:I'm slightly confused about what you're asking. When you mean practical circuit, you mean you can't do it because the traces of the MAX1472 and 1473 are too small, or you don't have a schematic? IIRC, one of those is [[TSSOP]] and have a pin clearance of like 0.2 mm or something tiny. There are adaptors available for them, I believe, which cost around $10 a piece. But even then, they're [[Surface-mount technology|surface mount]]. I'm not sure what your level is, etc, so it's hard to tell if I can even provide you an answer when you ask for a more detailed view in designing. The datasheet usually has that kind of info, and the 1472/1473 uses [[Serial Peripheral Interface Bus|SPI]] I believe. If the problem is that you're making prototypes, you should look for [[Dual in-line package|DIP]] packages for chips to construct them easily. Somehow, I doubt I helped any, so do tell if anything applies, and if not, what info you need (design software, RF packages, comparison of RF / Bluetooth / IR, etc). --[[User:Wirbelwind|Wirbelwind<small>ヴィルヴェルヴィント</small>]] ([[User_talk:Wirbelwind|talk]]) 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'm slightly confused about what you're asking. When you mean practical circuit, you mean you can't do it because the traces of the MAX1472 and 1473 are too small, or you don't have a schematic? IIRC, one of those is [[TSSOP]] and have a pin clearance of like 0.2 mm or something tiny. There are adaptors available for them, I believe, which cost around $10 a piece. But even then, they're [[Surface-mount technology|surface mount]]. I'm not sure what your level is, etc, so it's hard to tell if I can even provide you an answer when you ask for a more detailed view in designing. The datasheet usually has that kind of info, and the 1472/1473 uses [[Serial Peripheral Interface Bus|SPI]] I believe. If the problem is that you're making prototypes, you should look for [[Dual in-line package|DIP]] packages for chips to construct them easily. Somehow, I doubt I helped any, so do tell if anything applies, and if not, what info you need (design software, RF packages, comparison of RF / Bluetooth / IR, etc). --[[User:Wirbelwind|Wirbelwind<small>ヴィルヴェルヴィント</small>]] ([[User_talk:Wirbelwind|talk]]) 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
== How does window gel work? ==
My kids have window gel toy stickers (hearts, snow flakes, and so on) that stick to non-porous surfaces like windows, mirrors, and metal. They don't stick to fingers. From my research all I've been able to determine is that window gel toys are primarily manufactured in China and South America, mostly Brazil.
What is window gel made of? How is it made? How does it work? Does it leave a film behind?
Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end.
Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box.
Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers.
Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.
Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives.
Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.
Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.
January 30
DNA degradation
Hi
I'm trying to find out whether nuclear DNA or mitochondrial DNA degrades faster after death. I'm talking about forensic/fossil kind of situations. Does anyone have any tips/references/ideas?
For a number of reasons, the mitochondrial DNA is more likely to degrade faster. The nucleoplasm is large, neutral, and contained within a double membrane, which is for the most part shrouded in layers of endoplasmic reticulum. The mitochondrial DNA, however, is in close proximity to stuff in more reactive oxidative states. Also, there is a lot of DNA in the nucleus, and a good deal of it in heterochromatin, wrapped up with histones and the like, which make it less reactive. The mitochondrial DNA is tiny and not as well protected. tucker/rekcut02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which degrades faster, however in forensic/fossil situations, mitochondrial DNA is more easily used for population level analysis, since there are more copies of it per cell than nuclear DNA. --Cody.Pope09:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think tucker's explanation is correct when it comes to the speed. Cody makes a good point, though. If there is more copies of mitochondrial DNA, there may be a question of which material is fully degraded first. - Mgm|(talk)10:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced Fat cheese melting point
I've noticed that reduced fat cheese melts much differently than normal cheese. A slice doesn't really melt, but rather it turns intoleathery wrinkled chewy "cheese jerky" (especially when microwaved).The ingredients are virtually identical to normal cheese: Milk, rennet, salt. What's going on? --72.202.150.9205:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fats tend to add the property of fluidity (for example, cholesterol in the cell membrane). With reduced fat, presumably there is less fluidity. Hopefully someone will come after me and give some biochemical details… − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Mac Davis's response in the context of the question. It seems to me that the Nut (fruit) article essentially claims that all true nuts contain embryos. Or am I misunderstanding the lede to that article?
THank you for correcting me, I answered incorrectly, and will remember my error. All nuts are seeds and therefore have embryos. How early in development can we say a seed contains an embryo? [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A nut is a seed, but not all seeds are nuts (from nut (fruit)).
It would be more likely for someone to answer, if you made an effort to compose a question, and not just quickly copy-paste something from your homework. You can find a lot of information in our article Protein biosynthesis, and if something remains unclear, you can still return here and ask more specific questions. --V. Szabolcs09:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The doctors say my friend suffers from electric discharge
Hello people from this fantastic site. First of all let me tell you that I have solved a lot of problems reading different articles on this site and want to thank you for all the information and time put in here.
I wanted to discuss something for which I cannot find an answer.
The doctors say my friend suffers from electric discharge. Let me explain what he feels often. All of a sudden he feels very tired, he cannot stand on his feet and his heart beats faster. His pressure usually goes very high and later it comes back to normal. Sometimes it even goes low and then back to normal.
Sometime back his potassium level had gone down and also suffered from diarrhoea for a long time.
Let me explain his work habits. He has very stressful days and he is on the computer for long hours, has 8 monitors and 2 CPU's which are on, almost 18 hours a day. While he goes out to work the computers are left on and he also sleeps in the same room. He eats too very very fast and just swallows the food.
I think I have given enough explaination. I was wondering if there is any connection with his lifestyle or if you'll you understand where his problem lies. Please do help me. Thanks in advance and hope to receive a reply. user: StellamirettoStellamiretto09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you, if your interest is to find out more about your friend's condition, to find out the medical name for his illness. Electric discharge is not a term that has any real pathological meaning to an allopathic (or, I suspect, osteopathic) doctor, as far as I know. This term may have resulted from an analogy or translation error. You may find information browsing the following, but don't jump to any conclusions: hypokalemia, cushing's syndrome, panic disorder, ozone. tucker/rekcut15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it unlikely that he does bite off a chunk of food and swallow without chewing. Wouldn't he choke? I think that's an exageration on the part of the OP. --SeansPotato Business23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swallowing the food lowers the nutriants that you recive from food. its also quite harmful it can get stuck and choke you. anyways it takes longer for the acids to digest the food so nutrients are cut off. it might also cause loose bowl movements, and might contribute a bit to his condition of feeling weak and everthing from not getting the nutrints from the food eaten. might be worth checking but im not giving you medical advice just simple run down on how the digestive system works with food. Maverick42322:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
test for pesticides
can the lassaignes test be used for the detection of nitrogeneous pesticides in fruits? wont the nitrogen already present in fruits give a positive test, even if it has not been subjected to nitrogenous pesticides?
I did a Google search for "latin pronunciation" and found a number of sites. This one looked specific to your needs. As for meanings I imagine any Latin dictionary will be reasonably useful. --140.247.249.18918:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pesky Air Bubbles
Is there an easy way to prevent air bubbles when placing a coverslip on a microscope slide. I have tried numerous techniques, none with satisfactory results. I tried tilting the coverslip, but this causes a "Tidal wave" effect since my samples usually aren't fixed to the slide. I tried slowly lowering the coverslip, but I can't seem to lower it slowly enough to prevent the bubbles. Does anyone know a better way? Mikmd
Do you have too much liquid on the slide?Particularly with low-viscosity solutions (stuff that's mostly water, rather than a glycerol-based mountant) there is a definite tendency for sample and mountant to get pushed out to the edge of the coverslip. (Your tidal wave effect.)
Depending on your application, you might try using less liquid, soaking off some of the excess liquid with a Kimwipe, using a larger coverslip, just putting up with the bubbles, or – if all else fails, and this is by far the most difficult option – experiment with changing your mountant.
Double bump... I need to type faster) :It sounds like you are using to much liquid. For a wet mount, there should be very little water, perhaps somewhere between 50 and 100µl. Putting the slide down on the edge, so that the water sticks to one side, and then slowly decreasing the angle between the cover slip and the slide with prevent air bubbles from forming. There will be just enough water to form a layer between the slip and the slide, so a "tidal wave" is not an issue. tucker/rekcut15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the best tricks I found was placing the coverslip on the slide on an angle. Then slowly place the coverslip on the slide.
_\-->the backslash is your coverslip, de underscore your slide.
This causes what you call the tidal wave effect but only when you do it too quickly. You shouldn't push untill the coverslip is flat on the slide. You generally want to push from the side you don't want your samples to flow to. Last trick is not to oversaturate the slide with your mounting medium (less is more!).
When I was doing slides with braintissue (not fixed to the slide) we used a sticky gunk called histomount. Now I don't know what your mounting medium is so I'm not sure if this trick will work for you.PvT15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to hold a piece of paper close to the slide, which should then absorb whatever liquid you are using, making it flow past the sample:) Something like that:( Pushing down on the top of the slide might also help, but it could damage whatever you are studying:(Hidden secret 716:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a "vacuum pickup" (that may not be the generic term), it makes it much easier to handle the coverslip, allowing any of several techniques to work better.
I did some looking, and if you were to take my suggestion, what you want is something like the "Excelta" "Pen-vac" tool. It looks like pen but has a suction cup on the business end. You press and release a button on the pen barrel and it pulls a vacuum on the suction cup, letting you lift small smooth objects (such as glass cover slips). See We have one sitting around our lab that was apparently handed out as a promotional item.
The article Hot glue talks about a "common" material for the glue.If you want specifics though, you'd want to read the packaging on the specific glue- different kinds may be made of different stuff.Friday(talk)16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of efficiency loss would be the result of using DC generators to provide power with battery, capacitor, Superconductor magnetic storage, etc. devices to maintain the necessary voltage and inverters to provide a steady frequency within a specified voltage range to maintain frequency quality on the grid? -- Barringa16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably still use an alternator (ACgenerator) fed into a rectifier. Alternators are mechanically simpler than DC generators and usually have better overall efficiency. The key, as you've probably realized, is the storage medium; it must be cheap, have reasonable energy density, and have good energy recover efficiency. Power utilities have experimented with batteries, compressed air, and pumped-storage hydroelectricity among others, with superconductivity remaining on the horizon.
AC allows easy stepup to high voltage, perhaps 345 kv or 765 kv to send the power long distances, where it can be stepped down succesively to 138 kv to go from substation to substation, then 34 kv or 12 kv to go along distribution lines. While DC can also be sent long distances at 500kv or higher, per High-voltage direct current and [1] and is useful for tieing together different power grids which are not synchronized, it would be difficult to insulate Electrical generator windings to that voltage. To get enough turns of conductor in to the generator stator and rotor for it to work efficiently, the insulation level is usually less than 20,000 volts. Then a generating unit transformer steps it up to the higher transmission voltage. It would be a challenge to connect enough cells in series to have say even a 20,000 volt battery much less a 500,000 volt battery, because of the large clearances required by high voltage. In a downtown area of a large city, or an industrial park where constant AC voltage without momentary interruptions is needed for computer operation or growing semiconductor crystals, there would be great merit in having onsite energy storage in the form or batteries, superconductive magnetic storage, flywheel motor generator, or any other form of storage which acts as an uninterruptible power system on a large scale. That way if the utility line tripped and reclosed due to lightning, the customer or downtown would not see a flicker. It would be very expensive per megawatt hour of energy capability and per megawatt of power capability to provide such storage. Downtowns of New York, Chicago and other cities have had starting in the 1930's low voltage AC network grids, where perhaps 20 different 12kv lines go through transformers with the low voltage secondaries interconnected. Since the primaries come from several different substation fed by several transmission lines, the secondary 120/208 volt grid may go many years without even a momentary interruption, much less a Power outage. When it goes dead, there are usually numerous burned up low voltage cables, making for a long restoration time as in the 2006 Queens blackout. These grids were replacements for DC grids from the beginnings of utility power, in which a power plant (which needed to be within about 1.5 miles of the load) sent in DC which was stored in giant batteries. The load could be maintained with DC power during short interruptions of the line or short shutdowns of the generator, and could store power off peak, to increase the power available for the peak load period.Today labs and large data processing centers are the places which pay the premium to have "polished power" provided by systems such as you describe. More commonly, a business will have 2 or more 12 kv or 34 kv lines supplying it, and when one goes dead, an automatic throwover device opens the feed from the dead line and closes the other one, after a selected delay of perhaps 5 to 30 seconds, which can seem like an eternity. Typically the Uninterruptible power supply is small and is located near the personal computer or network server or phone system, since most of the load can be spared for a few seconds (vacuum cleaners, air conditioners, lights, etc,) except for a few battery powered emergency lights. Hospitals go the route of having generators (perhaps 10 MW diesels) which come online in 5 seconds or so for operating rooms and critical care units. Edison17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
poker millionaires??
Is it really possible to become a millionaire playing poker (or at least make a good living) or is this a bit of a myth in that gamblers tend to ignore massive losses incurred and remember their spectacular wins. Is it possible to learn a good strategy to constantly win or use a supercomputer etc for no limit texas hold 'em in the same way that you can card count in blackjack?
Yes, it is possible to become a millionaire playing poker; it is not easy, and there are very few players who accomplish this.(The top prizes for some major tournaments like the World Series of Poker and the Professional Poker Tour can reach more than a million dollars; bear in mind that the buy-in for competitors in these tournaments can be many thousands of dollars per player.)
