Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science: Difference between revisions
edited by robot: archiving November 17 |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
< |
<!--- Please DO NOT enter your question at the top here. Put it at the bottom of the page. An easy way to do this is by clicking the "new section" tab ---><noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/S}} |
||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
||
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for |
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]] |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]] |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]] |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia reference desk|Science]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia reference desk|Science]] |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia help pages with dated sections]] </noinclude> |
|||
</noinclude> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013 February 21}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013 February 22}} |
|||
= February 23 = |
|||
= November 18 = |
|||
== Identity involving partial derivatives == |
|||
== Open-air dust explosions == |
|||
Ho, I want to check, |
|||
[[Dust explosion#Conditions required]] says {{tq|There are five necessary conditions for a dust explosion}}. It even has a pointless diagram that arranges the five conditions in a pentagon with "dust explosion" in the middle. Condition 5 is confinement. But further down the page, [[Dust_explosion#Mechanism]] has a series of photographs demonstrating a dust explosion in open air. And [[thermobaric weapons]], although more effective at killing people in confined spaces, seem to explode just fine in the open. So is condition 5, as a "necessary condition", plain wrong, perhaps an exaggeration of the fact that confinement makes a dust explosion more likely? |
|||
Given this relation: <math>dF = -SdT-PdV+\mu dN</math>, |
|||
Supplementary question: I hear residents of Lahore and Delhi are wondering if their very sooty smog might one day explode. Is this at all plausible? [[User:Card_Zero|<span style=" background-color:#fffff0; border:1px #995; border-style:dotted solid solid dotted;"> Card Zero </span>]] [[User_talk:Card_Zero|(talk)]] 00:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
is it true that <math>\bigg(\frac{\partial S}{\partial V}\bigg)_{T,N}=\bigg(\frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\bigg)_{V,N}</math>? |
|||
::{{small|Pointless? It is a five-pointed diagram. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 06:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
I believe the answer is Yes and here is my reasoning: |
|||
:In general, not only for dust, for [[detonation]] to occur, a mix of fuel and oxygen within the [[explosive limits]] has to be present in a compact largish volume. Upon detonation, the pressure in this volume will rapidly increase tremendously within (typically) microseconds. If the volume is not confined by an enclosure, the gases resulting from the combustion will expand supersonically with a shock wave that may or may not cause damage, depending on the power released and the environment. If the volume is confined by an enclosure, the enclosure may be able to withstand the pressure and contain the gases – possibly with controlled release through [[safety valve]]s. (See e.g. [[Pyréolophore]].) Otherwise, if the enclosure is broached, the gases will also expand explosively. |
|||
:The OSHA fact sheet that is the source of our five-pointed list of conditions is actually about another scenario. It considers the case in which ignition merely leads to [[deflagration]], which is much more likely to occur – the mix only has to be within [[inflammability limits]]. The combustion is much slower and does by itself not cause a shock wave. However, although the pressure rises less rapidly, the rise is still dramatic, especially if the volume is contained by an enclosure. If the enclosure cannot withstand the pressure, the gases will also expand explosively, as before. |
|||
:So I think a fuel–oxygen explosion can occur in open air, but for this to be an explosion in the strict sense of causing shock waves, the right conditions will only very rarely be fulfilled accidentally. (In thermobaric weapons, they are fulfilled by design.) --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 09:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::But in the conditions there is no requirement of an accidental event?! [[Special:Contributions/176.3.66.65|176.3.66.65]] ([[User talk:176.3.66.65|talk]]) 15:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The OSHA fact sheet does not deal with ways to mitigate the risk of intentional explosions, such as may be caused by weapons. You are free to see this as an omission; I doubt though they will agree. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 12:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Delayed onset muscle soreness]] == |
|||
The relation shows that <math>S = -\frac{\partial F}{\partial T}</math> and <math>P = -\frac{\partial F}{\partial V}</math>, |
|||
How long does it last and how to recover from it? [[User:CometVolcano|CometVolcano]] ([[User talk:CometVolcano|talk]]) 16:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
so <math>\bigg( {\partial S \over {\partial V} } \bigg)_{T,N} \stackrel ?= \frac{\partial S}{\partial V} = -\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial V\partial T} \stackrel ?= -\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial T\partial V} = {\partial P \over {\partial T} } \stackrel ?= \bigg( {\partial P \over {\partial T} } \bigg)_{V,N}</math> |
|||
:According to the article: "It peaks from 24 to 72 hours, then subsides and disappears up to seven days after exercise." --[[User:Amble|Amble]] ([[User talk:Amble|talk]]) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:From the top of this page: {{tq|We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis.. }}. [[User:AndrewWTaylor|AndrewWTaylor]] ([[User talk:AndrewWTaylor|talk]]) 14:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It is said that the soreness is helped by consuming protein. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 10:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= November 20 = |
|||
I have denoted with question marks steps in the reasoning that I am not sure are justified. |
|||
== John Balbus and Steven Balbus == |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/150.203.115.98|150.203.115.98]] ([[User talk:150.203.115.98|talk]]) 02:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Try [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics]] instead. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Are [[Steven Balbus]] (Oxford University astrophysicist) and John Balbus (Head of Office of Climate Change and Health Equity in Biden's [[United States Department of Health and Human Services|HHS]]) related? [[Special:Contributions/178.51.16.158|178.51.16.158]] ([[User talk:178.51.16.158|talk]]) 19:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The mathematics desk might be more relevant, but this is a thermodynamics question, so it's not out of place here. |
|||
:To the OP: yes, that's true. In fact, it's one of the [[Maxwell relations]]. Your biggest source of confusion is that when taking partial derivatives, you should always specify what parameters you're holding constant. The relations you're using should actually be <math>S = -(\frac{\partial F}{\partial T})_V</math> and <math>P = -(\frac{\partial F}{\partial V})_T</math>, where V and T are the quantities being held constant. If you differentiate the first equation with respect to V while holding T constant, and the second equation with respect to T while holding V constant, you'll get the same expression on the right-hand side. You're allowed to arbitrarily exchange variables in a partial second derivative because of [[symmetry of second derivatives]], specifically [[Clairaut's theorem]]. --[[Special:Contributions/140.180.254.250|140.180.254.250]] ([[User talk:140.180.254.250|talk]]) 03:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Clairaut's theorem requires that the second partial derivatives be continuous. Is this always true, physically? Or, do we assume/approximate that it is true? Or, is the statement to prove true even if the second partial derivatives are not continuous? |
|||
::So the true line of reasoning is |
|||
::<math>\bigg( {\partial S \over {\partial V} } \bigg)_{T,N} = -\left(\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial V\partial T}\right)_N = -\left(\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial T\partial V}\right)_N = \bigg( {\partial P \over {\partial T} } \bigg)_{V,N}</math> |
|||
::Using the equations you gave (but also holding N constant) |
|||
::[[Special:Contributions/150.203.115.98|150.203.115.98]] ([[User talk:150.203.115.98|talk]]) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::The second derivatives of the potential are not always continues, of course. They are not in any [[second order phase transition]], where [[Ehrenfest equations]] hold instead. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::What's a [[partial derivative]]? [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Given their mutual association with Philadelphia and their strong physical resemblance, it seems very likely, but I haven't been able to find any source confirming it with a cursory web search, so this might take some deep digging (better suited to someone in the USA, not Europe). John Balbus, incidentally, seems to me to be a good candidate for a Wikipedia article. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/94.1.211.243|94.1.211.243]] ([[User talk:94.1.211.243|talk]]) 02:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Non-calculus proof of E=mc^2 == |
|||
:They are brothers, with a third brother named Peter.<sup>[https://www.penncharter.com/about-us/news-media/news-details-page/~board/alumni/post/pc-profile-john-balbus-opc78]</sup> [https://issuu.com/penncharter/docs/pc_2023fallmagazine_final <u>Here</u>] on p. 33 is a photo of Steven en John side by side. Their father was Theodore G. Balbus,<sup>[https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/inquirer/name/theodore-balbus-obituary?id=10391295]</sup> a radiologist, and their mother Rita S. Frucht.<sup>[https://www.nytimes.com/1952/01/28/archives/rita-s-frucht-married-bride-of-dr-theodore-g-balbus-at-ceremony-in.html]</sup> A bio of the father is found [https://lm0610.wordpress.com/ <u>here</u>], where you can also find that Peter runs a consulting firm called Pragmaxis. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 10:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= November 21 = |
|||
See [http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/proof.html [1<nowiki>]</nowiki>], this non-calculus proof of E=mc^2. We know, F=m*a (where m is mass and a is acceleration) and it is given in the second equation of the linked article that F=m*c. How can this be possible? Since the SI unit of 'a' is m/s^2 while the SI unit of 'c'is m/s. According to me, this proof is wrong. I read the Wikipedia article [[Mass-energy equivalence]], but the proof of E=mc^2 was very tough for me. Is there any other non-calculus (and other than dimensional analysis) proof of this equation? Thanks in advance. [[Special:Contributions/106.216.105.77|106.216.105.77]] ([[User talk:106.216.105.77|talk]]) 13:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:On the linked page, ''m'' in the second equation seems to represent the mass gained per unit time and so has units of kg/s rather than kg (so the units come out as kg m/s<sup>2</sup> on both sides). Similarly in the first equation ''E'' is energy gained per unit time and so has units of J/s (i.e. W) rather than simply J. Since the argument compares rate-of-change of energy with rate-of-change of mass, it ''is'' calculus (sort of) - but writing e.g. the rate-of-change of energy as ''E'' rather than d''E'' / d''t'' disguises this. --[[User:Catslash|catslash]] ([[User talk:Catslash|talk]]) 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::It's an elegant argument, but not mathematically stringent. It avoids a proper calculation of the limit, and simply assumes that speed is constant (which is not, strictly true). But it does provide a nice physical insight. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 14:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Griffiths in math and physics == |
||
There's something called the [[arxiv:1009.0395|Griffiths phase]]. If you search for griffiths phase activity [https://arxiv.org/search/?query=griffiths+phase+activity&searchtype=all&source=header so], you'll find things with similar names. A Griffiths singularity, Griffiths effects, there's probably more than one thing people call Griffiths' formula since there's a physicist called [[Phillip Griffiths|Phillip]] and two named [[David J. Griffiths|David J. Griffiths]]. How many things are we dealing with under this name? Is there a book where they're all listed right next to each other? [[User:Gongula Spring|Gongula Spring]] ([[User talk:Gongula Spring|talk]]) 19:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi |
|||
:The concept of a Griffiths phase is named after theoretical physicist [[Robert B. Griffiths]], who was the first to describe the appearance of such phases in an [[Ising model]] of [[ferromagnetism]].<sup>[https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.17]</sup> He is also the eponym of the [[Griffiths inequality]]. Most uses of ''Griffiths singularity'' and ''Griffiths effect'' appear to be related. "Griffiths' formula" is a very general name that may refer to various formulas found by mathematicians with the surname Griffiths, such as Griffiths' integral formula for the [[Milnor number]] of an isolated hypersurface singularity, found by pure mathematician [[Philip A. Griffiths]], also the eponym of the [[Griffiths group]]. See also [[Griffiths' theorem]], named after yet another Griffiths. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I was asked to get info on making briquettes with company waste such as coal dust mixed with saw dust or wood chips. |
|||
::[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10704-024-00786-3 That formulation] seems at least superficially be leading to references to [[Alan Arnold Griffith|Alan Arnold Griffith]]. Formulas like ''ohmic or non ohmic dissipation in metallic griffiths phases'' used at [https://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2017/08/fsu-lab-sets-new-magnet-strength-record.html the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory] then tend to appear ambiguous to that effect too. Most other examples are deeply plunging into statistical quanta states thus unambiguously associated with Robert B. Griffiths instead. --[[User:Askedonty|Askedonty]] ([[User talk:Askedonty|talk]]) 00:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The bracketing is not as in ((Griffith phase) field theory) but like (Griffith ((phase field) theory)), a theory of fracture, based on a phase-field model, developed by Griffith. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 08:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The interesting thing is that those approaches are leading us very near of a (a least to me ) finally rather satisfying view of the problematics induced by the idea of [[Action at a distance]]. --[[User:Askedonty|Askedonty]] ([[User talk:Askedonty|talk]]) 10:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::So much that you only have to think about it and what do you get? [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.5364#:~:text=Robert%20Griffiths%20begins%20his%20recent%20paper%20Quantum%20Locality,long%20distances%2C%20in%20apparent%20contradiction%20to%20special%20relativity%E2%80%9D. Long distances in apparent contradiction to..] --[[User:Askedonty|Askedonty]] ([[User talk:Askedonty|talk]]) 11:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm not sure if these long distances anticipate my next question, which is what does "long-range" mean in the [https://arxiv.org/search/?query=griffiths+phase+activity&searchtype=all&source=header search] results above? |
|||
:::::[[User:Gongula Spring|Gongula Spring]] ([[User talk:Gongula Spring|talk]]) 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Perhaps, as in #16 from that request as I get it "Temporal disorder in discontinuous non-equilibrium phase transitions: general results". The "long distances" discussion above being from 2002 by contrast. --[[User:Askedonty|Askedonty]] ([[User talk:Askedonty|talk]]) 16:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Number 16 uses "temporal" and "critical" terms, are we getting toward [http://criticaloscillations.org/publications.html ideas] [[doi:10.1101/2022.12.14.519751|about]] long-range temporal correlations in critical brain dynamics? Are they spooky? |
|||
:::::::[[User:Gongula Spring|Gongula Spring]] ([[User talk:Gongula Spring|talk]]) 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I don't think so. Or not so directly anyway. Number 16 seem to be about logic and geometry: distance in that context is fact, and can also be manipulated. Relevant quote if there was one regarding our subject - but their process define a temporal Griffiths inactive phase some time - relevant would be (see their pdf): '' |
|||
:::::::::Disorder due to spatial or temporal inhomogeneities is almost an unavoidable ingredient in many real systems, it is then desirable to understand their effects on these phase transitions. For continuous phase transitions, it was earlier recognized that spatial and temporal disorder changes the critical behavior whenever the generalized Harris criterion is violated [11, 12]: quenched spatial disorder is relevant whenever dν⊥ > 2 is violated while temporal disorder is relevant when νk = zν⊥ > 2 is violated; with ν⊥, νk and z being critical exponents of the clean phase transition and d being the number of spatial dimensions. Since the critical exponents of the directed percolation universality class violate the Harris criterion, it was then argued that this was the reason why it was '''never seen''' in experiments [13] (see however Ref. 14).'' |
|||
::::::::(They describe their purpose as: ''Non-equilibrium phase transitions have constituted a rich and lively topic of research for many years. They occur in a wide variety of models in ecology [1], epidemic spreading [2], sociophysics [3], catalytic reactions [4], depinning interface growth [5, 6], turbulent flow [7], among other fields [8–10].'') [8–10] refer to Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models. Sociophysics is a product of [[Positivism#Logical positivism]] ( perhaps note there a ''spooky'' "component not derived from observation" ) --[[User:Askedonty|Askedonty]] ([[User talk:Askedonty|talk]]) 21:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= November 22 = |
|||
My question is, can the two substances be mixed together and processed together to make briquettes for coal fired boilers? If so what is the mix ratio to make it a cost saving and green project? Where can I get good drawings or advice? |
|||
== Heat of chillies == |
|||
Currently, the company is under pressure to reduce costs. All the coal dust and wood chips go a dump site and I don't agree with it. |
|||
How hot, in terms of Scovilles, does a chilli need to be before a parrot can feel the burn? I just saw a video on Facebook of a macaw eating a ghost pepper without the slightest care. From what I read, parrots are extremely resistant to the capsicum from chillies. Or is it because we have thousands of taste buds and parrots have tens, which is also true. [[Special:Contributions/146.90.140.99|146.90.140.99]] ([[User talk:146.90.140.99|talk]]) 01:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This is items which can be recycled and will give cost savings on the long run. |
|||
:{{tq|“The seeds of Capsicum plants are dispersed predominantly by birds. In birds, the TRPV1 channel does not respond to [[capsaicin]] or related chemicals but mammalian TRPV1 is very sensitive to it. This is advantageous to the plant, as chili pepper seeds consumed by birds pass through the digestive tract and can germinate later, whereas mammals have molar teeth which destroy such seeds and prevent them from germinating.”}} [[User:Card_Zero|<span style=" background-color:#fffff0; border:1px #995; border-style:dotted solid solid dotted;"> Card Zero </span>]] [[User_talk:Card_Zero|(talk)]] 03:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Any solutions? |
|||
