only closest to the coil would duplicate that for a different circuit. But there is no electrical way to isolate it from the A contact. (Unless the A contact was not supposed to be silver, but an insulator?) I wish I could see evidence of that on this or other pony relays I’ve seen for sale, but not. John 06:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the current to the coil is interrupted, there is a brief interruption (you say 50ms) in the output circuit. Therefore the interruption pulse is sharpened up, no? How you can transmit dots and dashes is not clear. Im just wondering why, if the U connects the two contacts, why do you need two contacts (unless you connected two separate pieces of wire) --88.109.137.161 09:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This: http://www.qsl.net/n6tt/bunn12.html is a link to a picture of a Brunell Pony Relay where mine is a Western Electric, but shows the inverted U contact support.

Actually, when the current in the coil is interrupted, (turned off then back on) the output circuit current is interrupted twice, once for each of the coil transitions. When the coil goes off then back on, the points are interrupted: blip...blip. I am don't claim two contacts are needed, they are just there; my wondering why was the motivation for this post. John 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its difficult to see what is happening from that and other photos. Do you have a high res photo you could upload to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.177.44 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Fig 22 in this link any better?: http://www.telegraph-history.org/bunnell-tel-elec-catalog/page13.htm

John 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whell! not really to be honest! when I use my magnifier on it, the detail just isn't any better. Im trying to help but I just cant figure out how this damn relay works (or is intended to work) without seeing a detail high res image.--88.111.177.44 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took photos:

John 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah excellent photos. Now looking at your close up of the contact arrangement, my opinion is that the knurled screws and their locking nuts to the left and right are merely intended to adjust the spacing from the armature (perhaps you knew that) They are NOT for connecting anything to. So, where is the U shaped piece connected electrically?--88.110.253.34 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that when the relay is not energized (no current in the coils) the armature (moving contact) is touching the left hand fixed contact (because of the spring). If a pulse of current is received, the secondary circuit will momentarily be broken, then made. When the input pulse has finished, the secondary circuit will again be broken and then made again so you get two breaks in the secondary current for every pulse passed in the coils. This seems strange for a relay operation.--88.110.253.34 03:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange indeed. So, how does this work in a telegraph circuit? John 05:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over many web pages on these and similar things, It seems as though it might have an additional purpose as a telegraph sounder. A quick succession of 2 clicks is a dot, and a longer time between would be a dash. The operator could adjust the timing with the adjustment screws is my guess. This still does not answer the Q of how it acts as a relay though. --88.110.17.120 12:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would work ok as a sounder, but if the coil received ".-.." the electrical output (assuming the U shaped piece and the movable armature were connected in series with a local circuit) would be a continuous current with very brief interruptions between each dot and dash. If the normally closed contact were actually an electrical insulator, then it could be used as a relay. I looked for 19th century telegraphy handbooks on Google Book Search and found pictures of similar pony relays, but no explanation of how they were useful other than as sounders. Edison 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Engineer, Catskill Mountain Telegraph Company says: One of the contacts, the one away from the electromagnets on the 'U' has a small piece of ivory on it to isolate it from the electrical current in the U. When surrent activates the magnets, the arm is pulled to the closer, non-insulated contact and the connection is made for the current to pass from the U through the armature and down the line. I've restored these for the Catskill Mountain Telegraph Company Women in Technology-19th Century project. Once adjusted, you can get a very high speed response out of these relays.

Main line current on telegrah lines was anywhere between 18 to 60 volts, while office circuits were frequently 4-8 volts as it was powered by local battery sources. The relay, high ohm and very sensitive, would take the pulses from the main line and convert them to office or local circuit pulses. See History, Theory and Practice of Electric Telegraphy, Prescott, 1866