No, you can't play 'by computer' to win at games like Texas Hold'Em.Unlike blackjack, poker depends very heavily on the behaviour of other players.I have heard it said that there are three stages to learning to play poker.The first is learning to play your own cards: understanding the value of your hands, how betting and blinds work, etc.The second is learning to play your opponents' cards: figuring out from the community cards on the table and your opponents' bets what hands they are likely to hold.The final step – and the one perhaps most important to professionals – is learning how to play your opponents.The cards can become nearly irrelevant if you can successfully manipulate other players' expectations and perceptions through clever betting.It's this last step that is difficult to 'teach' to a computer.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no theoretical barrier to teaching a computer to react to and manipulate other players.A variety of poker playing computer programs already exist that can consistently beat the average player, but because they tend to be predictable in the long run, good players are still able to detect and exploit patterns that give them an advantage.It is a very complex task, but I don't think there is any reason a computer program couldn't be written to consistently make money on online poker.Dragons flight17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newton's cat
I once heard Isaac Newton invented the cat door/cat flap/kitty door. Can anyone confirm that?
Certainly plenty of websites [2] confirm this, although I can't find any truely definitive sources. If he did invent the door, it was more likely originally intended for his dog, Diamond, who famously set fire to all his work. Laïka17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every one has heard that version of the story which compromises the rather apocryphal little dog 'Diamond'; while it is supposed to exhibit so beautiful a trait of the imperturbability of his master. Humphrey tells us that he 'kept neither dog nor cat in his chamber.' Powell, Baden (1856). "Sir Isaac Newton". Edinburgh Review. 103: 499–534.
He kept neither Dog nor Cat in his Chamber... Keynes Ms. 135
Looking through his doorway we might have seen a small study...a desk littered with papers and lighted by a sputtering candle; a little dog with a diamond shaped mark near his tail, disporting himself in dangerous promimity to both candle and papers... Heyl, Paul R. (1928). "Newton as an Experimental Philosopher". Sir Isaac Newton, 1727-1927: A Bicentenary Evaluation of His Work. pp. p. 105. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
uses sous-vide to cook the inside of a steak in a warm water bath
then brown the steak's outside in a skillet to give the meat a brownish coat (see Maillard reaction).
Can I make a lot of individually wrapped boiled steaks, freeze them for storage. And then defrost them with a microwave oven for browning each time I want to have a steak? Is it safe? I guess an ordinary refrigerator may not achieve required flash freezing. You may need to use a large refridgerator with a large container of salty water to freeze the meat very quickly. The possibility of botulinum poisoning cannot be ignored. -- Toytoy18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boiled steak?? Come on, everyone knows perfect steak is done rare ;). The sous-vide article describes a process that I would not describe as boiling. Personaly I don't think there is a high risk of botulinum if you boil a steak and then re fry it at a later date, otherwise no one would ever eat left overs. I suppose the important thing is that when you fry it you have to make sure it is heated well all the way through, so probably wait until it is well defrosted before doing it and don't just sear the outsides. Vespine22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not refrigeration that creates the risk of botulism, it is the boiling in an airtight plastic bag. Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria which causes botulism, thrives in low-oxygen environments (such as would be found in an airtight container). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recall that there is no scientific basis for abiogenesis - that is, if there is no botulism in the meat to begin with, then no amount of boiling (in airtight bag or otherwise) will create botulism.There is not a good way to know with certainty whether there was infectious bacteria to start with; but, the high temperatures of boiling should be sufficient to deactivate or kill them.Just be sure to keep the meat in the boiling water for long enough to heat the meat. Nimur07:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it isn't an extremely dangerous material. It has extremely low radioactivity and is more dangerous as a heavy metal (and potentially a source of radon -- you wouldn't want to build a house over a mound of it, I imagine) than it is as a radioactive element (though this depends on the form you are talking about disposing -- if you are talking about hexafluoride gas, that has its own difficulties from a chemical point of view). In any case, this page has a nice discussions of the precautions usually taken. If you treat it as any old Low Level Waste material, that means that you probably want to bury it in the ground for some long length of time. Because the amount of radioactivity is low, the length of time it will be radioactive will be quite long, though even if it escaped for some reason it would only have a small long-term statistical effect on any surrounding populations. --24.147.86.18722:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to dispose of it? is it not a useful material? DU I imagine it could be used for many of the things that lead is used for.--Light current22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed.For example, the first Boeing 747 had several hundred pounds of it formed into the engine nacelles, because the designers discovered at the very last minute that they needed a concentrated bit of mass just there to damp out certain wing vibrations. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is useful though I could imagine not needing ALL of it that we have at any given time. The US alone produced 30,000 tons of the stuff over the course of the Cold War -- way more than we will ever need even for munitions. --Fastfission13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in terms of radiation poisoning DU is no bigger risk than any other commonly encountered substances and you will die far sooner from heavy metal poisoning than radiation poisoning. --antilivedT | C | G06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of radiation poisoning, U238 is practically harmless, yes. Its decay products are more radioactive though. And in any case there is an additional radiological danger than just radiation poisoning, such as if amounts of it get into your bone marrow or your lungs (I don't know if U238 or its decay products do this, but it is a common hazard with low-level radioactive isotopes). Then they just sit there and radiate for a decade and give you cancer. I'm not saying DU is particularly dangerous in this regard -- I'm not sure that it is, and I think most of the anti-DU literature is scientifically unsound -- but I'm just pointing out that you can't dismiss the danger of something just by showing that one of the isotopes is only weakly radioactive, and even then you have to take into account whether the danger is posed by radiation sickness or by long-term cancer incidence. --Fastfission13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned Fast breeder reactors; these turn U-238, the main isotope of DU, into Plutonium-239; an unbelievably power nuclear power station fuel. The only downside is that only a handful have ever been built: the French Superphénix and Scottish Dounreay reactors are the most famous, but the Soviet Union was on the way to 6 at the point of break up. Also, at the moment, enriching normal uranium is cheaper than making plutonium, but if U-235 reserves run down, you can expect to see a large takeup of FBR technology. Laïka20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My nan used to tell me never to eat tomato seeds as they could get stuck in my appendix and cause appendicitis. I don't know if that's true or not (to be honest, it's something I haven't thought about for a long time) - but come to mention it, does anyone know? --Kurt Shaped Box22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeds and nut fragments can indeed become stuck in outpouchings of the colon and intestines (called diverticuli) and cause inflammation and possibly infection. The appendix, though, has a pretty wide mouth, so it is probably less likely for anything to get stuck in there for too long. From what I've read, the biggest predictor of appendicitis is posture during bowel movements. In societies where one squats to defecate, appendicitis is rare, because the pressure of the right thigh against the abdomen may squeeze out the contents of the appendix. However, since the appendix has variable placement, this is only a predictor. tucker/rekcut23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure they are old wives tales, my mum used to tell me if you ate apple seeds a tree might grow in your stomach... WHY??? I have no idea, but I can't wait to fck with my kids heads by telling them crazy crap! when I have some:).. Vespine03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite popular belief, you will just pass the chewing gum out "the other end", rather than it doing any damage to your internal organs. People believe chewing gum may have this effect becasue it is sticky & could potentially adhere to your intestinal walls, but in all reality, your stomach acids & functions would easily break down the make up of chewing gum. However, I myself would not swallow it... :) As for toothbrush bristles, it is possible for them to enter through opeinings inside you. However, this is very very very rare & would take a miracle for it to do any real damage. Swallowing stuff like this runs the same risk (or a smaller risk) as if you ate some other small object, such as a marble or key - it passes through your body without harm... Hope that helps a little bit..? Spawn Man04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A relative had recurrent bouts of appendicitis over several decades, before it became acute and the thing leaked into the abdomen and surgery finally removed it. Each case of the painful intermittent appendicitis which resolved without surgery until the final one followed eating a large high fiber meal like chili or salad, and the agonizing lower right abdomen pain would follow a few hours later, but was better in a day or so. Edison16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the persimmon article, it says that persimmons are used to treat constipation, but persimmons are astringent, so they should be used to treat diarrhea. Can anyone tell me if persimmons are used to treat constipation or diarrhea? bibliomaniac1523:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrist damage
Just wondered if too muck jackin can damage your wrist!
Though this sobering tale should give you cause to consider moderation
Moderation mate is CRITICAL
Maybe you haven't wanked yourself as much as I have.
If you wank 5 or more times a day , everyday, for at least 5 years, you will know what i'm talking about.
You can get serious repetitive strain injuries on both wrist, AND testicle disorders, AND cock shaft problems from excessive friction, AND bacterial infections from not being able to wash your hands before you NEED a wank.
if you wank as much as I do, you can get seriously addicted, to the point where you cannot walk if you do not spill your juice. AND your wrists are fucked and you cant walk, (like ive been), you are totally FUCKED
Crack one off once or twice a day and you should be on the safe side of injuring yourself.
Hello. I was reading an article on the temperature of 0*K, or absolute zero. I was thinking, if the lowest possible temperature is achieved when the atoms of the material stop moving completely, then wouldn't the highest temperature possible be achieved when the atoms are moving at (or close to) the speed of light? I mean, when an atom is moving at the speed of light, it can't move faster, so it can't raise in temperature, can it?65.28.13.12000:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)65.28.13.120Wild Irishman[reply]
According to the theories E=mc²#Background - the energy keeps increasing as the speed approaches the 'speed of light' - but a thing would have infinite energy at the speed of light - so there is no upper bound to the amount of energy a moving thing can have - effectively the mass is supposed to increase as the speed increases (see section 'relativistic mass' in a sub section of the section linked above- and things with more mass have more kinetic energy at a given speed.
There's a certain sense in which the highest temperature possible is −0. See negative temperature for details. However you can't actually get matter that hot. But there are certain thermodynamic systems that you can get that hot. --Trovatore05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is semantic silliness.Though thermodynamics defines negative temperature in this fashion, with a sort of population-inversion phenomenon equaling "negative" temperature, two points come up: First, this is an impossible situation to construct in a real, physical world; and second, such a definition of temperature is so far from the conventional meaning that it should really have a different word - such as "energy state distribution." Nimur07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Space combat with lasers...
Would I be right in thinking that ship-to-ship combat in space with lasers would be an incredibly brief affair? For all intents and purposes, a laser is an instant hit weapon - so, whichever ship managed to lock on to the other with a 360-degree rotation-capable, turret-mounted, computer-controlled laser first and concentrate the beam onto the same spot on the hull for a few seconds would emerge victorious, right? None of this dogfighting-in-space stuff like you see in the movies. I know that if combat in space became a regular thing, the design of ships would evolve to reflect this (thick armour plating, separately pressurised compartments, mirrored hulls, clouds of chaff launched to defract the laser, etc.) - but that would pretty much be the gist of it, right? Two ships firing at each other constantly, hitting 100% of the time, each hoping that the other one decompresses or is disabled first? --Kurt Shaped Box01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much easier than making a viable space-based laser would be coating objects to reflect large amounts of the energy.Extremely powerful lasers are often in the infrared range like hydrogen or deuterium fluoride lasers which is reflected quite well by copper, gold, or germanium (common mirror materials in CO2 lasers, which operate in the far-infrared).Lasers have tons of problems.It would be extremely difficult to focus enough energy onto a small enough spot at great distances, or be able to track very quickly and accurately.Hardened missiles might be a viable weapon, assuming we have space wars anytime soon.You're probably right thought, what this would be like if it worked well would probably be pretty dull, which is why Star Wars, Star Trek, et. al. spice it up with cool-looking weapons.Atropos23502:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HEY! Maybe that's why those UFOs in old 'saucer' movies spin? So that an enemy targeting the ship with a laser can't hit "the same spot" for any amount of time, because "the same spot" is rotating around the craft.. It's a laser weapon countermeasure! Hmmm, that's interesting!:) Vespine03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the technology did exist to aim huge amounts of energy accurately over large distances, there's going to be a range in which it causes damage, and aiming at any target outside that range cause progressively less and less damage relative to the distance. In the middle there's a range where it causes a little damage (uncomfortably hot/minor radiation damage), and since there's no reason to believe that ships are going to be popping into existance a few meters away and you're not suicidal so you're not going to rush in when you don't have to, that's the range where most of the action would probably have out, making incredibly slow and boring fighting sequences. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be a range limit, but it would surely not be a few hundred meters like in the movies. Even atmospheric air combat is fought now most of the time beyond visual range, so it's funny a Star Destroyer can't fire at a spaceship until someone has visually identified the target (pointing to the window: "there they are!") --V. Szabolcs00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When in the history of warfare has there even been a weapon that couldn't be countered defensively? Even nukes don't make a dent in bedrock. Vranak
Really doesn't matter. By "no defense," in the case of nuclear weapons, it means "there is no way to prevent someone from detonating a nuclear weapon over your city." (Some would dispute this, of course, and that's part of the entire debate about missile defense.) --140.247.248.9517:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A laser might have an energy storage device (capacitor, for instance) which takes some time to charge to full energy, so that it could do damage in a short pulse, without having to lock on for an extended time. Directed-energy weapon says "Laser weapons usually generate brief high-energy pulses. A million joules delivered as a laser pulse is roughly the same energy as 200 g of high explosive, and has the same basic effect on a target." I would rather destroy an opponent (perhaps defined as "burning a hole in their hull at one spot") with a blast than have to barbecue them over a few seconds, during which they would change course in evasive maneuvers and fire back at me, so this makes sense. Several weapon systems could charge off the main electrical bus, without having to have a separate nuclear reactor or whatever at each weapon station. A ship might have, say, two 1000 MW reactors, and several 500 MW power cables, like an electric utility. A weapon could draw 500 MW for say 10 seconds, and store 5000 MJ, to be supplied in a laser pulse which is done before the opponent can respond or maneuver. Per the above equivalence, this would be like detonating 1000 kg of high explosive, and should make quite an impression on a space ship made similarly to our present technology. If half the ship's power were directed to a single weapon, it would take 1.25 seconds to deliver the same energy, allowing evasive maneuver which would spread the energy over a larger portion of the hull. If the attacker had 4 weapons, each could be charged to the same 5000 MJ before the attack, allowing 20,000 MJ to be directed to one target area on the other ship's hull, or allowing it to be penetrated in numerous smaller explosions. Laser pulses would travel at the speed of light. I expect that particle beams would go slower. Bullets or artillery shells would travel slower as well, and the tartget would likely not be there when they arrived, unless it was an attack on an unsuspecting and defenceless target. Plus, the bullets or shells would orbit until they hit something or reentered the atmosphere. A RPG or equivalent would be deadly against pretty beefy space ships as well, but a radar proximity fuse would be needed to detonate it at closest approach. A guided munition like antiaircraft rockets would be pretty devastating if it could hit or get near a target. Edison17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been a very low efficiency and fairly non-violent weapon, a bit like aiming a laser pointer at them. Oh, well, it would probably get their attention. Thanks. Edison15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Space combat will have to be made clean cause any debris that flys out is a potental bullet. so lasers will have to be strong enough to burn a hole in the hull and not cause much debris from the explosion. in diff note. if we dont care about debris then i can think of better weapons like cluster missles that explode in the middle of a on comming fleet and lay waste to all enemys. however lots of debris will be released and possably even hit the person that fired the missle to begin with! There is development of a plasma sheild (saw that one on a show think it was future weapons on the discovery channel) however it requires a lot of energy to produce. if you are intrested in space weapons watch Wing Commander that one had more of a realistic approch to space weapons then most shows and movies. Babylon 5 is a great show for watching the weapons in action (however all the effects are added but it was a show that used more physics then anything) Star wars and Star Trek are more fantasy based. and for games well i can only suggest a old game called haegemonia it has 4 diffrent types of space weapons and it gives breif definitions of them and added information of the weapons when you upgrade them. Maverick42322:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figure I'd point out Boeing's Air Borne Laser .Though it's not for space, its purpose is to burn a hole in a missile's outer "shell" - rendering it aerodynamically unstable and/or damaging its control electronics.The task of targeting a very fast moving missile is accomplished via powerful computers, multiple radar tracking schemes, and a lot of luck.Supposedly, early tests have been successful, though it is still a prototype. Nimur07:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittens
I got 2 2-month old kittens from my freind. they havent been spayed, neutered, and didnt get any shots yets. they both look the exact same. i cant realy tell them appart. she said one of them is male and the other is female. i checked them both out all around and niether of them seems to have a dick. how do i know which one is which?
