Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 26

rare and hazardous research chemicals

Name a few chemicals that are hazardous, used rarely and applied for novel research purposes (ex:certain toxins that are researched in very few laboratories against deadly unusual microbes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that what your teacher asked you to do on your homework? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

nope. I am aware that advise and homeworks are not discussed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If it looks like homework, sounds like homework, smells like homework, it probably is homework. You've asked a question in a way that probably 1000's, even millions, of chemicals, toxins, virus particles, and other substances might qualify. And it should be easy to think of a few if you give it a moment's thought - a few more moments' thought might suggest some words to google. Why don't you just run your eye over the periodic table and look up a few promising elements? Some of the high weight elements have only been synthesied in one or two labs at considerable effort just to get a few atoms. If you narrow it down a bit what you want to class as rare, and tell us what steps you have taken so far to find out, i.e., show us you are not just lazy, we might feel more inclined to do a bit of digging for you. Floda 58.164.226.231 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that those superheavy elements are not really used for what your question seems to classify as novel research purposes – there's not much time to do much with them before they decay, given their short half-lives. Pure research is more like it. Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• my favorite Brevetoxin --Stone (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This blog[1] is a source of wonderful stories about chemicals that no sane person would handle, usually because they're explosive, corrosive, or incredibly smelly - all backed up with references to actual research that has used them. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Of these chemicals, the only one I've ever had to work with is anhydrous hydrogen fluoride (we used it, and still use it, in the alkylation unit at the refinery). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bacterial infection before antibiotics

I know before the discovery of antibiotics, herbs were used to treat bacterial infection. Is there any information available about the success rate of this treatment? --PlanetEditor (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any quantitative information, but the basic answer is: dismal. No herbal treatment comes anywhere close to penicillin. For superficial infections, the most effective primitive treatments are probably either licking the wound (saliva is a pretty potent antibiotic) or spreading honey on it. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Or Maggot therapy. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Or putting a poultice of moldy bread on it, as the ancient Greeks had done (but that is actually a primitive form of antibiotic treatment, they just didn't know it at the time). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Researching it takes me to links about how we are almost back to the pre-antibiotics era (due to superbugs). Maybe we will have to use greatpa's antibiotics again. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Train related engineering questions

1) Is it possible to increase train speed by doubling current train width?

2) Why China reduce its train speed from 350 to 300km/h, does reducing the speed by 50km/h also increase the train safety? Why?

3) What's the main propulsion inside fast train? Electric motor?

4) With current technology, is it cheaper to build a bridge or a tunnel below sea? roscoe_x (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I numbered your Q's for ease of response:

1) Doubling width does not automatically allow for an increase in speed. In fact, you want to minimize cross sectional area (≈height×width) to reduce drag.

2) Any decrease in speed increases safety, since it reduces the chances of a crash and also the severity.

3) There are a variety of propulsion systems used, but the best choice, IMHO, is to not have any engine on-board, and instead deliver energy using the tracks, as in a mag-lev train.

4) A bridge is cheaper in shallow water, and a tunnel in deep water (due to the height of the supports needed for a bridge). StuRat (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

1) Widening does indeed allow for faster turning.

2) Operating below maximum speed is standard practice, as it allows trains to make up time following delays.

3) High Speed Trains generally use electric motors. Delivery of propulsion from the track, as is proposed above, would incur absurdly large infrastructure costs and is not a sensible proposal for a large network.

4) A bridge is cheaper for crossing water. Building a tunnel under deep water requires a deep tunnel which is also absurdly expensive. A tunnel is used for going under mountains or the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.76.114 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

1) Perhaps, if you mean wider and shorter. But wider and proportionally taller doesn't help.

3) You need to read up on maglev trains: [2].

4) The cost of building tunnels under deep water rises more slowly with additional depth than the cost of bridges does. Hence the Chunnel, as opposed to a bridge. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, "chidge" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

2) Per High-speed rail in China#Corruption and concerns, the official line is that "This was in response to concerns over safety, low ridership due to high ticket prices, and high energy usage." Suspicious people (like me) speculate that it is because of corruption in the construction that may compromise safety. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

1) The main problem with doubling width is that it would necessitate a change in loading gauge, and almost certainly in track gauge. High speed trains run on regular tracks at least part of the time, if only to be taken for servicing and so on. And I understand that the Chinese authorities are trying to increase the adherence to Standard Gauge throughout Eurasia, to try and let their own network link up with other nations', and thus enable truly transcontinental trains. As Russia currently uses Russian Gauge, as do many ex-Soviet nations, that's quite a challenge. Introducing a variant gauge just for high speed would certainly over-complicate the task. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember that according to one of Albert Speer's books, Hitler had a plan for trains twice as large in every dimension which his underlings, citing similar concerns, politely convinced him to defer until after he won the war. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalin had no such inhibitions - see 4-14-4. Tevildo (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

1) I recommend you read up on Brunel's seven-foot gauge.

4) Unless built over very shallow water, a bridge is very limited in its maximum span compared to a tunnel, due to requirements for intermediate supports.

24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the practical limits on the speed of passenger trains on existing track is the lateral g-forces exerted on them in corners. Hence the two ways to increase speeds are:

1. To use larger radius curves - which results in difficulties with using existing track - or even with upgrading existing track without a lot of land purchasing.
2. To attempt what British Rail did with tilting Advanced Passenger Train...which was notoriously unsuccessful.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it the lateral forces on the passengers or train that's the problem ? StuRat (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On the passengers -- they get thrown sideways. Hence the use of "pendular suspension" in many high-speed trains like the aptly-named Italian Pendolino or the Swedish X 2000. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a much simpler fix for that is putting the backs of the seats against the windows (perhaps slanted with the feet forward and head back) and requiring people to remain seated when going through curves. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's supposed to be a joke, right? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Also, looking out the windows at 300 kph can cause nausea even if there's no lateral g's. StuRat (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And just how do you stop people from getting up and walking around, or get them to reseat themselves every time the train approaches a curve? Also, not being able to look out the window on a curve can cause worse nausea than in the scenario you describe. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The same way you get them to sit on airplanes when they encounter turbulence. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Turbulence on an airplane happens much less frequently than curves on a railroad line. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also less predictable. Being able to plan the exact times people need to remain seated is quite helpful. And airplane passengers also need to remain seated during take-off and landings. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the pax would appreciate being forced to sit in their seats more than half the time, which is what would happen on most lines if this solution was adopted. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That certainly is the case on airplanes, where they encourage people to stay seated the entire time, except for when using the bathroom. If making the train tilt correctly doubles the price, I, for one, would rather save the money. StuRat (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding question #4, bridges need not be rigidly anchored to the sea bed. A pontoon bridge design similar to the Lacey V. Murrow Memorial Bridge may be an economic option. Likewise, a tunnel need not be embedded in the sea bed. See submerged floating tunnel. A combination of the two or a bridge-tunnel may be needed to balance shipping and cost considerations. See also transatlantic tunnel. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 16:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't send a bullet train over a pontoon bridge or through a submerged floating tunnel -- it would break apart. And a bridge-tunnel crossing can only be built in shallow water -- it needs intermediate islands (natural or artificial) for the transition between bridge and tunnel or vice versa. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't mechanical resonance be defeated by good engineering (or even by some kind of computer controlled active compensatory mechanism)? Wnt (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not for such an inherently flexible structure as a pontoon bridge or floating tunnel -- not over the full range of vibrational frequencies produced by a fast train, anyway. Hell, it's not even possible to drive a fast train over a suspension bridge, for the same reason -- so why would a pontoon bridge be any better? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Roche limit for black holes

where is Roche limit for any black hole?Akbarmohammadzade --78.38.28.3 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Black holes do not have Roche limit. They are essentially inviolable. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that answer is true, at least in a sense, but it is a bit unsatisfying to me. The Roche limit is a point where part of an object is going to fall away from it. How could something inside an event horizon fall away from the center? To illustrate, the Roche limit article says that a satellite can only be torn apart if its density is less than twice that of the primary, because otherwise the limit is inside the primary - so anything that could bring a black hole to the Roche limit would be darn near one already. And so my assumption is that the black hole + primary become a big rotating black hole. But note that a rotating black hole has a ring singularity, and so one can argue that you have disrupted the innards of the black hole and turned them into an "orbiting ring of debris" in some very, very loose sense. I'm not really giving you an answer with this, just making an appeal for an imaginative consideration by one of the experts. :) Wnt (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting question that I've never thought about before. There are a bunch of papers/preprints about it on the arXiv. According to arXiv:0705.1570 (which has pictures), the event horizon is distorted by the tidal force into a cigar shape. This actually surprises me, because the event horizon of a rotating black hole is not distorted: it's a sphere with no equatorial bulge. The singularity remains a point/line (I think), but the Planckian region, where the curvature exceeds the Planck curvature and therefore general relativity is presumably wrong, is flattened like a pancake. The paper mentions that there's a threshold tidal force beyond which the pancake extends outside the event horizon, giving you a naked singularity (more or less). This might imply the existence of a (mass-dependent) maximum tidal force analogous to the maximum rotational speed of a rotating black hole (beyond which you get a naked singularity). I'm not sure how this force could actually be achieved, though, since it seems to require another black hole essentially touching the first.

arXiv:0910.4311 mentions that a black hole orbiting another body will gain mass from tidal friction, and I assume (though it doesn't say so) that it would eventually become tidally locked to the other body. This isn't directly relevant to the question, but it's interesting. -- BenRG (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks all. It might be two Roche limit for any black hole .One of them outer than event horizon and other inner it as we know all objects elongate infinitive there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbarmohammadzade (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to frame the question properly. The Roche limit for a body applies in relation to another, and depends upon properties of both (the mass of the primary, and the density and configuration of the secondary). Thus, the Roche limit of a (normal matter) body orbiting a black hole (the primary) will be the radius from the black hole where the object will disintegrate under the influence of tidal forces, and this will typically be far outside the event horizon of the black hole for smaller black holes, but inside the event horizon for supermassive black holes such as in the centre of the galaxy. The radius of a black hole's event horizon is proportional to its mass. The Roche limit is proportional to the cube root of the ratio of the black hole's mass and the orbiting body's density. The previous answers assumed that the black hole is the secondary, orbiting an even larger primary. Here the (infinite) density of a non-rotating black hole makes the Roche limit zero radius from the primary's centre, though the rotating case (a Kerr black holes as the secondary) might be interesting, since the singularity presumably differs non-trivially from a spherical configuration. — Quondum 09:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

When we talk about black holes we imagine some thing absorbing and destroying all around it .This is not reality about them. If it is so that any black hole has infinitive mighty and effect at all distance , this has contraction with nature laws. I want to say (as said last about planets round black hole )that the black hole with mass M and rotating properties , has as gravity field as last star .we say if any black hole was any star which had planets , its members will rotate round it safely . if our sun was able to be black hole ,our earth was rotating round it ,without any difference later and after . why we do such mistake ? black hole sun cannot destroy not only low density Saturn but also near mercury ,then we give some hypothetical properties to it, of absorbing all the things? can any black hole absorb its neighborhood star?never .

have you never calculate Roche limit of any black hole?

excuse me --Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)<

Hmmm, there's another problem: there are no stable orbits very close to a non-rotating black hole. See photon sphere. But black holes in such relationships might be rapidly rotating, so sometimes I suppose it is possible... (but I'm out of my depth on this) Wnt (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Shwartz child radius for any star 10 times massive than sun is about 5kilo meters Akbarmohammadzade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.187.90.105 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 1.5 times further it will be about 8 kilometers--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Past article from the Lancet medical journal.

I require a specific article from a past Lancet journal. The article if from 2005 volume366 pages 29-36.IT IS specifically about the ABCD criteria after a TIA (transient ischemic attack). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.248.186 (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is titled A simple score (ABCD) to identify individuals at high early risk of stroke after transient ischaemic attack. If you search for the title at scholar.google.com, you can get access to several downloadable online versions, including this one. This way of finding things works pretty frequently. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is the place to request articles that aren't available free online. -- BenRG (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How does it come that this is legal? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't give legal advice. But you might want to read fair use. 208.102.63.50 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

