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

June 22

Photosynthesis, CO2, etc.

So, I have a few questions concerning photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and this whole global warming issue:

1. How long does it takes green plants/trees to start photosynthesis?
2. On average, how much oxygen is produced by trees through photosynthesis?
3. Can plants get carbon dioxide "poisoning" (i.e., having too much?)
4. I came up with a thought a little while ago. Companies that burn fossil fuels for energy just dump that carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Why can't companies transfer the gas into say, a greenhouse beside the factory, with plants that could simply convert that CO2 into oxygen, as a way to reduce emissions into the atmosphere?

Thanks, 64.229.5.242 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

1: Plants start photosynthesis as soon as the cotyledons break the soil surface, not long after germination. (At least most of them. Some vascular plants never photosynthesize, such as Indian pipe or broom rape).

2: You'll have to specify what you mean. mass per year per plant? Which plant? Mass per year per hectare? What community? This is a broad area of research. For starters, put /plant "carbon fixation" estimate/ into google scholar, or see e.g. here [1] for some methods that focus on certain forest types (O2 production will be related to CO2 fixation, which is a more common key term).

4: Plants do tend to grow better/more with more CO2, but sometimes their insect pests and plant pathogens also do better too. So whether your proposal would help much is unclear. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

5: (which you didn't ask) I don't think that most air pollution comes in nicely sorted flows. It is probably very challenging and expensive to selectively isolate CO2 from industrial sources. But, still an interesting question: I think pairing greenhouses with factories in some way could probably work out well... :) SemanticMantis (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm only going to touch on the last question. Plants are not infinite CO2-->Oxygen conversion machines, and that's because the CO2 is not actually being converted into molecular oxygen. Water is broken up into hydrogen ions and oxygen, while the carbon dioxide is converted into carbohydrates (don't get on me about all the ions and electrons, I don't feel like keeping track). Some of those carbohydrates are burned for energy, and actually just get spat back out as carbon dioxide (and water vapor). The carbon dioxide that disappears is from the carbohydrate mass that is used to build the physical stuff of the tree itself. In this sense, the tree is acting as a carbon sequestration system. While a tree is growing, it is certainly removing CO2 from the atmosphere, but once it stops growing it has zero net impact. You'd have to keep planting new trees in perpetuity to continually cancel out the emissions of a factory. In fact, the article I linked to gives a lot of ideas on this. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

3:It is possible, although plants use CO2 for a carbon source and produce O2, plants alos need to breath in O2 just like animals do. If you placed a plant into a jar of CO2 and gave it no light, it would suffocate to death. In the atmosphere, if CO2 levels rise, so will the global temperature which hurts plants in a vast number of ways, higher respiration (anti-photosynthesis) rates, increased pest levels and spread of pests to previously cold areas, more severe weather events, aka hurricanes, floods, droughts, decreased stability in percipitation, increased rate of evaporation from soils, etc.

4:Greenhouses often increase CO2 levels to increase growth rates, up to 1500ppm (4x normal), over that it begins causing headaches in workers and has diminishing economic returns. I know of greenhouses that burn coal for heating and buy CO2 to pump into because, to paraphrase the owner "the emissions would severly damage the crop"...so he put up a smokestack so the neighbouring farmers can deal with his problem. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Exhausts contain more than just CO₂. They may also contain CO and NO_x which are bad news for animals (including people). I don't know what they do to plants though. Is there an eqivalent of heme in plants? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Several pollutants are known to mess with a plant's stoma. Either they force the stoma shut when it should be open - reducing CO2 uptake thus stopping photosynthesis, or forcing them open when they should be closed - increasing water loss to critical levels. By heme, I expect you mean something for gas transportation? If so, then no, live plant cells are never too far from the air, I say live because cells say in the middle of the trunk of a tree are dead and don't need air. Cells, apart from the epidermis, are kinda loose allowing air to diffuse through the air spaces between them. And yes, roots also breath on their own and for plants like rice, which grow on flooded land, they have special air spaces which go from the above water plant to down below. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question 4: It is not practical for factories and processing sites to set up a greenhouse next door, as the land area required is huge. And its not necessary - oxygen and carbon dioxide difuse through the atmosphere with great facility. The percentage oxygen and percentage carbon dioxide in the air is negligibly different whether in rainforrest areas, deserts, or major industrial areas. Rainforrests in Indonesia can deal with carbon dioxide emitted in Australian industry for example. What we need politicians world wide to do is act more strongly to protect, nurture, and grow green plant areas. Wickwack120.145.68.66 (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we'd be better of in terms of CO₂ sequestration if we grew green plant areas and then cut down all of the trees and stuck them somewhere where the cellulose won't break down and then grow more trees on that land and repeat. Also, massive sources of CO₂ are often located far away from built up areas (i.e. coal/gas fired powerstations, smelters, etc.) so the land requirements aren't the big issue you make them out to be. Also, the comments about CO₂ from Australia being dealt with by Indonesian rainforrests misses the OP's point; you can use the very high concentrations in exhaust gas to speed up the process. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet for some reason we do the opposite, taking the stored carbon from out the ground and throwing it into the air for all to suffer from...there is no point in starting to sequester so long as we are digging up fossil fuels. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure there is; to reduce the net effect. If we did it enough we could even be carbon neutral through this process. I'm sure greenies would love that, "Save the Earth by cutting down old growth forrests, sequestering their carbon and planting fast growing weeds!" 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's something called "Carbon capture and storage" that will reduce the released CO₂ by 80-90%, but will also consume 25%-40% more fuel and thus increase the cost with 21-91%. However with successful research, development and deployment (RD&D), sequestered coal-based electricity generation in 2025 may cost less than present unsequestered coal-based electricity generation. Electron9 (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deflecting a lead bullet with a magnetic field

Hi, I found this discussion on repelling bullets with a magnetic field. Since most bullets are made of lead, is it indeed possible to deflect bullets with a strong enough magnetic field, either using lead's diamagnetic properties, or eddy currents, or something else? How would this work? --Kreachure (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you shot a lead bullet at a magnetar, yes it would probably be deflected by the magnetic field. It would also be attracted by the extreme gravity, so catch-22. If you tried to make a massive magnet that would appreciably deflect lead bullets away from you, it would also cause damage to your tissues due to the diamagnetism of water (the effect a magnetic field has on water is about half of what it has on lead). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I suppose the user of such a magnet would require a magnetic shielding suit of some sort to be effectively protected. Or is it too optimistic to think that the material's permeability wouldn't fail under such a powerful magnetic field? --Kreachure (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't magnetizing the user, but exerting magnetic force upon him. While the former is bounded as you suggest, the latter is not. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't follow. Isn't being inside a magnetic field required for magnetic forces to be felt? Magnetic shielding not only prevents magnetization, but "isolation from external magnetic fields" as the article says. What do you mean by "bounded"? --Kreachure (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misread what you said. I thought you were saying that good shielding wasn't necessary because a material can only be magnetized so much. Also, see bounded function and boundedness for other uses. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

While my understanding is that you could shield the user from the magnetic field using concentric spheres of magnetically permeable metals, that metal in and of itself would probably be sufficient to stop the bullets. Then you'd only need to turn on the magnetic field to kill your enemies once they get close enough... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In case the Mythbusters are an acceptable source to you, it may be worth noting that they played around with how powerful a magnetic field was necessary to significantly alter the path of a bullet in flight. [2] Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That website seems to be saying that the bullet was attracted by the magnetic field. If the magnetism was causing that effect those magnets would be very difficult to handle; since they apparently attract diamagnetic substances (assuming the bullets were Pb) they'd stick to flesh. Maybe there's more complex physics at work to explain why that happened. Or maybe it's just bollocks. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the magnets were pulling the gun out of it's precise position and causing it to point further downward than before. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Most modern bullets have a copper jacket around the lead core. They also spin at very high rates, modeling the induced eddy currents in such a situation is not easy. Roger (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just watched the Mythbusters episode. I'm pretty sure they used bullets either made of something other than lead, or made of lead jacketed with metal (copper, cupronickel, etc.). I'm gonna go with Ockham's Razor (usually a good idea :) ) and say that this is why the bullet was attracted to the magnets; and not because of "complex physics" or "experimentation flaw" (or "bollocks"). --Kreachure (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

But copper is also diamagnetic. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, not copper then. --Kreachure (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And I wouldn't say they spin at very high rates at all. A typical rifling twist rate in a semi-automatic pistol is 1 revolution per 30". 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Eddy currents have easily observable effects, If the poles of a fairly strong magnet have a small gap between them, and you drop various flat pieces of material between them, non-electrically conductive substances like plastic and wood seem unaffected and drop as if there were no magnet there, but copper or lead seem to hesitate and slide v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y through the gap. If a spinning disc of aluminum or other conductive material has an ordinary permanent magnet brought near it, it slows dramatically and noticeably. If a lead bullet were fired at a distant target, and early in its flight passed through a magnetic field achievable with common means (neodymium magnets near the path, or a modest electromagnet, even a small deflection would cause it to miss the aiming point far away at the end of the trajectory. The closer the magnet is to the target, the more extreme the magnetic field would have to be to modify the path meaningfully. All in all, deploying magnets to deflect bullets does not seem practical, compared to spending the same money and effort to build a barrier, or detection systems and weapons to shoot the shooter before he pulls the trigger. Edison (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If the bullet is stopped in a bullet proof vest then the forces that make that happen are ultimately electromagnetic in origin. Count Iblis (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are mammals smarter than other animals?

Not sure if this question has any meaningful answer, but I thought I would throw it out there. I was just reading Great white shark and I just thought to myself, why are they so dumb? Especially compared to Orcas. Assuming that mammals are indeed (typically) smarter than other animals, which I believe is true. But why is this? Is there a correlation with warm bloodedness and intelligence? Is it just that some mammals happened to (coincidentally) evolve intelligence, and then from there animals that evolved from them were intelligent as well? Dolphins are intelligent... Orcas are intelligent. Pigs are intelligent. Dogs are intelligent. Great apes are intelligent. Humans are intelligent. Seems that animals that eat meat are typically more intelligent that herbivores. But if I'm not mistaken we have a closer common ancestor with deer than we do with dolphins right? Not sure. In terms of lifespan, do mammals typically live longer than other animals? ScienceApe (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Some birds are also very intelligent, such as crows. They are also warm blooded and many eat meat. A large brain does have a high energy demand, and energy density is higher in meat than in vegetation. Octopuses are apparently quite intelligent too. Hunting also requires a high degree of intelligence, so carnivores have an advantage in the evolutionary selection there. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, some of the longest living animals are reptiles, in the turtle family specifically. Also, there are some intelligent birds, like parrots, and even intelligent cephalopods, like cuttlefish. StuRat (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Whales also have a very long lifespan. Trying to work out an average for two entire classes so you can compare them is both difficult and largely meaningless though. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A higher body temperature and both a greater relative and absolute brain size. μηδείς (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotally, my vegetarian friends are also much dumber than their meat-eating counterparts.Just kidding...friends don't let friends become vegetarians.203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Paging Dunning–Kruger. Would Mr. Dunning & Mr. Kruger please come to the RD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what relevant commentary they could have on the matter. Their hypothesis involved inept people who judge themselves to be better than they really were and vica-versa. My comment compared two groups of other people. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Deer and dolphins are actually pretty closely related; they both belong to the clade Cetartiodactyla. Regarding the main question, I think the answer is a combination of (1) mammals have larger brains in relation to body size; (2) mammal brains use myelinated axons, which make their internal connections much more efficient; (3) only mammals have a fully developed cerebral cortex. Looie496 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Also keep in mind some arthropods are very intelligent, and some mammals are very stupid. Salticids, particularly Portia labiata are said to "have hunting tactics as versatile and adaptable as a lion's" (see ref in our article). I think it is a general trend that, for a certain clade, predators tend to be more intelligent than herbivores. Omnivores may be smarter yet, such as the new caledonian crow, or the raccoon. Both of these can work simple latches to escape cages, and the former is celebrated for its tool use. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Some insects/arthropods may appear to be intelligent, but, due to their brain size, that can't be true intelligence, but rather all instinct. The way to test this theory is to expose them to situations not encountered in nature (like the monkey that has to stack boxes to get the banana) and see if they can design a strategy to solve those problems, or not. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you touch a cockroach often, does it have an instinct to start running farther and more furious as that's something that might happen in nature? If so, is it's instinct so good that it only displays the heightened response to things that look like what's chased it before, for example, things that look like shoes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. We seem to have similar instincts. For example, if we see insects, we then have a heightened sense of awareness and sensitivity on our skin, even to the point of imagining bugs crawling on us that aren't really there. However, insects probably do have a small ability to learn, only in their case it's like 10% of their behavior versus 90% for us. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think mammals are relative latecomers, evolutionarily, thus they had to find a niche or an advantage that could allow survival, and intelligence provided that edge over the non-mammalian population that dominated the Earth. Intelligence itself is not good for anything under evolutionary pressure—except for survival. If intelligence helped mammals to survive then it would continue to accompany them in their competition for survival with one another, thus we have mammals competing with one another on the basis of intelligence, leading to greater intelligence in some species of mammals. But as humans we have to bear in mind that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about intelligence. It is merely one more factor that probably has bearing on the survival of a life-form. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth remembering that from an evolutionary point of view, very high intelligence is pretty clearly a fluke (one species in 10 billion or so over Earth's history), and humanity has yet to demonstrate that high intelligence is, in the long run, a positive evolutionary adaptation (the last 300 years have been hell-bent on a path to unsustainable self-destruction; the last 10,000 years of civilization may prove to be just a weird blip on the evolutionary timeline). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about human intelligence, I agree, but a fair degree of intelligence seems to have developed independently on Earth several times. Right now we have some birds (crows, etc.) and octupi/squid/cuttlefish, in addition to mammals (some of which, like aquatic mammals, aren't very close to us). In the past, there were probably several others cases of intelligence developing independently. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And, in the same vein, there is not much of a correlation between intelligence and success. For instance, assuming that we are the "most successful" species on earth (beetles might disagree), one might expect chimps and bonobos to come up second; but they don't. In fact, the whole primate family doesn't make much of a dent. An for all the greter intelligence of carnivores over their prey, it would be hard to argue that the vast herds of herbivores which roamed the earth, from the bison to the elephants, were less successful than the wolves and big cats. Of course, this is all kind of off topic to the original poster. Gzuckier (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"unsustainable self-destruction"? That's the one thing that doesn't need sustaining, 'cause it's once and for all. —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Mr.98. IQ measurements seems to centre around solving puzzles dreamt up by other people who find solving puzzles fascinating and an end to themselves. Yet Mensa members can be found among the welfare queues because they can't feed themselves. Real intelligence means being able to survive this short sojourn on earth and eating and producing offspring before getting eaten oneself. Even the humble Cockroach has been around about 350,000,000 obits of this blue and green planet and it succeed in trained the Homo sapiens to provide the cockroach kinship with nice comfy all year round habitats and regular supplies of food. However, mice have long since overtaken both the cockroach, and Alan Turing. --Aspro (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wait until the birds set an intelligence test for humans to take. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Us bird brains, will all come up with top marks... Oh hell,... that might just be part of the their cunning avifaunian plan. :-( --Aspro (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Clindamycin

