Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:03, 25 February 2022

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/S

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

February 18

Has anyone ever tabulated element yields in the r-process

The r-process produces heavy as well as light elements and I've seen many papers graphically displaying the expected element yields for a given mass number and electron fraction, but none displaying them in tabular format. Anyone know one that does? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? Pritychenko, Boris (2020). "Determination of Solar System R-Process Abundances using ENDF/B-VIII.0 and TENDL-2015 libraries". arXiv:2012.06728 [astro-ph.SR]. --Amble (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Where do birds go in a bad storm?

We just had one in England, so it got me thinking. I live by the sea, so I know what the gulls do. They either go far out to sea and ride out the storm on the water, or try to fly above the storm. Or they go inland and find an open space (less risk of flying objects), such as a field and hunker down until it's over. I think it depends on the strength and type of storm.

The seagulls are physically strong, thick plumaged birds and powerful flyers, however. What do the rest of them, do? I'm thinking of the ubiquitous urban pigeons, sparrows, crows, starlings and such. --Iloveparrots (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some can perch in thick trees with claws that grasp automatically when muscles are relaxed. Others may gather on the leeward side of structures, vegetations, or forests. See 1 2 3 4. Most still need to feed and drink, however, especially to maintain body temperature against the weather. Sometimes they find insects hiding in the same places as they are from the storm. Sometimes they're unlucky and starve or exhaust themselves, even for seabirds who can fly with the storm or shelter within its eye as long as they keep pace with its movements. On a personal note, it's not uncommon to find birds under/inside people's domiciles around here during a major storm. GeorgiaDC (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The gulls come inland. When I lived in Whitley Bay, Tyneside we could always tell when there was bad weather out at sea, the school playing fields (about a mile inland) were covered in gulls. What's more, even if disturbed they walked, hopped or if they had to made a short flight. They certainly did not want to be up in the air. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are always lots of gulls in Birmingham and we're about as far from the sea as you can get. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some original research: at the height of the storm at midday on Friday in Hertfordshire (about 45 miles from the Essex coast), there were blue tits, great tits, nut hatches, a robin and a lesser spotted woodpecker at my birdfeeder which was swinging around violently. So I think the answer must be that they keep calm and carry on. Many garden birds are territorial, [1] so they won't stray far from home. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The robin sits in a barn to keep himself warm. DuncanHill (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed by xkcd. CodeTalker (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of storms move in from the seas. Bad idea to try to ride them out out there. And storm systems can extend far up in the atmosphere. Think how many planes have crashed because they fly into instrument conditions up there. 74.64.73.24 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Err, since GB is an island, ALL storms move in from the sea! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Many types of storm form directly over land. ----

Our little island is a bit too small for any of that. Nearly all of our storms are second-hand from the Atlantic. On the rare occasions that they come from Continental Europe, watch out!. Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork Orange, the Ludovico technique - would it actually have worked?

For anyone who didn't see the film or read the book, it involved aversion therapy. The government, in the story was experimenting with curing criminal behaviour by exposing people to graphic images of violence, rape, war, genocide and such while simultaneously pumping them full of drugs which brought upon a feeling of sickness and a "death like, paralysis state". The idea being that long term mental associations would be formed that would cause even the thought of doing such things to make it physically impossible to act upon such impulses because of permanent changes to the psyche. Like a an aggressive thought would cause the sickness and paralysis to return until the person purposefully rejected that thought, the idea being that it was now physically impossible for the subject of the experiment to commit an aggressive act.

The story was obviously a warning against such things. That it was better to be a bad man than to be compelled to "goodness" against one's will.

Question I have here, is would this have actually worked in real life? I know that attempts at aversion therapy WRT things like homosexually didn't work, so I'm curious. I'm suspecting that various governments probably tried such things over the years. Just watched the movie on DVD... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveparrots (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reports on the effectiveness of aversion therapy are a mixed bunch, and controlled experiments described in sufficient detail to make them repeatable are rare. When reasonably effective at all, this appears to depend on the condition being treated. There is no body of established psychological theory that would allow one to predict the effectiveness of operant conditioning by torture for what seems to be sociopathy. --Lambiam 10:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Classical Conditioning in “A Clockwork Orange” from Psychology Today. Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

Onion in sock

Is it true that sleeping with a onion in your sock is a good remedy for the common cold? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Surprisingly, I can even cite a source to support my answer. there have not been any scientific studies that have looked at this specifically is code for "that hypothesis would violate so many rules of physics and biology that no serious researcher would devote time to testing it, no serious funding agency would give money to study it, and no serious journal would publish results about it".