December 27

measuring in a hypodermic syringe

How does one accurately measure small amounts of medicine in a hypodermic syringe? Is there medication left in the needle after the injection?Tmary (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) The hypodermic syringe usually has markings on the side showing the volume of medicine to be delivered. (2) Yes, there is a small amount of medicine left in the needle after the injection, but it's unusable because it cannot be expelled from the needle, and also because it's mixed with the patient's (possibly infected) blood. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2) I think what they are asking about is if the unused portion remaining in the syringe is accounted for in the markings. I'm not sure, but guess that this amount is insignificant, either way. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(2) All the syringes I've seen are calibrated "to deliver" -- which means that the markings show the volume actually injected. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

also, a standard amount of medicine is in solution by weight per volume in the liquid matrix. So one simply measures a volume of a usually pre-made solution to be injected, rather than measuring some miniscule weight. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the graduations measure the amount in the barrel - so when you suck the liquid inside, you're getting a little extra inside the needle...then when you do the injection, that exact amount is left inside the needle at the end - so the reading on the barrel should be exactly correct no matter the volume inside the needle. I suspect that the limitations on precision are more to do with the skill and eyesight of the operator than anything else. SteveBaker (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a small dead volume in many sorts of equipment. One quick way to avoid it being a problem is to keep its contents constant. That is, if you keep the syringe needle-down, pull the syringe barrel from the 0.0 mL marking to 0.2 mL and then push it out to 0.0 mL, you have picked up and squirted out 0.2 mL. The needle (and the inner part of the Luer lock and other areas) started empty and wind up empty. Or else you could pull to 0.3 mL, invert and push down to 0.2 mL (expelling the air that had been in the needle, etc.). Then when you push to 0.0 mL, you are still ejecting "0.2 mL to 0.0 mL", now indeed wasting the drops in the needle. Either way, you keep the same material in that space, whatever it is does not interfere when the barrel moves a certain number of volume-markings (standard laboratory practice when titrating by volume from a burette). DMacks (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that having a constant 'dead volume' in a syringe depends on the contents being liquid (and specifically aqueous, as water is practically incompressible), i.e. the syringe is commonly tapped to bring any air bubble(s) to the top, and the uppermost contents, liquid and gas alike, are expelled down to the desired precise quantity. Wnt (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Something else I should add is that the syringe should be chosen for the amount of med to be given. You wouldn't use a 100 ml syringe to administer 5 ml of meds, as it would be less accurate at that dosage than a 5 or 10 ml syringe. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The smallest-measuring syringes in common use are insulin syringes. The smaller ones are 0.3 ml or 0.5 ml, and graduated in units that are equivalent in volume to 0.01 ml. The imprecision of delivery has been studied. With careful technique the error of delivery is 0.003 ml or less, but can be higher with poor technique. alteripse (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

decline of space expansion and exploration

I came across an old (pre-70's) transcript of an Earl Nightingale radio broadcast in which he spoke of Seaborg's predictions for the year 2000. Seaborg predicted that moon trips would be commonplace by 1992, and people would be able to go around the world in 2 hours, and that we would be visiting nearby planets by the year 2000. Interesting that he also predicted the 'internet'... he said that people would be able to use radio technology to read books from remote libraries :) Now my question is - why is mankind not devoting resources into space expansion and exploration? Surely, with the large number of extinction events possible, that we would need a 'backup' of mankind in space bases on the moon and beyond? Yes I know the traditional response to this is that it's 'prohibitively' expensive, but surely there's got to be more to it than this? What's the use hoarding or misusing funds if a comet can wipe us out tomorrow? Sandman30s (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the transcript of this Seaborg interview available online? Nimur (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they were "Defy" (South African electrical brand) transcripts of the radio show that my grandfather collected. Email me and I will scan and send to you. I should probably make them all available online as there some real gems there and I don't believe there is any copyright. Sandman30s (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There almost certainly won't be any comets wiping us out tomorrow because we're constantly monitoring for any nearby objects of sufficient size to do serious damage. Launching anything into space is ridiculously expensive, even for low-earth orbit. Creating a fully autonomous offworld base (in orbit or on another body) is an extremely difficult task by itself; there's an absolutely vast number of ways in which it could go wrong. The combined cost of developing the necessary equipment and launching it into space would be outrageous. The chances of an offworld colony being wiped out would be much greater than the chances of the entire human race being wiped out. If we really wanted to protect the human race from mass extinction events, I'd imagine building underground cities would presently be a much better choice than colonising space. As for space exploration, we are doing that, except we're using robots instead of humans, because it's just that much cheaper and easier. --Link ^(t•c•m) 11:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know about monitoring near-earth objects, but we currently would not be able to prevent a large object (kilometres in diameter?) from crashing into earth. What's the use having underground cities (or even cities on the ocean bed) if a comet hits or supervolcano erupts? These events would wipe out all surface life as well as all crops, so how would the subterranean dwellers get food? I would also imagine that creating underground cities would be just as expensive as cities on the moon. Yes I do agree that a space base would be far more dangerous, but that's the whole point of creating backup(s)... if your primary source is gone then at least you do have a backup. Sandman30s (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The ocean would be hard to disrupt, especially not quickly. Yes, if an event leads to the whole ocean boiling you're screwed in the long run, but no dinosaur killer or Snowball Earth event ever did that. (A full fledged runaway greenhouse, maybe...) There is actually extensive military-oriented regulation of trading in even a camera that can see things more than a mile deep, so there must be something down there, though the usual explanation involves crashed nuke sub(s). I don't think we can rule out that one or more such bases to shelter elites haven't already been constructed, though I know of no evidence. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where I may read more about the trading limitations on such cameras? Are you talking about pressure resistant cameras and housings? -- 41.8.83.148 (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You could move underground during the most turbulent period, and then return to the surface once things start to stabilise again. Getting food would be problematic, but it's not quite easy to do in space either. You seem to be underestimating how incredibly inhospitable space actually is. Once you're out of the protective shell of Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere, you're constantly pelted by radiation. No planet or moon in the solar system beside Earth has a breathable atmosphere. There's nowhere other than Earth where leaving the protection of a spaceship or space suit is survivable for even a minute or so. It would probably still be easier for humans to survive on Earth in the aftermath of a global disaster than it would be on Mars in the most favourable conditions. Sure, it would be useful to have an off-world colony, but the launch costs alone make it utterly infeasible (a space elevator would alleviate that problem, but we're not quite at the point where we can build one yet). Putting a permanently manned base on the moon is just about at the limit of what we could reasonably do right now. Creating a completely autonomous (i.e. capable of surviving indefinitely even if the Earth were to go kaboom) colony for a minimum viable population of humans is very far out of reach for the time being. Ensuring a few thousand humans could survive a global disaster on earth is easier, cheaper, and likely more effective than creating an offworld colony that can repopulate the Earth later. --Link ^(t•c•m) 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You could get by the minimum viable population problem by keeping thousands of frozen embryos (or sperm and eggs), so you'd only need a "caretaker" population. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Let's say terraforming became viable and feasible in the distant future. Would you still say that underground cities would be better than colonies on a terraformed Mars? Sandman30s (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, except the runaway greenhouse. If the oceans actually boil and the water vapor greatly enhances the greenhouse effect, so that the whole planet gets a proper steam cleaning, then anywhere, even underground, will eventually be uninhabitable. Getting the energy to run enough air conditioning to live in an oven when you can't go anywhere seems like a long shot, though I suppose in such a thick atmosphere amazing things can be done with wind power (a little late, tho) Wnt (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am currently looking at tens of thousands of perfect tomato plants sitting on a cement floor while a foot of snow is on the roof above, so getting food while living underground really would not be a problem so long as one has continuous energy (likely nuclear) and a one time supply of water, seed, fertilizer, and growing equipment. 50.101.153.9 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Right at this very moment people ARE going round the world in two hours (less actually), in the International Space Station. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, if you don't count the take-off, landing, prep time, etc. Actually getting from the ground in Australia to the ground in the US takes a lot longer. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Link: Glenn T. Seaborg - 41.8.83.148 (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