When and how was Clindamycin discovered?--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This article from 1970 says that the drug was "newly developed" from lincomycin. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1966, modified from Lincomycin ("Chemical Modifications of Lincomycin", Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1961-70) (1966), 1966, 727-36.), is the earliest reference I can find to it. Buddy431 (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a 1970 paper on its synthesis. It probably has the information you're looking for, but it's behind a pay wall. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently its synthesis was first announced in 1965 at the Fifth interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy by Robert Birkenmeyer, et al. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! BTW, your IP address looks oddly familiar. You're from Brisbane?--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the NT, but my organisation is headquartered in Brisbane, so maybe that has something to do with it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Explosive question

In the news, whenever I hear about the number of people died and injured in a bomb explosion, the number of people injured is usually higher than those killed in it (a natural consequence of the fact that the bomb's destructive power is higher in lower distances, but the number of people is less in the area covered by that distance, but the destructive power is less in higher in further distances, while more people (area) is covered in that distance) now my question is, can people speculate what kind of a bomb used only knowing the number of the killed/injured and the <average> population area density at that time of the day in that place? Has it ever been done? How good an estimate is it?--Irrational number (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends exactly what you mean. Firstly, yes, people can, and will, always speculate on just about everything. Secondly, if there is a massive death toll over a wide area it may be safe to assume the bomb was nuclear or even thermonuclear. Since you're probably talking about people being killed in the middle east or north Africa by IEDs and suicide bombs (unless you happen to be reading a newspaper from 1945), it would be much easier just to guess based on what the most common type of terrorist explosive is in that region. 101.171.127.238 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC)No. A small amount of a powerful explosive is presumably as destructive as a larger amount of a less powerful explosion. SO that rules out knowing exactly what sort of bomb you're dealing with. The vaguries of the position of the bomb, the environment in which is is placed, and a whole host of other uncontrolled variables would entirely frustrate the sort of analysis you;re looking for. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't determine the type of bomb, but you can estimate the explosive yield (that's a red link... try TNT equivalent - can anyone find a better article to redirect it to?). There is a whole field of study into estimating yields based on damage and injuries and things. Once you know the yield, you may be able to make a guess about what kind of bomb is likely to have that yield, but generally Tagishsimon's point is true and you can't distinguish between a small amount of high explosive and a large amount of low explosive (except from context - if you know who made the bomb you'll know what they usually use or what they have access to). --Tango (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to consider, is that the detonation wave from say a 60lb charge is only about 50 feet. This wave can rupture lungs and things, bringing about eventual if not immediate death. Yet a bomb loaded with ball bearings and other such objects, can cause injures many times this distance. --Aspro (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that a shrapnel bomb might have a greater lethal/total injury index (to coin a phrase) than just an explosive of the same power, in that the additional blood loss from various wounds would probably provide significant additional lethality versus just the shock wave trauma you describe above.Gzuckier (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The blast wave of a real bomb in an urban environment is by no means spherical; it follows the obstacles in its way. If the bomb happened to be under a car, the death toll will likely be small, especially if the only people around that car are surrounded by other cars. If it goes off in an open market square and sends shrapnel everywhere, many more people will be killed. Even putting the bomb behind a table leg can provide enough shielding to save someone on the other side of the table leg, as evidenced by the 20 July plot. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion in black holes

Could nuclear fusion theoretically occur in or around a black hole? If not, why not? And if so, what kind of superheavy elements might be synthesised? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing of any meaning to human comprehension can happen "in" a black hole. Around it, yeah potentially fusion could happen, especially if it's a quasar. Neutronium might be made there. That's not really an element though since even if you take it to be a nucleus, it's atomic number is still zero. It's pretty heavy though. Strange matter could also be made there, shortly before plunging into the blackhole itself. 101.171.127.238 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when is an atomic number greater than zero a definition requisit for an element? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, an element is a category of atoms with the same atomic number, and atoms are a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons. Neutrons cannot hold electrons, so they cannot form atoms by themselves, therefore neutronium cannot be a chemical element. That's just my logic in deriving my conclusion though. It's such an inconsequential grey area that I don't think anyone really cares whether or not neutronium is considered an element. 101.171.127.238 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

An atom is a nucleus, composed of x protons and y neutrons, surrounded by x electrons. In neutronium, x = 0, so there are 0 protons, y neutrons, and 0 electrons. So despite the lack of electrons, neutronium is still an element, composed of atoms. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if an atomic number of zero can still be an element, can an atomic weight of zero also constitute an element? That would make the lightest isotope of neutronium nothing. I'm going to name it now (assuming I'm the first to consider this). I shall call it vacuumium. It's the most plentiful element in the universe. 101.171.127.238 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, a simple neutron does not weigh nothing. Why are electrons required for an element, neutronium consists of nucleons. There are several arguements available from acedemic sources, supporting the classification of the neutron as element 0, under several proposed names: Neutrium, Neutronium, Nilium, Nihilon, or just Neutron. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the point was, that if neutronium is an element, and you removed one neutron to make a lighter isotope of neutronium, you'd have nothing left. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's true, I'm not argueing against that. What does that prove though? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. It just forms the basis of a reductio ad absurdum that results in the vacuum being considered an isotope of neutronium. The debate is just over semantics anyway. Call it an element, don't call it an element, potato, potata. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an extreme interpretation to the point of being absurd. It ventures into the domain of philosophy, akin to the 'nothing' paradox: any definition of 'nothing', leads to the logical conclusion that 'nothing' is 'something'. Therefore 'nothing' cannot exist. It is not absurd to say that a glass is empty, it is absurd to say: I have a glass of water, it contains 0 mL of water. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone really say potata? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so, but the pronounciation of the second a is like in tater tots. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

thumb|The Immaculate Spaghettification

Contrary to 101.171.127.238's answer, it's certainly possible for nuclear fusion to occur inside of a black hole. From the perspective of an object that falls into a black hole, spacetime is locally unremarkable as the object crosses the event horizon. So for example if a star undergoing fusion falls into a supermassive black hole, there's nothing immediately that would stop the fusion within the star from continuing after it crosses the event horizon. (The same can't be said after the star hits the gravitational singularity, though.)

However, there's nothing particular about falling into a black hole that would cause nuclear fusion to occur. As you get further inside of a black hole, tidal forces become extremely strong, eventually resulting in the spaghettification of infalling objects. However, in spaghettification, the compression experienced along two spatial dimensions is counterbalanced by stretching along the third, resulting in no change in the object's volume. So the tidal forces aren't likely to cause the pressure within the object to get high enough to cause fusion. Of course, all bets are off as to what happens in the very last little bit right near the gravitational singularity. Red Act (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, as you fall towards a black hole, there is always a point in front of you from which you cannot observe light returning to you i.e. a point at which the required velocity to reach your eyes is greater than c. That's why nothing remarkable happens, from your perspective you never actually hit the event horizon, it always receeds away from you. When you look out towards the rest of the universe, there will be no event horizon behind you, just a very blue shifted universe. So there is no observer who can see inside the black hole, not even one who to another far away observer has crossed the event horizon. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion occurs everywhere you have hydrogen (and other light elements too). You need high temperatures and/or pressures to make the rate significant, but even at room temperature there is a nonzero chance at any given moment that two hydrogen nucleii in a bag of hydrogen will fuse. So, of course fusion occurs around a black hole. If the matter gets hot and/or dense there, then fusion will occur faster. --Srleffler (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that around black holes is an accretion disk, which is one of the most efficient methods of turning mass into energy. Up to and perhaps exceeding 40% efficiency, which far beats nuclear fusion which is only about .7% efficient. Black_hole#Accretion_of_matter. ScienceApe (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

From the article on accretion disks it isn't really clear to me the mechanism that results in matter being turned into energy. Obviously, any chemical bonds will be broken by the heat and pressure releasing their stored energy. The heat and pressure will also be high enough to enable fusion. But what accounts for the really efficient mass to energy converstion? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The mechanism would likely still be fusion, simply more complete (higher temperature and repeated) fusion than one finds in main-sequence stars where not all the matter is fused to iron before the star explodes or fusion otherwise stops. Excitation strong enough to create high-energy gamma rays could produce matter-antimatter pairs. However, the energy released by their annihilation would be the same as the energy needed to create the gamma-ray in the first place. The mechanism of gamma-ray bursts, which are short lived, are not understood according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst#Energetics_and_beaming μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the mechanism is simple friction. ScienceApe (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How does friction convert mass to energy? Normally friction as I know it converts kinetic energy to heat. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC)That doesn't really add up. If you fuse 2H⁺ to make ²H⁺ then fuse thatwith another H⁺ to give ³He and fuse two of those to make 2H⁺ and ²He, you still have ~6 atomic mass units just like you did at the start. A small fraction is now energy, but not all that much. No where near 40%. Even if you continue through to ⁵⁶Fe, there's no way 40% of the mass is now released as binding energy; and after that point fusion is endothermic. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, assuming the friction can make gamma rays of high enough energy, it would be the equivalent of the annihilation of matter-antimatter pairs. I was assuming that this would have to be driven by fusion, but I think ScienceApe is correct that friction alone might excite the matter enough to produce gamma rays of such high energy. I am not competent to work that out. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's still only converting kinetic energy to heat, and then radiating it as a gamma ray, and then creating and annihilating some matter and antimater. There's not net change of matter to energy there. How does the matter become energy? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