Gq protein

What does the q in Gq protein mean? Is it an abbreviation for something? --89.27.225.143 07:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gq protein" is short for "guanine nucleotide binding protein, q polypeptide pseudogene" = Nunh-huh 10:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unlikely, since a pseudogene doesn't encode a protein. The pseudogene is more likely to have been named after the q polypeptide. So what was the q polypeptide named for? Well, the first paper to describe G_αq is PMID 2123549. Reading that paper the authors explain the named the class, but don't explicitly say why. However, as is often the case, if your read the material and methods, you find hints. They say that the sequence of G_αq was obtained from two clones, Gq3 and Gq7. It appears these clones are named for the PCR primers used to make the clones from the cDNA library. So unless these were all re-named retroactively, its may simply be that the protein was named as such because the primer sets that cloned them had reached q in the alphabet. Rockpocket 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing experiments: practical considerations

Apparently it's important for people to be able to replicate the experimental outcomes of published journal articles. I have some questions about this. Where does the (time and) money come from to support these investigations (can you write a research proposal that just suggests repeating experiments - does it help (or is it necessary) to suggest a different methodolgy to test the same hypothesis)? Is the information publishable if you determine the same thing as the original authors? Do you pick and choose which experiments to replicate based on plausability of original paper/discovery? --Seans Potato Business 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reaearch program aimed at simply and straightforwardly replicating a science experiment or series of experiments would be unlikely to get research funding from the boards who award research grants. It would be unlikely to be approved as the basis for a doctoral dissertation, or to be published in a quality journal. A way around this is to note a possible defect in the methodology of the original experiment and do a replication with improved methods to confirm the result is valid. For instance, Hertz did important experiments in the nature of electromagnetc waves, but he had metal columns in the lab, which might have effected the results. A replication might have been done to see the results still reached the same conclusions when a space free of obstructions was used. There are also important experiments which go a step further. When someone publishes his amazing experiment showing hitherto unknown effects, he may have had an experimental confound, i.e. he may have had an uncontrolled variable which actually caused the amazing effect (like someone serving as a confederate, or simply peeking to produce ESP results). There has also been poor experimental practice and actual fraud. A replication which shows that with the poor experimental practice the effect is replicated, but with improved methodology it goes away, is a very valuable sort of follow-up experiment. Then there is the experiment which first replicates the original result, perhaps with improved methodology, then carries it further to explore additional ramifications. One good experiment usually calls for another to confirm and extend it. In a good research lab, the senior investigator may start off a new grad student doing a replication. This is a cross-check to make sure the original result from that or a different lab is robust and valid, and it also shows that the new researcher is not too careless or sloppy to carry out the experiment correctly. There is a long sad history in science of jealous competitors announcing that new effects are irreproducible, often due to the poor technique of the followup researcher. Edison 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely would one set out to simply replicate the experiments of others for that purpose in itself. For groundbreaking technical work, like for example nuclear transfer followed by cloning of mammals, one might set out exactly replicate simply because reporting that different people the ability to do the technique is itself important. Also, using different methods to achieve the same, previously published, finding can itself sometimes be published if the finding is unusual, controversial or fundamental.

However, most of the time replication of initial experiments would be the starting point for further experiments to progress the field. So, Figure 1 of a paper may partly be a replication of previously published data, because you need to establish that - in your hands - you see the same results. Your further figures will be new data based on what you have demonstrated in Figure 1. Other times data is replicated is to compare and contrast with new data. Recently my lab was asked to replicate the data of others during the peer review process, to compare our new findings with theirs. In this case, we were using a a different methodology, so the goal was to show to show that the different methods gave the same results. Finally, replication of data is often an important scientific control. Rockpocket 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rabies and E coli

what is the first line of defence in the body against rabies and e coli? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.19.182 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like a homework question, and we don't answer homework questions here. However, we can offer hints. So, the first line of biological defence is usually some sort of physical barrier. To determine what type of barrier, have a read of Rabies#Transmission and symptoms and E. coli#Role in disease. Rockpocket 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The avoidance of dogs which foam at the mouth and raw ground beef or bagged salad greens. Edison 04:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "planets" and "stars"

[This might be obvious to the better-informed out there, but I haven't been able to find the answer worded clearly enough for me. My apologies in advance.]