hahaha! A kitten with a dick! I'm nearly 30 and I still find that funny.. I guess some people never grow up... Anyway, really, in public, you should refer to it as a penis:).... As for the answer, google kitten sex and I'm sure you'll find the answer, if you ignore all the kitten porn sites first:), I'm sure it's easier to explain with pictures then with words.. As for the kittens not having a visible penis, that's right, cat's penises are retractable, so you can't really tell just by the dick. haha. sorry, *cough*. hmmVespine02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vespine, that may have been a bit insensitive. He can call a schnoz whatever he wants. I mean a schlong! Dick? John? Jimmy? Cock? Penis? We could go fancy and say "phallus." Damn, we're smart now aren't we? [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As they are both now old enough to be neutered, take them to your vet who will perform the operation and tell you which is which. As with many animals, the cat's penis is withdrawn when not in use to prevent damage, so you will not normally be able to see it. However, the testes form a little bulge which you may be able to feel.--Shantavira09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once you find one which one is the girl, tie a pretty pink bow around it and then you'll always know. Give the boy kitten a baseball cap and some toy trucks. --24.147.86.18713:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How steriotypical!
Granted that some kittens are so small it's hard to tell, but look at the rear (butt) of the kitten. On females, you can see the anus and not much else (the vagina is not easily visible). On males, beneath the anus there's usually a lump where the [insert your penis euphemism here] is. howcheng{chat}20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sleep
I'm a highschooler with a packed academic schedule and a hell of a lot of homework that usually keeps me up to, say, 1, or 2 in the morning every night. I wake up fairly exhausted at 6:30, but I tend to do fine at school. When I get home at fourish in the afternoon, I've gotten in the habit of taking a one or two hour nap because if I don't, I tend to get bleary eyed and can't focus when reading anything, so I just waste time reading the same paragraph a hundred times. After a week of this, I'll usually catch up some on sleep over the weekend. The question, however is one prompted by my dad's getting angry at me for this "bad cycle." He says I should make an effort to stop napping so I can instead go to sleep two or so hours earlier and get the same amount of sleep but on a normal schedule. Apart from the fact that I probably wont go to sleep much earlier at all (even on the days with light homework and no naps, I get a second wind of sorts at around ten or eleven and am not tired - read unable to sleep - until at least 1:30 in the morning), is this really so much better of an idea? I feel that if I take an early afternoon nap, I'll be alert for the rest of the night (which is the case), whereas the extra sleep I'd get during the night would still probably leave me bleary eyed in the afternoon because it's still only 6 or so hours of sleep. It also seems to me that my dad's argument is similar to someone saying that three meals a day are more healthy than 5 simply because that's the "normal" cycle of eating. Is my dad's "normal" sleeping cycle of one 6 hour night actually any better for me than a four hour night and a two hour nap? Thanks, Sashafklein04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's contested. You'll hear people say things like "Leonardo Da Vinci napped 12 times a day", though that's (probably) not (quite) true. First of all, realize that shifting your 2-3 hour nap into the evening all of a sudden will not immediately show positive results. The most important thing is to keep a regular schedule, and changing your regular schedule will make it difficult to sleep well, at least until you become accustomed to the "new" schedule. Trying to "catch up" also isn't a good idea, because your body doesn't respond to weekly patterns of sleep, and you're basically assuring that your brain will have to shift schedules twice every week. I have horrible sleeping problems too, but I attribute most of them to the fact that I'm not strict enough about my sleeping patterns. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He may be physically exhausted in some way after school. Also, your mood may have to do with it. For me, my sleep depends almost entirely on my mood. When I went to high school, and came home, a lot of times I wanted to go to sleep but instead did my homework and really didn't want to talk to anybody. [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To mention my piece, I've done plenty of sleep research reading and I've found no long-term effects in humans of sleep deprivation. I know your problem well, and actually liked polyphasic sleep pretty well! However the problem is you have to form to society, who sleeps monophasically, and I have to comform to my dad, and follow his schedule, generally. I recommend you follow his schedule, just to make it easier for him. Keeping your dad happy can come in handy :) and also he can be pretty smart sometimes and know what he's talking about. [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As always, we cannot give medical advice. See your doctor if you feel unusually tired or nervous or agitated or depressed. But as a general observation, see Sleep deprivation, where some pretty horrible effects are listed. I have read of experiments where animals (and torture victime) died as a result of prolonged sleep deprivation, but can't readily find what I would call reliable sources. There is a blog [4] so take that as an unconfirmed effect and a more credibleBBC story [5] in which experimental animals are said to have died from sleep deprivation. Falling asleep at the wheel and crashing a car from sleep deprivation also leaves someone dead.Interrogators like to claim that sleep deprivation is not torture and has no long term effects, because then they have a tool besides Waterboarding which is harder to prove was used than, say, The rack, beating, red hot pinchers applied to the genitals or even electric shocks, but which can leave the victim disoriented and less able to resist their demands. There was a gentleman whose brain developed an anomaly which did not allow hin to fall asleep, and after a long period of incresing zombification he died. But given he had an abnormality in the first place it is hard to be sure whether the sleep deptivation or the underlying problem killed him. See also Power nap. When I was in college I would nap from 3:30 to 4 pm and be refreshed enough to work another 7 hours, making one day into 2, and still being able to sleep from 11 pm until 7 am. At around 3:30 pm, my circadianbiorhythm was such that I was drowsy, so a nap was the best use of my time. See [6].Thomas Edison was a famous napper, and would alternate what we would today call All-nighters with days having short naps. An afternoon nap when you are drowsy and unproductive anyway might make sense. People differ in their ability to take a power nap and awake refreshed; some seem to stay groggy for a long time after a nap. A long uninterrupted period of sleep at night may be needed to allow the necessary sleep cycles of deep sleep and REM sleep which the brain needs to do its maintenance, including storing the days short term memories into long term memory. You may have gotten into a vicious cycle of staying up late, getting too littlenighttime sleep, having trouble getting upand staying alert in school, then taking a long afternoon nap (while it is light and there is noise in the house, interfering with the chances of REM sleep), then playing catchup. The long 2 hour afternoon nap might be replaced by a half hour nap and 1.5 hours of homework to good effect, with a correspondingly earlier bedtime. Coffee, booze or weed at various times of the day can interfere with sleep or alertness. Some people who say they stay up until 2 am doing homework did not work for very many concentrated hours on the homework earlier in the evening, since it was interspersed with distractions. I would try taking a half hour nap (use an alarm clock) after school, then attacking the homework before and after dinner, and before any watching TV, hanging out with friends, IMs, phone calls, recreational reaading, etc. Then go to bed at 11 pm and get up at 7 (or whenever is needed to get to school). You could also budget for some AM study time. A Fox news article [7] says that 6 to 7 hours of concentrated sleep may be as healthy as 8 hours. Take that as just what one source said. Too little sleep reduces the chances of being attentive and productive during the day, and caffeine is no substitute. Afternoon caffeine (coffee, tea, cola, even chocolate) may make sustained sleep difficult. Edison17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't already, you may consider working through your school break-time and lunch-time (may be able eat at the same time, depending on your teachers/arrangements at your school). Of course that probably wont do any good for you socially. --SeansPotato Business00:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sister chromatids during meiosis
In all of the literature I have read, after non-sister chromatidscross over during Prophase I, they are still called sister chromatids. I was under the impression that sister chromatids are, by definition, identical copies of one another. After crossing over, this is not the case, since homologous pairs have swapped genetic information.
Now, until the end of Metaphase I, the homologous chromosomes are still loosely connected to each other, so perhaps the distinction is not clear until then. However, once Anaphase I is reached, the so-called "sister chromatids" are certainly distinct, non-identical entities.
Why does a light deviate from it's initial path when it changes the medium in which it is travelling.That too when it makes an angle with normal at the interface of the different media.(Ecclesiasticalparanoid)
Well, the simple answer is that the phase velocity of the EM field has to change when it propagates into a material with different complex permittivity and permeability in order to continue to satisfy the boundary conditions associated with Maxwell's equations (the refractive index and related reflection/transmission factors are themselves functions of permittivity and permeability).Put another way, the wave vector is changed when the field propagates through a region where the speed of light changes.If you want a more detailed physical explanation, you may need to invoke the relativistic explanation of Maxwell's equations (Kaluza-Klein theory).I don't think there is a quantum mechanical explanation of EM wave refraction since Maxwell's equations only work on a macro scale where quantum interactions can be ignored (indeed, permeability and permittivity are "averages" and only well-defined on a macro scale).Reading a bit about the plane wave solution to Maxwell's equations may be a little enlightening.Maybe a physicist could chime in and fill in some details.Wave mechanics are a fairly involved (and highly important) topic.See also: Snell's law, Fresnel equations. -- mattb@ 2007-01-31T16:05Z
The quantum-mechanical explanation you speak of is given by quantum electrodynamics.The light moves at different speeds in different materials and "chooses" the shortest path through a material that it can make at that material's light speed.Since this path must become longer as the speed decreases, the light will bend towards a greater distance of material.If you go by the QED interpretation (path integrals), this "choice" is actually a result of the light having a probability to travel along every possible path, but all the probabilities except for those along the shortest path cancelling out due to destructive interference.See the book QED (book) for a great explanation for a general audience. 75.138.84.15904:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I totally forgot about QED theory.Thanks! -- mattb@ 2007-02-01T05:28Z
Dinosaurs
Well, I'm interested in dinosaurs, and I've stumbled across a question that has been almost impossible to answer. Up until now, I've only been interested in flashy stuff, like battles, etc. But now, I've come to the most foreboding aspect of the study of dinosaurs: size. It's been almost impossible to find two sources that cite the same figures. For exmaple, weights of Brachiosaurus vary from 15 to 180 tons. The stats for smaller dinosaurs are more or less similar. I was wondering if anyone could give me a list of sizes for the larger sauropods. The article 'Dinosaur size' only gives you the smaller estimates. I'm not asking for anything to specific: just a basic idea, but detail would be appreciated. My thanks to anyone who answered this question.
I can't answer this question but i think i remember a Documentry on dinosaurs called "Walking with Dinosaurs" it has some pretty neat battles and it also gives us a pretty good decription of how tall your Average sauropod would be..I think its out on Dvd or something
Hope this helps Catman50314:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In section 'sulfur-iodine cycle' it states "Additionally, the sulfur-iodine cycle has a much lower maximum operating temperature compared to traditional electrolysis."