But it is a huge amount of heat, and, as I mentioned above, a high energy gamma ray is the energetic equivalent of a matter-antimatter annihilation, so the radiation of the gamma ray itself carries away the mass-energy, no additional annihilation required. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There's an unsourced claim on the article for pair production that says near a black hole, one of the created anti particles could be sucked into the hole before it gets to annihilate, so then there's a net creation of energy from matter only when one particle and not the other gets sucked into the hole and only when that particle is the electron. In the other case where you end up with an electron outside and a positon sucked in, you actually create mass from energy cancelling out the effect of the first case. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's Hawking radiation, and it's only significant in small black holes without accretion disks. As for converting matter to energy by friction, shouldn't the kinetic energy of mass falling into a black hole be relatively easy to calculate? I'll leave it to some math or physics major. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's easy to calculate. It's also completely beyond the point. A huge amount of kinetic energy being converted into a huge amount of heat is just that. A conversion from one form a energy to another. There's no converstion of mass to energy. According to ScienceApe, >40% of the mass can be converted to energy (according to the wikipedia article on accretion discs it's 10 percent and neither of them has cited a source). How does that happen? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the fact that black body radiation can be emitted at any energy, and that while it is often called heat, since we equate it in most cases with infrared radiation, it can have any energy, up to x-ray and gamma radiation. Remember, also, that E=mc^2, and hence gamma rays are the equivalent to a certain amount of mass. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not missing that at all. As I said earlier "That's still only converting kinetic energy to heat, and then radiating it as a gamma ray". I know you can radiate internal energy as gamma rays. ScienceApe said "an accretion disk...is one of the most efficient methods of turning mass into energy.". The only possibile interpretation of that is "rest-mass into energy". Otherwise it just becomes "Mass energy to mass energy". Gamma rays are the equivalent of a certain amount of mass, but what mass? What mass is gone? I can see where there was some gravitational potential energy, which became kinetic energy in the motion of the accetion disc, and then friciton converts it to heat which is then radiated as gamma rays. I can't see how any mass went to being energy. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two questions. First is that of the balanced equation. If the kinetic energy is sufficient to create powerful enough gamma rays, they will carry away a certain amount of energy, and hence, by E=mc^2, a certain amount of mass. Surely you agree with that? Second, there is the question of the intermediate steps. There's the rub, apparently, since the sources we have in wikipedia don't seem to give the proposed mechanisms. But that doesn't mean we don't know that we start with a certain amount of friction and end up with apparently 40% of the mass being converted to radiative energy? Or do you disagree at some point? μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The second part is fully and absolutely understood. The first part is what I'm having trouble with. The net change is kinetic energy to gamma rays, correct? Yes, mass is equivalent to energy, but if you talk about mass being converted to energy (as ScienceApe did), clearly, you're delineating between rest-mass (which is converted to energy in nuclear fusion) and other mass energy. Gamma rays have no rest mass and kinetic energy is by definition the non-rest-mass component of total energy. The rest mass is therefore unchanged i.e. there is no converstion of mass to energy at all. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems easily addressed. Imagine a particle and an antiparticle next to each other. They are moving towards each other with negligible but real velocity. They touch and are annihilated. A huge amount of energy is released. Almost none of this is from the original kinetic energy of the particles. That is what is happening in the accretion disk. Friction is creating gamma rays. The gamma rays are as energetic as matter-antimatter pairs. Hence they spontaneously create matter-antimatter pairs. Whose relative velocities are negligible, but real. So the pairs annihilate each other. Converting a huge amount of mass into an even huger amount of energy. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from reading a couple of non-wiki sources on the subject, I think I get it now. The logic of it still seems a bit odd, but I think I know what they're getting at now when they say 10% of the mass is converted to energy (the 40% estimate is now considered wrong because it would require almost all known quasars to have black holes rotating at 99% of the maxiumum allowable speed, and that was based on incorrect early mass estimates of the black holes themselves). If you throw something into the blackhole, friction, and the simple act of radially accelerating charged particles to near light speed causes it to emit light, and the total amount emited is proportional to its graviational potential energy, which is proportional to its mass. The total amount emitted sums to ~10% of it's rest mass. The reason this is a bit odd, is because even after it has emited most of that energy, but before it has crossed the event horizon, it still has the same rest mass it started off with so it's mass is not really being converted to energy. But still, the amount of electromagnetic energy that is extracted is still a fraction of it's mass, and the mass certainly cannot be recovered once it has crossed the event horizon. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your saying it emits light now, rather than heat, is the important part. But I myself find it hard to believe or understand that the rest mass stays exactly the same. (Is it just that c in E=mc^2 is so large?) Can you link to your source? μηδείς (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just left work, so I don't have the links in front of me, but they didn't discuss the fact that the rest mass stays the same anyway. Whether it's light or heat doesn't matter; gravitational potential energy is converted to light through the various mechanisms, including friction which is by definition the conversion of kinetic energy to heat. The rest mass must remain the same because rest mass is invariant by definition. Imagine a single atom of H flying into the black hole. When the distance is still great, is accelerates towards the hole, as it would towards any other graviational field. At first it emits very low frequency EMF, but as its velocity increases, it goes right through the spectrum to gamma. Tidal forces will strip the electron from it and if it's path curves towards the black hole, it will emit synchrotron radiation. If it bumps into another particle, it will lose kinetic energy and impart heat energy into the thing it hit. The amount of energy it will emit in total is about 10% of its rest mass. But right up until it crosses the event horizon, it will still have ~1 atomic mass unit of rest mass. 101.173.170.147 (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out guys that a great deal of the mass-energy generated in the accretion disk is imparted to the polar jet aka relativistic jet if the particles are moving at extremely high velocities. The jets are essentially titanic sized particle accelerators. The mechanism for how they are formed is not well understood yet. ScienceApe (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"The rest mass must remain the same because rest mass is invariant by definition" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Invariant isn't the same as conserved. The rest mass of each of the elementary particles is a constant, but rest mass isn't conserved in general.

When you pull objects apart against their mutual gravitational attraction, you're adding gravitational potential energy to the system. In general relativity that energy is mass and gravitates, so this system's rest mass and distant gravitational field are larger after this procedure than before. That's the "mass" that's being "converted into energy" in the accretion disc. But you'll never get an objective answer to a question about whether mass is being converted into energy in any given situation because the laws of physics just don't distinguish between mass and energy at all. The answer depends on which energy you've chosen to call mass. -- BenRG (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia's article on it, by pulling two objects under mutual gravitational attraction apart, you increase the invariant mass of the system, but the sum of the rest masses of the components remains unchanged. I don't really like the way the article defines those terms though. Why is it called the "invariant mass" of the system if it varies with gravitational potential? 101.171.42.164 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Invariant here means Lorentz invariant. A quantity that doesn't change over time is called conserved, not invariant. I'm not sure how much sense it makes to talk about the individual rest masses of components of a system when one of the components is a black hole. It may make sense, but I'm suspicious. -- BenRG (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to import chemical feedstocks from Chinese suppliers at alibaba.com

This is for a possible laboratory / business to make biochemical products (finished goods) to resell in the United States (to other research labs). Is it true that all you need to do at customs is for someone to "positively" certify that "all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that I am not offering a chemical substance for entry in violation of TSCA or any applicable rule or order under TSCA"? i.e. I could just get a customs broker to do this for me? 72.229.155.79 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Which China? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice, consult a qualified professional. Roger (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not legal advice, just the obvious: Quite simply -don't try. Iodine, pseudoephedrine, phosphorous, hydrogen peroxide and a host of others are just some of the chemicals one can buy freely abroad. When it comes to biochemicals you are getting into a minefield. Unless you are already an established US business with good paper trail audits (and ways of fiddling them when there are not so good) and millions to spend lobbing those in high government office that you are really the good guys. Then you are open to letting your competitors to get you arrested for supporting terrorism, attempted insurrection and anything else they can dream up that sounds impressive on Faux News. The present laws, regulations and what-not have been angled to keep the small guy out of it.--Aspro (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever your personal opinion, please don't use this desk to mock Fox News Channel. DriveByWire (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As you know Faux is French for false. I don't live in the US! If fox news has has gained this moniker (and by Googling -I see that they have - it a US news channel right) -that is their problem. Now that you have brought it to my notice however, I'll give you others option on this channel that I've found by Googling. It sucks! An' if you singled out an other Faux News channel ( I meant it in the generic) I might have possible Googled the same thing. So by what right do you think you have to tell me what adjectives to use to agree with your personal feeling of fairness and NPOV in your autocenrtic world? --Aspro (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

why don't swampies use non-exchanging heat exchange with air?

Resolved

reading the "swampy" (evaporative cooling) article, most problems seem to be related to the humidity it generates. But why not just use a swampy in a gridlock maze of long (very large surface area) celophane compartments filled with air but with a maze structure such that the inside air is actually cut off from the swampie-cooled air, and the latter circulates out of the house at the end of the maze? Then you would have the cooing effect without the humidity, at a cost of almost 0 in materials and a very low volume of sacrificed space (representing a huge surface area of exchanged heat).

what I mean is that the exchange should be conductive through the celophane between the swampie-cooled air and the inside air. at the end, the swampie-cooled air becomes warmer and the inside air becomes colder, but the inside air isn't filled with humidity. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.90.91 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What article are you reading? Our article called "Swampy" is about a person. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Evaporative cooler. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because inevitably most of the "coolth" is carried away with the water vapor. And, in the dry climates where an evaporative cooler works well, the added moisture inside is actually welcome. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Given enough surface area in a tunnel-shape, by the time the swampie (topologically "outside") air gets to the end of it it will be in equilibrium with the inside air. i.e. both be warm. I imagine it like this:

100 s> 75 -> 76 -> 77 -> 78 -> 79 -> 80 -> 81 -> ... -> 87 -> outside
-------------------------------------------------------...---------
100 -> 99 -> 98 -> 97 -> 96 -> 95 -> 94 -> 93 -> ... -> 87 -> inside

i.e. the swampy cools the air down a lot, but it's very moist. By the end it's at equilibrium. If you don't want to "waste" the heat difference between 87 and 100, you can again use the difference between 87 and 100 to cool some of the air before it even enters the system through a second loop (again it's closed so it doesn't make the newly entering air any wetter, just colder). Then the air would enter at e.g. 90 instead of 100, if 90 is the equilibrium temperature between 87 and 100. You see what I'm getting at? You can get the two things to equilibrium if you just expose a long surface area through conductive celophane. This can be bundled up in a maze-like structure that is topologically equivalent to the above... --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

in other words, if my calculations are correct you can make a swampy arbitrarily close to an "perfect air conditioner" (not wet and humid output) without wasting heat, by increasing the number and length of loops to arbitrary length. Of course, if you have to add another 100 meters of heat exchange wall to keep from emiting 98 degree humid air instead of 99.2 degree humid air (when the outside is 100 degrees), then it's probably not worth it. So you would probably draw the line and say: We will capture 96% of the swampy's cooling power and let it exit slightly cooler than the outside air because we don't want to build a long enough exchange to equalize over such a small temperature differential. But the point is initially the temperature differential is quite large, and the closed exchange wouldn't have to have a prohibitively large inner surface area, would it? Link title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

( note that this is our relevant article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_exchanger ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I lived in Tucson for 20 years and relied on swamp coolers for most of that time, so I can answer this question from personal knowledge. First, the added moisture is definitely not a benefit, because it makes the air feel muggy in spite of being cooler. But regarding the main question, the thing you have to realize is that swamp coolers are only moderately effective at best, and anything that makes their effects less direct would make them essentially useless. I don't follow the calculations above, but the conclusions have nothing to do with reality. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the OP's idea/question correctly, he is talking about using water evaporation to cool air drawn in, as in anormal "swampy", but instead of using that now cool and high humidity air inside the building, pass it through an air-to-air heat exchanger (maze in the OP's words) to transfer the "coolth" without the humidity. This idea is quite valid, and has been tried in remote areas of Australia, where the only electricity available is local solar power - so energy consumption by aircon must be kept to an abolute minimum, due to solar power cost. It works just fine, bu the trouble with it is the huge size of the heat exchanger (termed "flat-plate counter-flow" heat exchangers) actually required - the ones I have seen have the heat exchanger occupying the same volume as the building. A number of patents have been granted for manufacturing methods to get the leargest possible surface area without requiring prohibitive power to force the air through the heat exchanger - this is the reason for the huge size. You can make the heat exchanger small, and by suitable laborithian design, get enough surface area. But then the air path will be too tortuous and require too much fan power to force the air through. Huge size means high cost as well - essentially, if you need to to build a building twice as big as what you need for its' function, it will cost twice a much as well.

Another problem is that the heat exchnager must be kept scrupulously clean inside. Only a small amount of dust on the plates significantly reduces heat transfer and obstructs air flow. And wasps and other creepies reckon its a good place to set up residence. This means high maintenace costs.

On the other hand, using a cooling system like this in conjunction with solar power gneration makes some good sense, because you get maxium solar power during the heat of the day on hot summer days - just when you need cooling. So if you size the solar panels for adequate power in winter, you have some excess power in summer to run the fans in the airconditioning.

Keit58.164.229.57 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right Keit. (I'm the OP here.) I am glad to know the invention works and has been used by others. In fact I have over 3000 ideas in every branch of humanity that fall into four categories and a separate category (5): 1) things I think are "very easy" (like two lines of code, e.g. a single SQL join, but nobody has thought to do it or knows why it works), 2) moderately difficult (things that I have completed and can, for example, patent, but would take an R&D budget to refine into something you can start selling), 3) mostly finished or risky (not completely ready to write the patent or don't have complete design specs, however the idea is finished) 4) not sure I could do it myself (working on it, but I have a proof that it is physically possible), 5) not really the same category as the others, but "probably possible" (strong evidence but no proof that it would work), this means it is not done (e.g. I've devoted time to it and have reason to do so but the problem is open to me. It may be impossible or I may hear of another team's solution.)

Without including any of the fourth or fifth category, I am happy to share all 3000 ideas with someone who would finance the "best" of them. I propose the following methodology: I send you 3 thousand ideas each encrypted with a different private key, you pick a random selection of 50 of them, giving me the numbers that you have selected, and I will share the keys for those numbers. This makes it statistically impossible for me to "fluff" the number or quality of the ideas. You evaluate the fifty (much as you evaluated the present idea) and seeing the merit in them begin to fund me as a 1-man R&D firm. Straight up-front I would like funding for a great many patents, some web apps, and other practically no-cost ways to begin certain businesses. As I fbegin to accrue IP I will be able to seek outside funding and pay you a return on your initial investment. Obviously, the reason I have 3000 solid ideas to my name is that I have devoted a great deal of thought to working them out. Initially I will invest your money in filing for several patents - those most easily manufactured - and then immediately begin to shop them around to very large companies. the total cost here is about 5000-7000 buckses (based on my initial research). I believe no follow-on investment will be necessary before I can pay you a big multiple of your investment, and of course the patent may be joint if you require or until you have been repaid on your investment it can be assigned to you. all this is after you review the 3000 ideas (that is, a statistically significant sample of 50 you choose at random). Please let me know if you are interested. You may reach me at ranbir.bacchan at gmail.com. I hope to hear from you. --84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Um I think you've misunderstood where you are. This is the wikipedia reference desk, not a venture capital firm or the Dragons' Den internet edition. I suggest you put some thought in to finding appropriate places to ask for funding rather then spending all your time coming up with random ideas then spaming about them to random places. You may also want to look in to whether your ideas have already been tried before spending too much time on them, or asking for funding. Alternatively, perhaps rather then coming up with 3000 ideas, spend more time on one idea and then perhaps when it makes the megaloads of 'buckses' you expect, you can self fund the other 2999. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 23

Hi, I was surprised that this has already been done and works. I wasn't sure, it's outside my main areas of expertise. I'm not looking for venture capitalists and I don't have a company. I'd just like to monetize a great many ideas with a partner, such as the one who evaluated this one. The monetary needs are minimal, such as the collaboration between a certain mathematician and Mr. Hardy. It wasn't really about the money. At any rate I've put a "resolved" next to this item. I do appreciate that your suggestion not to "spend all my time coming up with random ideas" is probably appropriate to most traditional businesses, and I have nothing to say on this subject. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I also list possible invention ideas I have, but more like 30 than 3000. The difference is that I try to filter out the impractical ideas and those which have already been done, neither of which have any any financial value. I suggest you go through that filtering process on your own ideas, before searching for investors. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The "filtering process" I have resources for is to separate great, workable ideas from ones that don't work or can't work. The question here has done just that for one of the category 4/category 5 ideas. I don't currently have the resources to see which have been independently discovered by other people and which have not. This is part of the patent-application process, which costs a few hundred buckses in attorney's fees. At any rate the offer is not to evaluate 30, but a random sampling of 3000 patentable or and marketable ideas. These are not business plans. I'm not soliciting an investment but given your helpful nature in evaluating my question - and thus resolving it - if you would like to get in touch with me I've told you how. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviuosy none of you here are VC's, but I also don't think a VC is equipped to evaluate any mechanisms of the type that I have. They evaluate busineses. To be clear, I don't have a business. You are saying I shouldn't get involved with anyone who isn't already rich? No matter how talented and able to evaluate mechanisms and patentable processes in many disciplines, which is what I would like. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And Sirs, I apologize if I have offended you. Perhaps as a separate question we can find a better forum for me, I do not think the VC plan is appropriate. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On the chance that the OP genuinely thinks he has a stock of good ideas, and is not spamming/trying to find a sucker with cash, here's some further advice:-

1. People who think up literally thousands of good ideas are 10 a penny. But folks who think up good ideas that have have not been tried before are very rare.
2. If you think you have a good idea, keep it to yourself. Park it in the back of your mind. Over the next 3 months, 3 years, or whatever, consult relavent trade and academic journals - 99.99% or the time you will discover your idea is not new.
3. Read up appropriate textbooks and skill up on the applicable theory. This will either reveal that it has been done before, or why it's not a good idea after all.
4. Try and work out what the terminology/nomenclature of the various parts would be. Then web-search on this terminology. That will a) reveal further that it has been thought of before, & b) lead you to the right terminology. True understanding of technology is 70% knowing the terminology and 30% mastering relavent text book theory. Only with true understanding can you correctly filter good ideas from bad.