Is the difference between a "star" and a "planet" purely a matter of mass, or is there something else involved? For example, if you had a cube that was 70 Earths long in each dimension, you could fit 343,000 Earths in that cube. That's about as much mass as the Sun. (Slightly more, to be more precise.) Would this cube of Earths collapse together and start stellar fusion automatically? Or would something besides "this much mass in this much volume" be required for a star to be created? Does the mass of this "potential star" need to be made up of specific elements (only hydrogen and helium, for example), or would a solar-mass body with the same proportions of elements as the Earth become a star just by virtue of its mass?

Thank you very much. CSWarren 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually fusion is required before some object is called a star. The earth is primarily made of iron. I doubt that an object the size of the sun made primarily of iron would undergo sustained fusion. There are border cases when hydrogen gas planets become stars. See Brown dwarf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.32.213 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get objects the mass of the Sun made up of iron (except possibly a supernova remnant). There is very little iron in the universe compared with hydrogen and helium, so, if you had that much iron, you would likely have 1000 times as much hydrogen and helium in the same place, and wouldn't even notice the iron in the star (or perhaps black hole, at that mass). Only low mass collections of iron (planets) are able to form without having enough gravitational attraction to pull in and hold all the hydrogen and helium around them. StuRat 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a planet and a star is that a star produces energy by sustained fusion - planets do not. As to whether a star can burn iron - our article on Stellar evolution explains this very clearly - a REALLY big star will fuse hydrogen into helium, then helium, carbon, neon, oxygen, silicon and eventually, iron. But as the article points out: Once the nucleosynthesis process arrives at iron-56, the continuation of this process consumes energy (the addition of fragments to nuclei releases less energy than required to break them off the parent nuclei). - so the star can't live by iron alone - it has to be generating energy from some other source. A star that's big enough to fuse iron would soon afterwards collapse under it's own weight into a neutron star or a black hole or something equally exotic. SteveBaker 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burning a Volleyball

Purely theoretical, but assuming an Olympic-regulation volleyball in a gym with a constant air temeprature of 20 degress Celsius and a barometric pressure equal of that at sea level, how much of an impact force or energy would a player need to hit the ball with in order to set the ball on fire from air friction? Thanks. Acceptable 16:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly enough that the ball would explode way before it ever got near those kinds of speeds. --Oskar 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more likely that the heat generated by the impact of the paddle would light it on fire? I'm pretty certain the ball would explode even before that speed. — Daniel 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Paddle"?? How do you play volleyball? --jjron 09:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, I suspect it would be close to impossible to propel a volleyball to such a speed that it would ignite due to air friction no matter how you did it, much less simply being hit by a player. I'm trying to think if you tried dropping it in from space or something, but I can't really see how it would happen. Mythbusters anyone? --jjron 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impale it on an aerospike? --Sean 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question presupposes some unlikely things. If there's a speed at which a volleyball in air would burn from air friction, I doubt you could get there by hitting it. By the time you whacked it that hard, I bet you'd break it. (I suspect this is what Oskar was saying.) Friday (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some hard-to-come-by empirical data needed here (volleyball minimum combustion velocity), then a few basic calculations, to come up with the minimum energy. Taking a case where we could be pretty sure it would burn up, I assume that a volleyball would heat up and burn like an ill-fated space shuttle if it travelled through the air at, say 12,500 mph (5.6 km/s), like the Space Shuttle Columbia on its final mission, although a lesser velocity would probably suffice, especially in the denser air specified. The mass of the Volleyball (ball) is 260 to 280 grams. Take .27kg as the average. The kinetic energy at 5600 m/s would be 1/2 *(.27kg)*(5600m/s)² or 4233600 Joule. This much energy applied to an inflated rubber ball would cause it to combust nicely, although it would likely burst and be knocked into small fragments, unless the acceleration were over a longer path than a human is able to achieve. Now what force would propel it to that velocity in a distance of , say 1/2 meter, in contact with a Superman fist, if F=MA? Edison 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying the calc farther (and with no guarantees of the soundness of the underlying analysis or of the calculations), if force times distance equals work equals the kinetic energy of the ball travelling at 56oo meters/sec, then to push it to that velocity in .5 meter of fist contact would require 4.2 x 10⁶ Joule divided by .5 meter= 8.4 x 10⁶ N of force. The required acceleration would be this force divided by the mass of the ball , or (8.4 x 10⁶ N)/(.27kg)=3.1 x 10⁷ meter/second². The minimum combustion velocity might be slower than stated, and the contact distance might be shorter in normal volleyball play. Edison 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trachea