quantum effects in processors

How, specifically, do modern processors use quantum effects? (i.e. "don't work without it", etc). This is not homework. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else, transistors depend on quantum effects. It's hard to give a definitive answer, because really every property of matter is a quantum effect if you look deeply enough. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But that's not what I mean. When they're designing a processor, they have modeling software (to lay out the circuits). Does this modeling software include quantum effects? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Looie. Is there a size where it would? I found a stackoverflow answer to the question "Is Quantum Physics used in manufacturing CPU's" (June '11). It says they mostly avoid it: "As component sizes have gotten smaller, tunneling has become an increasingly important limiting factor in the design and layout of chips." Is there some kind of size where you could no longer avoid these effects, but, for example, have CPU modeling software (for laying out new CPU's) that actively includes the quantum effects for you to include in the design? I am not talking about a quantum computer per se, just at what point traditional CPU design will directly work with (use) quantum effects, if indeed there is such a size. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern off-the-shelf processors do not, but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer#Developments. The article states that, "In 2009, researchers at Yale University created the first rudimentary solid-state quantum processor." It goes on to summarize other state-of-the-art developments. --Modocc (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This also depends on what you mean when you say "designing a processor." In modern engineering practice, a computer architect (or a whole team of them) designs a system architecture, including a low-level digital logic representation/implementation of the instruction set architecture. At this layer of abstraction, transistors are "guaranteed" to work. One could say that we build in a sanity-check any place we use an error correction code, because we handle any generic type of bit error without regard to the source of the bit-flip. That bit error could be due to thermal noise, or analog electromagnetic interference, or a timing error due to imperfect trace length, or a cosmic-ray alpha particle striking the transistor, or a quantum fluctuation... but it just doesn't matter. The computer architect doesn't care why the analog circuit might fail; at this layer of abstraction, we just have ones and zeros. Now, usually it is "someone else's job" to make sure that the bit-error rate is as low as possible. An entire team of engineers worries about each source of error: a layout crew makes sure the traces on the silicon get designed properly for minimum clock skew and best signal integrity. A packaging engineer (or a team of them) worries about using the right type of plastic encasement to minimize RFI and EMI and alpha particle strikes.

And finally, somebody - usually not just one engineer, but an entire company full of engineers - worries about what we calll very large scale integration. These guys don't care at all whether the system architect designed a billion transistors that comprise a processor, or a radio demodulator, or a giant billion-transistor no-op. It's their job to ensure that all billion silicon transistors get built right - as designed. This is sometimes called the "Process." Each manufacturer of silicon has their own process, and distribute large complex computer aided design tools that automatically translate a digital design into the correct number of photolithography masks - one mask for each layer of semiconductor, insulator, and conductor layer. It is the job of the fabrication process company to make sure that their masks properly convert a digital design into the analog world. They worry about such things as the optical resolution of their lithography masks; if they choose to use quantum mechanics to analyze the optical path, it may improve their yield. In fact, current semiconductor processes are so small that it's uncommon to use light during photolithography; the wavelength of light is larger than the features being etched. So, they may use x-rays, or ultraviolet light, or any other strange proprietary technique to get around the wavelength limitation. This method can be called a "quantum" effect: you cannot build a single transistor if the uncertainty principle dictates that your photon is larger than the transistor. Another team of engineers - chemists, electrical engineers, material scientists, and so on - worry about etching. They worry about how many seconds of exposure to various etching chemicals are required to remove photomask, and etch away the undesired parts of the semiconductor structure. Now that nano-layer fab processes have such a small number of atoms, the process of acid dissolving solid surface atoms can be modeled quantum-mechanically. This is a molecular physics problem, or a statistical problem. If a quantum-mechanical analysis of this chemistry helps the engineers etch better transistors, it will affect the yield.

The design of an electronic circuit in semiconductor requires accurate knowledge of the dynamic electrical properties of a material. In semiconductors, things like electrical resisitivity and free electron count and even thermal constants are dictated by atomic processes. In very small transistors, such as the ones in a modern process, these properties might require analysis of atomic physics, because there are so few atoms that we can't "average" everything out (as we do in conventional thermodynamics or large-scale statistical physics). An entire field of quantum mechanics analysis - semiconductor physics - is useful in analyzing the electrical and other properties of structures that are built from just a handful of atoms or molecules.

Finally, we can consider the statistical methods of quantum mechanics - independent of their applications to atomic physics. Quantum mechanics helps scientists speak definitively about uncertainty. It helps analyze quantized (countable) effects while also working with analog (continuously varying) phenomena. So, at very low levels of analysis, or at very abstract levels of analysis, we can use methods of QM to analyze things like defect count per wafer, and use that knowledge to guide and modify our designs.