@OP: since you asked here, presumably you thought it was possible the answer was "yes". I would encourage you to examine why you believe so. I suspect the answer is that someone told you, and possibly that someone added that they did it and it worked. Citing from Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context:

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. (...) For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:

There's abundant proof that drinking water cures cancer. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. After drinking water she was cured.

Anecdotes like this do not prove anything. In any case where some factor affects the probability of an outcome, rather than uniquely determining it, selected individual cases prove nothing. (...) In medicine, anecdotal evidence is also subject to placebo effects: it is well-established that a patient's (or doctor's) expectation can genuinely change the outcome of treatment. Only double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials can confirm a hypothesis about the effectiveness of a treatment independently of expectations.

Synchronicity is "a person's subjective experience that coincidences between events in their mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated to each other yet have some other unknown connection." Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See randomized controlled trial for the actual method to know if something works. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least some scientists thought it worth their time and effort to conduct a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of garlic as a mosquito repellant, and a peer-reviewed journal published by a highly respected learned society thought this merited publication.^[2] I doubt there are a priori reasons to rule out the effectiveness of sulfur compounds exuded by onions as providing relief for the common cold, any more than there are reasons to rule out a role for zinc supplements. --Lambiam 18:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eating onion or smelling or onion vapors can very plausibly produce a biological effect. The "put it in a sock" part, less so. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, according to National Onion Association, the claim that raw onion can treat the flu is "a theory that dates back to the 1500s" and "In recent years, many articles online have claimed that this folk remedy is effective." One assumes those national onions are American ones. Maybe it's something that would be used by Novak Djokovic who, in 2020, spoke of his knowledge of "some people" using "prayer" and "gratitude" to "turn the most toxic food, or maybe most polluted water into the most healing water."?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC) p.s. onions can be quite large, so presumably you'd need and extra large sock to accommodate one?[reply]

Between 1946 and 1989, the British Government funded the Common Cold Unit, where volunteers could have an all-expenses-paid holiday on Salisbury Plain, provided that they were willing to be infected with one of the many cold viruses, in the hope that a cure or effective treatment could be found. The unit eventually closed with the conclusion that there was none. Whether they experimented with onions-in-socks seems unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onions are mentioned here but only as "In ancient Egypt, cold sufferers were told to treat it by reciting a magical spell, while the ancient Romans recommended wolf's liver in mulled wine. Other “treatments” have included eating mustard or milk-soaked onions, wearing nutmeg around your neck, or inhaling chlorine gas." I guess they never thought of putting their feet in the milk-soaked onions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onions might help open up your breathing passageway, although putting them in socks doesn't seem like the best placement. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't put on clean socks (and wash your feet), you may smell sufficiently strongly as to make people keep their distance, which will actually lessen your chances of catching a cold, etc., from them.

Actually, I believe the original idea was to hang the onion-bearing sock around your neck, and it may be that this traditional belief has persisted orally from a couple or more centuries ago, when (for poor people at any rate), washing bodies and clothes was a luxury (geddit?) of cost and time that could less often be afforded. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.191 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder it didn't work! Everyone knows you need to wear the onion on your belt, which was the style at the time. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question was about a possible remedy, not a prophylactic. [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever told you this doesn't know their onions about cures. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They should get on their bike. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brings to mind the old saying: An apple a day keeps the doctor away. An onion a day keeps everybody away. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onions (and garlic, peppers and a few other vegetables) have significant amounts of sulfur, which makes your breath smell bad but is supposedly good for your health,[4] or maybe bad for it.[5] Dunno about putting them in your socks though. Back in my day, we wore them on our belts, which was the style at the time. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

Why did JWST send first images too early?

I believe JWST would take 6 months to send first images, but it send too early i.e on 3 February 2022 Source, why so? Rizosome (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They need the images to align the mirrors and calibrate everything. It takes six months to finish the alignment so that the telescope can send good-quality science images. What is maybe a bit surprising is that they publish calibration images, but that helps keep the public, including yourself, interested. Incidentally, the website you linked only contains simulated images, not real ones. I've put a real one up here (source is [6]). --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the answer from this line: They need the images to align the mirrors and calibrate everything. Rizosome (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

February 23

Are there any animals that have knees that bend the opposite way to ours?

I know it's a common misconception that birds have backwards knees. What looks like a knee is actually the ankle and what looks like the lower leg is actually the foot and what looks like the foot is just the toes.