I'm looking for a few good pictures of the Trachea and the parts that are on the trachea that is related to phonation, like where the vocal folds are, arytenoid cartilages are show, the hyoid bone and it's features, things of that sort. I don't mind if it's computer generated or an actual dissection picture. The better labeled it is the more help it'll be for me. Thanks! --Agester 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a Google image search ? I found over 53,000 images, one of those should be good: [4]. StuRat 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But i can't exactly find what i'm looking for. I spent the last half hour searching and it's a little fustrating. I came here after i tried looking maybe someone more talented or already have an image might be able to point me in the right direction. The "trachea" search with google images shows the trachea specifically. I'm looking for the parts of the trachea and the phonatory system. --Agester 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try using multiple keywords. I just tried "trachea arytenoid hyoid vocal" (without the quotes) and got this: [5]. StuRat 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please answer my questions (iron and sulphur)

What is change simply of iron and sulphur? please answer my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.83.104 (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer we need:

1) To understand it, what are you trying to ask ?

2) To find it, so I altered the title to actually mention the topic. StuRat 16:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron and sulphur are both chemical elements, so in a sense they don't change. Perhaps reading the articles on those subjects will answer your question.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They could change to other elements during supernova explosions, but not on Earth, unless you're talking about a few atoms in a particle accelerator. StuRat 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you meant chemical reaction between iron and sulpur which gives Iron (II) sulphide as well as possibly Iron (II) disulphide or polysulphides depending on the ratio of iron and sulphur.87.102.17.252 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is not clear enough to answer it. It is unclear because the words "change" and "simply" are too vague and may not be used properly in English. John 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mis-spelled and meant to ask about charge states when electrons are added or removed from an atom? Astronaut 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisocial personality disorder

I read this article long time ago and it said one of its symptoms was frequent wet-dream and now its not there anymore. Why did you change it? Was it the wrong information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.122 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there, under the section potential markers. A.Z. 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. A wet dream is not the same as bed wetting. Rockpocket 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm betting the original comment that you read was vandalism and someone discovered that and reverted it. It's also possible that this was some wild and unsubstantiated claim that could not be verified with solid references...and for something as unlikely-sounding as this, that would be ample grounds for deleting it. But you can check the edit history, find out who deleted it and ask them why. SteveBaker 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverse culture shock ?

i looked up culture shock and then reverse culture shock and i believe that i fully understood both of them . my question is what do you call it when you have not gone to a foreign country , but have an influx of foreigners (all from the same country) come to your country and try to implement their way of life and language upon you . at first i thought that it would be classified as reverse culture shock but after reading your definition i know that's not it . would it still be called culture shock or is there another term that is used ? thank you 68.161.197.95 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)dg[reply]