I have been a technician and succesful professional engineer for over 40 years. I too over the years have had thousands of "good ideas" for new products. But, using the above 4 principles, I have eliminated all but a dozen or so, and only a couple of things have had commercial success. Which leads me to one more principle, perhaps the most important of all:-

5 Commercial success depends principally on a) good marketing b) adquate finance c) excellent risk management and business management skills. Comming up with the good technical idea is just a tiny part of it. A person with a good idea but no business skills linking up with a person who has a bag of money but no technical skills or business skills generally just means a depleted bag of money and dissapointment. Succesfull venture capitalists are the way to go, but they won't just fund on an idea - they'll want a comprehensive package. If they don't, they are fools. Keit120.145.65.23 (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do Neon lamps burn out?

I have several electrical devices, such as power strips, which have a Neon lamp to indicate the power is on. After a few years use, they flicker, or do not light at all, or go on and off randomly. They are cold cathode gas discharge devices, and there is no hot filament to burn out, as in an incandescent lamp, and they are just a resistor in series with the neon bulb, so there is not ballast or starter to fail, and no phosphors inside the tube to fail, as in a fluorescent lamp. So what gets "used up" in a neon lamp, when it is not operated at excessively high voltage or current? How many hours does a neon lamp such as an NE-2 operated, on average, before failure? Edison (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The metal that makes up the electrodes evaporates over time. They may not be hot to you but metal atoms are getting continuously knocked off. Eventually the normal voltage is not sufficient to strike an arc. Place same flickering lamp across a transformer that provides a higher voltage and the lamp will shine brightly again. --Aspro (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There must be more to it than that. The electrodes in a dud neon don't look much different to those in a good neon. Certainly any loss of material from the electrodes cannot significantly alter the spacing. The striking voltage depends on the spacing, the gas pressure, and the type of gas (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakdown_voltage). So the gas pressure must be changing somehow, or the gas gets contaminated. As to how many hours of operation, that does seem to depend on the operating current density. Before zener diodes became available, neon tubes, both NE-2 type and larger types designed for the purpose, were used as voltage references in (tube-based) regulated power supplies. In my experience such regulator tubes in such equipment as oscilloscopes, TV cameras, etc, operated without failure all day every day for 10 years or more - but they glowed only dimly compared to NE-2 used as visual indicators. Keit121.221.1.107 (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a pons asinorum: Neon is more or less inert. So little is going to happen the gas pressure or composition. (2) Glass in a good insulator at these temperatures. (3) The electrodes are good conductors at these temperatures. (4) There is no oxygen in the bulb – just neon. (5) The metal ions that boil off the electrodes 'condenses' on the cool inside envelop of glass -i.e., it does not form a non-conductive oxide film . (6) The inside coat of conductive metal slowly reduces the potential across the xeon gap by conduction. (7) A point will come when the potential across the gap will not reach the afore said breakdown voltage. (8) As this condition is approached, flickering of light output will be observable. (9) If these electrodes did not evaporate, the lamp would not fail -unless for other reasons. (10) The metallic film on the inside of the glass envelope has a resistance – so if you increase the electrode voltage, the arc will eventually re-strike; as this current path (between the electrodes) will again form the lowest resistance. Platinum has a lower vapour pressure than tungsten, so this as electrode element might be better.

Unless you live in one of those countries that just trains its pupils to mechanically pass exams, you will come to learn all this, in your science lessons. Your CD's get their shinny aluminium coat by the same principle of vacuum deposition. There is likely to be many more example of this processes in your own home.--Aspro (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How about those contries that spend more time on subject-verb agreement? μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Muphry's law rules those shinny contries. DriveByWire (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if there was indeed a shunt forming on the inside of the glass consisting of evaporated electrodes (or any other source of conductor)

1. you would see a drop in the ~ infinite resistance across the electrodes when cold and
2. it would evaporate itself pretty quick while it was still thin enough and the line voltage was applied. See also metal whiskers in Nicad batteries

so i'm thinking either some sort of poisoning of the electrodes like surface oxidation or some sort of poisoning of the neon? (Anecdotal possibly relevant info: when you smash a dead Ne2 neon bulb with a hammer because that's what you do when you're a prepubescent male with a dead Ne2 bulb and a hammer, it gives one last burst of orange light as in triboluminescence; which indicates that there is still neon present in the bulb, eliminating my other blue-sky hypothesis, that the neon has all diffused out through the glass.)Gzuckier (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Either the tubes break or the electrodes burn out. Or God intervenes. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Skin color and temperature

If a black person is standing next to a white person in sunlight, shouldn't the black person feel hotter? Maybe African-descended persons are better adapted for high heat than say Northern Europeans but is that enough to compensate? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember my biology teacher from grade 12 talking about how pigmentation causes black people to lose heat to the environment much faster. I don't remember why, but now it's got me interested... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's because they have higher emissivity, of course. I was thinking they were standing the sun and still getting colder than a white person. So yeah, black people should get hotter in direct sunlight without going into any other adaptations some people may possibly have. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dark surfaces reflect less solar radiation than light surfaces, so of two otherwise identical persons of different skin pigmentation in your scenario, the darker-skinned person would absorb more solar radiation. That's a purely physics explanation (it could apply to any surface, not just human skin) - heat and the perception of heat are going to depend on more factors than simply the skin colour. As to the evolutionary reasons for the variation in skin pigmentation in humans, see Skin pigmentation#Evolution of skin color. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If an object is darker at all wavelenghts (visible light and infrared), then it won't get any hotter. It is only when an object is darker at visible wavelengths but less dark in the infrared, that it will get hotter. Count Iblis (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are right. An object at human body temperature will want to emit radiation at much longer wavelengths than the peak of the solar spectrum. Heating of such an object in direct sunlight will be dominated by absorption in the near infrared, while cooling will be dominated by absorption (emission) in the mid- to far-infrared.

Melanin absorbs strongly in the near ultraviolet, and not much at all in the infrared.[3] It's not clear whether dark skin will cause a person to get hotter or cooler in direct sunlight, but clearly the apparent dark color in the visible will have much less effect than one might suppose, because it is not dark in the infrared where the solar spectrum is much stronger.--Srleffler (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Sun's radiation peaks around 500 nm, which is in the green band of the visible spectrum. See [4]. If it peaked in the infrared, our eyes would have evolved to see infrared, and we would name it "visible". Because of the long high-wavelength tail, there might be more total radiation in the infrared than in the visible (it's hard to tell from the graph, and I'm too lazy to do the integration), but in any case absorption in the visible is highly significant.

I'm also not sure that the predominant source of cooling for a human body is radiation. Do you have a source for that? If the main source of cooling isn't radiation, black skin should definitely be hotter, unless it's much less absorptive in the infrared than white skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.5.169 (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Humans have three main ways to loose heat: 1) radiation from skin, 2) conduction from skin to air passing over it, 3) evaporation of sweat. (1) is very ineffective compared to (2). (3) is vastly more effective than (2), but the body automatically adjusts sweating from zero to dramatic as required. The body can also adjust the blood flow to the skin in order to control (1) + (2). For thse and the other reasons posted above (the visual colour has little to do with the radiation coefficient at infrared), it matters not a whit what your skin colour is. When I was a first year at university, they had us do a series of lab experiments measuring the heat loss from a piece of aluminium, unpainted and shiny, painted red, painted black, unpainted and roughened, various airflows from zero to a gentle breeze. These lab tests proved convicingly that radiation in all manner of practical applications, where the object temperature is only moderate (say up to 40 C above ambient), is unimportant, though measureable. Surface roughness is just as, and often more, important re radiation than is visual colour. Wickwack58.170.139.183 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But the question was in sunlight does the black person feel hotter. The difference in temperature need only be very slight for a person to feel it. And the heat radiated from the sun will rapidly change the temperature of the skin's surface before mechansims (2) and (3) start to respond. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, I suppose this cannot be answered, as there is an acute shortage of people who change colour. However, the difference is so slight that I expect that acclimatisation would render it impreceptable - much as folks in London feel warm on a 25 C day (hot for London) but folks in Perth Australia feel cool on a 25 C day (average for Perth). Wickwack58.170.139.183 (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

see text to left

(1) Regardless of skin colour, body shape is different in long-limbed Africans and thick-trunked Northern Europeans. (2) Yes, Black people whom I have touched normally feel warmer than White people. (3) Anyone who has lived in NYC will know you will often see Black people bundled in heavy jackets or hats in weather of 70 degrees Fahrenheit, while you will rarely see the same in White people above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a darker skinned individual will probably feel hotter, but they won't burn, or their risk of getting burned is significantly reduced. Melanin very efficiently converts ultraviolet radiation into heat which is harmless, so while you may feel a little hotter in the sun, you won't get sunburned. I know it's possible for a dark skinned person to get sunburned at a certain point, but I'm a dark skinned guy myself, and I've never been sunburned in my life. Considering the risk of sunburn, melanoma, and other skin cancers, I'll take my dark skin any day. ScienceApe (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A "thick-trunked Northern European" with some "long-limbed Africans". "African" is completely as useful a genetic subset as "Northern European", right? Now to find a way to accurately measure their surface area (volume is easy)... 86.164.77.7 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC) [I moved this comment from under the image to the right in order to maintain continuity. -μηδείς]

What is relevant is body proportion, not stature. See Allen's rule. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Allen's rule implies that to survive in Antarctica a cow should be spherical. DriveByWire (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a non-spherical cow in Antarctica? --Carnildo (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you think you've disagreed with something I said. 86.164.77.7 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sun's magnetic field doubled?

Has the Sun's magnetic field doubled over the last 100 years? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Solar variation#Changes in the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic flux article section says it has. However, despite a couple surprising statements in that section, there isn't a single citation in that section, and solar variation is something that people into climate change denial like to bring up (see Global warming controversy#Solar variation), so it might not be good to blindly rely on that article section as being accurate. Red Act (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement (the one that made me ask) that it had doubled most likely came from a climate change denier. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the open magnetic flux has increased by something like a factor of two in the past century, a rough number given the uncertainty in the reconstructions. See e.g., Lockwood (2003), figure 12. Notice that the flux was about as high as now back during the late 1700s, a period that was a good bit cooler than now (see Little Ice Age). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would there be any connection between the global temperature and the Sun's magnetic flux? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Sun's magnetic flux correlates with the intensity of the solar wind, which could hypothetically influence cloud formation, which itself influences global temperatures and other climate effects. But since the flux has doubled in a hundred years (allegedly) and we're not all dead, I assume the influence is small. I leave it to climate modelers to say what the influence might actually be. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"But since the flux has doubled in a hundred years (allegedly) and we're not all dead, I assume the influence is small." So would you say the same thing about atmospheric CO₂? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)j

Wow, I didn't even see myself walking into that one. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)None, basically. There's the supposed effect of galactic cosmic rays on production of cloud condensation nuclei (which is what I assume you're referring to). That GCR can affect production of tiny particles is accepted, but those particles are orders of magnitude smaller than the actual particles that serve as CCN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, look up Svensmark, the current hero of the lack of cosmic rays because of the sun cause AGW theory. There are a few problems preventing my, for instance, taking it too seriously, such as the very short period their original publications referenced to show correlation, the lack of correlation seen since then, the possibility that the sun's magnetic field and things like actual solar output, in the UV for instance, which are known to cause cloud cover, are vaguely correlated, possibly accounting for a spurious correlation seen between magnetic field and cloud cover, the difficulty in accurately estimating the historical solar magnetic field before we began to measure it, and, last but not least, the existence of a perfectly acceptable theory with a well defined mechanism of action which already covers the data much more accurately than the cosmic ray thing, i.e. AGW via CO2, and therefore the cosmic ray thing can't logically shed any doubt on AGW until it gets a lot more meat on its bones. Gzuckier (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