It also states " With an efficiency of around 50% it is more attractive than electrolysis" - well doesn't electrolysis have a higher efficiency? I'd simply delete this - but want to check I'm not missing something obvious..87.102.7.13314:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on electrolysis has a little discussion of efficiencies, in which it says (among other things) "For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more like 25–40%". Possibly this is related to that? Although the Sulphiric acid article doesn't detail how much of the process that efficiency is for, and whether it is theoretical or practical. As to the first point, you'll have to wait for someone who knows more about the temperatures used in electrolysis than me. 86.139.237.13215:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information about sound emission from undersea high voltage transmission wires as from wind powered generation stations?Specifically doea it have any impact on marine life?
Some of the latest plans call for High-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission; these should be relatively quiet. And most power cabling systems should be relatively free from producing externally-detectable magnetic or electrostatic fields.
Partial discharges in cables are pretty serious, and after enough of them have happened the cable will fail and have to be replaced. Cable failure would be a rare but explosive phenomenon. Partial discharge should not be an ongoing phenomenon like the sizzling heard from overhead high voltage lines. A power cable may have three phase AC inside a shielded jacket, producing little external electrircal or magnetic field if the phase currents are balanced. If the 3 currents are unequal, then there will be a magnetic field external to the cable equivlent to the imbalance. They might hum at the powerline frequency and many harmonics. DC or AC cables would be warm if carrying an appreciable current, and marine life might seek or avoid the warmth. DC cables are often unipolar (carrying current in 1 direction on isolated cables), and if it carries several hundred amps, it would produce a strong magnetic field which would affect a magnetic compass or any biological creature sensitive to magnetic fields. Edison18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A wind farm has been proposed to generate electricity off of the coast of Delaware and one of the objections offered is that the undersea cable will emit sounds that will harm the marine life.The definition of sound in this context is any wave emission that can be heard or felt by marine creatures and may influence their existence. I believe that Edison addressed this very well theoretically but I wonder if there is any actual experience. 141.151.14.25221:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent time in close proximity to insulated and shielded cables carrying hundred of amps at voltages up to 138 kv and heard no sound at all coming from them. Overhead open-air conductors may sizzle a bit from corona discharge.Edison15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
periodic properties
why properties of elements are the periodic functions of their atomic numbers but not of their atomic weights?
See atomic number vs atomic weight.In a nutshell, weight includes neutrons which don't generally get involved in reactions.The atomic number is the number of protons, and therefore, electrons.Electrons are a large part of what makes things react the way they do, so chemical properties of elements will depend largely on electrons.(I'm sure I'm oversimplifying here, but this is the general idea I believe.) Friday(talk)16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of chemistry boils down to the electric charge inherent in protons and electrons. That is to say, a chemical reaction is anything which happens because of these charges. Because a neutron has no charge, it has no effect on the atoms/molecules/ions formed: they will still have the same colour, reactivity etc. That said, some properties do change slightly with atomic weight; the mass of an Avogadro number of Carbon-14 atoms would be 2g more than the mass of an Avogadro number Carbon-12, and as a result, the melting/boiling points of the Carbon would be slightly higher for C-14, because slightly more energy is required to get the particles moving at the same velocity. Heavy water is a good example of this; in heavy water, the hydrogen (1H) is replaced by deuterium (2H), and as a result has a density of 1.1 g/ml, melts at 3.8°C, boils at 101.4°C and has a pH of 7.41. Heavy water is also slightly toxic as it can kill after about a week of drinking; normal water certainly wouldn't! Of course, the change in properties is miniscule, compared to that found by changing proton number (heavy water is far more like water than Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which boils at below room temp and kills in tiny doses!), so for every day chemistry, the effects are ignored. Laïka17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, now that you mention it, about the relative specific heats of isotopically different substances — clearly the boiling point and such will be higher because temperature is energy per degree of freedom and you get more kinetic energy but don't get more DOF just from having a neutron, but might it just be proportional to the added mass?In that sense it would be interesting because the higher-mass-number substance would act just like the other kind but with fewer atoms taking part (or the other way for light isotopes, of course).What other properties might "unexpectedly" not change?--Tardis22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm spam which is what this comment is (Just kidding). Well with the recent advances in tech such as cloning and stem cell reasearch the chances for you acctually eating artifically created meat and by products are becomming higher I saw this on How stuff works ill look up that link for ya. in any ways they say that the taste is exactly the same the only way to tell the diff is if the company lables the product. ill be back with that info for you after i eatMaverick42319:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this link, though I was actually looking for meat which is made without there ever being a cow or any sentient being in the process of making it. Lots of thanks to the rest, who took the time to answer. :) 81.93.102.3319:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the article I read from NASA on that it said they grew a steak, but it tasted terrible because they grew it and didn't kill it. All the cells were of the same kind, there wasn't all the different kinds and chemicals you'd find in a real steak. I'm sure they could get it right soon though! [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wouldn't buy an artificial meat product myself, but a natural meat alternative I'd be open to. A lot of this has to do with how they could SELL such a product. 67.174.211.8906:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meat that grew on trees would rot. As for meat grown in a laboratory... well, you would have to wonder whether it would be more economical than the natural method. The ingredients/chemicals required to make the meat would have to come from somewhere. I can't imagine that, whatever substance was used, that it would be cheaper than grass. BenC706:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some would call factory farming a laboratory or industry.Political connotations aside, it is quite true that modern agricultural engineering uses a lot of science, chemistry, and other techniques to get more meat (or milk or eggs or whatever else) than a ("so-called") natural animal would produce. Nimur07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insulin Pump
I am enquiring about changing my Diabetes Type 1 therapy to that of an insulin pump, but I am havnig a few worries or questions I'd li ke to resolve before speaking to the doctor. I would like to know how often I would have to fill up the resevoir; i.e. daily, bidaily etc.
I would also like to know if there are any available that actively monitor blood sugar levels and automatically calculates volume of insulin to emit.
Finally, personally do many of you think it is easier and more convenient than injecting insulin 4 times a day, plus Insulatard at night.
Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
There are many websites that describe pumps in detail, but here is an excellent one that also links to all the manufacturers' pages as well as discussion forums. [8]. In response to your other questions: most people fill the reservoir every 3 days when they change the infusion set; Medtronic's new model is combined with a continuous glucose sensor; all will calculate insulin if you enter glucose and carbs, none if don't; lots of people think it is easier and more convenient, lots don't like wearing such a thing. There are lots of more specialized discussion forums and chatlists that could give you better answers than here: try googling insulin pump discussion list or similar terms. Good luck. alteripse01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googled for insulin pump discussion and vendors. [9] Minimed has the model 522 and 722 pump which incorporates input from a real time sensor. The pump is expensive and the monitor sensors are expensive, so check for reimbursement from your insurance plan. The real time sensor is used to track trends, but you still do a finger-stick to get more accurate data for dosing and twice a day to calibrate the continuous sensor. The real time monitor can do something the regular meter cannot, which is to sound an alarm if your readings go too high or too low, which could be very helpful if you were sleeping or driving a car. Their smart pumps will accept readings wirelessly from from their finger-stick meter, accept your input of carbohydrate intake, and calculate the insulin dose. The 722 reservoir can hold 300 units for a large 3 day supply on one model, and for those with lesser neads a smaller model 522 with a smaller 176 unit reservoir is available. The latest book on smart insulin pumps, per Amazon.com, is "Pumping Insulin, 4th edition(2006) by John Walsh and Ruth Roberts, Torrey Pines Press. [10] is Insulin-pumpers.org, where you can register as a member and read the experiences of many pump users. We cannot give medical advice, such as which injection system is best for you. There are other vendors of pumps and other user groups as well. Get your doctor's recommendations if you are seeing a diabetes specialist. Good luck. Edison16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the trouble to find these additional specific references. I endorse them also, especially the Walsh and Roberts book for anyone who wants a how-to. alteripse05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider my self to be a Young-Earth Creationist that believes that most of the fossils came about from the flood.
On this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism) under Progressive Creationism,it says, "It is usually only promoted by Old Earth creationists, as Young-Earth creationists see everything in the fossil record as being created in six 24-hour days."
Can you please change this for me?
Please check out this web site for more information, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010720_56.asp
(Edit conflict X2) You may want to try that yourself by pressing the edit button at the top of the page. However, editing such a page has been a mine field in the past, especially on the Dinosaur page which lead to the creation of various creationism pages. Before adding your own views, you may want to discuss it on the article's talk page or a relavent wikiproject. This will ensure your views are NPOV & aren't deleted or create an edit war. Make sure they are referenced as well. Hope this helps... Spawn Man21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for taking the time to post. The heading of that page has a box that says This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject, this means information there may not be accurate as you have discovered. Wikipedia is a Encyclopaedia which can be edited by anyone, you have found sources to back up your argument which is a great start, have you considered contributing yourself? It is probably unlikely someone here on the science desk will be expert enough to want to edit an article concerning religion. Vespine21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the sentence rather than modifying it, as it didn't really make much sense. And it was non-factual, as you point out. BenC707:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really be an expert at religion? Is it a field? I personally like to call myself a world class expert at UFOology and of the leading fariyologists in the world—I've published many papers on the size, shape, and other properties of fairy wings. I suppose you could however, study history, or aspects, causes, etc. [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 12:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that what your expertise falls under is cryptozoology although we get your point. You can however be an expert at religion, by studying it at university.... Spawn Man21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone came into a US courtroom to testify as an expert on religion or anything else, they might testify that they had the highest degree in their field from an accredited organization, that they had worked in the field for many years, that they had published in the field in respected journals and written books published by respected publishers, that they had taken additional specialized training in the field to keep their knowledge current, that they had professional licensing in a field, that they were on the faculty at an accredited university in the field, and that they had testified in other cases as an expert. If they had merely read the Bible on their own, or were just a local preacher, or had posted to blogs about religion, or had books self-published or published by a partisan press, their side would have a hard time getting them accepted as an expert. Judges absolutely avoid getting into questions of religious truth or discipline within a religion. In the Scopes Trial in 1925, William Jennings Bryan who was prosecutinga teacher of evolution, was accepted by the defense as an expert on the Bible without many of these qualifications, so that the defense attorney, Clarence Darrow could expose creationist views on the stand, such as the first day of Creation having begun at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC in the Julian calendar. Edison16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the rulings on how US courts recognize scientific expertise have changed quite considerably over the years. How expertise is recognized within given fields is often quite in flux as well, and with new fields can be a highly contentious area. I'm just pointing out that it's not easy to gauge in many cases, and the way the American legal system deals with it has never been set in stone (see the brief discussion at Scientific evidence (law)). --140.247.248.9517:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Learning style preference statistics
Please tell me where I can find the stat breakdown for how many learners are primarily:
Visual
Aural
Kinesthetic
I seem to remember reading it was 50% visuaL, 35% auditory and 15% kinesthetic. Who conducted research on this? Has it been verified?
Thanks!
Howard Gardner was the prominent psychologist that packaged and sold the different-learning-styles-idea. He has written about eight books, and categorized people's talents and strengths. A lot of what he says is common sense and logical, like some people are better at different things, like music, sports, visual art, etc. However it is taken to the extreme when one says everybody is gifted in some area, just not necessarily verbal/quantitative. His ideas were grasped strongly by gifted education circles a few years ago, but it has kind of gone out of style. You couldn't for sure group people into different categories of his, or anybody else's. Other psychologists have abbreviated his down to 3, some extended his up to 20 something. There may be numbers out there, but keep in mind it isn't for sure, and, after all, it is a test that they use to decide. [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick search and found a study that used those categories of learning to investigate other things. In a study of 158 education students, about 94 were kinesthetic/tactile-dominant, 43 were visual, and 21 were auditory. I should emphasize that it would obviously be dangerous to generalize to the general population from a single survey, for a number of reasons (e.g., sample size, sample chosen). Someone else may be able to find some better stats. BenC707:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For our project at Uni, we have been asked to pick an animal to make extinct and argue our case. It has to be a vertibrate and not man. I dont want to pick panda cos it is too obvious and it doesnt really do any harm, does it? It should be preferrably something that does harm to the environment or nature or something. I thought beaver or something. Do you agree? Any further suggestions and why?
Beavers have a huge impact on ecosystems, providing wetlands for many other species to use, so removing them would probably have many repercussions.From a purely pragmatic and uninformed point of view, I would argue for the extinction of a species that is critically endangered or extinct in the wild, as I would imagine this would have the lowest impact on the planet's eco-system as a whole.Flipping the assignment on its head, you could go the satirical route and argue for the extinction of a species that would cause as large of an impact/disaster as possible, in effect showing that everything plays their part. Atropos23501:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ranchers in the American West are after timber wolf (a.k.a. gray wolf) again; they want to see it extinct in their area again. American suburbians everywhere think the coyotes should all die.