Are there any animals that do have knees that bend backwards, compared to our knees? --Iloveparrots (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insects? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stricly speaking, only primates have knees. See Knee#Other_animals.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, bees don't have knees after all? --Bumptump (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the uncited claim on Wikipedia that "only primates have knees". It is trivially easy to find scientific papers about, eg elephant knees, avian knees, cow and horse knees. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They probably meant to say that only primates have -well- primate knees. Elephants, on the other hand, have -mmm- elephant knees. They differ, for example, that our knees don't have an extended resting position (like horses' and so on).

Historically, it was a common misconception to believe that animal had no knees, and could not stand-up if tipped over: see Cow_tipping#Historical_origins. Bumptump (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Question (I couldn’t come up with a better title)

Is there a name for the point between any two celestial bodies A and B, that any object C placed at that point will be equally affected by the gravity of both celestial bodies (feel the same amount of newtons of gravitational force from both celestial bodies)? Also, is there an equation to calculate how far said point is from the two celestial bodies, provided that they’re M meters apart, Body A has a mass of K kilograms, and Body B has a mass of H kilograms? Primal Groudon (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across "gravitational midpoint" used with this meaning -- either in reference to a point on the straight line between A and B, or to a point on the orbit that object C is following that brings it near both bodies (such as a spacecraft from the Earth to the Moon).

Newton's law of universal gravitation tells us that if object C is at the gravitational midpoint on the straight line between A and B, and is at distance X from body A, then K/X² = H/(M-X)². This simplifies to give a quadratic equation that can be solved for X. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange point? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, that's a different concept. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any name of this gravitational equilibrium point between two stationary masses. Yes, there an equilibrium point, and 184.144... has given the equation for it, but it's usually not a very interesting point. It's an unstable equilibrium and it only remains there when the the masses are kept stationary, despite the gravity they exert on each other. In space there's no way to keep these masses at fixed positions. They can be kept at a fixed separation if they orbit each other. In that case there's a new unstable equilibrium point, called the L1 Lagrange point, where the test mass can orbit with the other masses, but this is displaced from the point of no force towards the heavier mass. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two stationary masses will not remain stationary for long. If there is no relative motion between them, they begin to will move towards each other along a straight line with a relative acceleration proportional to their masses, until they crash into each other. That's how gravity works. --Jayron 32 13:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that it gets a bit more complicated that that. Bodies A and B will be in orbit around their combined centre of mass. In the case of the Earth-Moon system the barycentre is just over 1,000 miles below the Earth's surface. In such a case as this an object at the gravitational neutral point would be in orbit around the Earth and the circular path would contribute its own forces to add to the simple linear equation above. I beg to differ slightly with PiusImpavidus; in the media it was a very interesting point when the Apollo spacecraft started to accelerate towards the Moon (or the Earth on the return journey). IIRC it was a headline over the lead story for Apollos 8 and 11. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they have existing motion, then yes you are correct. I was making the point about stationariness (and the lack thereof ion the real world) that PiusImpavidus stated when he said "gravitational equilibrium point between two stationary masses". There is no equilibrium between two stationary masses that are not in contact; they will move towards each other. Such equilibrium (whether stable or meta-stable) will only exist if the bodies are in relative motion, at which point the most common stable set up is some kind of elliptical orbit. That orbit has lagrange points. If you were to place two bodies in space stationary to each other, they would start moving towards each other instantly (well, speed-of-light instantly, but you know). --Jayron 32 17:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Apollos entered the Moon's Hill sphere at that point (in time!). This is delimited by a surface, not defined by a point (in space). --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intersection of a surface and a line (the trajectory) is a point though! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the lab it can be done. You can put two large lead spheres on a very strong table, put a test mass inbetween and measure the horizontal force on the test mass. The force will be small, nanonewtons, but it can be done and there will be an unstable equilibrium point where the force on the test mass is zero. Such force measurements can be used to determine the gravitational constant. The lead spheres won't move that easily. But with celestial bodies, no way to keep the masses stationary. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is the Huisheng (Kengan Ashura) have a basis on reality?

So in the Kengan Ashura manga, there's a technique called Huisheng. (more details in the wikia article here.

TLDR version of the technique is that a person tells a child all about himself (memories, likes, dislikes etc.) several times in his lifetime until he dies. In turn that child, now a grown up, will pass it to the younger generation. Of course you can also use audio recordings and earphones for more convenience. The point of the technique is that the personality is passed down orally through the generations, making it some sort of pseudo immortality for the original personality.