June 23

Dissolving sulfur

I have a nylon cloth that has minerals impregnated in it. I think that one of them is elemental sulfur. The rest of them should be sulfides and oxides of iron, zinc, calcium and lead, and lead sulphate may be there as well. The cloth has a red/orange colour to it that is removed if I soak it in dilute HCl, HNO₃ or H₂SO₄, but not removed if I soak it in EDTA or water. The EDTA liquor contains a fair bit of iron, so I think the red colour is not due to iron. The article on sulfur says that it dissolves in carbon disulfide, benzene and toluene, but my ICP-OES isn't set up to run organics. Is there anything aqueous that can selectively dissolve only the elemental sulfur, if it is in fact the cause of the red colour? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there no emulsifier to do the job? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a bit on that? I don't really want an emulsion, because I want to analyse it on the ICP, but I suppose if I formed an emulsion I could separate the sulfur suspended in the liquor from the rest of the cloth and then oxidize to sulphate to solubulize and go from there. What emulsifier could I use for that? 101.172.85.63 (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of googling and found that ethoxy nonylphenol is a good candidate for the emulsification of sulfur. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the opperation of that particular piece of laboratory equipment, but why not just just dissolve the sulfur in benzene or tolluene, and then recover it by vacuum distillation? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My lab isn't really set up for organics at all...I don't have a vacuum distillation rig or anything like that. I could just wait until the stuff evaporates in the fumecupboard though. The lab normally only does metal assays on mining samples, but they've thrown me a bit of a curve ball. I don't think I'm going to have any of the emulsifiers on hand, so I think I'm just going to soak the fabric in CS₂ and see if it gets rid of the red colour. Do you think elemental sulfur could account for the red colour in a nylon fabric? I'm thinking red/orange is pretty close to yellow sulfur, but it could potentially also be another allotrope, couldn't it? 101.172.85.63 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure, I'm not familiar enough with sulfur allotropes to give an answer to that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It could be an arsenic sulfide. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable, considering arsenic is often associated with heavy metals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, what would free sulfur be doing in the sample anyway? It's usually associated with reducing soils, which does not seem to be the case here. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's possibly produced as a colloid in the treatment of sulfide ores. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

~15 hours of soaking in 100% CS₂ did not remove the red colour. Now I'm thinking the EDTA only moved iron oxides and hydroxides, but left the pyrite behind. I'm getting desperate, so I just dumped samples of the cloth into hydrogen peroxide, calcium hypochlorite and household bleach. Hope fully something cleans it. The HCl I originally used actually cleaned it up pretty nicely, but chloride ion is a bit too corrosive to use in this application. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Have yout tried an alkaline solution yet? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Try a free radical reaction with a Fenton type solution: a combination of iron(2+) sulfate and hydrogen peroxide. That should pack a punch. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A strong alkaline solution will dissolve the nylon too, so best to steer clear of that. Stong acids will also damage nylon, and so will heat. Is it better to throw out the cloth and buy whatever it is new? As all thos chemicals and your time will cost. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Larox filter cloths are $20,000 each, and they're clogging up 5x faster than expected. 101.173.170.147 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is an arsenic sulfide, it should be soluble in a solution of oxalic ammine with excess ammonia. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The manufacturer recommended trying oxalic acid but I don't have any. I thought that the EDTA would be a good alternative, and it did nothing, so I think the oxalic acid will be much the same. I've now tried; HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, water, EDTA, diesel, bleach, Ca(OCl)2, H2O2, acetone, THF, ethanol, methanol and carbon disulfide. HCl gave the best results, but the engineers are worried about corrosion on the filter press itself if we use that. Other than that, only H2SO4 and HNO3 did anything, and they didn't do much. Fenton's reagent sounds like it will attack the nylon, but thanks for pointing it out anyway; I realised it was just what I was looking for for something else! I doubt it's arsenic. I checked the assay numbers and arsenic is at ppm levels. 101.173.170.147 (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oxalic acid is quite different from ammonium oxalate, and works differently from EDTA. Oxalic acid can be obtained from a local hardware store, it's used to treat wood before it's painted. Just neutralise some oxalic acid with excess ammonia over some heat, that should give you ammonium oxalate. In any case, have you tried running diagnostics on a sample of the residue? Take a scraping, or pick off some pieces of the contaminant and react it with concentrated hydrochloric acid, analyse the resulting solution with the IPC-OES against a hydrochloric reference. At least that way you know what you are dealing with. That way, we can be more helpful, rather than just guessing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The very first thing I did was cut of 4 samples of ~0.1g and digest them in conc. HNO2, HCl and HF and analyse on the ICP. The results showed that it contained significant Fe, Zn, Pb, Ca and S. There was a little bit of Si, but not much. Everything else that is detectable was trace. Other than S and Si, I can't see non-metals on the ICP. 101.173.170.147 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, no, I meant after you've removed the other contaminants. Treat a sample with EDTA to was out all the contaminants to leave just the unknown residue on te cloth. Then wash it thoroughly with deionised water, and treat it with the conc. HCl. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Entomologist named "Nonfried" (fl. 1893-1900)

Hi all. Nonfried (fl. 1893-1900, initials A. F.) is apparently the species authority for a number of beetles. See: Eligmodermini, Lampetis, Metopocoilus giganteus, and so on. So, who was this chap? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This document gives a bit of information: "Anton Franz (Antonín František) Nonfried (1854–1923). Based in Rakovník (= Rakonitz), Czech Republic, Nonfried ran a business with insects. His private collection was mostly sold (e.g., the cetonids are deposited in Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Germany; HORN et al. 1990) but a small part, including several types, was acquired by NMP" [National Museum, Prague]. Obviously a sober, responsible person. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And NONFRIED Anton Franz, *16.10.1854, +16.12.1923... Oh dear, not much to start an article on... --Shirt58 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Nonfried had a basket full of half-baked theories ? :-) StuRat (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ran a business with insects? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Some Chiroptera guano "differently realitied" editor has started an article about the guy.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Status of a request for a qualified expert to create a Wikipedia article on the concept of "new water".

To whom it may concern:

I made a request for an article on the subject of "new water", and supplied enough information so such a person could be found. Now I'm unable to find the request and the message I previously wrote. The following is what I supplied:

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

I am not qualified to write an article about this subject, but it is of extreme importance currently. I would like to request that a qualified writer, not pre-disposed to consider what follows to be the work of a charlatan in the water prospecting business, create the article.

In the 1960's a mining engineer, named Stephen Riess, discovered a water generating process within the Earth he called "new water". It was part of his management of mining operations in silver mining at high elevations in Nevada. Some of the mines he was associated with were experiencing flooding that could not be explained by the hydrologic cycle because of the high elevations in which the flooding occurred. I was fascinated by an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times and obtained the article from a library. A book was written called "New Water For A Thirsty World" by Michael Salzman, who interviewed Riess. Based on Riess' mining experience he began a business prospecting for water, that, among others, attracted the Sparklets Spring Water Co to drill a well for them near Ramona, CA. The well Riess created successfully produced water for the company. This was one of many successful water projects. At the time Riess also approached the State of California for an alternative to the Feather River Project as a much less expensive way to supply adequate amounts of water. His proposals were rejected.

Riess was an educated person, having received his engineering degree in Switzerland. I actually met with him and his wife in Ojai, CA in the early 80's with some friends, one of whom was a scientist for Hughes Aircraft. At that time he was in his 80's. During that visit I learned that one of his professors in Switzerland was Albert Einstein. He also explained that one of his professors in the petroleum engineering field showed how crude oil could be created in the laboratory, which explains the theories of some that "abiotic oil" exists, and is not the result of dead dinosaurs, something space exploration is confirming from the exploration of planets in our Solar system. He had created a successful well on his property on Sulfur Mountain Road, which is also at an elevation well above any explanations that traditional hydrologists can provide.

The reason I believe this article would be of great current interest is because of the nuclear disaster in Fukashima, Japan. The radioactive contamination has reached as far east as Philadelphia, PA, and is showing up in sea life, like the blue fin tuna, on the west coast of the United States. If an article, such as this, was created it should generate a great deal of interest in renewing the search for uncontaminated water anywhere that radioactive contamination has become a public health problem. In the book mentioned above there is a passage in the book about above ground atomic testing by the United States. This widely distributed radioactivity that was born by air currents across the Earth. However, the wells Riess constructed never became contaminated because they were not part of the hydrologic cycle. The current implications of this should be evident, and is why I believe an article created by a qualified expert, who is unafraid of criticism within his discipline, could draw widespread interest.

I have done some cursory research provided by others to help explain this request as follows:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.51.4.627-b

NEW WATER FOR A THIRSTY WORLDBy Michael Salzman. Los Angeles, Calif.: Science Foundation Press (73314 Ascot Station), 1960. 210 pp. Price, $5.95. This book projects a theory that: (1) there are everlasting supplies of new waters in little-explored, solid-rock fissures within the earth; and (2) they originate from chemical processes occurring there and are unrelated to the familiar ground water, dependent on insoak, which man conventionally taps to supplement surface supplies. These new waters, the author asserts, can be scientifically located and economically brought to the surface, even in deserts. Examples are cited. This would be a boon to our present dilemma -a rapidly closing gap between water demands and the fixed supply of the hydrologic cycle. Water pollution and its health implications are briefly discussed. Mentioned is "the constant pollution of our drinking water by hundreds of new chemical products whose effects on human health are totally unknown." The author projects a possible link between today's increasing chronic (cancer and cardiovascular- renal) disease rate and drinking water supplies. Apparently painstaking research went into the preparation of this thought provoking and somewhat convincing treatise. The effort was spurred by the work of Stephan Riess, a Californian. Riess formulated the "new water" theory and has gained attention in the press by drilling good water-producing wells where others had failed. Although Riess has been called by some "a charlatan, a witch, and a fake," the author is convinced that the Riess theory is authentic and that it can ex- plode certain established scientific and hydrologic principles if delved into with "open mind." Except for brief recitations in highly academic and scientific terms and formulas, this book is easily read by the layman. Salzman demonstrates a remarkable cross-knowledge of the earth sciences and believes that less narrowminded specialization could improve scientific achievement by chemists, physicists, metallurgists, mineralogists, and crystallographers. Certainly for each of these professions this book holds something of interest. Likewise, both professionals and students in forestry, soil, agronomy, and the water resource field will find this book readable and an excellent reference. The book documents in detail 198 references. GORDON MCCALLUM

Amazon source:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/184-3038211-9982362?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=New+Water+for+a+Thirsty+World

New water for a thirsty world. (Paperback) by Michael H. Salzman (Author)

Nablus, Palestine: The city stands at an elevation of around 550 meters (1,800 ft) above sea level

This is the location of Jacob's well, which has been unaffected by sparse rainfall since its creation thousands of years ago. That is one of the other characteristics of these water sources, which is another way of discounting hydrology as a water source.

If anyone who reads this knows of a person that could contribute to this request, please contact them. Please know that statistical studies are showing that the Fukushima reactor failures from the tsunami are already showing evidence of increased cancer rates in the United States.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

As I explained, I'm not an expert in this field, as are those at the links I supplied above. So I would like to follow the status of my request. Based on what I supplied above can anyone please locate what I previously wrote and provide a link to it. If no one can be found to respond as an expert on the subject I'll do my best. In the meantime I would like to follow the status of my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewWaterWorld (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is your edit: [5]. It looks like you unintentionally deleted large portions of the existing page when you posted, so were reverted some 6 hours later. Here's how it looked after you posted: [6]. Here's how it looked before you posted (which is also how it looks now): [7]. Try posting again, at that last link, but be a bit more careful not to delete anything else. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your original edit for the reasons that StuRat said. Also note that requests normally only include the name of the requested article and a few words on why, often with a link to a supporting source or two, not a long essay - it completely overwhelms the page, which is a concise list of requested articles. Mikenorton (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they could post a link from there to their talk page, where they would list all of the above. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine - unfortunately (in my view) the introduction at the top of the page does say "please include as much information as possible", but that's because people often just add a redlink with no other information at all. Mikenorton (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any data from drilling that support the "New Water" theory?, any peer review of said material? Electron9 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You may also be interested in juvenile water which is formed from magma. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to dream with one eye open?

Real dreaming, with actual video, not just daydreaming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in complete darkness, or if totally blind, so the light wouldn't awaken then, although having an eye open might keep them awake even then. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. Not everyone sleeps with their eyes closed. Some people normally sleep with their eyes open, and there are some who have a condition called Nocturnal lagophthalmos, who have a type of facial paralysis. Both are able to dream. For an interesting story about someone with nocturnal lagophthalmos, read this: [[8]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Video"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That seemed a rather elegant way of putting it, actually.