:Yes, as Card Zero says, birds have different [[TRPV]] receptors (for [[vanilloids]] like capsaicin) than mammals. I guess chillis want their seeds distributed far and wide by birds. On the other hand, I've never seen anything eat the chillis that accidentally grow in my garden. Interestingly, my dog appears to have different TRPV receptors than me as they don't seem to notice very spicy chilli seeds on food and they won't be damaging the seeds. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Indeed, one of the most effective ways to keep squirrels off my bird feeder is to sprinkle the birdseed with chilli powder. [[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 09:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::My entire home crop of capsicums (bell peppers to Americans), and some chillis disappeared in one night last summer right after a colony of fruit bats arrived in my local park. Fruit bats, of course, are mammals. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 10:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::That's interesting because there are many bats here. They often sleep individually or in small groups inside young banana leaves that haven't unfurled yet. They sometimes crash into me at night if I'm moving. I guess in bat-world tree-like things don't move. They seem to have a chilli-free diet but might eat some of the other fruit. Plenty of insects to eat. Bat teeth [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40158-4 seem to be quite diverse] molar-wise. Chilli is the only thing that survives the wildlife. It's a multi-belligerent fruit-based forever war over resources with the birds, squirrels, rats, countless insects, fungi, bacteria and viruses. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 15:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Insect eating bats are very different from the fruit bats. There's a theory that peppers have the same sort of relation to fruit bats as chillis do to birds so I can easily imagine a fruit bat being partial to a couple of chillis even if it does find them rather hot. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 21:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= November 23 = |
|||
Regards |
|||
== Before [[Puberty]], sex organs are not functional? == |
|||
Gert de Ridder <small>(Email address & phone nummer removed)</small> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/105.226.163.32|105.226.163.32]] ([[User talk:105.226.163.32|talk]]) 15:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
How do sex organs function in both genders before puberty in humans? Not after [[Puberty]]. [[User:HarryOrange|HarryOrange]] ([[User talk:HarryOrange|talk]]) 07:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Sexual maturity]] is only reached during [[puberty]]. Before it is reached, the sex organs are not (or not yet fully) functional. See also {{section link|Sex organ#Development}} and [[Precocious puberty]]. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 11:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:My understanding is that those things don't generate as much energy per unit volume as coal does, so I think you will need to find out how flexible your boilers are. This comes down more to what the boilers can handle than to what you can do with the waste. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 16:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::They're functional. It's just that their functions are generally under the headings of "basic maintenance" and "not atrophying". <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 09:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::To my understanding (which may be deficient), [[Testicle|testicles]] prior to puberty are secreting ''some'' levels of [[Androgen|androgens]] (including testosterone) ''and'' [[Estrogen|estrogens]], which contribute to the male body's normal development, even though these levels are well below what they become during and after puberty. I imagine (perhaps wrongly) that similar considerations apply to the [[Ovary|ovaries]]. |
|||
::Our immediately relevant articles seem not very informative about pre-pubertal operations of the sex organs. Perhaps someone more knowlegable could take a look at them. [[Special:Contributions/94.1.211.243|94.1.211.243]] ([[User talk:94.1.211.243|talk]]) 09:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I did take a look, I always do before answering a question. Here is a representative article; [https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/29/1/97/629238 The immature human ovary shows loss of abnormal follicles and increasing follicle developmental competence through childhood and adolescence]. The word "competence" means that ''in vitro'' the ovary tissue does a better job of taking on adult functionality the older the girl, but ''in vivo'' such activity is suppressed. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 10:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nevertheless, if I've understood the peripheral hints I've encountered, those pre-pubertal levels of androgen and estrogen (and steroid, etc.) secretions ''are'' necessary ''at the time'' (the pre-pubertal period) for ongoing normal development, which is kinda what the OP asked about. Of course, all this is well above my pay grade. {The poster formerly known as 87.81 230.195} [[Special:Contributions/94.1.211.243|94.1.211.243]] ([[User talk:94.1.211.243|talk]]) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This discussion seems to have focused on the testicles and ovaries but the [[penis]] is also a sex organ and is capable of an [[erection]] before puberty. This is mentioned in our erection article in a sort of weird way given the flow on sentence. [[Ejaculation]] however only happens after puberty. I assume there is similarly some level of function in female sex organs. As mentioned in our [[masturbation]] article it's normal in children even in infancy and may even happen in the womb and is only a concern when there are indications it may relate to sexual abuse. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The penis as such is able to "ejaculate" well before puberty (somewhat dependent on definition) but because the prostata doesn't produce anything, there is nothing to ejaculate. So it's going through the motions way before the other organs are functional. [[Special:Contributions/176.0.132.86|176.0.132.86]] ([[User talk:176.0.132.86|talk]]) 05:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Note that the mass of the briquettes, and how well compressed they are, will determine how fast they burn, with low mass, uncompressed ones burning faster. So, if the mass of each is low enough, and/or they are uncompressed enough, they should provide sufficient heat. However, they won't last as long. You could just experiment with different sized briquettes to find the right form. How do you intend to compress them ? I wonder if a [[Trash_compactor#Residential_use|trash compactor]] would work. You might need to add some type of flammable binder. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 16:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
= November 25 = |
|||
:Reusing industrial scrap wood for briquettes goes back at least to Henry Ford and the Model T ([[Kingsford (charcoal)]]). It is a well-understood process that should be well documented. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 17:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Is there a cryonic company that will freeze me while I'm still alive and healthy, and reanimate me 15 years later? If I arrest the aging process for 15 years this way, could I then pass for a Gen Z? == |
|||
:Also note that, while coal dust can be burned directly, you need special equipment to do so. Trying to burn it in a regular coal furnace may result in an explosion. (I know you're not planning on doing this, but feel the warning is needed, just in case.) Therefore, you should store the coal dust in a sealed container, far from an ignition source, prior to compacting it into briquettes. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 17:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Could I have myself cryofrozen (without dying of another reason first) in 2025 with instructions to reanimate me in 2040 so that I could more convincingly pass for and live like someone born in the Gen Z generation? |
|||
:*First Gert. Where are you located on this huge planet? Some governments give grants to instal equipment to make use of what otherwise is waste – so knowing you location would help. Second, what <strike>cheapskate</strike> company are you working for that doesn’t want to contract a consultant? To economically utilize waste as fuel, inevitable require some outlay in equipment. To make sure that this this expense is economically recoverable and viable, a good costing exercise is required -hence need for a qualified consultant (vis Wikipedia). It is better to use tried and tested technology, than to follow what you and your employer can glean from Wikipedia (although having said that, please pay me... ASPRO US$1000 for this consultation as it will save your company thousands more dollars further down the line) . For an example, this company builds bespoke waste processing plants [http://www.isgec.com/ba-boilers-fuels.asp?lk=bo3]--[[User:Aspro|Aspro]] ([[User talk:Aspro|talk]]) 18:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
What companies cryofreeze people who ask for it while still alive and healthy? |
|||
::*For a small project like this, the consulting fee may not be recovered for years. (And if they don't have to pay Gert overtime, then working on this project won't cost them any extra, as opposed to the consultant.) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 19:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Or does such a cryonic plan and company exist anywhere in the world? |
|||
::::That is why I wanted to know where he was located. Some grants are available to pay a boffin to come in and say – don't shovel the coal-dust strait into the furnace as it will suffocate the fire bed. Mix it first with a little binder (say cellulose wall paper paste) and then throw the binded chunks in... Do you know how much little companies have to pay just for legal advice? Advice from popper recycling expert is cheap in comparison. If they think they can not afford to pay for that, then our poster should think seriously about working for another company that is still going to be in business this time next year. --[[User:Aspro|Aspro]] ([[User talk:Aspro|talk]]) 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I wanted to be born in 2000, not the year I was actually born in. So if I get cryofrozen for enough years, I'll look as young as a Gen Z when I'm reanimated. |
|||
:::*...and it will look great on his resume. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Lastly, Reddit's r/Cryonics subreddit's automoderator keeps glitching out because it keeps autoremoving any content of mine from there. I tried posting this question and above summary to other subreddits but their automod keeps autoremoving it too. Their persistent glitches kept bugging me enough to dust off the Wikipedian reference desk and post here again for the first time in many years. I used to be a regular on the refdesk, then moved to Reddit, and now I'm back. --[[Special:Contributions/2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E|2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E]] ([[User talk:2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E|talk]]) 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No. it may look impressive on his résumé but at a job interview he may come across a just a lucky amateur – providing he even succeeds in fulfilling his current employers wishes.--[[User:Aspro|Aspro]] ([[User talk:Aspro|talk]]) 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Short answer: No. As currently freezing a human adult, results in their death, as no resuscitation is possible. It would be some kind of murder to perform this, so only a crime syndicate would be willing. And then could you trust them for 15 years? [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 01:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{small|In 15 years, you'd be just as deceased, pushing up daisies, no more, pining for the fjords. So what's trust got to do with it? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 08:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
::{{small|At this point I feel bound to recommend that you watch ''[[Sleeper (1973 film)|Sleeper]]''.[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 10:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Selective Knockout == |
|||
::Terraforming a planet around some distant star and setting up a population there sounds far easier and actually doable to me. Perhaps in the far future it'll be possible to create a new body and copy the brain fom one of those frozen blocks for it, or maybe set up an android with an artificial copied brain - but why would any people who could do that bother with anyone from this time, would it be ethical for us to try and make a Neanderthal clone? [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello. I want to demonstrate whether the heart is the only tissue that requires Mef2 for embryogenesis in mice. Do I knockout Mef2 in every tissue that expresses it except for the heart? If so, how can I go about that? Thanks in advance. --[[User:Mayfare|Mayfare]] ([[User talk:Mayfare|talk]]) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::By way of a reference, try [https://www.livescience.com/health/death/we-dont-yet-have-the-know-how-to-properly-maintain-a-corpse-brain-why-cryonics-is-a-non-starter-in-our-quest-for-immortality '''We don't yet have the know-how to properly maintain a corpse brain': Why cryonics is a non-starter in our quest for immortality'']. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 11:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:What approaches have you considered so far? You'll forgive me, but this sounds a bit like a homework problem.... [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Can any insurance company make a cryonics bankruptcy insurance policy for companies that preserve bodies in cryogenic preservation vats so that even when the company goes bankrupt, their insurance policies will keep these vats running and bodies preserved? == |
|||
::Does sound a bit like homework - Let's stake out [[gene knockout]], [[Mef2]], [[promoter (genetics)]], [[enhancer (genetics)]] to begin with. Especially the Mef2 article because if you're knocking out all four you'll definitely be busy ... You may decide you find [[gene knockdown]] to be of interest. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
...So that we can continue the hope and possibility of reanimating these bodies back to life when medical science advances and finds cures to reverse whatever they died from? |
|||
== Feeding of K-9 dogs == |
|||
This topic was also autoremoved from r/Cryonics so that's why I'm bringing it here too. Thanks in advance. --[[Special:Contributions/2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E|2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E]] ([[User talk:2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E|talk]]) 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
My friend told me that K-9 dogs (law enforcement dogs) are only fed once a day. And she said that this is done to keep them "hungry and fierce". |
|||
:An [[insurance policy]] defines the <u>amount of money</u> to be paid to the holder of the policy when a specified contingency occurs. If the contingency is [[bankruptcy]] and the idea is to keep the company running, the amount should be larger than the prospectively unknowable debt to [[preferential creditor]]s. It should be obvious that no insurance company can offer a policy with an unlimited payout. Apart from this, even an insurance for a sufficiently large amount cannot guarantee that the company or [[Trustee in bankruptcy|trustee]] will use the money paid out for the intended purpose. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Is it true that K-9 dogs are only fed once a day? If so, is "keeping them hungry and fierce" really the reason? I don't see why you'd want that -- it doesn't sound like their job description. |
|||
::Who would be a creditor? They're all dead and have no rights. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Creditors of Instant Immortality (the bankrupt cryonics company, for short II) could be: (1) the tax office; (2) II's bank; (3) the company from which II hired its cryogenic equipment; (4) II's provider of liquid nitrogen; (5) II's lawyers; (6) scores of estates of frozen clients, legally presumed dead, who won a class action lawsuit against II. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 11:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow, is it April 1 already? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks. And I would be extra grateful if you cite to a source... |
|||
:Cryonics is such a blatant scam I don't understand how it is legal. [[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 09:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::More blatant than (also legal) [[homeopathy]]? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 10:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
A marginally better idea might be to create a [[testamentary trust]] fund, if you could find a willing trustee. I'm not sure how far into the future you might want this to extend (do frozen corpses have a "best before" date?) but a legal expert might advise on how to extend the trust beyond the lifetime of the trustee, and what incentives might be required for another person to accept that role. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/99.100.214.111|99.100.214.111]] ([[User talk:99.100.214.111|talk]]) 22:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Where to verify a chemical compund name synonyms? == |
|||
:The [http://www.policek9.com/html/feeding.html International Police K9 Conference] doesn't say anything about the frequency of feeding, but it does say; ''"Working dogs use a lot of energy. To replace this, a large amount of high quality, nutritious dog food is required. These dogs should be offered all of the dog food they want, unless they begin to become overweight."'' So it doesn't seem to be recommended that they be kept hungry. However, [http://www.glendalek9.com/faq.asp The Glendale Police K-9 Unit] says; ''"They normally eat once a day at the end of our shift. Feeding them before work will cause them to be sleepy, just like after we eat a big meal."'' I'm not sure if this is universal practice. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 00:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
The [[ARM390]] compound has multiple IDs, (some of?) which can be found at PubChem here: |
|||
:No, being fierce is NOT part of a police dog's job decription. Many police dogs are drug or explosives detection dogs - for this what is wanted is a well fed happy dog that just wants to enjoy the "game" of detection and please its' master. For apprehension dogs, the last thing you want is a fierce dog - want you want is a fit dog that obeys commands absolutely. The idea is to bring down and restrain the villain, not damage him. Police dogs are generally the larger and more intelligent breeds e.g., german sheperd. These large breeds only need a meal once a day, whether they are in police service or are just pets. This does not preclude giving them small treats now and then, which when done sparingly and at the right moments, gives you a better dog. Small breeds may need meals twice a day. See http://www.purina.co.uk/content/your-dog/feeding-your-dog/the-right-food-for-your-dog/feeding-your-adult-dog. Wickwack [[Special:Contributions/121.215.50.17|121.215.50.17]] ([[User talk:121.215.50.17|talk]]) 02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9841259#section=Synonyms |
|||
There are two among them, which differ with one ''zero'' only: [[AR-M1000390]] and [[AR-M100390]]. The difference seems too small to be just a coincidence, it looks like one must be a typo modification of the other. |
|||
Is there any way for a non-chemistry/medicine-professional to trace the origin of those specific symbols and learn whether they are actually the same, or genuinely different? --[[User:CiaPan|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan|talk]]) 08:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::That could be misleading though. One of the built-in virtues of large dogs is that they instinctively understand that children are human puppies. My own experience of large dogs is that they'll tolerate a lot of horseplay and rough handling from children that they will not tolerate from adults. They treat people they know differently to people they don't know too. Wickwack [[Special:Contributions/60.228.244.46|60.228.244.46]] ([[User talk:60.228.244.46|talk]]) 11:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's actually not abnormal to feed a dog [http://www.thatmutt.com/2011/11/16/is-it-ok-to-feed-my-dog-once-per-day/ once a day]. We had a labrador cross that lived to almost 15 and we only ever fed her once a day, and she was never "hungry and fierce". [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
