Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 February 18

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.

February 18

Wind in the Willows, is it?

But what, precisely, IS the sound of wind in the willows? Is it different to the sound of wind in the gum trees, or, to reference one of my favourite novels "The Wind in the Pansies"?

Is the wind blowing thru vast stands of pines different to willow wind?

Could there be audiograph forensic specialists who, listening to some recording from a terrorist could identify what type of trees were they which are heard in the background rustling in the wind?

After all, a gumleaf is very different to a willow leaf, and both are very different to a pine needle. (Btw, a clue here might be that a tougher, drier leaf like that from a gum might create a more rustling sound than from other trees. Trees which have longer boughs and branches swing much further than do those of (say) pine trees, and so create a greater volume of sound.)

Does it not make sense that each species of tree would have its own wind language? Kinda poetic,innit? Myles325a (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find any research done about anything remotely like this. My bet is that because a typical tree is estimated to have between 20,000 and 500,000 leaves - the sound is dominated by the high-frequency collisions between leaves - and between leaves and stems. When you watch leaves fluttering in the wind, they seem to collide multiple times per second. With so many very similar collisions, the range and variety of them probably doesn't matter as much as the sum of all of those sounds - which is what makes the sound into something like white noise. My guess is that the sound would be different for trees with dramatically fewer leaves - or when the leaves are green versus dried up and brown - but trees of different species with similar numbers of leaves probably sound fairly similar.

But that's all speculation. I don't see any studies to provide definitive answers. SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You can find videos of trees rustling in the wind, and I didn't hear any significant difference between willows and typical leafy trees, but maybe a trained ear can. As for "the wind in the willows", it sounds a bit more poetic than "the wind in the bristlecone pines". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Breeze in the Bristlecones would work better. Iapetus (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OP myles325a back live. Thanks for replying Steve and Baseball Bugs I do recall in my undergraduate years sitting on the lawns of my alma mater Newcastle University (NSW) on a windy day and listening to the huge roar of wind in the gum trees which crowded the whole campus. I do believe that more trees makes more sound (which is obvious) but also that trees with long boughs and branches make a different sound to trees with a fixed diameter like those of pines. The last create the familiar whistling sound, but the one I heard in those far-gone days had a rolling and crashing effect, a bit like rolling thunder. The boughs were like vast arms waving many feet in the air, and the resulting roar, I think, is largely a product of that movement. In any case I would bet that firs and pines, and palms, do NOT make sound anything like that, no matter how strong the wind, or how numerous the trees. This is apart from the question of how the shape and textureof the leaf effects the result.

Your notes on frequency were very interesting. A related question this raises relates to other noise sources from masses, like that of a crowd. Even when you cannot discern what is being shouted, I think that crowds from different ethnic groups probably sound different. Also, crowds with different ratios of men to women, and with different age groups. This is a bit like having trees with different physical features making different sounds.

But it is interesting that it appears that there is very little recorded on this subject. Perhaps I have hit upon something. (Btw, "Wind in the Bristlecone Pines" sounds pretty good, even if the wind noise prob. would not be much. "Wind in the Cedars sounds beaut too... Myles325a (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) WInd through pines sounds different than wind through broadleaf trees. The unusual shape of willow leaves might produce a different sound as well. This video may give a clue: [1] Rmhermen (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The OP's assertion that willow leaves and gum tree (?eucalyptus) leaves are very different is not borne out by reality. Many eucalyptus species have leaves remarkably similar to willow. Richard Avery (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Willow trees on the banks of the Thames at Cookham; Grahame's home and the setting of The Wind in the Willows.