The safest thing to pick is a parasite. Not to sound utterly heartless, but humans are by far the most damaging parasite. But then, I like history and culture and being alive enough that I wouldn't want to wish the end of all humanity. This is a tough call for anyone to make. Think about the environmental impact removing a single animal would do. 67.174.211.8906:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can really pick anything you want. It doesn't even matter. Species are rising, falling, gaining, being pushed back, bottlenecking, exploding, all the time everyday. It is simply the way of nature to kill off species. It may not be nice, but that's just how it is. That is normal, and it is change. It is absurd to try and do something with the intention of changing nothing, because the environment will change on its own, it doesn't matter what part of the environment changes it (may it be a particular species), because each species is part of nature. Since we are being so inherently anthropocentric, you can say humans have helped some species, and humans have destroyed some species, directly or indirectly. We can relate alien species invasion since it is the opposite of entirely removing a species. Both on the same continent and at the same time Bos taurus was being bred in vast quantities, while Bison bison was being hunted to near-extinction. Cattle are aliens too, and are among the most destructive friends we tend. The grazing and trampling of livestock threaten more than three and a half times as many native plant species globally as are threatened by nondomesticated aliens. Livestock threaten almost as many native animal species as alien predators do. Pueraria montana is an Asian plant despised in the southeastern states for aggressive growth. American gardeners of the late 1800s loved its fragrant blossoms, and in the 1920s it was promoted as Bos torus chow, and in the 30s widely planted by the Soil Conservation Service for erosion control. The Department of Agriculture declared it a weed in 1972. Similar in history, Taraxacum officinale, or "common dandelion" was introduced to North America from Eurasia for its medicinal and culinary properties. Even if you don't agree with me, you perhaps should mention it to bring something new to the table. [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 12:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vertebrate eh? I'd pick the Panda. Think about all the resources, time & money that have been squandered to protect or preserve a species that has become so specialized that even without our intervention, was likely to become extinct in the very near future. Are there even enough Panda's left to sustain a genetically diverse viable population?
Now if those same resources had been applied to a species not quite so cute and cuddley perhaps the passenger pigeon, great auk, or any now extinct species you can name might still be with us.
This then brings into questionthe entire reason why we choose to protect some species while ignoring others? If the Panda was an ugly mollusc that crawled up your leg and bit you on the ass, would we be so willing to protect it?
Extinction is a natural process. It is not that extinction occurs that should concern us rather, the acclerated rate of extinction that we as a species seem to be responsible for.
Canis sylvaticus
How about the Water moccasin or Copperhead snake?, or maybe the Rattlesnake? Your study could look at whether nonvenomous species couldstep up to replace their pest control benefits without harming humans. In other words, would we be overrun by rats and mice without the venomous snakes, or could the less harmful species take care of the pests. These species do harm humans and their pets and livestock, and the water moccasin and copperhead snakes make the enjoyment of the outdoors difficult in the southern US in the summer, as the rattlesnake does in the west. I acknowledge that many people love all animals, and that they are all pretty to look at, unless you have just stepped over a log and they have sunk their fangs into your leg. (edited to add: Here I refer to the snakes, not the animal lovers as biters). Keep the panda. They do not bite humans as often, and are not known to be venomous. Edison16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Human deaths from venomous snake bites in the USA (those species in particular are US snakes, yes?) are so uncommon today as to be statistically negligible. You get far more deaths from dog bites per year, more deaths related to riding the bus. --140.247.248.9517:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Country people in the southern U.S. avoid wooded or grassy areas, or creekbanks in the southern US in weather above freezing because of the presence of copperheads. They are numerous and aggressive, and like to live near human habitation, and move into outbuildings or onto farm equipment. I have had several close calls. Besides deaths, they cause painful injuries with lengthy recuperation.No one claimed that poisonous snakes are leading cause of deaths, and more people obviously ride buses that step on copperheads. Dogs are domesticated pets and offer the benefit of companionship or guarding as a tradeoff for the chances of biting soemone. Copperheads make poor pets, but if it were known that they lived in a building, people would, I guess, pretty much stay out. Edison21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that you'd have to indicate that the number of lives you'd be saving would be in the dozens, whereas the likely ecological damage would be quite high. In terms of cost/benefit the panda is an easy one in comparison to the venomous snakes of the US, which cost very little (in terms of human costs and resources) to live with. The panda's non-venomous quality does not really give it an edge over the snakes in a strictly utilitarian model. --24.147.86.18700:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if you made your presentation on a list of animals you initially thought you might like to make extinct, then talked about what made you reconsider, and concluded the whole exericse to be abhorrent, you would not receive an autofail. That's what I'd do. Vranak
If you want to be a smartass you could go for the Madagascar Pochard. The rationale being that everyone thought it was extinct 15 years ago anyway, and the world kept turning. Then a few of them were spotted last year. However, they are clearly critically endangered and - one could argue - removing the few remaining would have a negligible environmental impact. The opposing argument is that the Madagascar flora and fauna is rich in genetic diversity. Rockpocket06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently heard that the brewing industry use to use sourdough (from bread) to purify water.I wondered if there was anyone who could validate this.Also, how does it work?Thanks Valerie
Sourdough bread is bread that is leavened with sourdough starter, a symbiotic colony of yeast and bacteria (lactobacilli).The closest to "purifing" water might be the microorganisms living in the starter form somewhat hostile conditions to "squeeze out" other potential micro-invaders.That process is fairly slow and complex compared to filtering water through activated charcoal or distillation, and you'd end up with a bunch of floury water.I'm not a big beer aficionado, but using some sourdough starter in a ferment might impart some of the same acidic, complex flavors you can get in sourdough bread. Atropos23502:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it at all possible that this is a garbled version of the idea that alcoholic drinks were once drunk in great quantity because they were less likely to poison you than the water? That was mostly (if not entirely) due to the boiling involved in the production of alcoholic drinks. Skittle15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petroleum Oil
I am doing a science fair project for my 8th grade class. My question that i want to ask you is this: What is oil's real purpose in the Earth? Does is it act like some sort of insultaor or anything else? I mean, everthing on this Earth is here for a purpose. I am stuck and do not know what to do. I found one website that asked the same question to but did not have any information that I needed. Template:Please Help Me4.129.87.14800:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oil wasn't intentionally placed into the Earth for any sort of reason, but it is just the result of dead biomatter being compressed and heated under millions of years of sediment.Man's persistant exploration of the world lead to the discovery of petroleum and its seemingly millions of uses over the ages, from lighting up ancient homes to sending people to the moon.It can easily seem like everything in the world has a purpose because we are the ultimate tool-users and we can find a purpose for just about anything.Atropos23501:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For all we can tell, purpose is not inherently present on anything. There's no purpose for the existence and presence of oil, or even life, on Earth. It exists because that's how chemistry and physics work. Things also tend to naturally find their most stable state throughout time, so the feeling of deliberation and purpose arises naturally everywhere, since everything ends up fitting together so well. That being said, oil has no purpose, we just happen to find it very, very useful for many different things. — Kieff | Talk01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific way to phrase it is that purpose is not scientifically testable in experiment and therefore not relevant in a scientific sense.However, to absolutely claim there is no purpose is making a leap that science cannot explain so claiming there is no purpose or deliberation goes beyond the scientific method.--OpusPenguin03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe "everything having a purpose" to be rubbish. As Richard Dawkins said, "We see the world through purpose-colored spectacles," because our nature is to see objects of having potential uses to us, we assume if we can't use it, it has a use to some other organism. [Mαc Δαvιs]X (How's my driving?) ❖ 12:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Teleology for a discussion of the old notion that someone (God?) placed everything herre for a purpose. This view might say that if I am hiking and have to make a pitstop in the woods, that my excrement is there for the purpose of nourishing a bush which will grow into a tree and provide shelter for some future weary travellor. A less teleological and more naturalistic view might be that "excrement happens." Edison16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to put any purpose to oil, surely it would be to warm up the Earth, not that there's anything wrong with that. Vranak
You are in 8th grade. Teleology is usually considered to be way too heavy for your age: Plato thought that one should not be concerned with Philosophy until age 40. Science fair: you are probably in time trouble: you don't need generalities, you need an answer, NOW. Here is what we are trying to tell you in simple terms:
forget "purpose." That is way too complicated. It is philosophy, not science.
Try to rephrase your hypothesis into something more scientific and less philosophical.
If you can reply with your current hypothesis, We can probably critique it for you and suggest a better hypothesis. I just got home from judging a high-school Science Fair, so I am sympathetic. -Arch dude02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did Plato know?Him and his ilk never understood inertia nor evolution nor planetary harmonics.Nonetheless, the above statements correctly emphasize that purpose is not testable and has no place in science.We can study much about petroleum - how it forms, what it is made of, what we can make out of it... but none of this implies a purpose.However, I think the original question was asking whether there petroleum performs a geological function - such as "insulating."Petroleum reserves do not really insulate very much; but they contain lots of dissolved gases (notably, helium, sometimes hydrogen, and very often methane or other natural gas.They also serve as boundaries between rock layers (though this is probably an effect due to their formation). Nimur08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Database for lab experiments
Hello,
I am currently working on my PhD in the biopharmaceutical field. I am doing a number of lab experiments and I am looking for a way to store information about the experiments and the outcomes in a database.
Typical data about an experiment would be: Title, notes, Dates (when run, when analysed), material used, method used (i.e. word files), raw data (i.e. sampling points), secondary data (i.e. halflifes), graphs.
I have attempted to come up with an MSAccess solution, it works more or less but it has its bugs and entering data can be somewhat time consuming.
I was wondering if anyone knows a flexible tool to handle this kind of task.
(I think there should be, since the core of what I need it to do is probably needed by uncountable other people working in similar areas. I haven't really found anything practical so far though).
Honestly, I'd use a spreadsheet if you don't have any prior experience with RDBMSes.Spreadsheet software is very flexible and useful for sufficiently small amounts of data.Most of the data I need to process goes directly from my notebooks into a spreadsheet program. -- mattb@ 2007-02-01T05:50Z
I don't think you could include all of the data he wants in just that. However it sounds to me like it is a flat database anyway, so you don't necessarily need it to be relational. Have you tried something like FileMaker Pro? It is like MS Access but much simpler on the whole. It doesn't let you do as complicated or customized things with the data but it doesn't sound like you are using Access to its full capabilities anyway. Access is probably the most "flexible" thing you are going to find, but being able to use that capability well requires a lot of time and experience with it. If you wanted to post the nature of the bugs to the computing desk, I am betting we can iron out some of them (I say this as someone who has wrestled with Access for eight years or so at this point). --24.147.86.18712:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he didn't specify how much data he is working with...If we're talking single data sets with a million rows, then a spreadsheet will be insufficient.A few thousand rows is reasonable, though. -- mattb@ 2007-02-01T15:08Z
I'm not talking about total records. Look at the types of data he describes -- Word files, lengthy descriptions, etc. It is not easy to do that in a spreadsheet program, at least not any I have seen. The lines get very long and hard to read, use, and edit. --140.247.248.9517:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need to share the data among workers ?Why not try a hosted DB solution like www.teamdesk.net at 7 $ / month / user.I found it easy to customize. Pcarbonn16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies so far. Especially thanks for the warning on excel, I've encountered some bugs in it myself before. Excel/spreadsheed is not a viable option for me.
The reason to use the database is, as correctly pointed out, not that I have thousands of records, but that I have descriptive text data, files, etc. I do not need to share the data (and I don't see that happening within this project).
I want to be able to easily enter data into a form and retrieve data matching certain characteristics (this is what I have attempted in my test database (msaccess2002). One thing it should take over is the task to think of where I should save which files and make it easy for me to find them again. I'm still looking for a product or an msaccess template which is designed for this or a similar purpose (there are should be tons of other people out there with similar requirements as me....). Lukas01:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many computer science types make a hefty profit handling other people's databases, because to even this day it gets messy and application-specific.Though numerous utilities exist (MySQL, MS Access, etc) which supposedly make managing data "simple(r)", I don't know of any that make the solution "user-friendly" to an inexperienced operator.It may be worth paying a fee to an outside service provider, or hire an undergraduate CS intern, if you are unable to develop a complete solution on your own. Nimur08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Squid Brains and CNS?
Hello all!
I was talking to a friend recently who said that he couldn't understand how it worked, not being scientifically oriented, but that while in Japan he had been told that the liquid he was eating was squid brain, and that it was a liquid. This puzzled us both, as I, too, have not studied marine biology in great depth. Any idea if a) the brain really is liquid, and b) if so, how does the nervous system of a squid work? I know they are invertebrates, but that's about it. The Squid article doesn't seem to reap much information. 67.174.211.8905:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And hello to you too. Your brain is about 60% water, and can be liquified in a blender and is considered a gastronomic delicacy on R'tyrovkv in the Betegeuse system (lucky for us they are so far away). The unique thing about squid neurons from a neurophysiologist's point of view is that the individual axons are unusually large and were heavily used in the 1960s-80s to study depolarization and potential propagation. They work basically the same way your neurons work. alteripse10:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the brain into a liquid tangent, ancient Egyptians removed the brains in their mummification process by sticking a flexible tube up their nose and jiggling it several times to turn it into a mush, which was easily extracted from the cadaver from the nostril. bibliomaniac1501:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of a "squid brain paste" food here in Japan so I looked it up, and the only thing I can find close is shiokara. It IS a liquid of sorts, but as far as I know there is no variety that is purely made of squid brains (though the brains are most certainly included with the rest of the pureed, fermented squid). freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 05:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Top 10 Engineering Projects With The Most Human Fatalities?
Hello wikipedians,
My brother in law and I were discussing the top 10 human engineering projects with the most fatalities. So far we have come up with the Death Railway (116,000 deaths of workers) and the Panama_Canal (27,500 deaths of workers).
What other engineering projects would be in the top 10?
Incomplete or unfinished projects are fine.