PS. The motivation for publishing this question here is it's not only me in doubt – another user called for discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#AR-M100390|Redirect discussion: AR-M100390]]. The sources refer to both names, so from the Wikpedia point of view both are valid, but... Out of curiosity, I just would like to know: are they independent, truly different? [[User:CiaPan|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan|talk]]) |
|||
== Is it possible that a supertanker or a cruise ship that is made of all woods, treenails and tar, can float for a long time? == |
|||
:Usually, I would trust [[ChemSpider]] to validate such synonyms and that's where I'd send a non-expert. In this particular case, Chemspider seems to prefer AR-M1000390 but one possible source of misinformation/typo is [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2672171/ this paper], which consistently uses AR-M100390 in the text ''but'' AR-M1000390 in the citation #23, which is correct at [[doi:10.1016/S0024-3205(03)00489-2]]. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The earliest use of the name AR-M1000390 seems to be in a PhD thesis from 2003.<sup>[https://theses.fr/2003PA05P602]</sup> The same name was used in a 2003 journal article in ''[[Life Sciences (journal)|Life Sciences]]'' describing the results of this PhD thesis.<sup>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024320503004892?via%3Dihub]</sup> The substance was synthesized by researchers from AstraZeneca R&D; their paper describing the design, synthesis, and pharmacological evaluation of the drug, published in 2000, does not use this name, but only the systemic name ''N'',''N''-diethyl-4-(phenylpiperidin-4-ylidenemethyl)benzamide.<sup>[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11052794/]</sup> Plausibly, the "AR" bit is short for "AstraZeneca R&D" and the whole was originally a code for internal use in the AstraZeneca lab. Subsequently: |
|||
Let's suppose people build a supertanker or a cruise ship that is made of all woods and tar? Can it float on water for a long time? Why can the ship float and why can't it float? [[Special:Contributions/173.32.116.184|173.32.116.184]] ([[User talk:173.32.116.184|talk]]) 23:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:* '''AR-M1000390''' was deposited on 2016-02-05; the source was the [[Guide to Pharmacology|IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY]],<sup>[https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/310264783/version/1]</sup> which references the 2003 ''Life Sciences'' article.<sup>[https://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/LigandDisplayForward?ligandId=9005]</sup> |
|||
:[http://www.maritime.org/conf/conf-goodwin.htm The Influence of Iron in Ship Construction: 1660 to 1830] says that the bigger wooden ships were subject to flexing and twisting of the hull, causing the wooden joints to open. Early in the 19th century, iron bracing was being fitted to large wooden warships in order to stiffen them. The introduction of steam propulsion required an even more rigid hull. So when the technology to make an iron ship became available, [[HMS Warrior (1860)]] was the result. The biggest wooden ships were tiny compared to modern steel vessels; [[HMS Victory]] is 70 metres long, [[RMS Queen Mary 2]] is 345 metres and the [[TI class supertanker]] is 380 metres. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 23:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:* The synonym '''ar-m100390''' was deposited on 2017-09-13 by Springer Nature.<sup>[https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/341355739]</sup> |
|||
::To add a couple of specific examples - the oldest wooden ship still afloat is the [[USS Constitution]] (215 years), although she's undergone a great deal of maintenance in that time. The largest wooden ship ever was the [[Baron of Renfrew (ship)|Baron of Renfrew]], which lasted for three months. The largest working wooden ship was the [[Great Republic]], which lasted for 19 years. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 00:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:* Yet another synonym: '''AR-M 1000390''', deposited on 2024-11-14 by a chemical vendor.<sup>[https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/504088734]</sup> |
|||
:::Good examples - Baron of Renfrew was 93 metres long and that was too much. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) |
|||
: |
:--[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 20:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
||
:: Thank you both, [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] and [[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]], for detailed info. {{=D}} [[User:CiaPan|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan|talk]]) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If you make an unballasted wooden ship (oddly, we don't appear to have an article on the general use of ballast in ships), it'll float no matter how much water it takes on (assuming it isn't carrying much cargo), but an unballasted ship also tends to be topheavy and at risk of capsizing. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 05:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::In that case, it's also called a [[raft]] ;-) --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
= |
= November 27 = |
||
== Right whales and Left whales == |
|||
== Crushing == |
|||
Why are there [[right whale]]s, but not [[left whale]]s? [[User:Someone who's wrong on the internet|Someone who's wrong on the internet]] ([[User talk:Someone who's wrong on the internet|talk]]) 09:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I remember reading about the study of crumpling or crushing paper or another two-dimensional object. But we don't seem to have an article on this. Are there any sources giving information on how well paper crumpled within a cylinder can support a weight above it? Thanks. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 02:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Perhaps there's a naming dispute in the whale courts over brand names, a left vs wrong case. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 09:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:You're thinking of the [[Narwhal]]. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't quite understand. The more weight you place on it, the more it will compress, until it reaches a point where it can't compress much more (about the density of wood, I imagine). [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 08:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Not right versus left, but right versus wrong. This was the right species to catch. [[User:PiusImpavidus|PiusImpavidus]] ([[User talk:PiusImpavidus|talk]]) 10:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The question has relevance and merit if the crumpled paper is used for packing fragile products. There's bound to be someone who has studied it from that angle - what density of object can be protected by crumpled paper packing. What is the optimum crumpling density for use in packing? Of course, whether or not this is what Medeis had in mind - who knows? Wickwack [[Special:Contributions/60.228.244.46|60.228.244.46]] ([[User talk:60.228.244.46|talk]]) 10:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Th answer is in the article you linked: [[Right_whale#Naming]]. [[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 11:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If a member of a group of whales manages to beach itself, and the others swim on, then the one on the beach would be a left whale. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::My interest is in the abstract. I remember reading about ten years ago that researchers had found some sort of fractal constant that would predict how much a two-dimensional sheet of material--say paper or aluminum foil of the same thickness--would crumple within a confined space, like a tube, before it would cease compressing under a certain weight. If I remember properly, it turned out the actual material being crumpled didn't matter, the effect was a geometrical one. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 16:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::What is a [[wrong whale]] exactly? [[User:Someone who's wrong on the internet|Someone who's wrong on the internet]] ([[User talk:Someone who's wrong on the internet|talk]]) 23:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The ones that don't fit the definition given in the article. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::There's also this:[https://x.com/davidcoverdale/status/1153914897987538946] ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>Maybe [[wikiquote:The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday#Ch._II_:_The_Secret_of_Gabriel_Syme|Gregory and Syme]] got to them. [[User:Wardog|Iapetus]] ([[User talk:Wardog|talk]]) 12:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
== Lawson Criterion: calculating energy density W == |
|||
:The place to start on the engineering properties of crumpling would be to look up the physics of [[crumple zone]]s that are the structural safety feature of modern cars. The point is that the crumpling action itself absorbs energy -- if the structure it is already partly crumpled, much of that absorbing potential is lost. So thin supports such as those inside cardboard are in an ordered [[honeycomb]] structure instead. |
|||
:An interesting place to look at the fundamental physics of crumbling is in newer research on [[mathematics of paper folding|mathematical origami]]. An artist makes the incredibly-complex fold pattern on a computer, prints the pattern and burns the perforations on paper. But instead of assembling fold-by-fold, [http://www.langorigami.com/science/math/math.php the artist finds] that they can get most of the folding in place immediately by gently crumpling the sheet. [[User:SamuelRiv|SamuelRiv]] ([[User talk:SamuelRiv|talk]]) 16:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[Lawson Criterion]] |
|||
::Yes, both [[crumple zone]] and [[mathematical origami]] are interesting articles, and I have watched a documentary on the latter. But I am looking specifically for some sort of fractal treatment of the random crumpling of paper and other two-dimensional substances. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
The article states: {{Blockquote |multiline=yes |text= |
|||
== Quantum mechanical stability of historical timelines == |
|||
Ion density then equals electron density and the energy density of both electrons and ions together is given by |
|||
<math>W = 3nT</math> |
|||
:"The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ, |
|||
:Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit |
|||
:Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, |
|||
:Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it." |
|||
:- [[Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam]] |
|||
where <math>T</math> is the temperature in electronvolt (eV) and <math>n</math> is the particle density. |
|||
How well does that stand up against [[quantum mechanics]]? |
|||
}} |
|||
However, there is no clear explanation given as to why the energy density equals 3nT, rather than 2nT or just nT. If the electrons and ions are in equal parts within the plasma, shouldn't it equal 2nT? |
|||
Is there any source that clears this up? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere|Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere]] ([[User talk:Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere|contribs]]) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Is the past in any way fixed or is it instead a swirling storm of uncertainties that we don't notice simply because we're just the product of the current history and so can't see the pasts that used to be? [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 03:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere|Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere]] ([[User talk:Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere|talk]]) 11:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It's impossible to tell. [[User:Whoop whoop pull up|Whoop whoop pull up]] <sup>[[User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|Bitching Betty]] | [[Special:Contributions/Whoop whoop pull up|Averted crashes]]</sup> 04:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:The energy density of a [[monoatomic gas]] is <math>E=\frac{3}{2}nT</math>. Both electrons and ions can be considered monoatomic gases, so the total energy density is double of that value. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 20:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Further reading I found while looking for this: [[Transactional interpretation]]. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 04:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Depends on what ''n'' is precisely. If ''n'' is the ion density (equal to the electron density), then <math>2\cdot\frac{3}{2}nT</math> is correct. If taken literally as "particle density" (i.e. ions and electrons combined), then it should still be <math>\frac{3}{2}nT</math>. I assume that the former is meant, but the formulation seems ambiguous. --[[User:Wrongfilter|Wrongfilter]] ([[User talk:Wrongfilter|talk]]) 21:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== stage 4 breast cancer == |
|||
I've got two tests for the thread of history being in a vibrational state. |
|||
* Dark Matter might be echoes of past states of the past and so its fine scale structure could have certain harmonics. |
|||
* The Big Bang if connected to the present could have its structure influenced by the current configuration of the universe. |
|||
[[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 04:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not seeking medical advice, but stage 4 cancer means you're gonna die from it imminently, can someone confirm? Or is it [https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/former-mtv-vj-ananda-lewis-184257672.html wait, what??] Maybe I'm confused. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:6B00|2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:6B00]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:6B00|talk]]) 22:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*You may want to check your ideas against [[Crackpot index|this standard]]. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 05:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*According to [[breast cancer classification]], Stage IV means the cancer has [[metastasized]], that is, tumors that have "broken off" of the original tumor have appeared elsewhere in the body. "[[Metastatic breast cancer]] has a less favorable [[prognosis]]." <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 06:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"{{tq|While there is no cure for metastatic breast cancer, it is possible to control it with treatment for a number of years. The cancer can also go into remission.}}"<sup>[https://nbcf.org.au/about-breast-cancer/diagnosis/stage-4-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer/]</sup> So "imminently" is not generally correct. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 15:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= November 28 = |
|||
:::I think this is a deep and important question. We live in an indeterminate universe, and just as one present might be mapped to many futures, it might be mapped to many pasts. It seems like the religion of [[causality]] seems to suppose that a [[Watchmaker God]] decreed the past in some arbitrary and uninformative way, and the present is random, and the past is set in stone; but it would seem to me that the past is indeterminate, and the present is what we know. Indeed, I suspect you could argue solipsistically that whatever consciousness is - if it relies on some algorithm to somehow provide it with input - that it is impossible to distinguish the nature of the universe beyond what is consistent with the input of the present moment, and all the rest of the physical certainty, even memory, is an illusion, no? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 07:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Are there any volatile gold compounds? == |
|||
:There is no backward causality in quantum mechanics. -- [[User:BenRG|BenRG]] ([[User talk:BenRG|talk]]) 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Title. Let's say "boiling point under 500°C" counts (as long as it actually boils and doesn't decompose). :) [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 03:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Would german V-2 rocket left earth orbit? == |
|||
:[[Gold(III) fluoride]] apparently undergoes "sublimation above 300 °C". Tracing the dewiki article's data suggests this comes from CRC 10th ed. [[doi:10.1016/0022-328X(87)80355-8]] is a lead article about volatile gold compounds, but these (and others I found) are generally about transferring as a vapor for CVD, nanoparticle formation, or other short-timeframe processes, so probably low pressure and maybe not highly stable in the vapor phase. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 03:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The compound [Me<sub>2</sub>AuOSiMe<sub>3</sub>]<sub>2</sub> sublimes at 40 °C (0.001 mmHg) without decomposition. ([[doi:10.1002/anie.196706831]]) --[[User:Leiem|Leiem]] ([[User talk:Leiem|talk]]) 04:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Closure (mathematics)|Closure]], does it exist in physics? == |
|||
If a [[V-2]] rocket would have been launced straight vertically with a 100 kg payload. Would it stay in space or fallen down ?, in particular would it left earth gravity for planetary space? Max altitude is specified as 206 km. [[User:Electron9|Electron9]] ([[User talk:Electron9|talk]]) 05:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
In mathematics, closures are pretty common, e.g. a sum of positive/negative numbers is a positive/negative sum - respectively, and a space of two/three dimensional bodies is a two/three dimensional space - respectively, and so forth. |
|||
:This sounds like homework, but here's a hint: find out what the maximum velocity would be with a 100 kg payload and compare that with the escape velocity at your launch latitude. [[User:Zoonoses|Zoonoses]] ([[User talk:Zoonoses|talk]]) 06:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I wonder if closures also exist in physics, i.e. when the closed properties are physical rather than mathematical, i.e. I'm not interested in applying mathematical properties - like a sum or a space - in physics: e.g. when we say that "a '''sum''' of two electric forces is an electric force": It's a bad example for closures in physics, because a "sum" is a methematical property, whereas I'm only interested in purely physical examples. |
|||
::Data on height vs velocity and escape velocity at specific height is missing.. [[User:Electron9|Electron9]] ([[User talk:Electron9|talk]]) 07:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
The above-mentioned example for closures in physics is bad also for another reason: Whereas there is a concrete difference between an electric field and a magnetic field (e.g. by how they influence a stationary body), there is no concrete difference between an electric force and a magnetic force: They influence a given body by the same way, e.g. if their value is 1 <s>kg</s> N they will accelerate a given body by the same acceleration, so the only difference (if at all) between an electric force and a magnetic force and a gravitaional force is "historical", i.e. it only tells us whether the source of that force, was an electric field or a magnetic field or a gravitational field. |
|||