That video would not be in 3D then with only one eye open. Why not open both eyes for the full 3D hi def suround sound dream experience. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Google the lyrics to Enter Sandman. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been asleep and dreaming with both eyes open before. But not just one. It is a bizare feeling when you wake up because you know your eyes were open and that they must have seen things but you can't remember what they saw. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been using Unisom in my fight to go back to 8 am wake-up but you wouldn't believe how sleepy it makes you if you don't physically exit the bed after waking up. After awhile it gets so hard to fight the sleep you might as well be fighting general anesthesia. You could sleep 4 hours more than you need (in several sections). (for some reason it's not really hard after you've left the bed) I thought if I kept at least one eye open I can't fall asleep but I became delirious. Causality is somewhat fuzzy at this point but eventually I was reading a nonexistant Cat in the Hat book in my dream (for some reason). Eventually the video feed from the brain was suddenly cut off and replaced with the eye feed. A bright sunlit bedroom. I'd managed to fall asleep with one eye looking at daytime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Being able to see things without being properly awake is extremely common. As is being able to carry out complex activities (e.g., finding alarm clock and then configuring it to shut up and not keep beeping) without being properly awake. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I can personally attest to the latter issue with the alarm clock. It is exceedingly frustrating to wake up late for work and realise that you have switched off your alarm clock and have no memory of having done so. I am happy to report that the problem is now solved since I modified my alarm clock to add a key switch. I hide the keys in a different location each night and the requirement to engage my memory before I can switch off the alarm ensures that I am actually awake. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 09:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

None of that works for me; I just remove the battery from the alarm when I wake up, and then promptly go back to sleep without a memory of it. Gotta try some new method. Lynch7 16:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are no pain receptors in the central nervous system, why do headaches hurt?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that, the blood vessels that run through the brain have nerves sensitive to pain. The symptoms of a head ache originate from them. As to why, you best ask a neurologist but id may has something to do with the release of prostaglandin ; (or in my case too much alcohol).--Aspro (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Migraines are believed to be caused by internal bloodflow. But there are also the more common sinus headaches and muscle-tension headaches. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a follow-up. Where do blood-flow headaches hurt? Is the sensation actually internal? (I only get sinus and tension headaches.) μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is close to giving medical advice, therefore the only advice I will give is to take your check-book along to your quack doctor and ask him. If you're mildly computer literate there is a world-wide-web search engine called Google. That has thrown up this: [9] I won't say that simple meditation has been found to work better that drugs for tension headaches, as that would be medical advice and you quack (dam, why does me spell checker doing this?) will not like to hear that.--Aspro (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What a rude, ill-considered, uninformative, and, frankly, hysterical response. I am not asking for medical advice. I don't suffer from blood-vessel caused headaches, so I do not know what they feel like. I am simply curious. My question, if I can make it clear, is, where does the pain seem to originate from for those people who suffer such headaches? μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You stated I only get sinus and tension headaches" Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical adviceHow else could I have answered it?--Aspro (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see how talking about quacks, giving me unsolicited medical advice on how to treat tension headaches, and giving a link that says nothing about where pain is actually felt is called for when I asked exactly what I meant, "where do blood-flow headaches hurt?" Please don't respond to me again unless you actually have an answer to my question. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read the articles on headache and migraine. They do not describe where migraine pain occurs other than describing it as unilateral. Is there any information which describes this? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Migraines can occur in many places. For example, my wife gets migraines in her tooth, which then shift up to her head to become a normal headache. In Oliver Sacks' book, Migraine, he describes a number of other odd body parts from which migraine can occur, such as (IIRC) the stomach. Before meeting my wife, I'd always assumed that migraine was just a synonym for "really bad headache", but it really isn't the same thing at all; the fact that they often occur in the same kinds of areas as a normal headache is misleading - a bit like a heart attack that feels like a sore shoulder. Matt Deres (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Aspro, many of us don't need to take our cheque-books along to our doctors, since we have state-provided medical care. If you're having to bribe your medical professionals in order to get treatment, you may have a headache of a more general character than the others under discussion here. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Alex, please read WP:SOAP. Aspro, please read User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion — Medeis is adding a comment to clarify the reason for asking; you can answer the question completely without providing a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Kainaw's criteria are actually quite brilliantly expressed. I was going to object that I was neither asking for a diagnosis nor a treatment if challenged again. I see I omitted prognosis, but am obviously not asking for that either. In any case, can anyone answer the question? μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about migraines, but I (thankfully rarely these days) get cluster headaches, a type of vascular headache. The pain always originates just behind my right eye, before radiating out over my temple. It's hard to describe any pain, and I can't put it any better than our cluster headache article, which says it is like having a red-hot poker inserted into the eye. The pain is definitely more "internal" than a tension headache. 92.20.237.148 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is medical advice but such obviously crackpot advice that only scientologists who don't read Wikipedia are likely to heed it. Their cult founder advised one to throw a headache out of one's own head into someone else's head. DriveByWire (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, as their seem to be a couple of sensitive hot-buttons out here, I wont bother to post more comprehensive answers, even though I have the time available now to take each one individually.--Aspro (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Middle meningeal nerve
Meningeal branch of the mandibular nerve
Icek (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm immune to headaches, I've never had a headache in my life. Even when I had a severe concussion, I didn't get headaches. This actually caused problems for me. When recovering from the concussion, I would not get any warning signals that I was using my brain too much. When I had done a bit too much early in the day, I would pay the price for that later in the day; I would have difficulties concentrating to the point of not being able to follow what someone was saying. I had to put up with this problem for half a year. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting answers, including the one about marbles. I should have suspected there might be pain behind the eyes. I have had that sometimes with bad sinus headaches but not, thankfully, to the point of hot-pokerdom. μηδείς (talk)

Unless I missed it, nobody seems to have answered the original question, which is that generallly a headache involves the scalp skin and musculature. For instance, the "caffeine withdrawal" headache which appears to be a result of caffeine's effect increasing bloodflow, and the resulting restriction of bloodflow through the many blood vessels in the scalp when it wears off. AFAIK. As for migraines, however the connection with blood vessels in the brain, they appear to have much in common with epileptic seizure type stuff than regular headaches; thus the optical migraine which is actually painless. Gzuckier (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-amp for oscilloscope?

My oscilloscope is crumby and isn't sensitive enough for my needs even with max gain. Is there some way I can pre-amplify the signals (presently 2-6 volts) which are sometimes AC, sometimes DC? I don't know much about electronics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.194.66 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So why does somebody without much knowledge of electronics use, or even own, an oscilloscope ? (Knowing how you use it might allow for better answers.) StuRat (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm learning about electronics as a hobby and have a few circuit designs I want to try for dynamo-driven bike lights. I need the oscilloscope to better understand the designs and the effects of inclusion of certain parts. It's just a rubbish old oscilloscope off eBay. --94.1.194.66 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would need to amplify signals in the 2-6 volt range. If you were talking millivolts or microvolts I could understand it. 2-6 volts should be ideal for an oscilloscope, if my memory serves me. Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with what's written above. Virtually all oscilloscopes ever made have sensitivities in the range 1mV to 10mV per division or per cm, regardless of whther they are cheapies or professional lab-grade units worth a year's salary. Sensitivity worse than 50 mV would be very unusual. For a typical screen having a height of 6 to 10 cm, that means a signal only 10 to 100 mV will fill the screen. What you might have purchased in error (yours or the seller's) is not an oscilloscope but a "modulation monitor" intended for use by radio hams. These look like a very simple osciloscope, but have no internal amplifier, as they are intended to be driven by the transmitter output - so that the ham can tell whether he is overmodulating or undermodulating. If this is the case (make contact with a local ham if you need), I recommend you scrap it or sell it again on ebay. You could build an amplifier for it, but such an amplifier requies skills and experience. Keit120.145.65.23 (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The oscilloscope is a Heathkit IO 102 which can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27s3QynquoI - I get a deflection of two small divisions for 6.5 volts. Edit: According to an old advert, this machine should be able to measure down to 30mV per cm. Furthermore, I get the exact same deflection from applying 1.3 volts as 6.5 volts (using NiCd batteries). Could the machine be damaged? --Seans Potato Business 11:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean this advert? I agree that your scope appears to be broken. If you tried to amplify your signals using a laboratory preamplifier, you would probably exceed the input range of your scope and fry what's left of its vertical amplifier. According to that advert, the scope has a one volt peak-to-peak test output (might be labelled "1-V"). Try feeding that into the vertical input and see if you see a square wave. --Heron (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the compression of signals to only two divisons indicates a fault in the vertical amplifier, and a preamplifier will definitely not help. Since you are new to electronics, and repair by a commercial business will cost far more than a new oscilloscope of this class, I recommend that you make contact with a local ham radio chap. Not all hams have sufficient skills to diagnose faults in electronic circuits, but whoever you do contact will know another ham who does. The cost of parts to fix it may well be of the order of 20 cents - a few dollars if you are unlucky. Each country has its own ham radio association (eg ARRL in the USA, RSGB in Britain, WIA in Australia) - they would be a good starting point if you don't know any hams. Most hams will try to be very helpful to anybody starting in electronics as a hobby. Good luck. Keit120.145.65.23 (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The first step to repairing your oscilloscope is to get a copy of the circuit diagram which you can do here. DriveByWire (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an email listserve for heathkit equipment which often discusses repair of such things. (Replacing old electrolytic capacitors seems to be a constant theme) and I will tack the how to get to it on here pretty soon when I get back to my regular email. Gzuckier (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's

Heath mailing list

Heath@puck.nether.net

https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/heath

the majority of the posts are regarding old Heath ham equipment, but there are plenty of posts regarding fixing other equipment, buying and selling, manuals and circuit diagrams, etc. etc. etc. Without a doubt somebody will be able to help you with the scope. Gzuckier (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

June 24

yoga asanas as therapy for herniated disc

I am a yoga teacher - trained in the Iyengar method. I have a client who wants help with debilitating back pain and stress due to a herniated disc. Guidance would be welcome. Pippa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.159.83 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ummm...we're not supposed to give medical advice. I've never seen someone ask the RD for medical advice so they can treat a paying customer though. That is a new one. 101.173.170.147 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) We don't give medical advice here. However, I suggest you ask a physiotherapist as some of their exercises are based on yoga asanas. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For those not as familiar with it as the OP, Wikipedia has an article about Iyengar Yoga. There is also an article about Spinal disc herniation and I echo strongly the urging above to seek advice from a qualified doctor, both because a proper assessment is done with imaging equipment such as MRI and because there are a number of treatments, among which spinal manipulation is controversial or contraindicated. DriveByWire (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Papaver somniferum

Are these Papaver somniferum? 88.173.200.107 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Without seeing the leaves or flowers, I don't think you can say more than that they are Papaver. Lots of poppies have fruit (or whatever you call it) that looks like that. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on OR I am about 80% certain they are papaver somniferum. The pale bluish glaucous leaves are visible at the bottom of the photo. Richard Avery (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to make equivalent colors match equivalent return rates

I want to alter the color scheme in this triangular spreadsheet graph so that it matches the color scale on this New York Times chart. Any ideas? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Display the chart on screen. Press ctrl-PrtSc. Open PAINT program. Press ctrl-V to paste the screen image. Click Save as... Give a filename with Save as type GIF (*gif). Use a hex editor such as HEXPLORER to look into the .gif file and find the palette; its location is described in the article Graphics Interchange Format. Locate the bytes for colours you want to change and change them. Save your edited .gif file. DriveByWire (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to do it exactly, you'll have to do something like that. If you just want to get the general appearance, then what you need to know is that the two color scales differ in saturation. Whether you can alter the color scale in Google Spreadsheet to achieve that is more than I know. Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

100-year floods

100-year flood includes the following statement:

There are a number of assumptions which are made to complete the analysis which determines the 100-year flood. First, the extreme events observed in each year, must be independent from year-to-year. In other words the maximum river flow rate from 1984, can not be found to be significantly correlated with the observed flow rate in 1985. 1985 can not be correlated with 1986, and so forth.

Let's say that a massive flood happens in a place on 31 December, and it's not subsided by midnight; it ends up being a 100-year floor and is the highest water level for both years. How do the statistical assumptions account for such a situation, since the massive flood of 31 December and the massive flood of 1 January are obviously related? Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Because 100 year flood zones determine flood insurance rates, property values (and thereby property tax) they are subject to political manipulation. They currently mean something like "a flood that would only be expected once every 100 years, if extreme weather was what it was like in 1980." 71.212.226.91 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

that's an interesting assumption... how could the maximum river flow from one year to the next NOT be significantly correlated? Makes my hackles rise.Gzuckier (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Correlation has a very specific meaning here. It's possible for the maximum flow to be uncorrelated (eg. if the the flow rate depends entirely on how many hurricanes cross the river's drainage basin in a given year), or highly correlated (eg. a series of high-flow years straighten and scour the river's path, reducing the maximum depth, while a series of low-flow years cause meanders and sandbars to form, slowing the water and making floods deeper). --Carnildo (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Gz, when there is a "100 year flood" in one of the two years! This is a case of statistics lying. Obviously they would just include that event in either one year or the other like "jerrymandering." So it would keep the integrity of the significant event intact and only if another event occurred earlier in the previous year would they likely count that event for that year. That is the point of the 100 year flood to find outliers of the data not to mask the outliers with statistics.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

June 25

Help needed to identify tiger breed

Could someone please identify this tiger? Any information helps! Leave a talk back template on my talk page if you leave a message though as my watch list gets flooded often. Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

He looks like Tony in 7B? Actually, the subspecies differ in size and striping patterns so even if a definite identification were possible it might take a full body foto to do it. Eye color might be a hint. See Tiger#Subspecies μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a 3/4 grown Siberian to me, but remember , with zoo animals, that there has been a lot of cross breeding between races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.176.130 (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang (not TV show) kickoff

Saw Hawking's TV show on cable the other day, where he points out that, just as time stands still inside the event horizon of a black hole because of the enormous gravitional field, so time would be stationary at the enormous density of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, thus questions such as "what was there before the Big Bang?" are meaningless. New argument to me, and fair enough. But...... if time was stationary, then by definition, how could anything "happen" to either kick off the Big Bang, or for it to spontaneously occur; or to put it another way, given that something changed, then it would be absolutely incorrect to say that time was stationary. Given that the whole thrust of his argument was to point out that the supernatural actions of a Deity are not necessary to explain the creation of the universe, and that I'm sure as heck incompetent to pick holes in his theoretical physics, there must be some loophole here.... ? Gzuckier (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than saying that time didn't exist, it might be better to say it was undefined. In a world without matter (or with one singularity containing all matter), how could the passage of time be marked ?