However, it is unlikely that Kenneth Grahame (author of The Wind in the Willows), ever mistook the sound of gum trees for willows. Various species of willow, along with Alder, are characteristic riverside trees in England and I expect that is the reason that he singled them out, as his story is set along the banks of the Thames. There are only two species of eucalypt that will grow in England, both Tasmanian, and although reasonably common in gardens now, would have been very rare specimen trees at the turn of the 20th century when the book was written. BTW, gum tree leaves are somewhat rigid and glossy, quite different to the soft and rather limp willow leaves and so I expect that they would make a different sound. Of course, Grahame could have been describing a visual effect rather than an audible one, as willow leaves tend to flutter about like mad in the slightest breeze. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As a slight but I hope permissible tangent, does anyone know Milne's source or reason for the title? It's not a quote from the book's text (according to the search I just did on Project Gutenberg), and our article makes no mention of the question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the eucalypts are sclerophyllic, meaning they have a hard waxy cuticle that helps them retain moisture in arid environs. Willows tend to demand high moisture, and hence have serrated margins and smoother/softer cuticle. Now if I could only visit London and Sydney in the same month, to carefully compare :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, the sounds of wind in willows can be very different from the sound of wind in needle-leaf trees, or in cacti, or in a corn field. At some point this is just a result of the simple physics, but it is also correct that these differences may be negligible, and undetectable to many observers.

One place you might find some actual research on this is in the field of acoustic ecology. See e.g. here [2]. The idea is, things like birds and frogs need to be able to communicate via sound to successfully reproduce. Things like wind, but also roads, airplanes, etc, interfere with that, and some biologists study these impacts. Though wind noise isn't usually the direct focus, differences in wind noise may show up in some of this research. For example here [3] we see that frequency of bird song regresses differently against body size, depending on forest, grassland, or edge habitat, and that hints at the different quality of ambient wind noise in those places.

Other types of science may end up doing spectral analysis of wind. E.g. here [4] are some meteorologists presenting analysis on what basically amounts to the sound of wind at certain heights. If they'd done 0-25 meter analysis in different forests, we'd have pretty good data to answer your question with.

Perhaps the closest thing I can find is here [5], section 3 titled "Spectral analysis of natural wind" - they have data for near a building, on top of a building, and at the beach. This paper clearly shows that natural wind and mechanical wind act and sound different, and that the wind will sound different depending on the size and geometry of nearby obstacles.

A little parting WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - nothing has quite the same damped stillness of a calm, old growth conifer forest, and nothing rustles quite like a huge clonal stand of dry quaking aspen. It is entirely physically expected for wind to sound different based on geometry of surfaces and obstacles, and it is entirely reasonable for some people to hear a difference between the wind in the willows and the wind in the pines. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

With great respect Alan Splodge, I think the title is intended to be a metaphor for the busy goings on by and in the river and the idyllic setting that contains them. I am suspicious from the outset about this OP's question and his reference to "The Wind in the Pansies". But there we go he's got some mileage out of us. Richard Avery (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You may well be right, but it whiled away a lunch break. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, OP Myles has been "back live" and asking interesting questions for several years now, even if they may be a bit zany by some standards [6]. So let's not start accusing anyone of bad faith. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The smell of gum trees after rain ... Can anyone explain why the leaves give off that delightful smell? Here in London it's been raining for most of the year so far but the leaves of the trees we have here never give off any delightful odours. 78.149.195.161 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)(comment restored by SemanticMantis (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC) )