We are more interested in projects that have fairly specific numbers. For example, we know that lots of people died making the pyramids of Egypt but for obvious reasons we will never really know even approximate figures.
Interesting question. I suppose one would have to look at the oldest major engineering works, such as dams and canals.Searching Wikipedia for "workers died" suggests that 120,000 people died during construction of the Suez Canal, and 80,000 during the building of "the British railtrack" in Egypt.--Shantavira11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese urban myth claims that thousands upon thousands of people died while building the Great Wall.There are songs and stories that claim human meat and bone was used for the mortar.However, those horror stories have very little evidence to back them up. --Kainaw(talk)12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also look into massive modern works produced in socialist countries in the 1940s and 1950s. I don't know whether many workers died in the construction of the dam on the Dnieper river, for example, or Magnetogorsk, but I would be surprised if they were bloodless, having been constructed with Gulag labor. --24.147.86.18712:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The production of military goods for the German army in WW2 should count as an engineering project, and very many imprisoned workers died in it, including death camp inmates and persons from occupied countries. China's Great Leap Forward was an engineering program to make China into a leading industrial country. It took a great many lives: villagers were told to make steel in little backyard furnaces by burning their doors and furniture and all trees as fuel, and all they managed was to convert their plows and pots into lumps of molten iron. The harvests were neglected, and in a pretense that agricultural yields had increased, the actual small harvests wer seized for export. The death toll is stated in the article as 14 to 43 million excess deaths.Edison17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was an episode of MythBusters where they featured a popular Hollywood myth, that dropping a lit (smoldering) cigarette into a pool of gasoline could ignite it.They were never able to make it happen, but deemed it plausible because the temperature of the cigarette was hotter than the flash point of gas so it "could" happen.I've also heard of anecdotes of people putting out cigarettes in jet fuel (similar to kerosene or diesel). Atropos23518:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - the lighter hydrocarbons are always easier to light - lighter gas is propane or butane, the flash point increases with molecular mass. And yes kerosene and diesel are difficult to light, especially diesel - you ever need a wick or otherwise it helps if you heat it in a frying pan first until it starts smoldering - then it lights easily..
Plus a straight cigarette contains significant amounts of nitrate to get sudden flashes of high temperature as the tobacco impregnated with the nitrate burns - these are like little sparks and help ignite things. A 'roll your own' cigarette doesn't have this nitrate and burns much colder and is less likely to ignite a lighter flame - in general they don't..87.102.77.9519:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sodium vapour lamps
why sodium vapour lamps are used for street lights? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.57.69 (talk • contribs). (Arun singh Bagh)
The most amount of light for the least amount of electricity. See Sodium vapor lamp.
From a desire to make everything look yellowish with monochromatic 590 nm illumination, to make the skies over cities look orange, or to save electricity. Edison17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One consideration is that low-pressure sodium-vapor lamps are good for astronomers, because their light pollution can easily be filtered out (that's because they're so nearly monochromatic; you just have to block that one single line). In my opinion they're also less ugly than high-pressure sodium-vapor lamps (those are the pink ones). --Trovatore18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. A variation on xenon arc lamps may be in your car's headlamps, but they're not used for overhead lighting on highways (because sodium vapo[u]r lighting is so much more efficacious).
Is there some reason why the green part of the visible spectrum is not absorbed by chlorophyll and associated pigments? Why is chlorophyll able to absorb only red and blue light? Would a more efficient system absorb all visible light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.73.126 (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure, but at a guess I would say that plants just doesn't need to. They get sufficient energy from the wavelengths that they do absorb. Also, if plants were absorbing all wavelengths in the visible spectrum, they would probably overheat. (And who wants a world full of black plants anyway?) BenC707:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to explain this is that "nature" didn't just engineer the optimum system.It evolved this way, probably based on prior chemical reactions.I'm not entirely sure how the chemical reaction operates, but it very likely cannot use any arbitrary energy, requiring specific frequencies to serve as activation energy for chemical changes. Nimur08:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chlorophyll is green. The reason we can observe that is because it doesn't get absorbed. If it did, it wouldn't be green anymore. - Mgm|(talk)11:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Body Changes
I am not sure how to phrase this correctly nor have the proper terminology, but my question is:Is it possible that your genetic makeup can change throughout your life.When I was a child, I remember having very straight hair and I longed for curly hair.However, in my early 20's, my hair became very thick and curly.Now, I am in my mid 30's and my hair changing it's structure again.It is becoming straighter.Any ideas?
It is not possible for your genetic makeup to change (aside from random DNA mutation that would likely only result in damaged or cancerous individual cell populations). There are many reasons why your hair might be changing structure, including age, changes in diet, or moving to a different climate. It's not at the DNA level. -- Scientizzle16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably common knowledge to anyone who has taken high school biology, but I couldn't locate anything in our article on DNA that says as much. Vranak
It is hard to believe that the dramatic changes of my hair structure was from what I ate or where I lived.Please understand that I had pin straight hair (similar to Asian hair) when I was 8 but by the time I was 21, it was very thick and curly...
Though I've never heard of what you describe specifically, hair does respond in a variety of way to the levels of certain hormones that increase during puberty/maturation and fall off during middle age.See Hair#Growth.Dragons flight17:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common for light hair to get darker through childhood - lots of kids are born with blond hair but don't keep it - blond kids are usually born with very white hair. I don't know if this means you will go platinum in later years or not. It's common in the animal world for juveniles to have a different colouration to adults.87.102.77.9519:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought it was strange that my hair behaved this way.Someone mentioned that our skin(?) completely changes every 7 years and maybe so with hair texture.Maybe I am not human!
There is one important exception to the rule that your DNA doesn't change during life, which applies to cells of the immune system, i.e. B lymphocytes and T lymphocytes. During maturation, the DNA coding for these cells' receptors is rearranged, see VDJ recombination. The changed DNA is inherited by daughter cells. The rearrangement occurs in a random fashion, and because various fragments are involved, each of which comes in a large number of variants, combinatorics ensures that the number of different receptors is formidable. In addition, there are enzymes that insert non-coded nucleotides at the points where the DNA is spliced. The potential number of antigen receptors is enormous. Lymphocytes which encounter antigens that happen to match their receptors, are selected in a Darwinian manner. This is the basis of immunization - somatic DNA recombination is the reason why we are able to make antibodies against such an enormous number of pathogens. The fact that the receptors aren't "hard-coded" makes this a very flexible system, which can adapt to new threats. To my knowledge, it is the only known example of somatic DNA recombination in vertebrates. --NorwegianBluetalk20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your comment NorwegianBlue,"The rearrangement occurs in a random fashion, and because various fragments are involved, each of which comes in a large number of variants, combinatorics assures that the number of combinations is formidable", are you saying as our DNA changes during maturation for immunizations against pathogens, this possibly can affect hair texture, iris color, etc?I also know of an African-American person who also experienced the same issue as well...
Think of your hair changes similar to how your body changes when you go through puberty. When you hit puberty, you grow facial hair, get bigger & stronger & grow an adam's apple etc. This is not your DNA changing, but instead hormones & internal changes stirred by chemicals. Your body can change drastically without warning. Keep in mind however, that indeed DNA can affect whether we do have curly or straight hair, but changing between the two isn't unheard of either. Many children may have curly or straight hair in childhood & then have the opposite later in life. When babies are born, they may have a different eye colour to later on in life & so on & so on. Your DNA does not change unless you're one of the X men. Hope this explains it easily... Spawn Man21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you tied a rope around the moon and let the other end hang down onto the surface of the earth...
1)When the moon moved, would the rope drag across the surface of the earth, and if so how fast? 2)And if not, would it go out into space and trail behind the moon or what would it do? The gravity field of the earth and the moon are significantly less than the amount of empty space in between the earth and the moon. 3)If the answer to the first question is no, could you hold onto the rope as it pulled you up into the sky? 4)How much weight would it take to keep the rope vertical to the earth? 5)Would that amount of weight cause the moon to stop moving and come crashing down onto the earth?
(numbered the questions to make responses easier). During a single night, the earth's rotation makes the moon appear to move across the sky. Per Moon theMoon makes one complete orbit about the Earth every 27.3 days. The nearest point to the moon on the earth's surface makes a revolution every day, with adjustment for the moons 27.3 day cycle. What does that suggest about the rope staying at one point? Per Earth the planet's mean circumference is40,041.47 km, and its sidereal rotation period is 0.997 258 d (23.934 h). Earth's rotation velocity at the equator is 465.11 m/s or 1040 miles per hour, which has to be adjusted plus or minus for the moon's travel around the earth.The question implies that the rope starts on the earth's surface. The statement "The gravity field of the earth and the moon are significantly less than the amount of empty space in between the earth and the moon." makes a meaningless comparison between gravity and space. How can gravity be less THAN space. Did the question originally say IN space? I suggest the hypothetical rope would have to be extremely strong and perhaps fireproof. I suggest that no amount of weight could keep it absolutely vertical to the earth, but the deflection from passage through the atmosphere would be a difficult calculation depending on air resistance, which would depend on the diameter and surface of the rope, and more complex because it would change with altitude. Edison17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've come up with a simple answer to your question. All the roads in New Zealand, lined back to back, would make it 3 quarters of the way to the moon. Now all you have to do is measure all the roads in New Zealand & then do the math. ;) Spawn Man21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC). P.S. The rope might catch on a rock & send the moon crashing down in the Atlantic, so be sure you use duel fibre twine... ;)[reply]
To question 1, I think yes. The rope would be close to vertical most of the way, but once it hits the Earth's atmosphere, the atmospheric drag will push it forward (since the Earth rotates faster than the moon orbits), so it will be slanted at an angle near the surface of the Earth. To question 4 (if I understand what you mean), that is impossible, because the atmospheric drag pushes the rope forwards, and if were vertical, there would be no force to oppose it going the other way. --Spoon!23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why Don't They Send Hubble's Twin in Orbit?
When they constructed the Hubble telescope two decades ago, all key components were manufactured in pairs (in case one breaks down, the redundant component is available right away). Now that the one currently in operation is approaching its end of life--and that another shuttle repair mission will cost a fortune--why don't they just put all the spare parts together and launch the thing up there? The twin may not be the latest technology, but it sure could be a cheaper way to get a new telescope in orbit, serving science for the next two decades.--JLdesAlpins17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence they made a second mirror? At the time of its making, there was an article about how expensive it was, and that it was the best mirror ever built. Later it turned out they had totally botched the fabrication and testing and the thing had to have corrective lenses added. Have some of the spares been used on the repair missions? An unanswered question is how similar the general optics of spy satellites are to those of Hubble. They are supposed to have amazing resolution, but would lack some of the aiming ability and some of the special astronomical optics. Edison17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the largest differences between an earth-observing satellite and the Hubble is the amount of light collection area and maybe to a lesser extent the ability to keep attitude very precisely.Images like the Hubble Deep Field require an extremely long exposure time, even with the Hubble's large mirror.Images like [12] also show what vistas large amounts of light gathering area can give you.Like spy satellites, you or I can easily see things on Earth because they're illuminated so well, could never see anything like that with our pair of 1x 1-cm refractors. Atropos23518:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not forget the cost to acctually form the second hubble. putting the spare parts together will still require extreamly skilled scientest to put it together and many months to do it right Maverick42317:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And lets not forget, the spare parts were there in case something goes wrong, so imagine something went wrong while assembling the spare parts, they'd have no redundancy.Vespine21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, suppose that everything on Hubble was duplicated - Hubble has been serviced a couple of times since launch - might some of those duplicate "spares" have been used up in servicing it? Richard B01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably an engineering exaggeration to say "everything" was doubled; furthermore, the likelihood that all parts are carefully cataloged, stored in one warehouse, with blueprints and assembly instructions is virtually zero.Significant engineering effort would be needed; and even the original engineers probably don't even remember all of the design properties.It is probably easier and cheaper to start from scratch.After all, the most expensive part of spaceflight systems is very rarely the actual components costs. Nimur08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer is yes - but they are not common. Iodine (and also other halogens chlorine, bromine and fluorine) is sometimes incorporated into the basic drug structure - one of the main reasons this is done is that the resultant compound is easier to absorb through the gut walls as it is more 'fatty'.
(also Iodinated and brominated 'ecstacy' derivatives are found often enough to be called common, I'm not sure that amphetamines are classed as narcotics though.)
In Sweden, no doubt amphetamine is illegal, I suppose the same holds true of its derivates. Thanks for the answer! :) TERdON20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean they were narcotics by the scientific definition, but by the Swedish legal definition, which includes all kinds of addictive drugs that aren't, technically, narcotics. TERdON22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "crack," but it's not in the narcotic.Instead it's part of the precursors, see Iodine in Methamphetamine production.As part of the "war on drugs," some states in the USA require that iodine suppliers record and retain customer information on anyone buying iodine. --Wjbeaty20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what kinetic energy is?It's the energy of a mass in motion.One way to tell that an object in motion has kinetic energy is to watch what happens when the object hits another object: in a collision, one moving object can impart kinetic energy to the collided-with object, causing the collided-with object to move as well.Does this answer your question? --Steve Summit (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Psychokinesis. I would have to answer "No, there is not enough psychokinetic/telekinetic energy in a human body to move anything." But I have an open mind and would be ready to be proven wrong. There are many ways to fake it or to think it is observed in poorly controlled experiments. Edison21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To move an object with the kinetic energy of a human, you would need to have the human collide with the object.Imagine body-slamming a box.Then, your kinetic energy would (partially) transfer and the box would jolt forward.Perhaps you mean potential energy which may be stored in the muscles in chemical form (adenosine triphosphate)?This can be converted into kinetic energy, (probably also generating thermal energy and other forms...) allowing the muscle to move an object. Nimur08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah.I'm now having hilarious visions of ragdoll-physics style "human collisions" to test the inelasticity of collisions.Efficient transfer of kinetic energy from the human to the object is almost as much fun as inefficient transfer. Nimur08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High density polyethylene
Hello, does anyone know of a supplier for blocks of high density polyethylene.I'm looking for a small cube of the stuff that I can mill down a little bit.