Now, I often hear the pure physicists say things like "quantum mechanics makes the transistor possible." As a former physicist, turned silicon-engineer, I can say my piece: this is utter baloney. It's physicist-talk. Engineers have historically designed, and will continue to design in the future, without understanding the absolutist view of "fundamental processes" that phyicists continually strive for. Engineers are able to work with problems, analytically and quantitatively, while abstracting away the irrelevant details - any detail that doesn't directly affect the current problem. Most engineers in the semiconductor industry - even the ones down low in the process stack - never ever ever use QM or its techniques. Some engineers do. Unlike pure physics research, where scientists use the most sophisticated analysis possible, engineers only use the analytical tools that are needed to get the job done. When designing computer processor logic, QM is almost totally irrelevant. When working with the implementation of that processor as an analog circuit, QM is often irrelevant. But, there are cases where QM improves the process. And there are probably some areas where methods of QM are absolutely essential to the correct design and analysis. But on the whole, what you should recognize is that QM is a method of analysis, not a physical fact. Like all physics, quantum mechanics is a best-effort to accurately model the world as we observe it. It happens to be the best method we have for analyzing atomic physics, and many similar problems. When atomic processes affect analog circuits, we must use QM. But again, let me reemphasize: engineers work by abstracting problems and worrying only about the details that directly affect them. Only half-in-jest, I say that QM analysis is "always" somebody else's job; everyone knows that somewhere in the machine, QM rears its ugly head, but as long as each engineer can make her/his contribution work right, he/she doesn't need to do any extra mathematical juggling. Nimur (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I read all this (in a few sessions :). Basically, you are saying that the part that I am interested in - chip architecture design - does not and probably will not use QM, which is more like "noise" that has to be removed by error checks and carefully embodying the abstract design: it is literally at a lower layer and does not make it into chip design. Thus if I understand you correctly, my question is similar to the question "do Internet Protocols like TCP/IP or UDP make use of the fact that light is both a wave and a particle?" and the answer is "No, not at all", and double not for quantum entaglement. That fact has been abstracted away long before they see it. TCP/IP or UDP doesn't even know if it is going over fiber optics, over copper, or over radio. All it gets is the 1's and 0's. You are basically saying the same thing about QM effects: they are abstracted away long before the chip designers see them. Thank you for your detailed answer, Nimur! --91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I too found Nimur's exposition an informative read. There are of course things at the lower layers that do not get entirely abstracted away: simulations of implementations can result in high-level logic design choices, e.g. differences at higher design levels may make a difference to the highest clock frequency at which a circuit implementation will function correctly. At times there are low-level aspects that are exploited at a higher level, e.g. in true random number generators, where noise (sometimes of a quantum nature) is the basis of the functionality required. — Quondum 13:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

hair/fur, not pelt

Please list the characteristics of squirrel fiber, squirrel tail fiber, and raccoon fiber.Curb Chain (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do your own homework. Your quetion reads like it has been copied straight out of an assignment. If not, show us why not. Wickwack 58.169.234.153 (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They tend to grow outward from the skin, and are long and slender. Does that help? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but can you give more distinguishing charactersitics?Curb Chain (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogenated Polyisobutene in cosmetics

The entry on Polyisobutene makes it sound like something I wouldn't want to rub on my skin. But I've seen "hydrogenated Polyisobutene" as in ingredient in a number of hand lotions. What properties would make it appropriate for that? --71.189.190.62 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's provide a link to the article in question: polyisobutene. While our article doesn't talk about the hydrogenated version, it sounds like it can be used as a thickening agent to keep the oils from readily evaporating, and doesn't have much of a smell. So, it makes the hand lotion last a long time and not stink. The fact that it's used in chewing gum also makes it clear that it's not toxic. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As the article notes, PIB and many related compounds are common synthetic rubbers. I bet you've handled, used, and maybe even worn many things made out of it. We also have an article about hydrogenation. DMacks (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If your cosmetic ingredients gross you out, don't think too much about the urea they frequently add. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Daily Comet Ison pic?

I'd like to rig up a picture on my computer's desktop to be a current image of Comet Ison, the one that could become a Great Comet in about a year. Is there a "live" image somewhere on the net I can link to? (By "Live", I mean "taken this week or so".)

Even better would be a time-lapse showing the motion of the comet from its discovery until now, but I'd be delighted just to find a weekly-updated image of what the comet looks like now. TIA - Tarcil (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mystery mineral

Any ideas?

I've had this item for a number of years, having purchased it from a rocks and minerals gift shop, but have unfortunately forgotten what it was called and have long since lost the handy little label describing it. This may have said something about it being an industrial by-product, perhaps from Eastern Europe or Russia, but I could be misremembering. It's certainly very pretty - the picture doesn't really do it justice. It's iridescent, and the edges are rather sharp. It wasn't too expensive either, around £20 I think, if that helps to narrow it down. Any ideas what it could be? the wub "?!" 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like slag. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Could be schist. --Jayron32 22:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me a bit of Bismuth crystals.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be silicon carbide. -Modocc (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems flat. Is one side different from the other side? If so, how? Also, does it seem especially light or especially heavy for its size, or just of expected weight? I don't know what it is, but I think this information may help more knowledgeable editors to take a guess. Also—is it strong—or would it break very easily if you for instance applied manual pressure to it? Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The sides are all similar. I would say that it's quite light, and it's easy to break flakes off it.

Silicon carbide / carborundum definitely seems like the right answer. It looks very like this example, and the fact that it's found on the inside of blast furnaces sounds like what was on the card. Thanks everyone! the wub "?!" 01:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it hard? Does it scratch glas? --Stone (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like quenched pyrite or galena, both being a sulfide mineral. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To tell some of the above options apart you can do a streak test. Use one of the broken off bits to scratch the rough back of a porcelain tile. bismuth galena and pyrite will give dark streaks, silicon carbide will just scratch the tile. Schist will probably leave a brown or grey mark and slag may leave a gray line of broken glass fragments. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember of building up a rock collection when I was younger, the important part is that it's got a titanium coating on it - as someone else said, possibly just slag with the coating. It goes under a trade name because "worthless chunk of stuff with titanium coating" doesn't sell as well. 67.212.112.183 (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops, wasn't logged in Lsfreak (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

December 28

Mr Edelweiss type of bird

In the film Nanny McPhee Returns, she has a bird named Mr. Edelweiss. What type of bird is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

he is a Jackdaw, from what I can ascertain via Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Name that fish (Halfbeak -- ballyhoo?)

Name that fish.

I was snorkelling in Cuba last week (near Playa Jibacoa, roughly halfway between Havana and Varadero). Lurking just under the water's surface near the reefs not far off shore, I saw a number of interesting fish, including the character pictured at right. My best guess is that it was roughly a foot long, including the 'beak'.