Sounds a lot like colonization. StuRat 21:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be xenophobia, but that term is usually used with a negative or pejorative connotation. Nimur 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural imperialism. Clarityfiend 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of our answers so far seem to include the case where poor immigrants (or even refuges) enter a country, then "take over" by numbers alone. StuRat 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anything even close to that ever happened anywhere? There's a lot of talk about 'those bloody foreigners' (nowadays called 'allochtonen') 'taking over the Netherlands' these days, but even if you count second generation immigrants, they constitute roughly 10% of the population, so that's still very far from 'taking over by numbers'. Also, they come from all over the world, so it's not like they constitute one single culture, as was stipulated in the question. DirkvdM 16:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Southwestern US something like that is happening with Hispanics immigrating (both legally and illegally) from Mexico and all points south. Of course, they were dominant in the region before the Mexican-American War, and now they are becoming dominant again. StuRat 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's a part of the US, not a whole country, so it depends on what we are talking about. But even at a state level that sounds unlikely. California and Texas are huge states. But even Arizona has a population of 5 million and New Mexico has 2 million. So we're talking about the emigration of millions of people into those states. Unless you're just talking about towns in the border regions. But then, as you point out, many 'original' locals will have a Latin background already, and there must have been a lot of contact with Mexico in those regions, so there won't be too much of a culture shock. I don't suppose that is what the questioneer was asking about. DirkvdM 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hispanic population of the US is on the order of 60 million, so that the non-Hispanic population can be easily overwhelmed in those areas, like the Southwest US, where Hispanic immigration is concentrated. StuRat 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume those are not immigration figures but the Hispanics that already live in the US. If so, then they probably already form a majority in some southern border areas. And if that is the case, then they would not constitute an 'alien' culture but the dominant culture. So people of northern European descent moving there would constitute such a cultural invasion. I just realise that this can also happen within a country, especially one as big as the US. It doesn't have to be foreign immigration. At least, that's how I understand it is perceived in the US. You speaking about fellow countrymen as 'Hispanics' sounds a bit strange to European ears. We don't really consider Spanish to be so very different. If a Dutch family would have people with Spanish ancestry (or even actual Spaniards) moving in next door, that would draw little attention. I mean, they wouldn't be considered very alien. Now if their ancestors would come from just a little further south, that would be an entirely different matter. :) DirkvdM 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cultural diffs between Hispanics and the "average" American. They are overwhelmingly Catholic, speak another language, and have male-dominated families (machismo). And, those which come to the US tend to be uneducated and poor, leading to the creation of a permanent underclass (along with blacks). (Rich, well-educated Hispanics tend to stay in their home countries.) StuRat 00:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now. I was talking about Hispanics in the US. So 'their home country' is the US. Anyway, whether they or the immigrants are rich or poor is irrelevant to the question at hand. Also, I was talking about those parts of the US where they constitute the dominant culture, as you indicated. That they differ from the average citizen of the whole of the US is not relevant for the region. Keep in mind that you started talking about regional, as opposed to national, cultures. DirkvdM 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "country of their ethnic origin" would be a better term. Many people of Cuban descent, even those born in the US, still call themselves Cuban-Americans, for example. Those border states mentioned originally had a predominantly Hispanic culture, but that was replaced by a predominantly Anglo-Saxon culture after the Mexican-American War. This happened in many ways. Some Hispanics were driven out (either to the "country of their ethnic origin" or to other states where they were a less numerous minority), while others became integrated with the dominant culture, by learning English, etc.

Now, however, large numbers of new immigrants have arrived and the culture of those border states is thus changing from Anglo-Saxon to Hispanic, with Spanish being spoken widely, Hispanic holidays being celebrated publicly (like Cinco de Mayo and The Day of the Dead) and many other changes.

Now for my own moral judgment. I feel that it was wrong for the US to suppress Hispanic culture after the Mexican-American War, but also feel that any society has the right to preserve that society from massive changes by influxes of immigrants. The best method to preserve the existing society is to limit immigration to a trickle which will then be properly integrated. Those immigrants which are not interested in integration, but rather want to replace the current society with their own, should not be allowed in and/or should be deported. In Europe, those Muslims who immigrate with the intent is to establish Sharia law, should be deported, in my opinion. StuRat 16:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of Hispanics absorbing Anglo-Saxon culture and that leads me to an important thought on this issue. Only when cultures that have had little or no everyday (!) contact meet is there likely to be a real clash. People who come form just across the border into an area that has in recent history been politically and demographically united is not really a basis for a serious culture clash. In contrast, take the Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands. The Ottoman Empire and the Mores have for centuries been considered a great threat to Europe, and there has been little normal contact. Turkey has westernised a lot recently, but most immigrants come from rural areas that haven't. And some neighbourhoods have a large non-western population, so that is more like what the questioneer was asking about. Then again, I've lived in such a neighbourhood and didn't see any problems, but that's me.