:::You might like to read our [[Low Earth orbit]] article. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 09:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:HOTmag|HOTmag]] ([[User talk:HOTmag|talk]]) 08:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The article you link states that 206km is the maximum altitude if launched vertically. If it were capable of leaving the Earth's orbit, there would not be a maximum altitude, so it must fall down. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 09:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:1 [[Kilogram|kg]] is the unit of mass and not of force for which physicists have another unit [[Newton (unit)|Newton (the force to accelerate 1 kg at 1 m/s<sup>2)</sup>]] and your [[Greengrocer]] uses a scale that displays W(kg)=mg. Mathematical [[Addition]] (or summation), whether of scalar or vector quantities, is defined in abstract symbols. Those symbols may represent any physically real quantities and the summation result is equally real. That is no set-limited exercise or example-setting in [[Set theory]] and physical science is well enough aware that that there can be four (not just 3) [[Fundamental interaction|fundamental forces viz. gravity, electromagnetism, weak interaction and strong interaction]] that act in combination and cease to be explicitly separable in the result. [[User:Philvoids|Philvoids]] ([[User talk:Philvoids|talk]]) 13:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>Yes, I really meant Newton (sometimes people tend to replace weight by mass, but this mistake is so widespread - mainly in daily life, that it should be forgiven when readers understand what the speaker meant). Additionally I didn't want to mention the other forces becuase they are not useful in daily life.</small> |
|||
::As for your main response, I didn't fully understand the bottom lime: Do you eventually claim that there don't exist purley physical closures (although there are purely mathematical closures)? [[User:HOTmag|HOTmag]] ([[User talk:HOTmag|talk]]) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Are [[Symmetry (physics)]] and [[Conservation law]] what you're after? |
|||
:Not necessarily, but could you give a concrete example? [[User:HOTmag|HOTmag]] ([[User talk:HOTmag|talk]]) 14:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:In mathematics, a closure is always the closure if a set. The set of positive numbers is closed under addition. The concept of closure requires the notion of an operation such as addition that can be performed on elements of the set. What is closed is not a property but a set. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 15:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>So no [[Rocket Ship Galileo|secret Nazi base on the Moon]]? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 11:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::A property is usually interpreted as a set. E.g. the property "Asian" is the set of all Asian objects, and when we say that a given object is Asian we only mean that it belongs to that set. |
|||
::The first rocket reaching a low orbit with such payload was an [[R-7 Semyorka]] (280 tons) with its payload [[Sputnik 1]] (83.6 Kg) in 1957. A V-2 was only 12,5 tons. --[[User:Kharon2|Kharon2]] ([[User talk:Kharon2|talk]]) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Here is a surprising example of closure: "a space of two/three dimensional objects is a two/three dimensional space - respectively". It really points at a closure because: on one hand, the operation is "to collect objects in a space": the result of this operation is the space in which those object are collected. On the other hand, the property is "two/three dimensional" (choose one option): this property is represented by the set of all two/three dimensional objects (respectively). |
|||
::My original question was, if there was any physical property (i.e. a set of physical objects sharing an indentical physical property), closed under a physical operation. [[User:HOTmag|HOTmag]] ([[User talk:HOTmag|talk]]) 17:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Do you mean, in lay terms, 'is there any physical property of a physical object that can never be changed?' (I assume by a physical process – I don't think changing the [[Sacramental bread|host]]'s [[Accident (philosophy)|accident]] by [[transubstantiation]] counts.) |
|||
:::I'd guess that [[Dark matter]] can't be changed into [[Baryon#Baryonic matter|Baryonic matter]] and vice versa, but I might well be wrong. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/94.1.211.243|94.1.211.243]] ([[User talk:94.1.211.243|talk]]) 10:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Active galaxys == |
|||
::Some book I read in high school many years ago said that the Germans in WW2 could theoretically achieved orbit with a V2 as the 1st stage, a cluster of some type of antiaircraft rockets as the 2nd stage and one such antiaircraft rocket as the third stage, implying that one stage to orbit was impossible for the V2. Getting the timing and steering to work is a different problem than thrust or specific impulse. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 22:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
What are active galaxies? [[User:NoBrainFound|NoBrainFound]] ([[User talk:NoBrainFound|talk]]) 17:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::A V-2 rocket couldn't ''possibly'' reach orbit -- but the proposed V-10 "[[Amerika-Rakete]]" two-stage version just might have. [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 00:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[Active galactic nucleus]], first paragraph. Perhaps there should be a redirect for this topic. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Verbarson|-- Verbarson ]] <sup>[[User talk:Verbarson|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Verbarson|edits]]</sub></span> 18:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: Something to remember is that V-2 is designed for a 1000 kg payload. If this is reduced, other orbits should be possible. [[User:Electron9|Electron9]] ([[User talk:Electron9|talk]]) 02:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh. There is one: [[Active galaxy]]. It's a bit annoying that the search bar does the redirect invisibly. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Verbarson|-- Verbarson ]] <sup>[[User talk:Verbarson|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Verbarson|edits]]</sub></span> 19:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= November 29 = |
|||
== Liquid nitrogen and frostbite == |
|||
== Where can I find counterintuitive phenomenons list in Science? == |
|||
[[File:Nitrogen ice cream 0020.jpg|thumb|200px]] |
|||
'''Examples: ''' |
|||
The image on the right shows liquid nitrogen is boiling and a person put his hand in the gas. Since the boiling point of liquid nitrogen is −196 °C, I am wondering why the person is not getting frostbite in his hand? The temperature of the newly formed gas is supposed to be −196 °C. --[[User:PlanetEditor|PlanetEditor]] ([[User talk:PlanetEditor|talk]]) 06:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[Asymptotic freedom]] - We'd normally expect forces to increase as objects get closer, but '''surprisingly''', the strong nuclear force |
|||
:They might, eventually. However, being a gas, it has a low density and doesn't have much heat capacity. If he submerged his hands in the liquid, he'd get frostbite immediately. Try putting you hands in the refrigerator at 40 degrees F, then submerging them in water stored in the same refrigerator (which has reached 40°F), and you will notice how much quicker your hands get cold in the liquid. That said, having bare hands that close to liquid nitrogen is foolhardy. He should wear thick leather gloves. One slip and he will be seriously injured. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 07:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
between quarks decreases as they get closer together. |
|||
[[Mpemba effect]] - The phenomenon where hot water can sometimes cool and freeze faster than cold water |
|||
:(ec) There are two important things about liquid nitrogen that make this less likely. First, low [[heat capacity]] - it doesn't store as much "cold" as it would seem - I'm getting "1.341j/g/K (gas), 2.042j/g/K (liquid), enthalpy of vaporization: 198.8j/g" from [http://www.powerlabs.org/ln2demo.htm]. Our article [[properties of water]] says water has heat capacity 4.2 J/g/K around the freezing point, so you heat up the boiled nitrogen gas 3.1x faster than water, plus it absorbs the equivalent of 152 degrees when boiling, so it's sort of like "3.5 times colder than ice water" in terms of the energy it absorbs from your hand, in terms of hypothetical heat absorption. |
|||
: But second, the liquid nitrogen surrounds itself in gas which rapidly pushes away from the skin, making it very hard to bring that full cooling to bear on it; there's poor [[heat conduction]] in a gas. It's a bit like a [[firewalk]] in that regard. I've held little drops of liquid nitrogen in my hand, but as the skin cools, they start to bite a little. If some prankster loaded a container of ethanol into the vessel holding the liquid nitrogen so that the demonstrator dipped his hands into that, I think there would be immediate injury. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 07:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::The ethanol would freeze, of course. It melts at 159 K, whereas nitrogen boils at 77 K. Maybe you mean it would get cold enough to cause immediate injury before it froze? I suppose that's possible. But the violently boiling nitrogen around the container should be a clue. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 08:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::You have a good point there. I suppose I was thinking that ethanol that has been sitting on dry ice is already quite cold enough! [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Well their hand isn't really in the liquid nitrogen, probably just in the boiled off nitrogen and water vapour from the air. Making icecream with LN2 is very safe providing you know what you are doing. Your hand can get a bit cold when making ice cream like this over the minutes but unlikely to be so cold so as to cause any damage. When dipping your bare hand into liquid nitrogen you are protected by the [[Leidenfrost effect]] for several seconds so it feels cold but little heat transfer takes place. Damage is much more likely if the nitrogen gets stuck next to your skin for a longer period such as if it gets accidently poured in your glove or shoe and these can't be removed quickly. <span style="background:lightgrey;font-family:Courier;border:2px dashed #000;">[[User:JMiall|<font color="purple">JMiall</font>]][[User talk:JMiall|<font color="red">₰</font>]]</span> 10:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks everyone. --[[User:PlanetEditor|PlanetEditor]] ([[User talk:PlanetEditor|talk]]) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[Ultraviolet catastrophe]] |
|||
:One more interesting and important concept: the [[Leidenfrost effect]]. It's how people can stick their hand into boiling lead, for example. [[User:SamuelRiv|SamuelRiv]] ([[User talk:SamuelRiv|talk]]) 16:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[Pioneer anomaly]] [[User:HarryOrange|HarryOrange]] ([[User talk:HarryOrange|talk]]) 16:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== T-90 tank shtora system == |
|||
:The ultraviolet catastrophe is not ''actually'' a phenomenon (that's the point). 19th-century classical physics theories ''predicted'' it should happen and, because it ''doesn't'', were superceded by improved, quantum theories. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/94.1.211.243|94.1.211.243]] ([[User talk:94.1.211.243|talk]]) 18:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Can Shtora system disable javelin missile ? [[Special:Contributions/87.236.232.97|87.236.232.97]] ([[User talk:87.236.232.97|talk]]) 08:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:There are some examples at [[List_of_paradoxes#Physics]] [[User:AndrewWTaylor|AndrewWTaylor]] ([[User talk:AndrewWTaylor|talk]]) 19:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::A list of counterintuitive phenomena can never be universally applicable because "intuitive believability" i.e. <i>credibility</i> is subjective and depends on a person's experience and education, that can both change. It is counterintuitive (for some) that the Earth can be spherical and yet have oceans that do not immediately drain off down the sides. It is incredible that my car registration number has the same digits as the winning lottery ticket of someone who knew a friend of a cousin of mine who lives in a different country because what are the infinitesimal chances of that happening? If apes can evolve into humans as we are told, why are there still apes around? [[User:Philvoids|Philvoids]] ([[User talk:Philvoids|talk]]) 16:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::In medical school, a lot of facts you have to learn by rote, since there is no overarching theory from which you can rationally deduce those facts. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= November 30 = |
|||
:It seems not, because [[Shtora]] "disrupts semiautomatic command to line of sight ([[Semi-automatic command to line of sight|SACLOS]]) antitank guided missiles, [[Laser rangefinder]]s and [[Laser designator|target designators]]." The [[FGM-148 Javelin]] uses "an [[imaging infrared]] seeker". According to the [http://china-defense.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/plas-shtora-tank-active-protection.html China Defense Blog], "the Shtora is less effective against the more advanced third generation of ATGM such as the US Javelin or the German PARS 3 which relies on laser or electro-optical imager for guidance". [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Displacement receiver v. transducer v. sensor == |
|||
== String or Higgs boson == |
|||
I'm working on the [[Displacement receiver]] page, which formerly had no citations, and the going is difficult because few things actually talk about displacement "receivers" rather than sensors/transducers/etc.. Does anyone know if these three terms refer to the same thing? The initial article talked about a carbon microphone as a displacement receiver because it responds to displacement internally, although what it measures is sound waves, whereas [https://www.globalspec.com/reference/62577/203279/4-4-displacement-transducers this book] says displacement transducers measure the distance between a sensor and a target, and [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128216743000085 this one] says they measure movement and the "occurence of a reference position", whatever that means. It doesn't seem like carbon microphones fit those definitions. But I've also seen e.g. [https://www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?id=27289 this conference paper] use "displacement receiver" to refer to a contact sensor measuring its change in distance from a concrete block to measure stress waves, which is an application actually measuring distance. The article defines it as "a device that responds to or is sensitive to directed distance", which also matches the concrete definition. |
|||
Which fundamental particle give mass to all other particle? Is it string or Higgs boson? [[Special:Contributions/106.215.104.44|106.215.104.44]] ([[User talk:106.215.104.44|talk]]) 10:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Does anyone know if a carbon microphone is really a displacement receiver? And is a displacement transducer the same as a displacement sensor? [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 19:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I guess you mean gives mass to other ''fundamental'' particles rather than all other particles i.e. not composite particles like a proton for the most part (see [[Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_the_proton]]). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|<font color="#000">Sean.hoyland</font>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]'''</small> 10:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Smelly plasterboard == |
|||
== Name of all 11 dimensions of space == |
|||
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg1v16nkpo This BBC News article] about a smelly landfill site quotes a chemist as saying "One of the materials that is particularly bad for producing odours and awful emissions is plasterboard". I thought that [[Drywall|plasterboard]] was a fairly inert substance. Why would it cause bad odours in landfill? (I assume that this is not faulty plasterboard suffering from the in-use 'emission of sulfurous gases' mentioned in the WP article.) <span class="nowrap">[[User:Verbarson|-- Verbarson ]] <sup>[[User talk:Verbarson|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Verbarson|edits]]</sub></span> 21:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I read in M-theory article that there are 11 dimensions of space. What is the name of all 11 dimensions? One is time and other 10 are ........ I read further in an another article that elementary particles are zero-dimensional. Then, what is the number of dimensions of an atom? |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/106.209.220.49|106.209.220.49]] ([[User talk:106.209.220.49|talk]]) 11:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:To answer the first part of the question, space is four dimensional with the three spatial dimensions we are familiar with — you can call them length, width, and height or X, Y and Z — and time being the fourth dimension — see: [[Dimension (mathematics and physics)#Additional dimensions]]. It is not known whether any others exist, different theories posit 10, 11 and 26, so they haven't been named yet. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Richerman|<font color="green">Richerman</font>'']]</span> [[User talk:Richerman|'''(talk)''']] 15:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:{{xt|When mixed with biodegradable wastes like manure and sewage, [[gypsum]] can produce hydrogen sulphide gas, which is odorous and toxic, and a threat to public health.}} |
|||
::Also, it's useless to try to assign them names when we don't still know what they "look like". For example, they could be circular, so that walking along the "Q-axis" (a dummy name: t,x,y,z,q,l, etc) will quickly bring you right back where you started. For anything larger than the tiniest particles (e.g. [[graviton]]s), this "Q" is virtually non-existent. Or it could be like a sphere with "L" and "M" corresponding to latitude and longitude, again only fat enough for tiny particles to experience. One thing an extra dimension almost certainly is ''not'', however, is like normal spatial length-width-height. If it were, we'd have seen it by now. [[User:SamuelRiv|SamuelRiv]] ([[User talk:SamuelRiv|talk]]) 16:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://www.buildingmaterials.co.uk/info-hub/plaster-plasterboard/plasterboard-disposal ''Plasterboard Disposal: What You Need to Know''] |
|||
:This "names" thing is fairly silly in my view. |
|||
:Perhaps somebody who understands the chemistry could add something to our article? [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 22:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:For spacetime (@Richerman: only spacetime is four-dimensional; space is still three-dimensional), you have one distinguished dimension which may be called "time". More precisely, there are "[[timelike]]" and "spacelike" intervals, and all observers will agree on which is which. |
|||
::Well, gypsum is CaSO4·2H2O, which has a significant amount of sulfur and hydrogen in it, and hydrogen sulphide is just HS -- I imagine it's not too hard for a chemical reaction to release hydrogen sulphide gas and therefore as they occur they do. Probably there's a paper somewhere that goes over the various reactions that happen. [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 01:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The remaining three, however, have no fixed "names". The names all correspond to a choice of (possibly local) coordinate system. For example, on the surface of the Earth, you'll probably use up/down for one axis, but whether you use left/right forward/backwards, or port/starboard fore/aft, or north/south east/west, depends entirely on your immediate purpose. |
|||
:::[[Hydrogen sulfide]] (however you like to spell it:) is H<sub>2</sub>S. According to our article about that chemical, it arises from gypsum by the action of [[sulfate-reducing microorganism]]s that are active "moist, warm, anaerobic conditions of buried waste that contains a high source of carbon". 11:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC) [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) |
|||
:For what it's worth, and it isn't worth much, a writer by the name of [[Charles Howard Hinton]] proposed the names ''ana'' and ''kata'' for opposing directions in a fourth spatial dimension. How, or even whether, he proposed to distinguish between them, I am unaware. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== 1990s Cathode-ray TV questions. == |
|||
== [[Food energy]] == |
|||