If it had to be one or the other, it would be lava; but not by much, I would imagine. As the molten rock comes closer to the surface it experiences less pressure and presumably expands, making it less dense or "thinner". I'm not sure, however, the degree to which it would expand, or if that would be significant to appropriately label it "thinner". BenC707:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If lava can be approximated as an uncompressablefluid, the pressure change would have little effect on the density.One thing that does significantly affect density is silica content.Hawaiian volcano lava is quite different from, say, Mount Saint Helens (which has more silica, is more dense, and thus exploded violently!)Hawaiian lava flows gracefully with much less exploding. Nimur08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) doesn't the explosiveness of magma relate to the amount of dissolved gas in it (eg water) - that is released when the pressure vessel that is the inner volcano is opened..(or does silica rich magma have greater ability to hold gases???)87.102.4.611:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too would expect lava to be thinner (less viscous) than magma since it is cooler. I don't know how pressure affects viscosity. Reading both articles it explains that the viscosity depends on the composition - so there may not be a definative answer.87.102.4.610:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For any procedure involving general anesthesia, and intubation, one can expect to wake up with an oxygen mask on, especially at an advanced age. High oxygen will help a patient overcome the trauma of the surgery, and more important it will help that patient clear infections from the perforation and the surgical insult. tucker/rekcut12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When falling from high up (for example, a fifth storey), what would be the safest position to land when hitting solid ground? --Codell[ Talk]02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if it was ever proven, but I'd always heard if you can somehow pull off a rolling landing, you could possibly survive (height depending of course). Cyraan02:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only problem I can't do for my alkyne nomenclature homework.
I submitted the structure, but the program keeps telling me to show the trans configuration of the Br Atoms.But I'm pretty sure I put the Br atoms where they're supposed to be.I'm also sure that I have the cyclodecyne structure right, so it must be something else I'm missing.I tried all combinations of where the Br are located respective of one another.Because it's trans, I'm guessing that one of the Br atom is inside the ring, and the other on the outside.I tried that, but it wasn't correct.Any ideas?Thanks in advance 128.163.214.19903:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "inside" and "outside", you're thinking about the ring and everything attached to it as being flat. Ain't so...visit your textbook chapter about alkanes or orbital hybridisation to see why things attached to the ring are often described as "above" and/or "below" the plane of the ring, never inside/outside the ring. DMacks03:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from trans "A similar phenomenon is seen in cyclic compounds (in which the atoms form a closed ring), where substituents can be on the same "face" of the ring (cis) or opposite faces (trans.)" - so agree with above - it's above or below the plane of the ring.87.102.4.611:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3,5-dibromocyclodecyne is chiral at both the 3 and 5 positions, usually a trans structure refers to atoms on opposite sides of a thing (atom, double bond) - it sounds like you need to know the most stable conformation of the molecule and put the bromines on opposite sides. In actuality the name you've got doesn't seem to be a useful description of the molecule - I'd expect something like R,R 3,5-dibromocyclodecyne, R,S 3,5-dibromocyclodecyne, S,R 3,5-dibromocyclodecyne, S,S 3,5-dibromocyclodecyne.87.102.4.610:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time for Escape!!!
How long would it take to accelerate human passengers in a craft to about eight miles per second, and lets say they are traveling at a constant 3g?67.127.96.13103:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we don't answer homework questions! But to help you out: have a look at the acceleration article, you'll notice the following equation:
Yes, I am similarly curious about how long it will take a train leaving Philadelphia traveling at 180 km/h to reach a train that has left New Jersey traveling at 200 km/h. But of course, not for my homework! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the times when I've tried it, Amtrak or New Jersey Transit has had equipment failures. Where does that go in the equation?
Awesome eqautions but once again it's not homework and believe it or not I haven't ever had a physics class. Someone just please tell me how to plug in the numbers.
Light
Greetings,
I have done small studies an have a theory. Light has mass and weight. It must, because a black hole pulls in light. I don't understand the technical jargon.
Please let me know if it has mass. (In layman's terms)
General Relativity is exactly the technical jargon which explains how gravity can "pull" something (like light), even if it has no mass.Some people try to explain this by saying that the gravity bends space and time.It is very well established that light has no mass, and many experiments and equations exist to back this up. Nimur08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be models for ethernet structures described as a donut constellation. The descriptions of the structure are too technical for me to understand. I have heard the term donut constellation used to described the way energy revolves in some physical structures as well. The philosphers Deleuze and Guattari describe social maps and organizations that evolve rhizomatically along a number of axi and levels. As a result many creative and visual thinkers use this structure as an exploratory model. I think the donut constellation whereby energy is constantly revolving on a number of planes around a vacant middle maybe used to as an alternative model for describing the way chunks of the creative thought process evolves. I would like to read more about this type of structure. I think there is a more accurate word, that those versed in physics would use to describe it.
Q1. I am looking for references to back up this paragraph:
In general, the abuse potential of DAR inhibitors depends on how they affect the pattern of dopamine release and reuptake. Compounds that inhibit reuptake and also induce release of dopamine, such as methamphetamine or phenmetrazine, or compounds that inhibit reuptake but have no effect on release, such as cocaine or methylphenidate, tend to be addictive drugs with potential for abuse in humans. [citation needed] On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine, such as Wellbutrin and vanoxerine, have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential, and can be used to treat stimulant addiction. [citation needed]
Please explain how the above references are actually related to: "On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine, such as bupropion have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential." I would much appreciate a reply. Thanks. --Parker00707:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - now I see the first article doesn't mention Bupropion specifically... hrmph. Perhaps the sentence in the article should be changed to match the source, rather than whoring up a source to fit an exact claim? I'm sorry for the scanty help, it's past my bedtime... V-Man73707:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine, such as Wellbutrin and vanoxerine, have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential, and can be used to treat stimulant addiction. [citation needed]
On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine, such as Wellbutrin and vanoxerine, have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential, and can be used to treat stimulant addiction. [citation needed]
Zyprexa's antipsychotic activity is mediated primarily by antagonism at dopamine receptors.
Scientifically speaking, is there any differece between Antagonism and Inhibition? Please provide references to back up your answer.
I'd suggest that the usage choice is a language one, (I can't call a difference between the two). Medical dictionary (is this a good source?) has the two lumped together for the same definition see http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/medical/inhibitor_antagonist.htm
The real difference is actually in other usage - an antagonist 'works against' eg pairs of muscles that pull on either side of the bone, an inhibitor prevents the action itself. I'm not sure that in biochemical usage the distinction is made (of perhaps even known).
Also http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antagonist defines antagonism in a biochemical sense as "Biochemistry A chemical substance that interferes with the physiological action of another, especially by combining with and blocking its nerve receptor" eg as an inhibitor.
So in biochemistry they seem to have the same meaning - though if more becomes known about the mode of action of a given substance perhaps in the future a distinction will be made.
Comment on proper usage...
For instance a compound that causes dopamine uptake is antagonistic to a compound that causes dopamine release - but does not inhibit.
Whereas a compound that binds to a site causing dopamine release (not activating it) can be called an dopamine release inhibitor. (But may also be decribed as antagonistic to a compound causing dopamine release by the nature of it's inhibitory action). Hope that helps.87.102.33.14413:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, antagonism and inhibition are two distinct concepts in most biomedical contexts. Antagonism usually refers to interference with the action of a substance, or sometimes to the production of an effect that opposes that of another substance. An example of a steroid antagonist is spironolactone, which reduces mineralocorticoid effects and androgen effects. Inhibition usually refers to interference with production of a substance. An example of an inhibitor of steroid production is metopirone. alteripse17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For maybe a litle semantic clarity of the difference between antagonism and inhibition...Inhibition is the prevention of some event and antagonism is one biochemical pathway through which one might cause inhibition. Enzymes or biological receptors, for example, can be inhibited by several means (phosphorylation state, missing co-factors, pH, etc.), including antagonism. An antagonist may inhibit by one of several methods (see below), but chiefly it interrupts the the otherwise natural activity of the enzyme/receptor in the local state. Types of enzyme inhibition | Competitive inhibition | Uncompetitive inhibition | Non-competitive inhibition | Suicide inhibition | Mixed inhibition | -- Scientizzle00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so biochemists can just make up new definitions of words can they! If 'you' used the words in correct context of their english meaning maybe you wouldn't have this problem???87.102.4.610:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I know. I was considering how best to go about either combining receptor dynamics into the enzyme inhibition articles or making new, separate articles. Receptors and enzymes are very unrelated in terms of activity, and are separate targets for drug interactions (through which most antagonism occurs), but the molecular methods and pharmacological models of inhibition are largely similar...I'll figure it out... -- Scientizzle16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a light ray bend when there is mass in vicinity of it's line of journey?
Considerable bending has been observed when the amount of mass is large.Does bending occur even when amount of mass is small?Is there any relation between gravity and electromagnetism?Well, something fishy is going on.I think unification of gravity and electromagnetism is not far.(Ecclesiasticalparanoid) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.215.141 (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Light is an odd thing. It can behave both like a wave and like particles. Since particles have mass, they are affected by the gravitational pull of a mass in its vicinity. Light probably bends too when the mass is small, the effect is just smaller. 'Small' is a relative term in that case. Usually we're talking planet-sized masses in discussions like this. - Mgm|(talk)10:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there is no known way to unify gravity and electromagnetism into one force though it is presumably the goal of a Theory Of Everything. Many people have sought such a connection, including Albert Einstein (see Unified field theory), and failed. Whether it is far away or not probably depends on whether you think they are going the right direction with string theory or not. --24.147.86.18713:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken, classical electromagnetism and modern gravitational theory (general relativity) have already been shown to be consistant.My answer to your last question contained a link to Kaluza-Klein theory, which shows that Maxwell's equations (the basis of classical electromagnetics) can be derived from principles in general relativity.In other words, KK theory more or less united modern gravitation theory and classical electromagnetics back in the 1920s.
Also note that it isn't just light that exhibits wave-particle duality, but all matter at sufficient scales.However, pertaining to the question you originally posed, I'm not sure if it's totally appropriate to embark on a discussion of quantum mechanical effects (which is where you would consider wave-particle duality).In general, QM and GR haven't been reconciled, so I don't know if it's appropriate to talk about wave-particle duality in the same breath as gravitational (spacetime) effects on light.Look at Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime and General relativity.Perhaps a physicist can fill in some of the gaps I've omitted in my explanation...I'm definitely not a GR person, and I can only do fairly basic QM.
P.S. - The photon is massless (at rest). -- mattb@ 2007-02-02T13:42Z
I believe the current understanding is that the light really doesn't bend. It travels straight in spacetime and it is spacetime itself that is distorted by the presence of the mass. The analogy usually used for us non-physicists is to imagine spacetime as a rubber sheet and the massive objects as heavy objects pressing down into that rubber sheet. The depressions thereby formed are analagous to the bends in spacetime.
Light also distorts space-time depending only on it's frequency. The fundamental understanding of Einstein's theories is that Energy and Mass are equivalent. --Tbeatty07:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If i remember correctly Lightning consist of Plasma, which is a super hot gas; gas has mass. in anyway if your talking about lightning i can see why it would bend, however if you were talking about regular light, light accelrates Ions or electrons or something (someone here should know) in anyways these ions or electrons also have a mass (although its not much its still there) that would explain how a high gravity mass can alter light in such ways. Maverick42315:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything about lightning as far as I can tell.Please don't take this the wrong way, but given your second sentence I would suggest reading some of the linked articles.The article on light itself provides a pretty good overview. -- mattb@ 2007-02-02T15:13Z
Meh sorry and thanks for the corrections its been a while since i read or studied about light so i can get my info confused at time =( Maverick42315:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize.I'm by no means an expert on modern physics, and I've probably said some things that aren't totally accurate.Just take a moment sometime to read that article on light. -- mattb@ 2007-02-02T15:40Z
Statistics/Normal Distribution
(repost of a question previously posted on another reference desk and previously moved to the math desk. Te Q and A have been moved there as well. Please do not doublepost.)Edison16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another poision question
Hi there again its me! im sure you know me from my old question from radiation =P anyways here i go again. my curiosity has gotten Intrested in the cyinade (think thats how its spelled). Cyinade Poisioning yes it says its fast and kills rapidly, but exactly how does it do it? What does a person feel (yes i am intrested in stuff like this as you can see) when they get cyinade poison? does the skin melt does the person feel immense pain or is it just a drink and fall dead with no feelings of the poison coursing through your body?? what about the range of cyinade? how far can it reach if a cup of it was spilled on the floor and how fast does it evaproate? there are lots of questions about this i want awnsered but well i dont know if people sugar coat it when they talk about it or what but please guys DONT sugar coat it i am intrested in the raw effects of it. thanks Maverick42315:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok try not to get carried away - the skin does not melt.