About deporting immigrants, that is rather harsh (read illegal and certainly immoral) if they were invited over, as was the case in the Netherlands in the seventies and eighties. If they do anything against the law, then they should be punished the same was as any other Dutch citizens. If it isn't (such as living by the traditions of their ancestors) then why shouldn't they. About that handful who might want to change Dutch law in accordance with Sharia law, they are welcome to try through democratic means. Which, of course will not succeed. If they live by it, then it all depends on whether it is in accordance with existing law. Whether is was clever to let in so many immigrants from one specific very different culture is an entirely different matter, but once you've done it, you should live with the consequences and not blame them or their children. DirkvdM 09:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) What to do with existing immigrants brought in under liberal rules is one issue, but I was saying that new immigrants should have to sign an agreement to integrate with the existing society. Those which show no interest in that, and instead want to abolish democracy and set up a Sharia law dictatorship, possibly by violence, should be found to have lied on their immigration application and should be deported. StuRat 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the focus on sharia? Is that such a big issue in the US? Some have mentioned that here in the Netherlands, but it was pretty much laughed away (at least by some) because in real society it is no issue at all. For example, an attempt to set up a muslim party was abolished because it looked like they wouldn't get a single seat in parliament. Considering that if all muslims would have voted for them they would have won about 10 seats, that is a nice indication of the 'fanaticism' of muslims in the Netherlands. :) But I suppose you don't mean just sharia or islam in general. Anyway, demanding more 'allegiance' (if that's the right word) of immigrants than of locally born citizens sounds a bit dodgy, although I can understand it. If there is an indication that someone will not fit in you will scrutinise them more. But one could also reason that if someone someone decides to move to a different country they really want to live there. And in reality, most problems with 'allochtonen' in the Netherlands are not with the original immigrants, who indeed have a reputation of being hard workers, but with their children, most of whom are in their teens now. Teenagers being teenagers, it's fairly normal that they stir up things a bit. But if on top of that they are more or less split between two cultures and the culture they live in even treats them badly (especially since the big fuzz about the 2001 attacks on the US), it's actually surprising that the large Turkish group don't cause more troubles (the talk is mostly about children of Moroccan ancestry). Anyway, the problem with your proposal in this case is that it's not the immigrants that are a problem, so your 'trick' won't work. Or were you thinking of a different sort of specific situation? DirkvdM 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerology

Is numerology considered a science? Or can it be considered as a science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.81.196 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most would say "no". It is considered a form of pseudomathematics. Rockpocket 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though, the similarly named (but entirely different) discipline of number theory is a ~~real~~complex and reputable form of mathematics. Nimur 22:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it stop at complex numbers? What about matricies and quaternions? — Daniel 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my weak joke started off when I was using "real" as opposed to "pseudo" mathematics. But I thought it would be funny to change real to complex. Sorry if anyone else did not understand. Of course number theory delves far beyond even the real and complex numbers, including other more abstract definitions for number systems. Nimur 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO!!! Numerology is about as far from a science as it is possible to be! The principles of science are that you do experiments to confirm your theories - and that you investigate the reasons why things work the way they do. Have numerologists done proper studies to see if adding up the letters in someone's name (A=1, B=2, C=3, ...) and the date of their birth predicts their future lives? Have they any clue whatever why my son should have a radically different future if he was born 10 seconds before midnight or 10 seconds after? Does it make a difference which time zone he was born in (because that also changes his date of birth)? Does it matter whether we add up just his first name or just his second name - or should we include his middle name or just his middle initial? Where are the experiments that show which of those things actually produce the most solid predictions? Have they tested the predictions they made in any way whatever? Have they employed proper double-blind placebo experimental technique with rigerous statistical methods? If I gave a numerologist the biographies of 100 people whom they've never met - and associated with each one their real name and a fake name - would they be able to calculate which name fitted which biography with a probability better than chance? No? I didn't think so. SteveBaker 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the most common chemical in households?

Between Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen dioxide, and phosgene, which is the most common in a normal household. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidm617617 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the air in the house or the items (such as household cleaners) in the house? -- kainaw ™ 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And forgive my saying, but this sounds like a chem homework question. Saturn 5 00:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this by volume or by weight? If by volume I would say nitrogen as it is the major part of air. (76% if i remember correctly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.177.44 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK just looking at your Q again, I would say CO2--88.111.177.44 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]