This is very interesting stuff, and perhaps deserves its own whole question. The volatile oils in eucalypts have herbicidal effects [7], fungicidal effects [8], and pyrogenic effects [9]. The last is especially interesting. Once a fire gets started, the eucalypts gain a benefit if it's a real scorcher, as they do quite well in post-fire recruitment. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To try my own answer at the original question, some of the features of a willow tree are that willow trees are long-lived, and as a result can be large, and therefore can be good shade trees, and typically have low branches. (At least, that is true of North American willows. I assume that English willows are similar.) By contrast, an oak tree is long-lived, and as a result can be large, and therefore can be a good shade tree, and typically is tall-standing (because over decades, the trunk grows and takes the lower branches up with it). If one sits under the shade of a willow tree in the hot northern hemisphere summer, one will hear the wind blowing through the low branches of the tree. One can equally well sit in the shade of an oak tree in the hot northern hemisphere summer, one is less likely to hear the wind. My own guess is that the author sat under the shade of a willow in the English summer and heard the sound of the wind. He wasn't in a forest, but in an English country yard, and sounds in a forest, as noted, are different. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All of this is reasonable except the bit about "trunk grows and takes the lower branches up with it." That's not how trees work. A branch whose base is 4 feet off the ground will be 4 feet off the ground in a century, though likely larger in diameter. If I carve my name into a tree at one height today, it will remain at that height for centuries. Some trees do tend to shed lower branches, and in that manner the height of the lowest living branch may increase as the tree ages, but it is not the same branch. Oaks in particular often have the tips of their branches get lower as they get older, as they grow longer and droop at the ends, but the base of the branch still remains at the same height. [10] [11] [12] SemanticMantis (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Correction accepted. However, if you sit in the shade of a willow in the northern summer, you will hear the wind in its low-hanging branches. If you sit in the shade of an oak in the northern summer, you are less likely to hear the wind. That is probably also true in the southern summer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My point is that if you're sitting by an English river, you're more likely to be under a willow tree because that's where they grow. And the book is set on an English river. Also. you may be thinking of a weeping willow which is a cultivar that has low hanging branches. They grow by rivers here too. Alansplodge (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Myles325a Who wrote the "The Wind in the Pansies" novels of which you liked? Who published them and when? I tried title and key word searches at www.WorldCat.org but didn't find anything. -Modocc (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you can definitely hear the differences between one tree and another. To best of recollection - alas, not the best time to investigate this right now in the north! - evergreens I might say tend to whistle more than rustle or roar, and the length of the needles matters (no one could claim the wind sounds the same in winter as in summer, even though some evergreens still lend their voices); some broad-leaved trees tend to clatter as the leaves rotate and bang into each other; other leaves tend to fold up more. I suspect the fringes on something like a chestnut or an elm have an effect on wind turbulence and so forth. Wnt (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC) On second thought I decided to strike this for vacuousness, sorry. Wnt (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How does it happen ?

Recently, on an episode of MacGyver, where he takes Penny Parker to take possession of the House once owned by her Aunt, they find a room locked for years, and the claim is that dust would have built up in that time. This was also noted from a Movie I saw decades ago about dust having built up in a room also locked for years, but I thought, as dust comes from human skin and dust mites, would it indeed build up in a room locked up where no person could go to shed their skin so to speak ? What if the room was hermetically sealed ? Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 10:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Although human skin (and hair!) is the dominant source of indoor dust, there are also other sources -- lint from clothes, paper dust from books and letters, outdoor dust (from erosion, sea salt, smog, etc.) leaking in through vents, and so on, so dust would indeed gradually build up over the years. FWiW 2601:646:8E01:9089:CDF1:F624:466A:34AF (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

ObPersonal: Noticeable amounts of indoor dust can also result from the activity of woodworm and similar infestations in wooden rafters, staircases etc. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's not true that household dust is mostly human skin. See e.g. this page (citing a paper that says "two-thirds of it blows in from outdoors" and "[t]he other third is mostly carpet fiber") and DavePhD's post here (citing a paper that says "only 4% of dust was found to be of human origin" in seven Danish offices). -- BenRG (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How about, mice, rats, insects, spiders, maybe even small birds. Vespine (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd put the main blame on heating vents (possibly used for A/C and ventilation, too). I can smell the dust when the heat comes on, so it must be a significant amount. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You all. This all makes the idea much clearer, when before I might have doubted that dust could collect in a relatively sealed room, believing it to be primarily made up of human skin. But as of course there are other sources, and we see a reasonable amount of dust build up in habited areas, it should not seem so strange, with these new facts, that it can even accumulate in locked rooms. Thanks again. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 09:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Difference between FMVSS (U.S. and Canada) and UNECE (rest of the world) car regulations

This article says "It is not currently possible to produce a single car design that fully meets both UN and US requirements simultaneously" but gives very few explanation. Basically, it seems all a matter of headlamps and bumpers, but I think there's something more. Could you please explain what are the exact reasons why a manufacturer can't produce a LHD car (with changeable miles/kilometers cockpit) which cannot be sold simultaneously in Continental Europe and the United States?--Carnby (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That passage has a reference to a page at jalopnik.com, which in turn has a reference to this page at Reddit, where someone posting as "King_of_Avalon" goes into some of the details. Among other things, he writes:

Typically the biggest thing that's considered different between the two is the design of headlamps and bumpers, even though most of the differences are now internal and from the outside it's hard to tell the difference. For example, generally speaking, crash bumpers in America are much larger than in Europe because both sets of standards derive from different starting points; in America it's considered far more likely that you'll be involved in a collision with another car, while in Europe the design standard exists to minimise impact on contact with a pedestrian. Another is the difference between ECE R66 and FMVSS 220 which regulates the strength of the body structure. The differences between the two are shrinking but because the FMVSS are deliberately designed so that cars have to be remade, it's not likely to go away any time soon.

I have no personal knowledge on the subject. --69.159.9.222 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Legislative Rules are usually based on reality and in detail there are ofcourse different realities in different countries. This reaches from national Standardizations till simple facts like for example you have to drive on the left side of a road in England and thus your steering wheel ought to be on the right side. But anyway this is a totally overestimated problem for vehicle production because today cars are build very modular anyway. For example you can buy a Volkswagen Polo, Golf, Passat, Jetta, Scirocco or Touran with exactly the same Engine, Gearbox, Seats etc. The only reason Industry is bickering about that is because they think they can save some additional pennies in the production of each car and in the end boost their stock price even higher. Its simply a scheme to enable more massproduction. --Kharon (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Cars designed to meet the different regs in different markets have to be different. Designing a one size fits all car would probably be possible in some cases, but the cost would be vastly increased compared with tailoring the model to suit the regs in a given market. For example, you could probably sell a US spec Fiesta in India unmodified... at a huge loss, because the local market regs are for much simpler cars than USAn ones. Incidentally king of avalon vastly oversimplifies by identifying three required builds, for instance in Thailand an SUV derived from a truck has a certain maximum length. In China a saleable SUV needs a certain amount of legroom which implies a certain length, etc etc etc. Local market requirements are a huge deal. Greglocock (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Levitation

How does it work? In simple terms please.

1. Is it possible to use magnates instead of water/nitrogen?
2. If nitrogen is used how would they recycle the water? Would it go to a waste?

Apostle (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lots of different ways to levitate, not sure which you are interested in. See our article Levitation for an overview. Magnetic_levitation is our general article on how to do it with magnets, Levitron is a cool toy that demonstrates some of these principles. But also check out acoustic levitation, and some of the clips on youtube: Here's an official video from Argonne national lab [13], many other can be found by searching. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Acoustophoretic contactless transport and handling of matter in air Abstract: Spatiotemporal modulation of the levitation acoustic field allows continuous planar transport and processing of multiple objects, from near-spherical (volume of 0.1–10 μL) to wire-like, without being limited by the acoustic wavelength. See also Acoustic levitation. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read through... Thanks (both). Regards -- Apostle (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And make sure you use the right word, a magnate is quite different from a magnet --147.85.186.6 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Under water mining

Won’t it create problem in water? -- Apostle (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Be more specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Three examples of mining causing water pollution are:

Heavy coal mining pollution and dredging has rendered the Saline River (Illinois) useless. Tin mining and dredging/sluicing for tin caused widespread pollution of the Eastern freshwater cod#Mining pollution Clarence River system characterised by milk-coloured stinking water, stained river rocks, cattle refusing to drink river water, and hundreds or thousands of dead fish. The spectre of heavy metal pollution of Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra, Australia has receded, partly due to the closure of some lead mines upstream. The article about Deep sea mining considers environmental impacts which may include disturbances to the benthic layer, increased toxicity of the water column and sediment plumes from tailings. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I sought knowledge here knowing that under water mining will create devastating result. Thanks for the clarification and information AllBestFaith

I don't understand.

I was watching a TV show programme called Techknow in Algezeera, a journalist interviewing a 'under water researcher' or 'technology maker' who said that 'government (or somebody) gave permission' because its a treasure field...

If I knew, and you are clarifying the same thing too, are government(s) doing anything to condemn this? -- Apostle (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Powering Machines

How to convert gas/oil products into electric/non-electric machines? -- Apostle (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Such as machines made from petroleum-based plastic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

For the replacement of petroleum fuels with electric power, see Alternative fuel and Hydrogen economy. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am really looking forward to widespread availability of hydrogen fuel for cars. The Wankel engine...