I'm pretty sure it's some sort of Halfbeak, and I think it might be a Ballyhoo. Is there anyone who knows their saltwater tropical fish who can confirm/narrow that identification? And is there an article that could use the picture? Thanks, KevinHadley (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The ballyhoo article only contains a low-res drawing, so an actual pic would be a definite improvement. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a Ballyhoo. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Can a tunnel flood?

Like a major one like the Lincoln Tunnel or the Channel Tunnel. ScienceApe (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why wouldn't it be possible. It must have a draining mechanism, which probably stops when everything is flooded. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Holland Tunnel just flooded in Hurricane Sandy. You can even watch it [http://www.bloomberg.com/video/subway-tunnel-flooding-problems-in-new-york-K5yQpX6ARVKziYi~4HlRiQ.html. Rmhermen (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln Tunnel was the only one that wasn't closed in NYC. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Midtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia flooded in 2003 when maintenance crews were unable to completely close the floodgates in time due to (IIRC) a drainage grate or cover plate that had been welded in place. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(YouTube link: How to Knit * Knitted Hat Top Down * How to increase)

The vid shows knitting with 3 or 4 needles. Is it possible to knit with say 7 needles?Curb Chain (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

See Circular knitting - no obvious reason why you couldn't use five or more double ended needles (they are sold in sets of four or five apparently), although these days you would most likely use circular needles. Mikenorton (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who always knits with circular needles, I can tell you they are not practical for smaller items such as socks, and 4 or 5 needles are the norm for knitting socks. No reason why 7 needles couldn't be used but it would be very complicated. I wouldn't want to try it. TammyMoet (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not without a knitting machine, anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Those use hooks or latch hooks, not needles. Rmhermen (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Or, as they commonly called, "latch hook needles". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not by me. But they aren't knitting needles whatever their name. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Can curing of paints change tensile properties

We are painters doing powder and pvdf coatings on aluminum. Normally, aluminum alloy 6063 is used for door, window sections. However, in one specific case, we have got alloy 6082 T6 for pvdf coating job. PVDF coatings need to be cured at a temp of approx 230-240 degree C for 8 to 10 minutes, which, in general is specified by the paint manufacturers.

Would curing at this temperature and time bring some difference in the Fy or elongation/ tensile properties of the metal 6082? If so, to what extend. The mill finished extruded material received by us has a Fy 255 mPa.

Your opinion is awaited.

Regards, Sanjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.52.208 (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have a look at Steel#Material properties, you can see that heating may cause Recrystallization (metallurgy) of the alloy. Whether or not that will happen at that temperature is entirely dependent on the particular alloy's thermal behaviour. Considering the relatively low melting point of the alloy (555 °C), that does not seem unlikely to me.

For those who are looking for more information on the alloy: [3]. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

telling if we are in a Virtual Machine

Suppose the universe might be emulated, just as we might emulate a few atoms of it once we have all the laws figured out. Propose strategies that we can follow to determine whether the physical universe is in fact being emulated in this sense or not. This is not homework. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Similar questions have been asked here several times before, I recommend a search of the archives. Our most relevant article on the concept is Simulation hypothesis, which gives an overview of the problem and its history. From there you can jump to articles that seem relevant to you or follow the references. I notice that there is an original research tag at the top of the article, so you should be aware that some portions may be user speculation instead of being based entirely on reliable sources. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is not a homework question, why is it worded like one? Propose strategies that we can follow to determine whether you are doing your own work. However, for the record, we can help with your homework, so long as it is in the manner of a library reference desk, ie. pointing you in the right direction. From the link by 209, you want reference 28, which I suppose is obvious since it is under the section "testing the hypothesis". The article is quite advanced, so try to pick up the gist. You may be interested in chaos theory, in particular Chaos theory#Distinguishing random from chaotic data. If the universe were a numerical simulation, there would presumably be limits on chaotic behaviour, since it involves intractable complexity. So your answer could propose ways of testing the universe based on subjecting chaotic processes to tests that determine if they are, in fact, truly chaotic. You will have to do this bit yourself. IBE (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think of these contributions (left-hand side) - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=530148333 - the part that has been removed from the question. is it the same as what you propose? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, but I'll wait to see what someone smarter suggests. I think it's clear that we are dealing with a fairly bright person who hasn't got his ideas sorted out very clearly, or at least doesn't know how to express them. It is certainly along the same lines, however. IBE (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that there are many possible configurations of the question itself - does it allow quantum computers, for example? It seems clear from the post you linked that the OP is not considering such possibilities, because quantum computers could definitely generate random numbers. If pseudorandom processes occurred in reality where science expects random ones, then yes, you have some hard evidence of a VM reality. Absence of them could indicate a quantum computer VM, however. I don't know how quantum computers might influence chaos calculations, but I would have thought not on a fundamental level. Please anyone who knows this stuff well, tell us about it. IBE (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OP, have you read Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science? It proposes that the universe is a just a very, very big cellular automaton. To tell if the universe is such a system could prove problematic of course, because if it's true then we are all part of it.. --hydrox (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This question is very similar as the test for reality above. When I see such repetitions I get a feeling of deja-vu that let me thinking if the simulation we are immerse is saving in computational power by repeating stuff. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but this is much more empirical than the one above - just look at the difference in length of the discussions. Longer discussions here are usually traceable to unanswerable questions. Not that my own contribution here is any kind of exact answer - rather I was hoping to get someone to clarify/ refute my suggestions. IBE (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I should note that if someone specifically wanted to rule out that that we are living in The Matrix, that is relatively straightforward. The rules of 'The Matrix' specify that the laws of physics and so on only apply as long as you expect them to, and that firm belief that (for example) you can jump really far or run really fast will allow you to do so. Put your hand up if you've ever 'missed a step' or taken an extra step when going up or down stairs. You were absolutely certain that your foot was going to move in a certain way, even support your weight where there was no step, and yet reality asserted itself and did not warp to match your expectations. Therefore, we cannot be in The Matrix.

All of which simply goes to show, as others have said, that in order to properly assess anything like this, you need to narrow down and be specific. Take and develop a theory of reality and work out how you would expect it to behave. Don't just go with vague general ideas. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

See this and this. Shadowjams (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A drug meant specifically to induce pain

There are plenty of drugs to create a recreational experience, but are there any drugs that cause acute pain after injecting, swallowing or inhaling them?