Also note, that, since the cause of the Big Bang is unknown, the cause of time being unknown doesn't really make it any worse than it already is. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But I do think that having the cause of the BB be unknown is one thing, but having it operate within an environment such that time is stationary is quite another... Although Hawking didn't seem to think it needed comment, so I figured there must be something obvious I'm missing. Gzuckier (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing can really be properly explained before the end of the inflationary epoch. We don't know why there was cosmic inflation or why it stopped and our best job of papering over that hole is to say "different laws of physics applied back then". Really smart people might even start talking about the vacuum undergoing a phase transition to cause those differences in the laws of physics, but that doesn't make it any easier to know what the hell they were.1.124.255.232 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

These are just my own personal thoughts, but I like to think that time exists (past tense) before the Big Bang. I don't know if anything existed or happened a billion years before the Big Bang, but if nothing did, then I would assume that prior to the Big Bang there was nothingness. That's just an assumption though. InforManiac (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me add a little bit more to the comment I just posted up above. From a multiverse point of view, it especially makes it easy to think that time existed before the Big Bang. Even if the Big Bang took place 13.75 billion years ago, going back 15 billion years on a timeline, there just might not be anything happening in this particular universe. InforManiac (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

When talking about such things one has to be very careful what one means by "time." In Einsteinian physics, time is not a transcendental property that exists separate from space (see spacetime). There is no "universal time" running in the background under this model, there is no "clock of the universe." This is but one of the reasons that talking about time prior to the existence of space (much less matter and energy) is often assumed to be somewhat meaningless — no space, no time. Regardless, time is a tricky concept — it seems much more obvious than it is. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

For a long time Hawking has been pushing a no-boundary model of the early universe, where instead of there being a beginning of time, the time dimension fades smoothly into a fourth spatial dimension, and the "beginning" is just a region of four-dimensional space that's like a portion of the surface of the earth. No particular point of it is "before" any other point, and it doesn't begin anywhere, just as the surface of the earth doesn't begin anywhere. If this show really was quoting Hawking, he was probably talking about that. But saying that this is like the event horizon of a black hole makes no sense to me, because it isn't like that at all.

It's worth mentioning that Hawking is more popular with the general public than with other physicists. Most of his ideas are pretty far from the mainstream. This no-boundary idea, in particular, has never been part of standard cosmology. -- BenRG (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Time in black hole and time at big bang is just for analogy, not to be taken literally. High density alone does not cause time to slow down, it is Stress-Eenergy_tensor that causes time dilation. Time began at big bang, everything before is speculation. manya (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Do choanoflagellates have distinct personalities?

Do choanoflagellates have distinct personalities? It is said that they are "considered to be the closest living relatives of the animals" and that a "number of species such as those in the genus Proterospongia form simple colonies," so do any have buddies or rivals? InforManiac (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right ? I can't imagine such a simple organism having a complex social structure. Perhaps a simple social structure, like bees, or ants, but I don't think of them having personalities, either. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What does personality have to do with social structure? 1.124.255.223 (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's part of a complex social order, where different relationships are formed with each individual in the group, and personalities determine how each individual relates to the others (some are bullies, some are friendly, etc.). Absent any social interaction, a "personality" is harder to define, although I suppose you could say "this lizard prefers to bask on the rocks while that one likes to swim". StuRat (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course I was referring to simple personalities. Subtle differences. InforManiac (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that you wanted to know if they possess individuality?

No. I just wanted to know if they have any kind of varying simple personality traits. InforManiac (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess you could call it individuality. I'm just curious about whether any two from the same colony would have differing behavior patterns. Even the slightest of differences. InforManiac (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're going to adopt behaviorism for this question, which is wise, then (my guess is) sure, they would definitely display consistent differences in behavior, due to both genetic and environmental reasons. The genetic part is kind of the basic assumption of evolution, after all. Gzuckier (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been wondering about this for quite some time. InforManiac (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you for answering my question. InforManiac (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Any updates on Lake Vostok search for life?

I'm sure scientists have had a chance to put some of the water samples from Lake Vostok under a microscope. Has there been any news about if they've found any life in those samples? I haven't been able to find any good updates about it. InforManiac (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

From the article you linked to in your question, "Samples of the freshly frozen water in the ice well are expected to be collected at the end of 2012 when the new Antarctic summer starts." 1.124.255.223 (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. For some reason, I must not have seen that sentence. I'm kind of surprised that they didn't get at least a little bit of fresh water when they first reached liquid water. I thought I read before that they did gather some, but I am probably mistaken. I will be waiting anxiously for 2012's end to find out. InforManiac (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The water only remains liquid when it's under pressure. Removing the drill allows the pressure to drop and it freezes. By the time they could get something down there to get a sample it would be ice. They'll be back to collect that ice later this year. 1.124.255.232 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the info. InforManiac (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Have they figured out how to prevent contamination of the lake with outside organisms ? StuRat (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"According to the head of Russian Antarctic Expeditions, Valery Lukin, new equipment was developed by researchers at the St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute that would ensure the lake remains uncontaminated upon intrusion. Lukin has repeatedly reassured other signatory nations to the Antarctic Treaty System that the drilling will not affect the lake, arguing that on breakthrough, water will rush up the borehole, freeze, and seal..." 1.124.255.223 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"rush up the borehole, freeze, and seal".. Is that one of those "eats shoots and leaves" things? Gzuckier (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Plant identification requested

I would like some help in identifying two plants growing in my suburban garden in south London. Both of them (as far as I can remember) were planted last year on the basis of being annual bedding plants, but both seem to have survived the winter and are currently flourishing. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/19482747@N00/7439490128/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/19482747@N00/7439489884. My records of what I planted last year don't seem to give much of a clue. One plant has pretty pink flowers about 1 cm across. The other doesn't have any flowers at present (I think there were some flowers at some time last year) but has green leaves edged with white about 1 to 2 cm across. It overgrew the other plants in its bed last year, seems to send out shoots that root, and is trailing along underneath a wall. Both photos were taken today. Any help welcome! --rossb (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one looks to me like a Diascia cultivar. Compare the image here. Deor (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the first one is a Mimulus and the second one is a Plectranthus. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree first is Diascia possibly a cultivar called Sunshine. (or maybe not). Second is Plectranthus, possibly "amboinicus variegata", so-called varigated Cuban Oregano. Richard Avery (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the first photo shows identical plants to the photo shown in the Mimulus article to which I linked. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree, Tammy. The OP's flowers don't look at all like Mimulus to me. I'm also dubious about the Plectranthus identification; that genus seems to have rhomboid-to-ovate leaves with pinnate venation, whereas the OP's plants clearly have palmate venation and are more cordate/reniform in shape. Deor (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll give you the Diascia, but I still think the photo in the Mimulus article is remarkably similar. Plectranthus is quite diverse and as our article on it says, a reassignment of certain plants to and from that genus has taken place recently - certainly after I last bought a plant sold as Plectranthus, which I still have and looks just like the OP's picture! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it theoretically possible to make an artificial sweetener that tastes exactly like sugar?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I recall reading something in high school about measurement of sweetness. While I think that the same value of sweetness may be artificially obtained, making all the other parameters of taste equal to that of sugar might be difficult. Different reaction rates, different solubilities etc. might lead to a difference in overall taste. I'm just shooting in the air over here; might be worth to wait for a more qualified answer. Lynch7 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not all. Let's make this a slightly more scientifically refined question: Is it theoretically possible to develop a compound which the human tongue finds indistinguishable with sucrose yet the human body does not metabolize in a way that results in significant food energy OR is so potent that metabolically insignificant amounts are necessary to replicate the flavor of sucrose? (Most artificial sweeteners are far more sweet than sugar; the entire game is to make something that is highly sweet for the amount of calories it conveys, so you only need tiny, tiny amounts to get an equivalent sweetness to sugar.) I don't know nearly enough about how the tongue distinguishes between very similar molecules, though, to say for sure, assuming you are ignoring the difficulty of fabricating arbitrary molecules in useful quantities. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be theoretically possible. I doubt if we have perfect detection of sugar. Such a substance would have to exploit whatever imprecision exists for sugar detection. It would have to elicit the same response that sugar does. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Left-handed sugar. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Mr 98; aren't artificial sweeteners just other kinds of sugars that the body can't break down? Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of them seem to be, but others are just much sweeter than sugar and thus less of them are necessary. The articles we have on the specific ones are not always clear to me as to which they are (or whether it's a mixture of both). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that even if you had such a perfect sugar substitute (tastes exactly like sugar, but has zero calories and side effects), this still might not help anyone on a diet. Current artificial sweeteners don't seem to help, because your body expects to be fed when you taste sugar, and if it isn't, it kicks your hunger into overdrive until it gets what it expected. This would still happen with even a perfect sugar substitute, unless it has an appetite suppressant built-in, too. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If I have this straight, the distinctive taste of cane sugar comes from the impurities that remain in it after refinement. It's basically the taste of molasses, but greatly attenuated. I suppose in principle you could duplicate that taste by removing the sucrose from molasses and adding a little bit of what remains to an artificial sweetener. Sucrose per se, as far as I know, does not have a distinctive taste. Looie496 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right to me. I don't believe molasses remains in any detectable quantity in cane sugar. We can, of course, taste sucrose itself. With artificial sweeteners we also taste whatever else comes with them. (And they also make me feel lousy after.) StuRat (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

water cooled centrifugal chiller delta pressure across dooler/condenser

dear all, with reference to the above mentioned subject, i request you to clarify my question.

in the design data sheet of chiller, the pressure drop or pressure difference across cooler and condenser is provided by manufacturer, this press.drop is to be maintained for chiller accurate performance or this is the pressure drop to be considered for calculating pressure head for pumps across chiller (chilled water/condenser pumps).

for chiller performance is delta p important of flow to be maintained is important? please advise. regards, wikichilleraaminah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikichilleraaminah (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To the last question, Yes delta p is important. See our artcle Chiller for many other things that are important. Without seeing your application and data sheet, asking the manufacturer is probably your best source of information. DriveByWire (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

HEMOLYSIS IN BLOOD SPECIMEN

I WORK IN A ER,IN A HOSPITAL.THE QUESTION I AM ASKING,CAN A COMPREHENSIVE PANEL BLOOD TEST HAVE HEMOLYSIS IN 3 OF 21 TEST ON A REGULAR BASIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.82.3 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Go and ask your boss. We don't give medical advice. SmartSE (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Telescopes one and two - new or used? what resolution?

The National Reconnaissance Office recently gave NASA two telescopes that it doesn't need that are apparently "better than Hubble". This NYT article makes it sound as if they were previously in space, rather than being kit that was never used. If that's the case, how could they have got them down? Secondly, they have 7.9 m mirrors - is it possible to guesstimate what kind of resolution would be achieved by having that point down at Earth? SmartSE (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, the NYT article doesn't make it sound at all as though the telescopes were previously in space. It calls them "spare, unused 'hardware'" and "'bits and pieces' in various stages of assembly". Sounds to me like stuff that was intended to be sent into space but wasn't because of redundancy, because the spooks developed even better technology, or for some other reason. Deor (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It says 7.9 FEET, not metres! 7.9 foot is 2.4 metres. Vespine (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is the same as the Hubble. The Hubble Space telescope is supposed to be diffraction limited, which gives it a resolution of about 0.05 arcseconds for visible light (see the graph on the first linked article, which includes a line for the Hubble). Pointing at earth from an orbit of, say, 300 km, this limit corresponds to about 7 cm. The telescope also has to see through the Earth's atmosphere, so in practice, the true resolution is probably somewhat less than the diffraction-limited resolution (but probably on the same order of magnitude - good enough to see a person, but not to read the classified documents that he's carrying). Buddy431 (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