...never made it big because it put out too much pollution. Run it on hydrogen and that problem goes away. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

But hydrogen, just like electricity, has the problem that it's just a way to store energy, not actually a source of energy. It's not like there are hydrogen mines that just spew it out in quantities to provide all our energy needs. So, you're back to the issue of how you get the energy to produce the hydrogen gas. Then there's the problem that hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, making it not at all energy dense. So now you must compress it, with the associated explosion danger, or lower the temperature to an absurdly low point, to make it liquid. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

-- Apostle (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me make this a bit clearer peeps.

1. A) Charging without the power plug; using manual labour or something else. - It will be even better if electricity or no electric storing device is used; possibilities sought. Note: Something like what Guy stated above looks good, but it comes with rubbish...hydrogen...
2. Must not excrete carbon dioxide (or any other sort of chemical to pollute oxygen).
3. As for the original question that opened this post: Is it possible for people/car (or any) companies to create an electric machine as a converter for a oil/gas powered car...?

Apostle (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No the problem does not go away with hydrogen. The current worst pollutants in vehicle exhaust are nitrogen products - the nitrogen comes from the air, not the fuel, and high heat creates them (higher temperature is more efficient, but more polluting - this is why diesel cars are having such problems now). Hydrogen will no change that unless you can give it pure oxygen and not air. Ariel. (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is partially true, but as hydrogen is substantially more reactive than nitrogen you can keep the nitrogen oxide levels to almost zero as long as you control the air intake so that there is one oxygen atom for every two hydrogen atoms (in other words, as long the fuel–air equivalence ratio is less than 0.5, see page 3-18). Smurrayinchester 09:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• 1) For vehicles that travel predictable routes, there are ways of doing it. There are various types of electric buses for instance: they can pick up power from overhead lines (trolley buses), wireless from cables buried under the ground (gapbus) or with on-board batteries that are charged wirelessly at stops. Similar tricks are used for lorries in some large factories, rides at amusement parks, etc. These are impractical for cars however, because cars don't have predefined routes so you'd need power transfer technology on every road in the country.

2) As StuRat says, a vehicle that doesn't release emissions is easy, but unless you have a totally green power supply, that energy needs to come from somewhere. If you only care about emissions from the car itself, and you don't want a battery or hydrogen, try flywheel energy storage. You get a heavy wheel, start it spinning really fast, and then tap its energy to move your vehicle to the next charging station. There are also solar cars, but these always need a backup supply for driving at night/through tunnels/fast in cloudy weather.

3) See Electric vehicle conversion. Not cheap or especially good quality most of the time, but possible. Smurrayinchester 09:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there legislations banning companies from producing new carbon emission/footprint products, after the COP 21 meeting? - since alternatives are possible/available along with the replenishment for old products... -- Apostle (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both

Peeps, nothing yet clarifying what I saw (till to date): An electric powered motor-bike/cycle costing 42-43,000 was getting sold in Europe that had the bicycle pedals for recharging purposes. Now, what I saw the other day was a zillion times better than the Europe's bike i.e. a pedal-less and battery-less bicycle; apparently magnet was connected in the wheel that had a wire connected with the accelerator What's the functionality, and or power assertion capability? How does it work? Can it be use for vehicles (be it the new ones cause smurrayinchester stated no: 3 above) and so on?

Apostle (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you're talking about it using electricity from a wire buried in the road. Yes, that's possible, but inefficient, difficult to bill for the electricity, and it won't work off the road (maybe for a little while, if you add a battery). And, if the power in the road goes down, you're stuck, along with everyone else in the same situation. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No. The one I saw, its probably either 1) just needed a little push so that the electric starts on the magnatic disk in order for the accelaration to become active, or 2) something occurs when you switch the bike on...