I was wondering if such drugs could be used to turn recreational drug use into a painful experience via classical conditioning, by mixing the original drug with the pain-inducing one and giving it to the users. (Just to be clear, I didn't ignore the serious disadvantages, and possibly illegality, of this method, and don't expect to see it being applied to rehabilitate drug addicts.)

Thanks, 82.166.216.211 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of drugs that cause pain upon being injected; I'm thinking that the vast majority of things you could possibly push into your bloodstream would probably hurt quite a bit. The problem is that drug dealers don't typically try to rehabilitate their users. I also doubt it would work, even if you got by the staggering legal and logistical hurdles. If watching yourself waste away, spitting out all your teeth, and slipping into the occasional coma don't do smarten people up, I'm not sure what will. :( Matt Deres (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Because acute pain is more persuasive than those other things. That's why torture became so popular. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 06:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much the way Disulfiram (Antabuse) works in the treatment of chronic alcoholism. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)You may find this interesting. Not quite what you were looking for, but very similar. Matt Deres (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooh! Spooky! Tonywalton ^Talk 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Platypus venom would be a wonderful candidate for the drug you seek.--Digrpat (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been in the news, see the sadistic suggestions made about oxycontin and capsaicin. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

See poison. If they cause pain, they never get as far as being called drugs, which by definition are intended to have a beneficial or enjoyable effect. Most household chemicals don't get to be called drugs for that reason, but many of them will cause pain.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a drug can be something that primarily or as a side effect causes an adverse effect. A common lay use is to indicate an adverse effect, as in "He gave the victim a stupifying drug and then raped her". As far as scientific or medical use goes, we were taught in 1st year university the following: A nutrient is a substance that enables body metabolism; the effect of nutrients is made apparent when they are absent. In contrast, a drug is a substance that affects body metabolism; the effect of drugs is seen in their addition. In other words, you can't do without nutrients - but you can do without drugs.

In the hospital/asylum treatment of severe mental disease, various forms of treatment have been used over the years to stimulate correct behaviour by "treatments" that cause pain or distress. In general, such treatments may be dressed up or genuinely thought to have some beneficial effect. A well known (non drug) example is electro-convulsive shock therapy (now discredited but replaced by magnetic induction therapy - the same thing slightly disguised). Clozapine and similar drugs, which are thought to reduce schizophenia symptoms, get used by the less ethical practitioners to cause pain or distress which may cause patients (not necessarily schizo patients) to suppress their undesirable, difficult, or non-co-operative behavior in order to avoid getting it again. In strong enough doses it causes pain, from intestinal and heart infarction, which is pretty scary, and distress from uncontrolled slobering and other problems.

When I was working (as avolunteer) at a drug adict support center, we would sometimes get folk presenting themselves and claiming they were addicted to heroin when they were not (it was one way to get methodone for a friend or to sell - there were other more bizare reasons). What the doctor did was give them an injectable narcotic agonist. If the person had not been on the claimed drug, the agonist would have little or no observable effect, and they would be told to nick off. But if the person was actually consuming heroin (or whichever), they would go into immediate full on withdrawal symptoms - pain, shakes, shock, etc, for a short time. Then we knew they were genuine, and needed our help.

It would be very difficult to cure hard addicts of their addiction by classical conditioning. Severe pain may be the least of their problems (Whoop Whoop is quite incorrect in this); you can be as high as kite while in severe pain and not mind the pain; in any case narcotics suppress pain.

Floda 58.170.169.255 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

December 29

meteorites from EARTH to Mars, rather than vice versa

Hi, what i read is that about a ton of meteorites of mars origin land on earth every year. How often would the reverse happen given Earth's stronger gravity? Less often I'm sure but how less often? Is there an approximate formula based on gravitys and distance from sun etc? Thanks68.65.169.66 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

When was the last time a meteorite impact on Earth was storng enough to eject material into space? This is not just a matter of stronger gravity -- it's also a matter of Earth having a dense atmosphere that all but prevents any Earth material from being ejected into space as meteors. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know when the last one was, but a meteorite impact on Earth, if it did bang stuff off of earth, even many millions of years ago, could be a continuing source of meteorites to Mars. Also, i wonder about (Earth)volcanoes shooting material away from Earth.68.65.169.66 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No volcano has ever been powerful enough to launch stuff into space -- the rocks fly thousands of feet into the air at most, while the volcanic ash usually goes up into the stratosphere and just hangs there for some weeks. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No volcano on Earth. There have been (water) volcanoes that launched material into space. Some of Saturn's rings are from one (see Enceladus (moon)). StuRat (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No volcano in historical times has come anywhere close to achieving an orbital launch. Large modern eruptions send volcanic bombs (i.e. large rocks) up to 500 m or so above the volcano. However, we have good evidence of volcanic explosions 10-100 times larger having occurred over geologic times. This makes it likely that at least occasionally volcanic eruptions might send rocks miles into the sky, and just possibly the very largest eruptions might approach escape trajectories. Back in the early twentieth century, there was a theory in geology that large, suborbital volcanic ejecta was responsible for creating impact craters (e.g. verneshot). We now know that most impact craters have a extraterrestrial origin (i.e. meteors), but I don't think one can completely rule out the possibility of an extremely large, extremely rare (e.g. 1 per 100 million years) volcanic eruption being capable of launching some rocks off the planet. If it has ever happened though, it certainly doesn't happen often. Dragons flight (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What about meteorite impacts?64.9.234.141 (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It would require a pretty big meteorite impact. Still not very common, since big impacts are themselves rare—maybe once every 10 million years or so at most. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 06:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your answer. I'm not sure how you get your estimate, or even if your estimate is at least from intuition gained from experience and study. My original question was how much Earth material gets to mars relative to the reverse process, (which hopefully the scientists who claim about 1 ton/year have their reasons). But if you are correct that such meteorite impacts are on average 1 every 10 million years, how much transfer would we expect to mars? Is it likely or unlikely that there been in the last 100million years meteor impacts that ejected millions of tons of matter from Earth?(I ask the large amount of a million tons because I bet the odds of any given particle of it ever getting to mars, let alone in a given year, are small.) Could we say perhaps then that extremely tiny amounts of Earth end up on Mars, like a teaspoon per year?Thanks again.64.9.234.141 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Terrene meteorites in the moon: its relevance for the study of the origin of life in the Earth Here somebody wants to look what the earth meteorites look like to search for the beginning of life on earth.
• doi:10.1016/0012-821X(94)00232-N Here somebody wants to know how life spread from earth with meteorites.
• Testing interplanetary transfer of bacteria between Earth and Mars as a result of natural impact phenomena and human spaceflight activities Bacterial transfer in the solar system. --Stone (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how anything ejected from Earth could make it to Mars -- Mars is tens of millions of miles farther from the sun, and the ejected material would have to overcome the sun's gravity for that great distance. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes an enormous amount of energy to get off the Earth. The amount of energy to get from Earth to Mars is only about 4 times larger than the amount required to escape the Earth. If you have any scenario that can get you off the Earth, it isn't hard to imagine a scenario with a few times more energy that gets you to Mars. Dragons flight (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