In the late '90s / early 2000s I remember as a kid looking closeup to the TV screen. For The Simpsons, their yellow skin was red green red green lights next to each other to make yellow. You can't do this with the modern TVs now anymore, but what did cathode-ray TVs use for pink? Would it be dim red by itself, or all 3 colors? How do they make brown? And if Cathode rays can do red green red green, can they do for example, red red green, red red green? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0|2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0|talk]]) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC). |
|||
The standard food energy values, as given in [[Food_energy#Nutrition_labels|our article]] and appears in most publications, are as follows: |
|||
:Current screens also describe colors mostly in RGB (red,green,blue) format, although I don't know the details of how they display it (see [[LCD]] for one method) -- [https://html-color.codes/pink this webpage lists some color codes for various shades of pink]. It looks like they use full red, plus moderate levels of green and blue. Sort of like red + white. [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 01:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*carbohydrate: 4 kcal/g |
|||
::OLED displays use a variety of methods; see {{section link|OLED#Color patterning technologies}}. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*protein: 4 kcal/g |
|||
:Brown is basically a darker shade of orange. Whether this is perceived as brown depends strongly on the context. There is no such thing as a brown light; only surfaces of objects can appear brown. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 03:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*fat: 9 kcal/g |
|||
::In photochemistry/photophysics, we can use dyes to make chemicals fluoresce non-spectral colors. Whether or not there is a brown dye is another question. But I believe pink dyes are known. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0|2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0|talk]]) 05:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC). |
|||
:In straightforward terms, most human eyes have three color receptors — red, green and blue. The eye can be tricked into seeing any color of light by the right proportions of those three pure colors. The devil is in the details. [[User:Doug butler|Doug butler]] ([[User talk:Doug butler|talk]]) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It works out mathematically, but one of those details with a devil is that for some colour mixes you may need a negative amount of one of the primary colours – which is physically impossible. That's why some screens use a fourth colour in the mix. [[User:PiusImpavidus|PiusImpavidus]] ([[User talk:PiusImpavidus|talk]]) 10:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Please see [[Gamut]] before declaring devilry. [[User:Philvoids|Philvoids]] ([[User talk:Philvoids|talk]]) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The colours are still red, green and blue, mixed in varying proportions. The exact hue may vary a bit and some screens add a fourth colour. The dots are pretty small though (maybe smaller than before; resolution has increased, but so have screen sizes) and you may no longer be able to watch them from as close as when you were a kid. Try a magnifying glass. [[User:PiusImpavidus|PiusImpavidus]] ([[User talk:PiusImpavidus|talk]]) 10:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You're maybe thinking of printing, where the fourth color is black. Way off topic. The really cool thing about color tubes is how the manufacturer deposits the bunches of three phosphors on the inside of the glass screen. The (iron) shadow mask, with its millions of holes, is spaced a few mm back. Spray guns for each color, located where the electron guns will be located in the final manufacturing stage, blast their phosphors so a trio of dots get through each hole in the mask. Electrons from each gun that get through the mask will hit its respective phosphor. Costly, wasteful and inefficient but it worked. [[User:Doug butler|Doug butler]] ([[User talk:Doug butler|talk]]) 17:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= December 1 = |
|||
On the other hand, as [http://www.novafeel.com/calories/calorie-tables.htm given here] and mentioned [http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.long this journal article], energy value of fat is 9.3, and that of protein is 4.2 for meat protein and 4.3 for vegetable protein. |
|||
== Fusion power critics == |
|||
Now, [http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Classics/ah74.pdf this article published by the USDA] says (p.4) energy value of protein is 5-6 kcal/g. [http://www.dairyscience.info/packaging-/119-labelling-determination-of-the-energy-content-of-food.html This] also describes the energy value of protein is 5.6 kcal/g. Why so many variations? I cannot understand the reason for the differences. --[[User:PlanetEditor|PlanetEditor]] ([[User talk:PlanetEditor|talk]]) 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I've stumbled upon a few freak Russian critics in the internet who still allege that fusion power is principally impossible. Perhaps the most notorious seems to be Soviet-era physicist Igor Ostretsov, who published an article in a Russian scientific journal, [http://infiz.tgizd.ru/ru/arhiv/17839 "On the Lawson Criterion in Thermonuclear Research"]. Since Ostretsov's criticism is too technical for me, I started to wonder how much weight does it carry, if any. Ostretsov [https://aftershock.news/?q=node/450256&full writes in particular]: |
|||
:*I found [http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=XLNoc6vpVOYC&pg=PA559&lpg=PA559&dq=calorific+value+fat+9.3+kcal&source=bl&ots=e3Tzrl4vwx&sig=vb7tRfcnhl1f5OnJlsjeZcIM5Ew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UQ0qUeqQO4HUrQei7YBY&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=calorific%20value%20fat%209.3%20kcal&f=false this book] which says ''"in vivo, the oxidation of protein is only party complete .... calorific value of protein, in vivo, is less, i.e. 4.1 Kcal/gm"''. The the book does not cite any reference. Definitely the USDA article is the most reliable. --[[User:PlanetEditor|PlanetEditor]] ([[User talk:PlanetEditor|talk]]) 13:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>"It is perfectly clear to every competent physicist that thermonuclear plasma, i.e. plasma at temperatures at which a thermonuclear reaction occurs, cannot be transparent. At thermonuclear temperatures, most of the energy is concentrated in radiation. In the article, I cited [[Yakov Zeldovich|Zeldovich]] on this subject: “In complete [[thermal equilibrium]], a significant portion of the energy is converted into radiation; this circumstance limits the equilibrium average energy of charged particles to a threshold of 5–15 keV, which is completely insufficient for a fast nuclear reaction. A slow nuclear reaction of light elements at an average energy of about 10 keV is practically impossible because the removal of energy by radiation during a slow reaction will lead to a rapid drop in temperature and a complete cessation of the reaction.” If the engineers of thermonuclear fusion in [[Magnetic mirror|magnetic traps]] "secretly" assume not a thermonuclear reaction, but the synthesis of hydrogen isotopes in high-energy beams, then this is how the problem should be formulated and consider its "efficiency" as extremely ineffective. The [[Lawson criterion]] has nothing to do with that problem, since it was obtained for the [[Maxwellian distribution]] of particles by velocity, which is shown in my article".</blockquote> |
|||
::*The main point here, is there any way to know whether the energy value of a food, as determined by bomb calorimeter, is different from energy value of the same food in human body? --[[User:PlanetEditor|PlanetEditor]] ([[User talk:PlanetEditor|talk]]) 13:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
In a letter to physicist [[Valery Rubakov]] Ostretsov further asserts that |
|||
:::It obviously is not. A bomb calorimeter can burn sawdust. A human body can not. The ash that a bomb calorimeter leaves behind cannot be ignited and burned. Dried dung can. The question is what the calorimeter operators do to compensate for these sources of error. See [ http://www.fishersci.com/ecomm/servlet/cmstatic?href=Scientific/researchAnalytical/ProductsServices/Food_Diagnostics/food_beverage_newsletter_bombcal.jsp&store=Scientific&storeId=10652 ]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>1. The Lawson criterion was obtained for the Maxwellian distribution of particles by velocity, which is established as a result of dissipative processes (collisions). 2. As shown in my article, the particle velocity distribution function in magnetic "thermonuclear" traps is determined only by external constant and variable fields, and therefore is not Maxwellian. Due to points 1 and 2, the Lawson criterion has no relation to modern "thermonuclear" research.</blockquote> |
|||
:Very interesting question; my first instinct would be that the caloric values given are for proteins/carbs/etc. which have already been digested and are being oxidized in the [[mitochondria]], but I can't find a reference for that; note that the efficiency of digestion, for lack of a better phrase, varies between species and foodstuffs; cats don't extract as much from their food as goats, for instance. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 06:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Ostretsov also claims that the "during thermonuclear fusion reactions, high-energy neutrons constantly fly into the inner walls of [[tokamak]]" and "it's difficult to withstand such bombardment, while a thermonuclear reactor must operate for many years". Is anything of it true? [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]<sup>[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]</sup> 16:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Our mirror image is chiral or achiral == |
|||
::Check who cites the article and see what they say. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 19:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::There is [[:ru:Острецов,_Игорь_Николаевич|an article about him]] in Russian Wikipedia. Based on it, he looks like some kind of freak. So, I think that his opinions can be safely ignored. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 20:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= December 2 = |
|||
What is the nature (chiral or achiral) of our image formed in a mirror? [[Special:Contributions/106.209.220.49|106.209.220.49]] ([[User talk:106.209.220.49|talk]]) 13:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:This question indicates that you don't understand the meaning of the words "chiral" and "achiral". A chiral object is an object whose mirror image can't be superimposed on the original. An achiral object, in contrast, has a mirror image that matches the original. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 16:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Then, what about our image formed on mirror? I want to know whether this image is able superimpose our body (achiral) or it isn't (chiral). [[Special:Contributions/106.209.220.49|106.209.220.49]] ([[User talk:106.209.220.49|talk]]) 16:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you are [[chirality|chiral]], then your mirror-image is chiral. If you are achiral, then your mirror-image is achiral. --[[User:Catslash|catslash]] ([[User talk:Catslash|talk]]) 17:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::You may be interested in Julian Wolkenstein's ''[http://www.julianwolkenstein.com/index.php/project/symmetrical-portraits/ Symmetrical Portraits]'' series and his echoism.org site. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|<font color="#000">Sean.hoyland</font>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]'''</small> 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you part your hair on the right, the person in the mirror parts his hair on ''his'' left. If you take a picture of yourself and take a picture of yourself in the mirror, when you try to superimpose the pictures on each other the parts of the hair will be on opposite sides. So you are chiral. Even if you part your hair in the middle, you are still asymmetric and therefore chiral. [[User:Duoduoduo|Duoduoduo]] ([[User talk:Duoduoduo|talk]]) 18:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Vegetarian Experience == |
|||
Last summer I decided to be a vegetarian, and since then, something weird happened to me, I began to have dreams of me eating meat, and after a while I began to feel guilty about it in the dream, and in the last dream I had I actually spitted out the meat. I was just curious is it common/normal? Is it a way for my body to tell me I need meat? (Probably like sexual dreams?) I'm interested to know what's happening in my brain... Thanks!--[[User:Irrational number|Irrational number]] ([[User talk:Irrational number|talk]]) 15:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I have taken the liberty of removing the first two copies of this question. It looks like something got screwed up with the post. <font color="009900"><b>Falconus</b></font><sup>[[User:Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>p</b></font>]] [[User talk:Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>t</b></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>c</b></font>]]</sup> 15:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you, I clicked on the "save page" button more than once, very slow connection here <small>this is embarrassing... I feel like a cave man...</small> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Irrational number|Irrational number]] ([[User talk:Irrational number|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Irrational number|contribs]]) 15:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:This falls into the category of "wish fulfillment" dreams -- a major type. (Freud thought that all dreams are of that type.) It simply indicates that you had a strong desire to eat meat. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 16:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::To continue using Freud, the desire to eat the meat comes from your [[id]], while the desire to avoid it comes from your [[superego]] (which aims for perfection), and these are mediated by the [[ego]]. This conflict is being fought out in your dreams. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 16:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think it might have been more normal if you had ''spat'' out the meat, rather than sticking it on spits. [[Food cravings]] are usually conscious. If your dreams are bothering you you need to see a medical professional. We can't do [[oneiromancy]] here. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::There's nothing in the question that would indicate that this is a wish fulfillment dream, or that Irrational number has a strong desire to eat meat. The only emotional reaction to eating meat that was expressed in the question is guilt, and the dream behavior of spitting out the meat would be consistent with disgust. [[User:Red Act|Red Act]] ([[User talk:Red Act|talk]]) 18:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I believe it's normal. My own experience tells me that - I once gave up meat for Lent, and by Good Friday I was getting phantom roast chicken smells. Also my vegetarian friends tell me they still get cravings for meat, most commonly bacon. As to why this happens, I don't think there's any research into it that will tell you. So don't worry about it. --[[User:TammyMoet|TammyMoet]] ([[User talk:TammyMoet|talk]]) 16:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::There's no mystery about the attractiveness of the smell of roast chicken or bacon. See [[Maillard reaction]]. Bacon is a [[superstimulus]], it's basically the essence of meat all in one high-fat crunchy protein package:again, [[Maillard reaction]] as well as [[Monosodium glutamate]], etc. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 18:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I would take the desire to eat meat as a sign that you're not getting enough protein (or possibly some other nutrient, like iron or [[Vitamin B12]]). If you want to remain a vegetarian, I suggest beans and nuts. (You might want to get some [[Beano]], if you plan on getting your protein from beans without offending everybody you know.) If your version of vegetarianism permits eggs and/or dairy products, those are other options. My (extremely lax) version also permits fish. If iron or B<sub>12</sub> is the deficiency, there are other nutritional sources of those, too. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 16:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Re: "We can't do [[oneiromancy]] here", sure we can. We aren't allowed to give medical or legal advice, but [[oneiromancy]], like other forms of [[divination]], is certainly allowed, despite the control issues some folks here have concerning what other people post. And who better to interpret your dreams than some random stranger on the Internet? I agree with StuRat that cravings for meat and/or dreaming about meat may very well be a sign of an inadequate diet. It is a well-known fact that, while a vegetarian or even vegan diet can be healthy and balanced, you have to work at it. Wikipedia has some excellent info on this issue at [[Vegetarian nutrition#Potential nutrient deficiencies]] and [[Vegan nutrition#Nutrition]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:However, if the OP starts growing towards the light, he should see a doctor. Or maybe a gardener. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I quit smoking at the start of the year and I've had a few dreams of me just chain smoking. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, the OP is asking for medical advice, which is not allowed. However, any kind of change can lead to what I can "anxiety dreams". But if you're really concerned that there might be something wrong with you, see your doctor. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 06:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the definition of medical advice in the reference desk is getting wider. I didn't ask what I should do, I was just curious about how common this is and what is happening in my brain and why. Is any question about human body a request for medical advice? I think a request for advice must at least have a part in which the OP asks what they should do, which I didn't.--[[User:Irrational number|Irrational number]] ([[User talk:Irrational number|talk]]) 10:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== stereoscopic images == |
|||
How much did it cost to make them in the 1800s' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/172.218.36.253|172.218.36.253]] ([[User talk:172.218.36.253|talk]]) 20:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:About twice as much as it took to make a normal photograph. Back then the one-time equipment costs were much higher (new technology) and the per-image costs comparatively lower (they re-used plates instead of buying more film). --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 21:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Refs for stripping the emulsion off plates and re-using them? I thought plates were mostly one-time use. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Rate of exothermic reaction == |
|||
Let's assume one wishes to measure the rate of reaction for an exothermic reaction in aqueous solution. Would measuring temperature of the reaction and graphing the temperature at given intervals be an accurate way to measure this? Is there a given point where the reaction would be able to be determined "finished"? And if this is a viable method, what type of container would be most useful? Must one use a calorimeter, or just any beaker or flask? [[Special:Contributions/66.41.216.19|66.41.216.19]] ([[User talk:66.41.216.19|talk]]) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, the temperature will be cumulative, ignoring cooling to the environment, so you might want to graph the change in temp versus time, rather than the temperature itself. An insulated container would be best, to minimize the effect of cooling to the environment. However, beware that some reactions might get out of hand, leading to an explosion, in such a situation, as the insulated container may increase the temperature, and thus the reaction rate. The reaction is finished when the temperature change is zero (smaller time increments provide better data). [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::So you're saying I should record the change in temperature over each, say, 5 second period until the temperature ceases to change? I was only planning on reacting zinc with 3.0 M HCl, so an explosion risk is low. However, I am not sure if a calorimeter would affect the rate of reaction as you just said. If so, how so? Would I have to know the calorimeter constant? Or would I be better off with a beaker? I'm just trying to find a way one could measure rate of reaction between these particular compounds. [[Special:Contributions/66.41.216.19|66.41.216.19]] ([[User talk:66.41.216.19|talk]]) 23:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, most reactions are sped up by higher temps, but there may be a few exceptions (say if the higher temperatures cause one of the reactants to change into a gas, and leave the reaction vessel). Now, why exactly do you want to know the speed of the reaction ? If there was a Q you were trying to answer, like "does the color change take place during the reaction or after it has completed", then speeding it up wouldn't matter. If, on the other hand, your question is "how long does the reaction take to complete at STP", then you not only need to avoid an insulated container, but you might want to cool it to standard temperature during the reaction, depending on how you interpret the Q. |