Does a similar technique exists IRL? --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If audio recordings are used, one can skip a few generations. And why tie this to spoken text? One can also write it down. This technique exists IRL and is known as "autobiography". --Lambiam 10:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oral tradition is the term, and is known in some form in just about every culture throughout history. --Jayron 32 13:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just with a little brainwashing thrown in I guess. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another fictional version is Fahrenheit 451 (1966 film), in a dystopian future where all books are banned. The Book People hide in a forest, each memorises an entire novel before destroying the physical book and then has to teach it word-for-word to a child before they die. Alansplodge (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any equation for tidal heating in a subsurface ocean?

I've been looking for an approximative tidal heating equation akin to the one presented at Tidal heating ${\dot {E}}_{\text{Tidal}}=-\operatorname {Im} (k_{2}){\frac {21}{2}}{\frac {GM_{h}^{2}R^{5}ne^{2}}{a^{6}}}$ for bodies with a subsurface ocean, but I can't find one. Publications about Enceladus, Europa and the like don't provide one, either, only solutions specific for these bodies and these aren't general enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of results from Google Scholar. Have you gone through them and not found what you're looking for? GeorgiaDC (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, all what I found are calculations specific for one moon or the other. They aren't generalizable. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Union Oxford; What's it?

Is this organisation an academic body of any academic standing? https://oau.ebaoxford.co.uk/ Recently they seem to have conferred some honorary position on one Sabu Thomas who blows his own trumpet rather too loud, if his fancy website http://www.sabuthomas.com/ is any indication. (The article on the scientist could be autobiographical. Most of the contributions come from the IP of the institution the subject works at. Then there is a contributor named Iiucnn who seems to have made no contribution to any other article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narrativist (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this press release. It does not read like a rejoinder by a respectable organization. Not only is the style that of a scam artist who is exposed, but the content is demonstrably dishonest. As reported, journalist Prega Govender of the (South African) Sunday Times was indeed rebuked, but not for an article about this Academic Union Oxford. The rebuke was for an article about a new sex-ed textbook rolled out in South Africa. Govender did write an article under the title "Oxford scam artists turn Bloemfontein principal into a fake prof";^[7] the "scam artists" are the AUO. It is behind a paywall, but the basic facts revealed in the article can be found here. --Lambiam 16:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Lambiam. Guess that unmasks the organisation enough.--Narrativist (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

Celestial bodies named after Greek mythology - c or k?

When the IAU names a celestial body after a figure from the Greek mythology - what does it depend on whether they use a spelling most truthful to the Greek original (namely with the letter k) or the Latinized spelling (namely with c) - see e.g. Eukelade vs. Carme (moon) ? --KnightMove (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure, as Astronomical naming conventions does not specifically say, but in general, naming rights are generally granted as an honor to the first discoverer of something, AFAIK, that is both how IUPAC handles the naming of chemical elements and how ICZN handles the naming of animal species. According to the article you linked, Carme was named in 1938 by its discoverer for Carme, which appears to have been spelled with a C in English since before the moon was named. --Jayron 32 13:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense... but still Eukelade was also discovered by a US team, and she is written with a c in English?! --KnightMove (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because "ce" in English often makes an "s" sound. Lots of Greek names in English also maintain k in the spelling; Eukelade (the muse) is such a minor character I can't find much on her, but it isn't hard to find English using "k" in Greek mythological names, Keres, Nike, etc. --Jayron 32 13:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --KnightMove (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Name conflicts with minor planets includes some examples where a moon and an asteroid only differ by this same c/k. For example, 53 Kalypso and Calypso (moon), 548 Kressida and Cressida (moon). --Amble (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, speaking generally U S spelling does have a preference for k over c - example the Jewish festival known in America as Hanukkah and in Britain as Chanucah. Of course, there is no exact transliteration. 92.8.218.139 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 ::::Thank you very much! --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 15:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 :The article [[Name conflicts with minor planets]] includes some examples where a moon and an asteroid only differ by this same c/k. For example, [[53 Kalypso]] and [[Calypso (moon)]], [[548 Kressida]] and [[Cressida (moon)]]. --[[User:Amble|Amble]] ([[User talk:Amble|talk]]) 18:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
+::Yes, speaking generally U S spelling does have a preference for ''k'' over ''c'' - example the Jewish festival known in America as ''Hanukkah'' and in Britain as ''Chanucah''.   Of course, there is no exact transliteration. [[Special:Contributions/92.8.218.139|92.8.218.139]] ([[User talk:92.8.218.139|talk]]) 17:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 = February 25 =