Cyanide poisons (in one way I know of) by complexing to metal ions such as the iron in haemoglobin - (it may be poisonous in other ways) - this is similar to carbon monoxide poisoning - effectively you aspyhyxiate due to lack off oxygen.
In the case of swallowing cyanide choking and spluttering occurs - followed by loss of conciousness - the death. There is not much pain - but the choking and spluttering is unpleasant but not that bad.. People poisoned by cyanide can be saved - the longer they are out the less chance they have of surviving.
Sodium cyanide and potassium cyanide are solids - as solutions they may produce a small amount of hydrogen cyanide - adding an acid to a cyanide salt will produce the hydrogen cyanide gas - this is capable of spreading - I don't know how fast though.
Alright great info man thanks much! so then what they say about cyanide being a quick and painless death is a lie? i kinda figured there was something about that line. well anymore information is greatly appreciated as for me i got some stuff to look at thanks again! Maverick42315:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid much of the above is incorrect. Cyanide does not act on hemoglobin, but on cytochrome oxidase, as a metabolic poison. Cytochrome oxidase is an important electron carrier in the electron transport chain. It is a necessary component of mitochondrial respiration, and without it the mitochondria are not able to induce a proton gradient for their ATPase. Cyanide binds to cytochrome oxidase and renders it useless. Also, death from cyanide poisoning would probably not be very painful; first, it only takes about a minute to become unconscious with a reasonable dose, and second, reduced ATP would not be likely to initiate nociception in the appropriate nerves until long after a victim was unconscious (if at all). Usually the "choking and spluttering" described above does not happen while the patient is conscious. A time course might look like this: cyanide is introduced to bloodstream, cyanide enters central nervous system and renders the (high ATP consuming) neurons unable to function, unconsciousness occurs, cyanide in heart renders Ca++ uptake/sarcomere resetting impossible via reduced ATP, cardiac arrest occurs, rest of cells in body die either from cyanide exposure/ATP paucity or anoxia resultant from cardiac arrest. tucker/rekcut22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put more layers of clothing on. Eating spicy food feels like it does too, but I don't know if it does. A hot drink and hot food. Lower your exposed surface area by huddling as tightly as you can. Skittle17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spicy foods actually help lower body temperature. Thats one of the reasons why they are consumed in warmer climates. --Russoc404:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there foods that I can eat during the day (at work) that causes the LEAST gas?I seems that no matter what I eat, I end up feeling uncomforatable all day or until I relieve myself...
As you know, we can't give medical advice. But I think it's safe to mention that any carbonated beverages (such as soda) will free their carbon dioxide gas inside of you and it's got to go somewhere.
This shouldn't be a request for medical advise.If you would like for me to rephrase it, what type of foods would cause the least amount of gas produced in the stomach for humans?I am assuming that vegatables like broccoli is one of the culprits, but what other types of foods?
I infrequently get cramps in various muscles.Most often in my calves.However, I have found that I can make myself get these cramps very easily byholding my calves or bicepts in a flexed position.My question is what do these cramps do to the muscles in which they occur?Is it like lifting weights at all, or is it somehow detrimental?Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.100.66 (talk • contribs).
How does your leg feel afterwards – better or worse? Vranak
I really enjoyed the rotating 3d image of CD28 on your CD28 page.My question is simply that I would like to know if I could use your .gif format software (code) to portray the 3d structure of another protein molecule for which I have the .pdb file (3d coordinates)on my website?Can you please help me with how to do this if it is indeed legal?Thanks again for another terrific Wikipedia page, as always!
Don Kaiser
<Rm email to reduce spam>
If you click on the image, you will find yourself on a page that indicates who created it...ask him how he did it. I've used the free Jmol program to make 3D molecular models from PDB files. I think it can export animated gif images, but not sure. DMacks20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
recently came accross a person suffering from peculiar problem of loosing blood from skin,has already supplemented 3 bottles of blood in last 2 year.Seems condition is detoriaoting day by day.Blood report are about to come in few days.Pls advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.247.53 (talk • contribs).
Are you the patient, a friend of the patient, the nurse, or what? Your IP suggests Australia. Don't they have an established health system there which could diagnose and treat the problem? Edison03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hovercrafts
Is it possible that in the next 20-30 years, we would have hovercrafts as a normal mode of transportation replacing automobiles?
I think it's unlikely since hovercrafts expend (quite a lot of) energy just to keep themselves of the ground - so I'd suggest that they are intrinsically less efficient. Plus they are not as easy to steer as cars especially in a high wind - they definately wouldn't be good on motorways - unless they had big bumpers like dodgems. Given that it seems important to increase fuel efficiency I think the answer is definately most unlikely.83.100.183.4820:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know about hover cars however i do know that this car has been in prototype testing for quite some time and is already being considered for mass production soon! check out the Moller SkycarMaverick42320:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw kieff come on its possable sooner now then later. after all they are getting the permission from that agency that says its ok to fly them. since the car is also in production and has actually flown, the chances of it comming out soon is great. Moller said his car was going to come out by 2008 and then mass produced by 2012. people have already bought the car itself and are going to recive it soon. also in Iran they are also making a flying car that is going to be used in rescue and police related instances. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/31/israel.flying.car.ap/index.htmlhttp://www.moller.com/purc.htm
dont ya worry the flying car has full safety features including backup engines, full car parchute, GPS locater, Automatic GPS Driver. simply enter the place you want to go and sit back and read a book the car will do the rest itself! Read Mollers Website to find out more on the car itself. Crashes will be reduced massively! Maverick42322:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing has barely hovered so far, and this project has been going on as far as I can remember. I can't see something like that becoming mainstream and affordable in the near future. — Kieff | Talk01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Snails Have Eyelids?
I was wondering if snails have eyelids.
Thanks!
It seems not - but the eyes are on muscular stalks and can be retracted - in fact snails don't have very good eyes apparently - relying more on touch and taste - the entire body is a bit like one big tongue.
Does deep fat frying potato chips (including the skins) reduce the nutritional value? I don't care about the fat that's added (I only eat them on occasion) but rather the nutrients that may be leached out or otherwise rendered useless. --SeansPotato Business20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some vitamins, Vitamin C for example (and including other water-soluble vitamins if I'm not mistaken), are sensitive to high cooking temperatures. Although this section seems to contradict what I said (but note the fact tag), so maybe my belief is in error. Anchoress21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flash frying (don't know if we have an article) preserves many sensitive compounds due to the short time the stuff in the the pan - plus I don't think water solubilty has a lot to do with it - that would be boiling - it's all a matter of degree - it's usually air (oxygen) that degrades vit C - so a minute at 200C probably won't make much difference - though obviously prolonger frying will degrade all the nutrients.83.100.183.4821:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule I'd say no - with modern preparation methods the degredation is very small - the time on the shelves way have a bigger role - though if the food package is airtight/block out light this shouldn't be a problem either - In general the nutritional value is increased by frying - by virtue of the increase in calorific value due to the fat; this doesn't apply if you are supposed to be on a diet obviously..83.100.183.4821:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However if the edits get too much for you, you can always fall back on our good old friend [citation needed] - use {{fact}} - I'd suggest removing debateable parts to the talk page - stating your reasons for the removal and suggesting that adequate citations are provided before it's readdition.83.100.183.4821:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the one you pointed out is the one I'm having most trouble living with. I don't mind speculations, but this guy is putting things down as fact, with no way to check its veracity. He's editing a lot of articles too. Xiner (talk, email) 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the method of removing and asking for citations - that's the way here I've learnt - even if the guy's right... Mention that the information must be verifyable - see Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" that's official policy.
It looks like they are adding fairly respectable explanations-I wouldn't expect it to be difficult to find citations for them - but I doubt that those explanations are the only subsets of the theories out there..I'm sure there are many other ones - The article might need a rewrite to cover the various possibilities and explanations thereof - with a non-contentious introduction.
I'd say the second paragraph about the 'origin from nothing' either has or should have it's own article - the info is relevant - but I'm not sure how much in the context of the article being called 'big bang' - it would be worth pointing out that the two theories are consistent in this respect - but I don't think in the main body of the article - maybe in a 'comparison with other cosmological theories' section. If the two were inconsistent that would be worth noting too.83.100.183.4821:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this text "the x is y because of z" because I'm unsure/think it's wrong/think it's exaggerated/think it's in the wrong place...
Could somebody please provide a reference for this infomation before re-adding it.
or
This is not relevant to the section it's in and should be in a new/existing section - I will/could you create such a section..
or
Shouldn't this be in a separate article - named '....' -
I wouldn't recommend just removing stuff without pasting it to the talk page - that can be annoying/seem aggressive.. (unless of course it is obviously vandalism - not the case here).
If you copy debated stuff to the talk page then they can discuss it there or they haven't got a leg to stand on - separates the reasonable from the unreasonable people. Also (from experience) if someone makes grammatical changes - don't revert - make little edits (taking into account their addition) until the article is satisfactory to all of you - that works too (though it can be very time consuming) -
I was reading the article stick bomb and a quick google search on it didn't really tell on how to construct one. Is there a website that shows how, that perhaps I missed? --Proficient21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be the basic popsicle stick bomb I made as a kid. Somebody will have to whip up the 3D software and make a model! (Perhaps me, one day). --Zeizmic22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that article a copy-vio, or is it just really weirdly written? I can't see any of it on Google, but Google isn't the world. I've never heard of stick bombs before, so I can't really do more than remove references to an 'Author'. Anyone here able to improve it? Skittle22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, and I'm guessing that's not their running name then. The current article is an obvious self-promotion by that Tim guy, so if you guys think this stuff is notable enough for an article, rename, rewrite and get us some sources. — Kieff | Talk01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know the definition of the point drag coefficient? What I know is as follows...
where is the drag coefficient of the aerofoil, and c is the chord length. is apparently the point drag coefficient. Can anyone tell me the definition of ? I have the distribution over the aerofoil, which I presume is needed. Thanks! Readro22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point drag coefficient (or section drag , as I learned it) is the coefficient of drag for a 2-D cross section, with chord length replacing wetted area to nondimensionalize the drag per section span. It seems what you have is the definition, that is if you split the wing into infinitely small cross sections, each cross section will have a section drag coefficient. Integrating all of these over the wing span gives the total drag coefficient . anonymous649400:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
February 3
Abs and Resting Time
How often can you work out your abs without them needing rest? I've heard that you can work out the abs nearly every day, whereas the other muscles need rest. Why the difference? Also, how much resting time is needed for abs? PitchBlack03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any real sources, but google results did say to treat your abs like any other muscle and excercize them about 3 times a week. On a related note, 6 Week Abs has 7 myths about abs. I'm curious now too, because when I used to work out (yea, yea, I got lazy), I could lift barely more than I weigh with my upper body, but I can use ab machines at max weight and not have them hurt afterwards while my arms did. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A plant that is also a pathogen
I recently added to the article protothecosis that Prototheca was the only known pathogen that is also a plant. I got this from the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. Is it true, or am I forgetting some other plant that causes an infectious disease? --Joelmills04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI friends,I have undertaken a project "Multi-axis wireless control for Robots".In it's details,all I have to do is to control the robot using my transmitter pad.I have planed to use 5 to 6 keypads to control different axis.Then at the receiving end,using some RF module,the data is decoded and it will be used to control the relay using a microcontroller and ULN driver.Which will then be interfaced to PLC for robotic arm movement....For this entry level,I have stuck somewhere in choosing the exact means of communication.At first someone stated to go for IR,later someone suggested RF and now few others state to pick bluetooth for industrial standard...Now I have decided to ask to you guys in this forum so that I can get a good solution for this..For IR based TX and RX,I have seen many circuits practically used,but I still can't get one for multiple device control...For Rf based TX and RX,I tried MAXIM-1472(TX) and 1473(RX)...All pin connections and other spec seems pretty nice but I'm not able to get any practical circuits for it's contruction.I also tried Cypress wireless solution.But the practical construction seems almost impossible...Should I have to only buy modules?.Isn't there any other solution?..Guys can anyone get me some more detailed view in designing using such SOCs please?..I don't know what type of data format that should be used for this chip.No proper details in Maxim Website...I tried...Please someone help me out...And about bluetooth project,I have simply no idea...I thank you all in advance for you consideration..Looking up for the suggestions........ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.96.23.95 (talk • contribs).
I'm slightly confused about what you're asking. When you mean practical circuit, you mean you can't do it because the traces of the MAX1472 and 1473 are too small, or you don't have a schematic? IIRC, one of those is TSSOP and have a pin clearance of like 0.2 mm or something tiny. There are adaptors available for them, I believe, which cost around $10 a piece. But even then, they're surface mount. I'm not sure what your level is, etc, so it's hard to tell if I can even provide you an answer when you ask for a more detailed view in designing. The datasheet usually has that kind of info, and the 1472/1473 uses SPI I believe. If the problem is that you're making prototypes, you should look for DIP packages for chips to construct them easily. Somehow, I doubt I helped any, so do tell if anything applies, and if not, what info you need (design software, RF packages, comparison of RF / Bluetooth / IR, etc). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does window gel work?
My kids have window gel toy stickers (hearts, snow flakes, and so on) that stick to non-porous surfaces like windows, mirrors, and metal. They don't stick to fingers. From my research all I've been able to determine is that window gel toys are primarily manufactured in China and South America, mostly Brazil.
What is window gel made of? How is it made? How does it work? Does it leave a film behind?