|||
:::Also note that in any sealed reaction vessel, you may also need to account for the effect of a change in pressure, as that can change the reaction rate, too. |
|||
:::Is every 5 seconds the fastest you can measure temps ? If you are doing it manually, that's about right, but automated temperature probes/recorders ought to do far better than that. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Maybe once per second with the technology I have available. I want to find out the rate of the reaction to investigate the effect of surface area of Zn(s) on rate. I would use solid lumps of zinc, zinc filings, and zinc powder in a constant amount (molarity) of HCl. Rate is my dependent variable, and form of zinc is my independent variable. The rate of reaction, I thought, might be the initial number of moles of Zinc (constant for each trial set) divided by the amount of time before the temperature ceases to change. Is there an easier way? [[Special:Contributions/66.41.216.19|66.41.216.19]] ([[User talk:66.41.216.19|talk]]) 23:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::About how long does this reaction take, in the slowest case ? The only problem with the open reaction vessel is that, when the reaction is trailing off, the small amount of heat produced may equal that lost to the environment, so it will appear that the reaction ended earlier than it did. You might want to try it both in the bomb calorimeter and in the open vessel, to see if the ratio is different between the fastest and slowest reactions. If not, just stick with the open vessel. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have a styrofoam calorimeter with a small hole in the lid to permit gases to escape, therefore keeping temperature loss at a minimum while keeping pressure constant. Is this OK? (thnx for ur patience) [[Special:Contributions/66.41.216.19|66.41.216.19]] ([[User talk:66.41.216.19|talk]]) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Sounds reasonable to me (provided that nothing will react with the Styrofoam). Of course, keep in mind that any experiment is only a model of "the real world case". So, for example, if you want to know which is faster for designing an industrial reaction process, then you'd want to set up your experiment as closely to the industrial process as possible. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Better quality safety glasses == |
|||
I noticed when I buy clear safety glasses they don't have very good clarity to them and seem to stop light transmission to some degree. They also get a lot of glare on them. I don't wear prescription glasses but I have friends that do I have looked through their glasses and the plastic they are made from has very good light transmission and is extremely clear. They also seem to get almost no glare. I'm wondering if you can buy safety glasses with the same quality lenses that they make prescription glasses from. --[[User:Tommythehook|Tommythehook]] ([[User talk:Tommythehook|talk]]) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, plastic will get tiny scratches over time, which will make them look foggy. Glass won't do that. Of course, glass could be quite dangerous, if it shatters. So, there are special types of glass which are less likely to shatter, which would be suitable for safety glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 23:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Most prescription glasses are not made from glass. Also my safety glasses have problems brand new, its not due to scratches.--[[User:Tommythehook|Tommythehook]] ([[User talk:Tommythehook|talk]]) 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:There are 2 reasons why presciption specs are better: 1) anti-reflection coatings, and 2) frames for prescription use have the lenses closer to the eye - thus making surface imperfections further out of focus and so less noticeable. This question has come up before, for a possible solution - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_June_15 Ratbone [[Special:Contributions/124.178.54.230|124.178.54.230]] ([[User talk:124.178.54.230|talk]]) 01:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm pretty sure it's the same banned sockpuppet so I guess the previous answers didn't help. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
= February 25 = |
|||
== Pot stats in USA == |
|||
Hello all, I'm trying to find a comparative breakdown of the [[marijuana]] abuse rate trends state-by-state from 1998 to present. Here are the requirements I have for this data: (1) it '''must''' be from a reputable source; (2) it '''must''' show the marijuana abuse rates separately for each of the 50 states; (3) it '''must''' show these rates over several years, preferably over the entire period from 1998 to present; and (optional but preferred) it wouldn't hurt if it indicates which of the states have legalized pot, and in what year. I've been trying to find it for days, but all the studies I've found either aggregate the data over the entire country, or else they only have the data for one year (two at the very most). Thanks in advance! [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Not that I have an answer in any case, but I think you need to specify what you mean by "abuse". Do you mean, say, (1) any recreational use, (2) recreational use in violation of state law, (3) usage that causes medical harm or makes it difficult for the user to discharge his ordinary responsibilities? The most justifiable sense of the word "abuse" is number 3, but it's also a bit vaguely defined, so precise stats would depend on who is judging. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Because marijuana is largely illegal, it's almost impossible for precise figures on anything to do with its use to be collected. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, that's true. Still, there is an extra layer of ambiguity added by the term ''abuse''. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that there are avenues to track genuine abuse (sense 3 in my list) that are not available for private use that doesn't cause obvious harm. For example, you could interview doctors and ask them to provide aggregate statistics, without identifying any individual. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I actually meant "abuse" in sense (1). [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 01:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Since that's not the normal use of the term "abuse", I suggest you use the term "recreational use", instead, when doing searches. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 01:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Anti-drug warriors are probably the only ones who use "abuse" in sense (1). ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 06:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::<small>or sense 4, insulting and belittling the substance until it feels bad about itself, or sense 5, physically injury to the substance [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 06:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::::::<small> I remember a girl who would look for any opportunity to use the phrase "that's alcohol abuse!". Examples might be spilling beer or dropping a bottle of champagne. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 08:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC) </small> |
|||
::::::To Mr. Bugs: Since when is there anything inherently wrong with being an anti-drug warrior? [[Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85|24.23.196.85]] ([[User talk:24.23.196.85|talk]]) 06:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Ever since it became blatantly obvious to all rational people that the war on drugs was never going to reduce drug usage. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 07:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Well, that's not really all that logically connected — you could be a crusader in a hopeless cause and still be right. But the more pertinent question is, why should we consider all recreational use of marijuana to be "abuse"? Is there any decent evidence that the people who so consider it ''are'' right? --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 08:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Nothing wrong with it, but I wouldn't look for unbiased statistics from anyone with a particular political agenda. I also wouldn't trust any figures from the participants in the [[Hash Bash]]. If you want reliable stats, look for them from uninvolved scientists, who won't tend to use subjective terms like "abuse". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 07:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Lithium ion batteries == |
|||
Can electronics with lithium ion batteries be damaged if you don't use it enough or don't charge it fully before taking it off the charger? [[User:Clover345|Clover345]] ([[User talk:Clover345|talk]]) 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:No, not if the battery is working correctly, but you can potentially shorten the life of the battery. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 02:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::How often does it need to be used or charged fully to prevent this? [[User:Clover345|Clover345]] ([[User talk:Clover345|talk]]) 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Does exercise really result in weight loss? == |
|||
Science writer [[Gary Taubes]] says [http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/ exercise has no effect on weight loss]. On the other hand, the mainstream medical establishment believe in "calorie in-calorie out" theory of adiposity, i.e. if you spend more energy than you eat, you will be lean, if you eat more than you spend, you will be fat. Is it really true exercise does not result in weight loss? If so, then why do we see so many people who claim they lost weight after exercising? I could not find any scientific criticism of Taubes' claim regarding exercise. Is his claim right or wrong? If Taubes' theory is right, then how could the heaviest person [[Manuel Uribe]] lose 400 kg (597 kg to 200 kg) after [http://www.diet-blog.com/08/manuel_uribe_zone_diets_biggest_success_story.php diet and exercise program]? And if Taubes is wrong, why there is no scientific criticism? --[[User:PlanetEditor|PlanetEditor]] ([[User talk:PlanetEditor|talk]]) 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:This is very individual. I personally have definitely had periods of long-term weight loss success based mainly on exercise. But it all depends how your calorie intake responds to an exercise program. Some people may get hungrier and eat more; other people may find that the exercise relieves stress that they had been treating with food, so they actually eat less (or at least not much more). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 03:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:It very much depends on your assumptions: |
|||
:1) If you start to exercise, without changing anything else, specifically your diet, then you should lose weight (or at least gain it more slowly than before), as the same number of calories are going in, and some of those are now being burnt by exercise. |
|||
:2) If you also increase the calories you consume, because the exercise makes you hungrier, then you might still lose weight, see no change, or even gain weight, depending on if the additional calories consumed are more or less than those burned by the exercise. |
|||
:However, in any case, exercise should make you healthier, by converting fat to muscle, etc. (assuming you don't pick a dangerous or injury-prone exercise). Also note that the fastest way to lose weight is to both cut calories and exercise, although such rapid weight loss may not be healthy. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 03:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:This is a common question on Ref Desk, and StuRat has given you a good common sense answer. For lots of discussion on this, search Ref Desk archives for "exercise weight loss" (see the search filed at the top of this page). See for example http://e.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:/Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_July_1#Weight_loss. I'll summarise here: If, ''over a sustained period of time'', you eat the same calorific value as you did before, but increase your physical effort, then the increased mechanical energy you expend has to come form somewhere - if not from the food, then it MUST come from metabolising body mass - there is no other source. |
|||
:I worked for a few years for a large company who had a large office tower. Floors 1 and 2 were a calls centre - about 200 women sitting at desks answering phones. Floor 3 was the staff canteen. Call centres are renowned for fat workers, due to sitting on their arse for hours at a time doing nothing but talk and click the mouse, maybe push the odd keyboard key. But some women were trim and remained trim. Some women were fat and just got fatter the longer they worked there. Guess which ones walked up the stairs to go to the canteen to eat their subsidised food? Guess which ones always took the lift, just to go up or down one or 2 floors?. Guess which ones parked their cars in free parking a kilometer away and walked the remaining distance? Which ones used paid parking next door? Yup - you got it - its the fat ones who didn't do any walking - every time. |
|||
:Wickwack [[Special:Contributions/124.178.143.40|124.178.143.40]] ([[User talk:124.178.143.40|talk]]) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Since nobody seems to have mentioned it, note that replacement of fat with muscle might not result in "weight loss", in that muscle is heavier than fat. Probably less important for a 400 pounder than for somebody trying to get from 175 to 170. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 06:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::That will occur if the degree of exercise ''and'' food intake are sufficient. However, it does not, and can not, change what StuRat and I said above: If food intake is ''not'' increased, then ''over a sustained period of time'', increased exercise ''MUST'' reduce your weight. In fact, weight will go down whenever a regime of food digestable calorific value greater than body metaboloic need + mechanical energy produced is sustained. The ratio of muscle mass to fat mass might well change, but total body mass MUST go down. In theory, there are a couple of factors StuRat and I did not cover (they were covered by people posting in response when this question was asked before - did you check the archives?): 1) Expelled faeces contain unburned calorific value; and 2) the metabolic uptake of the brain is dependent of how hard it works (including how hard you think/concentrate on problems). However, variation in brain metabolic uptake is not in practice great enough to make a noticeable impact on total body mass, unless you do silly thinks like use drugs to sleep most of the 24 hours in a day. The body also has minimal ability to improve digestion efficiency - and the reason why faeces have calorific value is becasue that calorific value is in things like celulose fibre that humans cannot digest. Wickwack [[Special:Contributions/60.230.230.154|60.230.230.154]] ([[User talk:60.230.230.154|talk]]) 07:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::And another minor factor is how well hydrated the person is. If they sweat heavily as a result of the exercise, and don't drink more fluids to replace those fluids, they may also lose weight by being dehydrated. Not healthy, of course. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::True. And taking a duretic (herbal or prescription dug) will reduce weight. Eating more salt will, by causing water retention, increase weight. although in healthy people gnerally middle aged or younger, the kidneys are very effective in getting rid of excess salt. However, significantly modulating your weight by any of these methods will eventually cause other medical issues - as you said - not healthy. Wickwack [[Special:Contributions/60.230.230.154|60.230.230.154]] ([[User talk:60.230.230.154|talk]]) 07:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:21, 2 December 2024
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
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.
November 18
[edit]Open-air dust explosions
[edit]Dust explosion#Conditions required says There are five necessary conditions for a dust explosion
. It even has a pointless diagram that arranges the five conditions in a pentagon with "dust explosion" in the middle. Condition 5 is confinement. But further down the page, Dust_explosion#Mechanism has a series of photographs demonstrating a dust explosion in open air. And thermobaric weapons, although more effective at killing people in confined spaces, seem to explode just fine in the open. So is condition 5, as a "necessary condition", plain wrong, perhaps an exaggeration of the fact that confinement makes a dust explosion more likely?
Supplementary question: I hear residents of Lahore and Delhi are wondering if their very sooty smog might one day explode. Is this at all plausible? Card Zero (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pointless? It is a five-pointed diagram. --Lambiam 06:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- In general, not only for dust, for detonation to occur, a mix of fuel and oxygen within the explosive limits has to be present in a compact largish volume. Upon detonation, the pressure in this volume will rapidly increase tremendously within (typically) microseconds. If the volume is not confined by an enclosure, the gases resulting from the combustion will expand supersonically with a shock wave that may or may not cause damage, depending on the power released and the environment. If the volume is confined by an enclosure, the enclosure may be able to withstand the pressure and contain the gases – possibly with controlled release through safety valves. (See e.g. Pyréolophore.) Otherwise, if the enclosure is broached, the gases will also expand explosively.
- The OSHA fact sheet that is the source of our five-pointed list of conditions is actually about another scenario. It considers the case in which ignition merely leads to deflagration, which is much more likely to occur – the mix only has to be within inflammability limits. The combustion is much slower and does by itself not cause a shock wave. However, although the pressure rises less rapidly, the rise is still dramatic, especially if the volume is contained by an enclosure. If the enclosure cannot withstand the pressure, the gases will also expand explosively, as before.
- So I think a fuel–oxygen explosion can occur in open air, but for this to be an explosion in the strict sense of causing shock waves, the right conditions will only very rarely be fulfilled accidentally. (In thermobaric weapons, they are fulfilled by design.) --Lambiam 09:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- But in the conditions there is no requirement of an accidental event?! 176.3.66.65 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- The OSHA fact sheet does not deal with ways to mitigate the risk of intentional explosions, such as may be caused by weapons. You are free to see this as an omission; I doubt though they will agree. --Lambiam 12:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- But in the conditions there is no requirement of an accidental event?! 176.3.66.65 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
How long does it last and how to recover from it? CometVolcano (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- According to the article: "It peaks from 24 to 72 hours, then subsides and disappears up to seven days after exercise." --Amble (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- From the top of this page:
We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis..
. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)- It is said that the soreness is helped by consuming protein. Abductive (reasoning) 10:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
November 20
[edit]John Balbus and Steven Balbus
[edit]Are Steven Balbus (Oxford University astrophysicist) and John Balbus (Head of Office of Climate Change and Health Equity in Biden's HHS) related? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Given their mutual association with Philadelphia and their strong physical resemblance, it seems very likely, but I haven't been able to find any source confirming it with a cursory web search, so this might take some deep digging (better suited to someone in the USA, not Europe). John Balbus, incidentally, seems to me to be a good candidate for a Wikipedia article. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- They are brothers, with a third brother named Peter.[1] Here on p. 33 is a photo of Steven en John side by side. Their father was Theodore G. Balbus,[2] a radiologist, and their mother Rita S. Frucht.[3] A bio of the father is found here, where you can also find that Peter runs a consulting firm called Pragmaxis. --Lambiam 10:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
November 21
[edit]Griffiths in math and physics
[edit]There's something called the Griffiths phase. If you search for griffiths phase activity so, you'll find things with similar names. A Griffiths singularity, Griffiths effects, there's probably more than one thing people call Griffiths' formula since there's a physicist called Phillip and two named David J. Griffiths. How many things are we dealing with under this name? Is there a book where they're all listed right next to each other? Gongula Spring (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- The concept of a Griffiths phase is named after theoretical physicist Robert B. Griffiths, who was the first to describe the appearance of such phases in an Ising model of ferromagnetism.[4] He is also the eponym of the Griffiths inequality. Most uses of Griffiths singularity and Griffiths effect appear to be related. "Griffiths' formula" is a very general name that may refer to various formulas found by mathematicians with the surname Griffiths, such as Griffiths' integral formula for the Milnor number of an isolated hypersurface singularity, found by pure mathematician Philip A. Griffiths, also the eponym of the Griffiths group. See also Griffiths' theorem, named after yet another Griffiths. --Lambiam 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- That formulation seems at least superficially be leading to references to Alan Arnold Griffith. Formulas like ohmic or non ohmic dissipation in metallic griffiths phases used at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory then tend to appear ambiguous to that effect too. Most other examples are deeply plunging into statistical quanta states thus unambiguously associated with Robert B. Griffiths instead. --Askedonty (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- The bracketing is not as in ((Griffith phase) field theory) but like (Griffith ((phase field) theory)), a theory of fracture, based on a phase-field model, developed by Griffith. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- The interesting thing is that those approaches are leading us very near of a (a least to me ) finally rather satisfying view of the problematics induced by the idea of Action at a distance. --Askedonty (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- So much that you only have to think about it and what do you get? Long distances in apparent contradiction to.. --Askedonty (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if these long distances anticipate my next question, which is what does "long-range" mean in the search results above?
- Gongula Spring (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps, as in #16 from that request as I get it "Temporal disorder in discontinuous non-equilibrium phase transitions: general results". The "long distances" discussion above being from 2002 by contrast. --Askedonty (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Number 16 uses "temporal" and "critical" terms, are we getting toward ideas about long-range temporal correlations in critical brain dynamics? Are they spooky?
- Gongula Spring (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Or not so directly anyway. Number 16 seem to be about logic and geometry: distance in that context is fact, and can also be manipulated. Relevant quote if there was one regarding our subject - but their process define a temporal Griffiths inactive phase some time - relevant would be (see their pdf):
- Disorder due to spatial or temporal inhomogeneities is almost an unavoidable ingredient in many real systems, it is then desirable to understand their effects on these phase transitions. For continuous phase transitions, it was earlier recognized that spatial and temporal disorder changes the critical behavior whenever the generalized Harris criterion is violated [11, 12]: quenched spatial disorder is relevant whenever dν⊥ > 2 is violated while temporal disorder is relevant when νk = zν⊥ > 2 is violated; with ν⊥, νk and z being critical exponents of the clean phase transition and d being the number of spatial dimensions. Since the critical exponents of the directed percolation universality class violate the Harris criterion, it was then argued that this was the reason why it was never seen in experiments [13] (see however Ref. 14).
- (They describe their purpose as: Non-equilibrium phase transitions have constituted a rich and lively topic of research for many years. They occur in a wide variety of models in ecology [1], epidemic spreading [2], sociophysics [3], catalytic reactions [4], depinning interface growth [5, 6], turbulent flow [7], among other fields [8–10].) [8–10] refer to Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models. Sociophysics is a product of Positivism#Logical positivism ( perhaps note there a spooky "component not derived from observation" ) --Askedonty (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Or not so directly anyway. Number 16 seem to be about logic and geometry: distance in that context is fact, and can also be manipulated. Relevant quote if there was one regarding our subject - but their process define a temporal Griffiths inactive phase some time - relevant would be (see their pdf):
- Perhaps, as in #16 from that request as I get it "Temporal disorder in discontinuous non-equilibrium phase transitions: general results". The "long distances" discussion above being from 2002 by contrast. --Askedonty (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- The bracketing is not as in ((Griffith phase) field theory) but like (Griffith ((phase field) theory)), a theory of fracture, based on a phase-field model, developed by Griffith. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- That formulation seems at least superficially be leading to references to Alan Arnold Griffith. Formulas like ohmic or non ohmic dissipation in metallic griffiths phases used at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory then tend to appear ambiguous to that effect too. Most other examples are deeply plunging into statistical quanta states thus unambiguously associated with Robert B. Griffiths instead. --Askedonty (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
November 22
[edit]Heat of chillies
[edit]How hot, in terms of Scovilles, does a chilli need to be before a parrot can feel the burn? I just saw a video on Facebook of a macaw eating a ghost pepper without the slightest care. From what I read, parrots are extremely resistant to the capsicum from chillies. Or is it because we have thousands of taste buds and parrots have tens, which is also true. 146.90.140.99 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
“The seeds of Capsicum plants are dispersed predominantly by birds. In birds, the TRPV1 channel does not respond to capsaicin or related chemicals but mammalian TRPV1 is very sensitive to it. This is advantageous to the plant, as chili pepper seeds consumed by birds pass through the digestive tract and can germinate later, whereas mammals have molar teeth which destroy such seeds and prevent them from germinating.”
Card Zero (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)- Yes, as Card Zero says, birds have different TRPV receptors (for vanilloids like capsaicin) than mammals. I guess chillis want their seeds distributed far and wide by birds. On the other hand, I've never seen anything eat the chillis that accidentally grow in my garden. Interestingly, my dog appears to have different TRPV receptors than me as they don't seem to notice very spicy chilli seeds on food and they won't be damaging the seeds. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, one of the most effective ways to keep squirrels off my bird feeder is to sprinkle the birdseed with chilli powder. Shantavira|feed me 09:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- My entire home crop of capsicums (bell peppers to Americans), and some chillis disappeared in one night last summer right after a colony of fruit bats arrived in my local park. Fruit bats, of course, are mammals. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's interesting because there are many bats here. They often sleep individually or in small groups inside young banana leaves that haven't unfurled yet. They sometimes crash into me at night if I'm moving. I guess in bat-world tree-like things don't move. They seem to have a chilli-free diet but might eat some of the other fruit. Plenty of insects to eat. Bat teeth seem to be quite diverse molar-wise. Chilli is the only thing that survives the wildlife. It's a multi-belligerent fruit-based forever war over resources with the birds, squirrels, rats, countless insects, fungi, bacteria and viruses. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Insect eating bats are very different from the fruit bats. There's a theory that peppers have the same sort of relation to fruit bats as chillis do to birds so I can easily imagine a fruit bat being partial to a couple of chillis even if it does find them rather hot. NadVolum (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's interesting because there are many bats here. They often sleep individually or in small groups inside young banana leaves that haven't unfurled yet. They sometimes crash into me at night if I'm moving. I guess in bat-world tree-like things don't move. They seem to have a chilli-free diet but might eat some of the other fruit. Plenty of insects to eat. Bat teeth seem to be quite diverse molar-wise. Chilli is the only thing that survives the wildlife. It's a multi-belligerent fruit-based forever war over resources with the birds, squirrels, rats, countless insects, fungi, bacteria and viruses. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- My entire home crop of capsicums (bell peppers to Americans), and some chillis disappeared in one night last summer right after a colony of fruit bats arrived in my local park. Fruit bats, of course, are mammals. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
November 23
[edit]How do sex organs function in both genders before puberty in humans? Not after Puberty. HarryOrange (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sexual maturity is only reached during puberty. Before it is reached, the sex organs are not (or not yet fully) functional. See also Sex organ § Development and Precocious puberty. --Lambiam 11:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- They're functional. It's just that their functions are generally under the headings of "basic maintenance" and "not atrophying". Abductive (reasoning) 09:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- To my understanding (which may be deficient), testicles prior to puberty are secreting some levels of androgens (including testosterone) and estrogens, which contribute to the male body's normal development, even though these levels are well below what they become during and after puberty. I imagine (perhaps wrongly) that similar considerations apply to the ovaries.
- Our immediately relevant articles seem not very informative about pre-pubertal operations of the sex organs. Perhaps someone more knowlegable could take a look at them. 94.1.211.243 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did take a look, I always do before answering a question. Here is a representative article; The immature human ovary shows loss of abnormal follicles and increasing follicle developmental competence through childhood and adolescence. The word "competence" means that in vitro the ovary tissue does a better job of taking on adult functionality the older the girl, but in vivo such activity is suppressed. Abductive (reasoning) 10:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, if I've understood the peripheral hints I've encountered, those pre-pubertal levels of androgen and estrogen (and steroid, etc.) secretions are necessary at the time (the pre-pubertal period) for ongoing normal development, which is kinda what the OP asked about. Of course, all this is well above my pay grade. {The poster formerly known as 87.81 230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to have focused on the testicles and ovaries but the penis is also a sex organ and is capable of an erection before puberty. This is mentioned in our erection article in a sort of weird way given the flow on sentence. Ejaculation however only happens after puberty. I assume there is similarly some level of function in female sex organs. As mentioned in our masturbation article it's normal in children even in infancy and may even happen in the womb and is only a concern when there are indications it may relate to sexual abuse. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- The penis as such is able to "ejaculate" well before puberty (somewhat dependent on definition) but because the prostata doesn't produce anything, there is nothing to ejaculate. So it's going through the motions way before the other organs are functional. 176.0.132.86 (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to have focused on the testicles and ovaries but the penis is also a sex organ and is capable of an erection before puberty. This is mentioned in our erection article in a sort of weird way given the flow on sentence. Ejaculation however only happens after puberty. I assume there is similarly some level of function in female sex organs. As mentioned in our masturbation article it's normal in children even in infancy and may even happen in the womb and is only a concern when there are indications it may relate to sexual abuse. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, if I've understood the peripheral hints I've encountered, those pre-pubertal levels of androgen and estrogen (and steroid, etc.) secretions are necessary at the time (the pre-pubertal period) for ongoing normal development, which is kinda what the OP asked about. Of course, all this is well above my pay grade. {The poster formerly known as 87.81 230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did take a look, I always do before answering a question. Here is a representative article; The immature human ovary shows loss of abnormal follicles and increasing follicle developmental competence through childhood and adolescence. The word "competence" means that in vitro the ovary tissue does a better job of taking on adult functionality the older the girl, but in vivo such activity is suppressed. Abductive (reasoning) 10:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
November 25
[edit]Is there a cryonic company that will freeze me while I'm still alive and healthy, and reanimate me 15 years later? If I arrest the aging process for 15 years this way, could I then pass for a Gen Z?
[edit]Could I have myself cryofrozen (without dying of another reason first) in 2025 with instructions to reanimate me in 2040 so that I could more convincingly pass for and live like someone born in the Gen Z generation?
What companies cryofreeze people who ask for it while still alive and healthy?
Or does such a cryonic plan and company exist anywhere in the world?
I wanted to be born in 2000, not the year I was actually born in. So if I get cryofrozen for enough years, I'll look as young as a Gen Z when I'm reanimated.
Lastly, Reddit's r/Cryonics subreddit's automoderator keeps glitching out because it keeps autoremoving any content of mine from there. I tried posting this question and above summary to other subreddits but their automod keeps autoremoving it too. Their persistent glitches kept bugging me enough to dust off the Wikipedian reference desk and post here again for the first time in many years. I used to be a regular on the refdesk, then moved to Reddit, and now I'm back. --2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Short answer: No. As currently freezing a human adult, results in their death, as no resuscitation is possible. It would be some kind of murder to perform this, so only a crime syndicate would be willing. And then could you trust them for 15 years? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- In 15 years, you'd be just as deceased, pushing up daisies, no more, pining for the fjords. So what's trust got to do with it? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- At this point I feel bound to recommend that you watch Sleeper.Shantavira
- Terraforming a planet around some distant star and setting up a population there sounds far easier and actually doable to me. Perhaps in the far future it'll be possible to create a new body and copy the brain fom one of those frozen blocks for it, or maybe set up an android with an artificial copied brain - but why would any people who could do that bother with anyone from this time, would it be ethical for us to try and make a Neanderthal clone? NadVolum (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Can any insurance company make a cryonics bankruptcy insurance policy for companies that preserve bodies in cryogenic preservation vats so that even when the company goes bankrupt, their insurance policies will keep these vats running and bodies preserved?
[edit]...So that we can continue the hope and possibility of reanimating these bodies back to life when medical science advances and finds cures to reverse whatever they died from?
This topic was also autoremoved from r/Cryonics so that's why I'm bringing it here too. Thanks in advance. --2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- An insurance policy defines the amount of money to be paid to the holder of the policy when a specified contingency occurs. If the contingency is bankruptcy and the idea is to keep the company running, the amount should be larger than the prospectively unknowable debt to preferential creditors. It should be obvious that no insurance company can offer a policy with an unlimited payout. Apart from this, even an insurance for a sufficiently large amount cannot guarantee that the company or trustee will use the money paid out for the intended purpose. --Lambiam 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Who would be a creditor? They're all dead and have no rights. NadVolum (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Creditors of Instant Immortality (the bankrupt cryonics company, for short II) could be: (1) the tax office; (2) II's bank; (3) the company from which II hired its cryogenic equipment; (4) II's provider of liquid nitrogen; (5) II's lawyers; (6) scores of estates of frozen clients, legally presumed dead, who won a class action lawsuit against II. --Lambiam 11:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Who would be a creditor? They're all dead and have no rights. NadVolum (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, is it April 1 already? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cryonics is such a blatant scam I don't understand how it is legal. Shantavira|feed me 09:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- More blatant than (also legal) homeopathy? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
A marginally better idea might be to create a testamentary trust fund, if you could find a willing trustee. I'm not sure how far into the future you might want this to extend (do frozen corpses have a "best before" date?) but a legal expert might advise on how to extend the trust beyond the lifetime of the trustee, and what incentives might be required for another person to accept that role. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Where to verify a chemical compund name synonyms?
[edit]The ARM390 compound has multiple IDs, (some of?) which can be found at PubChem here:
There are two among them, which differ with one zero only: AR-M1000390 and AR-M100390. The difference seems too small to be just a coincidence, it looks like one must be a typo modification of the other.