Apostle (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you're talking about a perpetual motion machine of the first type, which is impossible, as our article states. Specifically, if you are talking about using the motion of the wheel to run a generator, from which the electricity generated drives the wheel, the missing part is that driving a generator from a moving wheel slows down the wheel (far more than the generated electricity would speed it up). In fact, one form of regenerative braking is based on slowing the wheel in this way. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll read through, thanks. -- Apostle (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Biomedical engineering and mental health

Are there currently any biomedical engineering fields that works with mental health? 94.14.215.29 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, electroconvulsive therapy is still used, in rare cases, and that requires biomechanical engineering. Then there are restraints, like straightjackets.

Also, there are diagnostic devices used for both the mentally ill and others, such as an electroencephalograph machine. StuRat (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Light therapy is widely used to cure mild Mood disorders. You can also include the field of Ergonomics because it is an original Engeneering field generally aiming at human health in all kinds of human interaction with technology. --Kharon (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

How can a man with sacral agenesis (such as Kenny Easterday) possibly father a child?

Here is the Wikipedia article: Kenny Easterday. Here is a photo of him: [14]. How can he possibly have fathered a child? I don't get it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

His legs were amputated at the hips. It doesn't say that his male genitalia were amputated, so presumably they weren't. As to how insertion was achieved, my assumption would be that she was on top. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Our article suggests (with a reference) that there was some question about whether he was the biological father. If you do an image search for Sacral agenesis (possibly NSFW, not for the squeamish) it seems pretty clear that the genitals can also be affected by the condition. Matt Deres (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw something earlier but misunderstood and thought he was the child of one but not the other. Looking more carefully, I realise now there was never any suggestion he was the biological father of the boy. Anyway according to this report [15] and this transcript [16], the paternity test results suggest he wasn't the biological father. So I've modified our article. I don't see any reason to mention there being some debate, we should just mention that it was believed he may be the biological father but paternity test showed he wasn't, if we need to mention anything. I don't personally think we need to even mention this, so just remove the some debate bit, but won't object if someone adds the results to our article. Unfortunately I also couldn't find a good source but it could be sourced to the show. This [17] quotes his partner as saying they had a normal sex life. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I still must be missing something here. In that photo, linked above, it looks like his body "stops" at about the belly-button area (more or less). (If it even goes "down" that far?) There is nothing below that. So, where would these organs (presumably) be? I am still baffled. I am referring to the photo where he has a black T-shirt tied at the bottom; he is wearing a black baseball cap; and he is making the peace sign with his fingers on the right hand. Here, in the middle of the page: [18]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can any of that from the photos shown. They are all fairly clothed, so you can't see his belly button or what is going on down there. Clearly his body is somewhat different from normal but that's about all we can really say from them. (Perhaps a key point here is that you shouldn't be superimposing a normal body and trying to imagine where everything will fit. Of course normal is an insidious concept anyway. And it's difficult to do anyway since you can't really see much of his body, all you can really see is a shirt of unknown length.)

Sexual issues aside, someone who's body ends at the belly button will be missing a significant part of the lower intestine as well the urinary bladder and possibly even part of the upper intestine. It sounds like bowel and urinary aren't that uncommon, see e.g. Caudal regression syndrome and [19]. But while he obviously had health problems and I don't care to research it that much, I don't see any mention of a Colostomy for example. (Of course these problems arise because development and conrol is a bit messed up down there, not because someone's body ends at the belly button.)

Notably while the second source mentions it's possible for the to be a lack of development of the genitalia, it sounds like it's more common for there to simply be problems. Beyond the comments of his partner, this source [20] albeit I'm not sure who the actual source of the info is, says he had male genitalia and an anus. So I don't see any reason to doubt it just because you can't imagine it from clothed photos.

This link has what appears to be a screencap from the series I think of an x-ray when he was a child [21] before the amputation at the hips which definitely doesn't seem to be ending at the belly button. (Of course you couldn't amputate at the hips if someone's body ended at the belly button anyway.) A number of source say he was offered prosthetic legs as a child but didn't like them [22] [23]. Again it's fairly unlikely he could use them if his body ended at the belly button.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am "imagining" a "normal body" (dimensions, proportions, etc.) underneath that T-shirt. Perhaps my assumptions are wrong. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)