These "stubby hubbles" are either unused KH-11 Kennan or unused prototypes of its abortive replacement, Future Imagery Architecture. It's long been suspected that Hubble and KH-11 where very similar airframes - both were integrated by Lockheed Martin and shipped from their Sunnyvale, CA plant in very similar containers. These two ex-NRO birds are indeed physically broadly similar to Hubble, with the same primary mirror size. The KH-11 article does the same maths that Buddy431 did, and comes to much the same answer ("6 inches") neglecting the distortion from the atmosphere. If you're curious what this might tell you about capabilities of the current NRO, probably not too much. Very little is publicly known about Misty or Misty-2, and both appear to be shrouded (literally and figuratively) to conceal their position and characteristics. The Hubble's 2.4m mirror is a big piece of glass, but Delta IV can have a payload fairing of 5m, which would allow for a single-glass mirror of maybe 4.3m. Beyond that they'd have to do something like the James Webb Space Telescope and have a segmented mirror which they unfurl on orbit (which wouldn't be that surprising an achievement). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As Deor notes, these devices weren't ever in orbit. Had they been, it is (at least in theory) possible for them to be retrieved from orbit by the STS (doing this to fix Hubble was one idea toyed with). Indeed, the technical synergies between Kennan and Hubble signpost the deeper influence the NROs spacecraft had on the shuttle design itself. The final shuttle design was larger and heavier than NASA needed, but they had to work with the USAF to afford the thing, and USAF had to launch NRO's systems. So the shuttle is big enough to launch a Kennan (but turned out to be too heavy to put one in a polar orbit, to the NRO's chagrin) and its predecessor, KH-9 Hexagon. I don't think it's publicly acknowledged who built the primary optics for KH-11, but for KH-9 it was PerkinElmer, who also built Hubble's big mirror. So Hubble was built by the same people who built spy satellites, and designed to launch (and maybe be fixed or retrieved by) an STS designed to do the same for spy satellites; so conversely it's not a big surprise that an unneeded spy satellite might make for the foundation of a decent Hubble. This article in The Space Review has some interesting stuff about the influence of NRO on the shuttle, and their fears and unhappiness regarding it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Would the Hubble mirror have been ground the same way as the other mirrors? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Very possibly by the same people on the same machine, but I don't think to the same curvature. Hubble's flaw (which they did detect, but discounted) was bad setup, bad QA, and bad procedure - they didn't just forget and put a spy satellite mirror in an astronomical instrument. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was wondering! At the time of the Hubble error, they said that the mirror was precisely made but to the wrong specifications. I knew that it must be very similar to those used in spy satellites, so I got to wondering if perhaps the spy satellite mirrors are ground one way to focus a few hundred miles away whereas the Hubble mirror was supposed to be ground to focus at infinity. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd just be speculating if I said anything about optical spy satellite optics beyond "big mirrors good". But note that the orbits of some of the KH-11s are (relatively) eccentric (e.g. perigee 408 km apogee 931 km), and at these relatively low altitudes their orbits will decay and have to be reboosted (like that of the ISS). And the Earth is very far from spherical; for something in a highly inclined orbit the oblateness of the Earth is the biggest factor that varies actual altitude). So they have to work with a range of altitudes between the instrument and its target, not a perfect fixed distance. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 10:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And PerkinElmer's wasn't the only Hubble mirror made, just the only wrong one. NASA got Eastman Kodak (themselves no stranger to overhead reconnaissance optics) to build a spare. Of this backup the Allen Report (linked above) says "The backup OTA primary mirror was polished at Eastman Kodak Company using both a refractive and a reflective null corrector of a completely different design from the Perkin-Elmer version. This mirror matched the templates of the two null correctors to better than 0.014-wave rms wavefront error at 632.8 nm, and the Board has every reason to believe it is the correct hyperboloidal shape." p4-6 -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard contact lenses vs soft lenses

Hello signori i cognoscenti :) I have heard that hard contact lenses are generally recommended for higher presciptions and soft lenses are generally prescribed for lesser prescriptions, all other things equal. Now considering only minus prescriptions (i.e., to correct myopia), approximately what is the general lowest (or cutoff, or border, etc.) prescription for which hard lenses would be prescribed over soft (not taking into account other factors such as general eye health, age, sensitivity, etc. though an optometrist normally would)? Thank you. 152.97.171.80 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article on them, but there isn't a specific cut-off point: [10]. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the article Contact lens. For individual attention which strangers on the Internet cannot give, ask a qualified optometrist. DriveByWire (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, I've had soft contacts for a -6.2 prescription. I have no idea how much further past that they go. I think they're continually improving them. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How to improve chandelier efficiency ?

I have a lighting fixture with 12 candelabra base incandescent "flame tip" clear 25 watt bulbs, at present. That's 300 watts total, at 110-120V. It's on a dimmer switch. It puts out a small quantity of rather yellow light and a great deal of heat with those 300 watts. I don't want to replace the entire fixture, and would like to be able to continue to use the dimmer. I was considering getting 12 candelabra base to medium base converters, and then putting in 40 watt equivalent CFL bulbs (which actually use around 9 watts each). However, most CFLs don't work well with dimmers. Those that are "dimmable" apparently only dim 10-25%. This site warns that you can't use regular CFLs and just always keep the dimmer on maximum: [11].

1) Why is that ?

2) How else can I improve efficiency ?

3) Is the situation any better with LEDs ? StuRat (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Some LED lamps can be dimmed, and those that are will dim over the full range. But LEDs are still expensive, so 12 of the will cost quite a bit (my brief browsing of Amazon suggests $80 ish). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that $80 for one (which is terrible) or $80 for 12 (which is great) ? StuRat (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I found some for around $10 each, which are 40 watt equivalent and dimmable, and I could just do 6 instead of 12 (that would give me 240 watts equivalent instead of 300). However, these use a medium base, so I'd also need the converter from the candelabra base for each. Also, these bases are pointing upwards, and LEDs are like spotlights, so they would light up the ceiling, leaving the dining room table beneath it in shadows. So far, this seems to be the best option for saving electricity, though. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Good advice from Finlay, and you're right about dimming CFLs being dicey. As for "how else" I'll add that I rent a few of these fixtures, 4-8 bulbs x 25-40 watt (what a crappy design :-/). I have taken to only filling ~1/2 of the slots with incandescent bulbs, and that usually meets my lighting needs. It has low initial investment, and saves considerable power. Maybe worth investing in the LEDs if you're in it for a longer haul. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've done as an interim solution. However, 150 watts of dull yellow light and heat still isn't very acceptable. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Related question: do empty sockets use 0 watts? SemanticMantis (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

To a very good approximation, yes. I think if you are really particular, the socket is a very bad capacitor, so for AC, some very little current will go in- and out of it, which results in some loss to resistance. But this would not be measurable without very good instruments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You could also replace the incandescents with quartz halogen globes. At least in this country (Australia) they are available in a wide range of bases, wattages, and some different shapes. There are dimmable and give a good white light. Unfortunately they are only about 25% more efficient than standard incandescents, and cost is quite high. Ratbone58.170.176.182 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

June 26

Sucking on a button to combat dehydration?

Resolved

In the movie Cube (film), the characters are stranded without water. One of the character shallows a buttons and claims it "keeps the saliva flowing". Does this trick actually work? I have my doubts because a small pebble would work just as well as a button so if this technique really worked it would have been discovered millenniums ago and be much more well-known. Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Army trainees on maneuvers in the desert around Fort Bliss, Texas, during WWII used to be told to suck on pebbles to allay their thirst; I used to know one such veteran who told me that. Never tried it to see how effective it is, myself. But yes, the technique is an old one, not unknown. Textorus (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Like text says, if it allays anything, it might allay thirst. But that's not going to actually fight dehydration. It's not like your body can just make new water for the saliva. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, 5 minutes. Thanks for the quick answer, guys. Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My old Scout Leader in the UK told us about sucking pebbles to prevent thirst on a hot day. We thought that it fell (like much of his advice) firmly into the bracket of old wives' tales. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some more old wives here, here, here and here. Alansplodge (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading about sucking on pebles in Baden-Powell's book Scouting For Boys when I joined the Scouts in the 1960's. This book had been published about 50 years before but was still the primary text for boy scouts (10 to 12 year olds) at that time. I think Scouting For Boys would be the original source for the pebbles advice. I don't have the book now, but I think the advice was aimed at distracting boys from wanting a drink too often while on treks (as the average boy would be accustomed to having a drink any time he liked at home), and not expected to counter genuine thirst, and certainly not dehydration. Other advice in the book was very good, as I recall (except the advice to help old ladies across streets - I tried that once and got told "piss off sonny"). Wickwack120.145.57.11 (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of Uranium in Russia

Due to Russian propaganda, I have not been able to find out when Uranium was first mined in Russia. I have found information in books that conflicts with the Uranium page in Wikipedia. Also, I find that the Uranium page in Wikipedia is biased against the United States of America and against Jewish people. I believe that it was imperialist monarchies in Europe and Asia that drove mining in various countries, i.e., mining coal and gold to sustain their empires.

-Karen L. Hogoboom

70.239.192.203 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)put

Our article Uranium contains zero instances of "Jew", "Jewish", "Hebrew", "Israel," and "Semitic." Can you clarify why you think that it is biased against Jewish people? SemanticMantis (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the article Soviet atomic bomb project, "Even before the Russian revolution and the followed by the February Revolution, the mineralogist Vladimir Vernadsky had made a number of public calls for a survey of Soviet Union's uranium deposits. The main motivation for nuclear research at the time was radium, which had scientific as well as medical uses, and could be retrieved from borehole water from the Ukhta oilfields." This would put it during the mid 1910's. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding that line in the article. What it's saying is that they didn't mine uranium because they had an alternative source of radium. They did not mine uranium until after World War II. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between when it was first discovered and when it was first mined. The Uranium mining article states Similar efforts (to become "nuclear self-sufficient") were undertaken in the Soviet Union, which did not have native stocks of uranium when it started developing its own atomic weapons program. The SovRom article also has some info specific to this topic. It states that up to the 60s, Russia got almost all of its Uranium from Romania. As for your other comments, I'm really not sure what you're perceiving as "bias" in those articles, if you can be more specific you could post your concerns on the article's talk page and I'm sure they'll be taken into due consideration. Vespine (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

For more than a century after its discovery, uranium was mostly useless, and no-one cared very much about it; the uranium article says "before the discovery of radioactivity, uranium was primarily used in small amounts for yellow glass and pottery glazes". So there was little mining of it, and consequently little surveying for it. So when the practical use of it for a super weapon became clear, for a while the superpowers ran around like headless chickens trying to grab it all. Because no-one had cared about it, and so hadn't surveyed for it, it appeared in mineralogical studies mostly only in passing. Leslie Groves had US Government buyers going around buying up mines wholesale (which probably bemused the mine owners, who wondered why the US Government was so interested in making orange pottery glaze when there was a war on). He, and initially the Soviets too, thought there was little uranium to be had in the USSR. But both countries' geological services also set to work, and it soon became evident that poor neglected uranium was much more common than they'd thought. Even now, with a market for uranium for power production, list of countries by uranium reserves "Uranium is a widely distributed metal with large low-grade deposits that are not currently considered profitable." So there was little uranium mining in Imperial Russia just as there was little everywhere else - because the 19th century wasn't madly in love with orange coloured pottery. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

To mask their intentions, the US government often did not claim it was buying up the uranium, but that it was going for the other metals that the uranium ore was carried with (e.g. vanadium, which had known industrial uses). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's an interesting lesson here in thinking about concentrations of uranium. A few places on Earth that have very high concentrations of uranium. The mine in the Congo which was the source of most of the US's uranium for the Manhattan Project had uranium as 60% or so of its ore content. The uranium mine that the US considered profitable in the American Southwest in the 1950s had concentrations of up to 5% uranium ore. The Russian ores were around 1%. This was a level that would have been considered uneconomical to mine in the US; this gave many of the American policymakers confidence that the USSR would be a long way off to getting a bomb. But the USSR had cheap (slave) labor and came up with methods for extracting even that tiny amount of uranium and concentrating it, at great human cost (especially for a country just out of such a devastating war). The Soviet bomb program timeline was directly tied to their uranium access. The Soviet bombs were extraordinarily expensive in terms of human lives. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The first major Soviet uranium deposit was discovered at Taboshar (in Tajikstan) in 1926 and was used for radium production (not uranium). I don't know how extensively it was mined but the uranium would have been more or less discarded as a waste product until 1945. From 1945-1950, the USSR only produced 417 tons of uranium (by contrast, during that period it imported 1640 tons of uranium from Eastern Europe). Other sources were found in Central Asia, Ukraine, and the Caucusus after extensive post-1945 surveys, though the USSR still got most of their uranium from East Germany and Czechoslovakia through that period. In the 1950s more extensive and profitable sources were found in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In the 1970s, Siberian sources were found. Uranium was still considered in short supply until the 1980s, when defense cuts and Chernobyl suddenly decreased the domestic need for uranium metal. Source: P. Podvig, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, 82-83 and notes. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Medical treatments for "Exhaustion"

This is not a request for medical advice, but for referenced information about hospital treatments for this condition, not presently found in the relevant Wikipedia article. There are news stories from time to time about celebrities, musicians, actors, and politicians hospitalized for "exhaustion." Searching for this malady in Wikipedia, one finds a redirect to Fatigue (medical). Leaving out obvious and readily treated causes of various forms of the malady such as physical muscular fatigue (someone trying to swim 100 miles), or sleepiness after staying awake for 4 days, there remains a vague condition. I once read an article (citation not at hand) which said that ordinary people are never hospitalized for "exhaustion" as are celebrities, whose exhaustion may consist of substance abuse, eating disorders, dehydration, "burnout," stress or depression. The "exhaustion" description is sometimes said to be a public relations code word for mental health issues and substance abuse. The relevant Wikipedia article does not describe how exhaustion is treated in a hospital. Any reliably sourced info for current medical practice in treating "exhaustion" in those hospitalized for it? Edison (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No useful answer can be given beyond "rest", as the treatment would vary enormously depending on cause and symptoms, which, as you note, vary enormously themselves. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The only way that true exhaustion wouldn't be solved by rest is if they have a sleep disorder, and then the hospital/clinic would diagnose and treat that.

Also note that lack of sleep and substance abuse are often combined in celebrities, like Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe, and, more recently, Micheal Jackson. They can take (or be forced to take) drugs to keep them going while filming, rehearsing a concert tour, etc. A nasty cycle can form where they take "pep pills", such as amphetamines, to stay awake, then take sleep meds to sleep, gradually upping the dose of each to counter the other. In such a case, the hospital/clinic would need to treat the drug addiction first. Then, after they recover, hopefully they can be less ambitious, and maybe do only half as many concerts or movies, or as many as they can handle in a healthy manner. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Exhaustion" is a symptom, not a condition, and it would be possible to be hospitalised with that symptom while the physical cause of the exhausion is investigated. Conditions such as some endocrine disorders (hypothyroidism, myasthenia gravis) could be indicated. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What are galaxies made of?

How do we know that galaxies are made of stars instead of gas? Have anyone taken a picture of a galaxy which one can see individual stars in it. The milky way does not count. If we cannot see individual stars in a picture of a galaxy what's to say that it is not made up of gas instead? Maybe it's all just gas swirling around a big black hole. 220.239.37.244 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)