Is there any way for a non-chemistry/medicine-professional to trace the origin of those specific symbols and learn whether they are actually the same, or genuinely different? --CiaPan (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
PS. The motivation for publishing this question here is it's not only me in doubt – another user called for discussion at Redirect discussion: AR-M100390. The sources refer to both names, so from the Wikpedia point of view both are valid, but... Out of curiosity, I just would like to know: are they independent, truly different? CiaPan (talk)
- Usually, I would trust ChemSpider to validate such synonyms and that's where I'd send a non-expert. In this particular case, Chemspider seems to prefer AR-M1000390 but one possible source of misinformation/typo is this paper, which consistently uses AR-M100390 in the text but AR-M1000390 in the citation #23, which is correct at doi:10.1016/S0024-3205(03)00489-2. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The earliest use of the name AR-M1000390 seems to be in a PhD thesis from 2003.[5] The same name was used in a 2003 journal article in Life Sciences describing the results of this PhD thesis.[6] The substance was synthesized by researchers from AstraZeneca R&D; their paper describing the design, synthesis, and pharmacological evaluation of the drug, published in 2000, does not use this name, but only the systemic name N,N-diethyl-4-(phenylpiperidin-4-ylidenemethyl)benzamide.[7] Plausibly, the "AR" bit is short for "AstraZeneca R&D" and the whole was originally a code for internal use in the AstraZeneca lab. Subsequently:
- AR-M1000390 was deposited on 2016-02-05; the source was the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY,[8] which references the 2003 Life Sciences article.[9]
- The synonym ar-m100390 was deposited on 2017-09-13 by Springer Nature.[10]
- Yet another synonym: AR-M 1000390, deposited on 2024-11-14 by a chemical vendor.[11]
- --Lambiam 20:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you both, Mike Turnbull and Lambiam, for detailed info. CiaPan (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
November 27
[edit]Right whales and Left whales
[edit]Why are there right whales, but not left whales? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps there's a naming dispute in the whale courts over brand names, a left vs wrong case. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're thinking of the Narwhal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not right versus left, but right versus wrong. This was the right species to catch. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Th answer is in the article you linked: Right_whale#Naming. Shantavira|feed me 11:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- If a member of a group of whales manages to beach itself, and the others swim on, then the one on the beach would be a left whale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- What is a wrong whale exactly? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The ones that don't fit the definition given in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's also this:[12] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The ones that don't fit the definition given in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- What is a wrong whale exactly? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe Gregory and Syme got to them. Iapetus (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Lawson Criterion: calculating energy density W
[edit]The article states:
Ion density then equals electron density and the energy density of both electrons and ions together is given by
where is the temperature in electronvolt (eV) and is the particle density.
However, there is no clear explanation given as to why the energy density equals 3nT, rather than 2nT or just nT. If the electrons and ions are in equal parts within the plasma, shouldn't it equal 2nT?
Is there any source that clears this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Shouldputsomethinginterestinghere (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The energy density of a monoatomic gas is . Both electrons and ions can be considered monoatomic gases, so the total energy density is double of that value. Ruslik_Zero 20:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Depends on what n is precisely. If n is the ion density (equal to the electron density), then is correct. If taken literally as "particle density" (i.e. ions and electrons combined), then it should still be . I assume that the former is meant, but the formulation seems ambiguous. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
stage 4 breast cancer
[edit]I'm not seeking medical advice, but stage 4 cancer means you're gonna die from it imminently, can someone confirm? Or is it wait, what?? Maybe I'm confused. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:6B00 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- According to breast cancer classification, Stage IV means the cancer has metastasized, that is, tumors that have "broken off" of the original tumor have appeared elsewhere in the body. "Metastatic breast cancer has a less favorable prognosis." Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- "
While there is no cure for metastatic breast cancer, it is possible to control it with treatment for a number of years. The cancer can also go into remission.
"[13] So "imminently" is not generally correct. --Lambiam 15:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
November 28
[edit]Are there any volatile gold compounds?
[edit]Title. Let's say "boiling point under 500°C" counts (as long as it actually boils and doesn't decompose). :) Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Gold(III) fluoride apparently undergoes "sublimation above 300 °C". Tracing the dewiki article's data suggests this comes from CRC 10th ed. doi:10.1016/0022-328X(87)80355-8 is a lead article about volatile gold compounds, but these (and others I found) are generally about transferring as a vapor for CVD, nanoparticle formation, or other short-timeframe processes, so probably low pressure and maybe not highly stable in the vapor phase. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The compound [Me2AuOSiMe3]2 sublimes at 40 °C (0.001 mmHg) without decomposition. (doi:10.1002/anie.196706831) --Leiem (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
In mathematics, closures are pretty common, e.g. a sum of positive/negative numbers is a positive/negative sum - respectively, and a space of two/three dimensional bodies is a two/three dimensional space - respectively, and so forth.
I wonder if closures also exist in physics, i.e. when the closed properties are physical rather than mathematical, i.e. I'm not interested in applying mathematical properties - like a sum or a space - in physics: e.g. when we say that "a sum of two electric forces is an electric force": It's a bad example for closures in physics, because a "sum" is a methematical property, whereas I'm only interested in purely physical examples.
The above-mentioned example for closures in physics is bad also for another reason: Whereas there is a concrete difference between an electric field and a magnetic field (e.g. by how they influence a stationary body), there is no concrete difference between an electric force and a magnetic force: They influence a given body by the same way, e.g. if their value is 1 kg N they will accelerate a given body by the same acceleration, so the only difference (if at all) between an electric force and a magnetic force and a gravitaional force is "historical", i.e. it only tells us whether the source of that force, was an electric field or a magnetic field or a gravitational field.
HOTmag (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1 kg is the unit of mass and not of force for which physicists have another unit Newton (the force to accelerate 1 kg at 1 m/s2) and your Greengrocer uses a scale that displays W(kg)=mg. Mathematical Addition (or summation), whether of scalar or vector quantities, is defined in abstract symbols. Those symbols may represent any physically real quantities and the summation result is equally real. That is no set-limited exercise or example-setting in Set theory and physical science is well enough aware that that there can be four (not just 3) fundamental forces viz. gravity, electromagnetism, weak interaction and strong interaction that act in combination and cease to be explicitly separable in the result. Philvoids (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I really meant Newton (sometimes people tend to replace weight by mass, but this mistake is so widespread - mainly in daily life, that it should be forgiven when readers understand what the speaker meant). Additionally I didn't want to mention the other forces becuase they are not useful in daily life.
- As for your main response, I didn't fully understand the bottom lime: Do you eventually claim that there don't exist purley physical closures (although there are purely mathematical closures)? HOTmag (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Are Symmetry (physics) and Conservation law what you're after?
- Not necessarily, but could you give a concrete example? HOTmag (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- In mathematics, a closure is always the closure if a set. The set of positive numbers is closed under addition. The concept of closure requires the notion of an operation such as addition that can be performed on elements of the set. What is closed is not a property but a set. --Lambiam 15:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- A property is usually interpreted as a set. E.g. the property "Asian" is the set of all Asian objects, and when we say that a given object is Asian we only mean that it belongs to that set.
- Here is a surprising example of closure: "a space of two/three dimensional objects is a two/three dimensional space - respectively". It really points at a closure because: on one hand, the operation is "to collect objects in a space": the result of this operation is the space in which those object are collected. On the other hand, the property is "two/three dimensional" (choose one option): this property is represented by the set of all two/three dimensional objects (respectively).
- My original question was, if there was any physical property (i.e. a set of physical objects sharing an indentical physical property), closed under a physical operation. HOTmag (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean, in lay terms, 'is there any physical property of a physical object that can never be changed?' (I assume by a physical process – I don't think changing the host's accident by transubstantiation counts.)
- I'd guess that Dark matter can't be changed into Baryonic matter and vice versa, but I might well be wrong. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Active galaxys
[edit]What are active galaxies? NoBrainFound (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- See Active galactic nucleus, first paragraph. Perhaps there should be a redirect for this topic. -- Verbarson talkedits 18:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh. There is one: Active galaxy. It's a bit annoying that the search bar does the redirect invisibly. -- Verbarson talkedits 19:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
November 29
[edit]Where can I find counterintuitive phenomenons list in Science?
[edit]Examples:
Asymptotic freedom - We'd normally expect forces to increase as objects get closer, but surprisingly, the strong nuclear force between quarks decreases as they get closer together.
Mpemba effect - The phenomenon where hot water can sometimes cool and freeze faster than cold water
Pioneer anomaly HarryOrange (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- The ultraviolet catastrophe is not actually a phenomenon (that's the point). 19th-century classical physics theories predicted it should happen and, because it doesn't, were superceded by improved, quantum theories. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are some examples at List_of_paradoxes#Physics AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- A list of counterintuitive phenomena can never be universally applicable because "intuitive believability" i.e. credibility is subjective and depends on a person's experience and education, that can both change. It is counterintuitive (for some) that the Earth can be spherical and yet have oceans that do not immediately drain off down the sides. It is incredible that my car registration number has the same digits as the winning lottery ticket of someone who knew a friend of a cousin of mine who lives in a different country because what are the infinitesimal chances of that happening? If apes can evolve into humans as we are told, why are there still apes around? Philvoids (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- In medical school, a lot of facts you have to learn by rote, since there is no overarching theory from which you can rationally deduce those facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- A list of counterintuitive phenomena can never be universally applicable because "intuitive believability" i.e. credibility is subjective and depends on a person's experience and education, that can both change. It is counterintuitive (for some) that the Earth can be spherical and yet have oceans that do not immediately drain off down the sides. It is incredible that my car registration number has the same digits as the winning lottery ticket of someone who knew a friend of a cousin of mine who lives in a different country because what are the infinitesimal chances of that happening? If apes can evolve into humans as we are told, why are there still apes around? Philvoids (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
November 30
[edit]Displacement receiver v. transducer v. sensor
[edit]I'm working on the Displacement receiver page, which formerly had no citations, and the going is difficult because few things actually talk about displacement "receivers" rather than sensors/transducers/etc.. Does anyone know if these three terms refer to the same thing? The initial article talked about a carbon microphone as a displacement receiver because it responds to displacement internally, although what it measures is sound waves, whereas this book says displacement transducers measure the distance between a sensor and a target, and this one says they measure movement and the "occurence of a reference position", whatever that means. It doesn't seem like carbon microphones fit those definitions. But I've also seen e.g. this conference paper use "displacement receiver" to refer to a contact sensor measuring its change in distance from a concrete block to measure stress waves, which is an application actually measuring distance. The article defines it as "a device that responds to or is sensitive to directed distance", which also matches the concrete definition.
Does anyone know if a carbon microphone is really a displacement receiver? And is a displacement transducer the same as a displacement sensor? Mrfoogles (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Smelly plasterboard
[edit]This BBC News article about a smelly landfill site quotes a chemist as saying "One of the materials that is particularly bad for producing odours and awful emissions is plasterboard". I thought that plasterboard was a fairly inert substance. Why would it cause bad odours in landfill? (I assume that this is not faulty plasterboard suffering from the in-use 'emission of sulfurous gases' mentioned in the WP article.) -- Verbarson talkedits 21:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- When mixed with biodegradable wastes like manure and sewage, gypsum can produce hydrogen sulphide gas, which is odorous and toxic, and a threat to public health.
- Plasterboard Disposal: What You Need to Know
- Perhaps somebody who understands the chemistry could add something to our article? Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, gypsum is CaSO4·2H2O, which has a significant amount of sulfur and hydrogen in it, and hydrogen sulphide is just HS -- I imagine it's not too hard for a chemical reaction to release hydrogen sulphide gas and therefore as they occur they do. Probably there's a paper somewhere that goes over the various reactions that happen. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hydrogen sulfide (however you like to spell it:) is H2S. According to our article about that chemical, it arises from gypsum by the action of sulfate-reducing microorganisms that are active "moist, warm, anaerobic conditions of buried waste that contains a high source of carbon". 11:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC) DMacks (talk)
- Well, gypsum is CaSO4·2H2O, which has a significant amount of sulfur and hydrogen in it, and hydrogen sulphide is just HS -- I imagine it's not too hard for a chemical reaction to release hydrogen sulphide gas and therefore as they occur they do. Probably there's a paper somewhere that goes over the various reactions that happen. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
1990s Cathode-ray TV questions.
[edit]In the late '90s / early 2000s I remember as a kid looking closeup to the TV screen. For The Simpsons, their yellow skin was red green red green lights next to each other to make yellow. You can't do this with the modern TVs now anymore, but what did cathode-ray TVs use for pink? Would it be dim red by itself, or all 3 colors? How do they make brown? And if Cathode rays can do red green red green, can they do for example, red red green, red red green? Thanks. 2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC).
- Current screens also describe colors mostly in RGB (red,green,blue) format, although I don't know the details of how they display it (see LCD for one method) -- this webpage lists some color codes for various shades of pink. It looks like they use full red, plus moderate levels of green and blue. Sort of like red + white. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- OLED displays use a variety of methods; see OLED § Color patterning technologies. --Lambiam 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Brown is basically a darker shade of orange. Whether this is perceived as brown depends strongly on the context. There is no such thing as a brown light; only surfaces of objects can appear brown. --Lambiam 03:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- In photochemistry/photophysics, we can use dyes to make chemicals fluoresce non-spectral colors. Whether or not there is a brown dye is another question. But I believe pink dyes are known. 2603:8001:5103:AF08:2477:8D7F:1D4B:D0 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC).
- In straightforward terms, most human eyes have three color receptors — red, green and blue. The eye can be tricked into seeing any color of light by the right proportions of those three pure colors. The devil is in the details. Doug butler (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- It works out mathematically, but one of those details with a devil is that for some colour mixes you may need a negative amount of one of the primary colours – which is physically impossible. That's why some screens use a fourth colour in the mix. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Gamut before declaring devilry. Philvoids (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The colours are still red, green and blue, mixed in varying proportions. The exact hue may vary a bit and some screens add a fourth colour. The dots are pretty small though (maybe smaller than before; resolution has increased, but so have screen sizes) and you may no longer be able to watch them from as close as when you were a kid. Try a magnifying glass. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're maybe thinking of printing, where the fourth color is black. Way off topic. The really cool thing about color tubes is how the manufacturer deposits the bunches of three phosphors on the inside of the glass screen. The (iron) shadow mask, with its millions of holes, is spaced a few mm back. Spray guns for each color, located where the electron guns will be located in the final manufacturing stage, blast their phosphors so a trio of dots get through each hole in the mask. Electrons from each gun that get through the mask will hit its respective phosphor. Costly, wasteful and inefficient but it worked. Doug butler (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
December 1
[edit]Fusion power critics
[edit]I've stumbled upon a few freak Russian critics in the internet who still allege that fusion power is principally impossible. Perhaps the most notorious seems to be Soviet-era physicist Igor Ostretsov, who published an article in a Russian scientific journal, "On the Lawson Criterion in Thermonuclear Research". Since Ostretsov's criticism is too technical for me, I started to wonder how much weight does it carry, if any. Ostretsov writes in particular:
"It is perfectly clear to every competent physicist that thermonuclear plasma, i.e. plasma at temperatures at which a thermonuclear reaction occurs, cannot be transparent. At thermonuclear temperatures, most of the energy is concentrated in radiation. In the article, I cited Zeldovich on this subject: “In complete thermal equilibrium, a significant portion of the energy is converted into radiation; this circumstance limits the equilibrium average energy of charged particles to a threshold of 5–15 keV, which is completely insufficient for a fast nuclear reaction. A slow nuclear reaction of light elements at an average energy of about 10 keV is practically impossible because the removal of energy by radiation during a slow reaction will lead to a rapid drop in temperature and a complete cessation of the reaction.” If the engineers of thermonuclear fusion in magnetic traps "secretly" assume not a thermonuclear reaction, but the synthesis of hydrogen isotopes in high-energy beams, then this is how the problem should be formulated and consider its "efficiency" as extremely ineffective. The Lawson criterion has nothing to do with that problem, since it was obtained for the Maxwellian distribution of particles by velocity, which is shown in my article".
In a letter to physicist Valery Rubakov Ostretsov further asserts that
1. The Lawson criterion was obtained for the Maxwellian distribution of particles by velocity, which is established as a result of dissipative processes (collisions). 2. As shown in my article, the particle velocity distribution function in magnetic "thermonuclear" traps is determined only by external constant and variable fields, and therefore is not Maxwellian. Due to points 1 and 2, the Lawson criterion has no relation to modern "thermonuclear" research.
Ostretsov also claims that the "during thermonuclear fusion reactions, high-energy neutrons constantly fly into the inner walls of tokamak" and "it's difficult to withstand such bombardment, while a thermonuclear reactor must operate for many years". Is anything of it true? Brandmeistertalk 16:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Check who cites the article and see what they say. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is an article about him in Russian Wikipedia. Based on it, he looks like some kind of freak. So, I think that his opinions can be safely ignored. Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)