While the escape velocity from the surface of Earth is more than double that of from Mars (11.2 km/s vs 5.0 km/s), I believe that Duoduoduo is mistaken if they think that once the object has escaped from the planet, then somehow the sun's gravity makes it much easier to travel from Mars to Earth than vice versa. Can someone more familiar with orbital mechanics speak to this point? -- ToE 18:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you just put an object with no initial momentum just outside Mars's gravity well, it will fall toward the sun, crossing Earth's orbit on the way. But if you put an object with no initial momentum just outside Earth's gravity well, it will also fall toward the sun, hence not crossing Mars's orbit. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, but a rock that falls from near Earth orbit should return near to the same distance over and over again... and if so, is there a chance that it will interact again and a gravitational slingshot will get it out some distance? (but then again, it shouldn't be moving very fast relative to Earth, so it shouldn't slingshot very far... I think...) Wnt (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

But that "no initial momentum" (relative to the Sun) assumption is wrong. Anything starting from Earth will have about the same initial momentum as Earth, and anything starting from Mars will have about the same initial momentum as Mars. Therefore, it would take just as much energy, but in an opposite direction, to force an object from an Earth orbit to a Mars orbit as vice-versa. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"No initial momentum" was just intended as an unnecessary simplifying assumption to focus on the issue at hand -- the sun's gravity. This seems simple to me -- from Mars to Earth the sun's gravity is helping, while from Earth to Mars you're working against the sun's gravity. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusion in article Atomic mass and bond order greater than 6

1. While reading the article Atomic_mass#Mass_defects_in_atomic_masses, I read in the linked section "deviation is positive or negative". What does deviation and positive/negative mean in the context ?
2. No two elements in the periodic table can form a bond with greater order than 6. Why ? Sunny Singh (DAV) (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One atomic unit of mass is 1/12-th of the mass of Carbon-12 atom. Hydrogen-1 (proton+electron) has mass higher than this unit. So, the mass deviation is positive. Atoms heavier than carbon (up to nickel) generally have negative deviations. Ruslik_Zero 15:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For your second question, see this article. Septuple bonds are not possible between two atoms of any elements with atomic numbers 100 and below. They might be possible in the early superactinides, but their half-lives may not be enough for chemical characterization (except, possibly, for a few elements around the magic number Z = 126). Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Biochemistry of Seizures

What are the biochemical processes involved in a seizure. Is it different for every cause I.e.for low blood pressure, transplant rejection, high fever, allergy etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.208.210 (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know, but in the case of an epileptic seizure, dogs can apparently predict them, which points to a chemical odor, which means there must be chemical reactions leading up to it. StuRat (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're probably correct about chemical odors. But it seems to me there some chance that dogs detect it by other means instead. Their eyes are very sensitive to motion, perhaps especially of human motion, and they hear at some frequencies humans can't.199.33.32.40 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Im pretty sure that every biochemical process in the human body involves chemical reactions and that most symptoms of illnesses are also caused by biochemical reactions. My question is specifically which biochemical processes/reactions cause seizures. 176.27.208.210 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. A heart attack can be caused by a blockage, and a stroke can be caused by a break in a blood vessel. Neither requires any chemical reactions immediately leading up to it. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

True but surely there's chemical processes which lead to blockages or burst vessels. 176.27.208.210 (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seizures have many causes (e.g, hyponatremia, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia). The muscle activity and alterations of breathing can produce some common post-ictal chemical changes (e.g., elevated prolactin). Doctors pay more attention to the chemistry of possible causes than to the chemistry of the consequences. alteripse (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

December 30

Morse code

Two questions in one: (1) How many chars/min can a skilled operator transmit in Morse code (assuming that he/she has already encrypted the message beforehand)? (2) On average, how long did it take for the Gestapo to locate a radio operator using direction finding? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2) This will depend on whether they are smart enough to send the message from a moving vehicle, or at least restrict themselves to short messages, each broadcast from a new location. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(2) I meant how long can an operator "safely" transmit continuously from one location and not have the Gestapo kick in the front door. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 1 is answered in the Morse Code article. Zoonoses (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what you want this answered for, you may need to take into account some additional facts not covered in teh Wiki article:-

1. While good operators can send and recieve at 40 word per min or more, that is for a perfect link. In a shortwave or medium wave radio link, fading and noise may interfere with reception - the operators will then send as slow as required. With good narrow band recievers, slow enough morse can be copied accurately at signal stengths far below the noise level (hiss, static, machine noise etc) that would obliterate voice. That is the advantage of morse - you can almost always get through when nothing else will, and it nees only simple low tech equipment.

2. Military operators have always been trained in "short codes" - combinations of 3 or 4 letters coresponding to entries in a list of common messages often sent. For example in the NATO code used by navies in and after WW2, to transmit from a flagship the message "I am going to turn right onto magnetic course 290 degrees" could be transmitted as something like "XDEX90".

3. For WW2, German operators were trained to send and recieve in moving noisy environments using specially built rigs closely simulating the noise, vibration, and shock as would be experienced in aircraft and vehicles & tanks under way and under attack. Other forces probably had similar training.

In France, the Gestapo & regular German forces had a simple way of tracing a covert transmitter located in a town somewhere. Back then, a radio transmitter either needed big batteries (the size of a car batteries) or were powered from house current power mains. Usually, house current was the choice. Upon detecting a transmitter and getting a rough direction in seconds they would go to the substation and cut the power for just as long as it took to move the switch up and down - say a fraction of a second. If a matching break in transmission was detected, they knew they had the right area. If transmission continued, they would then race to a likely pole switch feeding a street and do the same. Repeat as required. In this way they could identify the correct street and sometines the correct block of flats within minutes. Then they would just block the street off and thoroughly search every dwelling.

Wickwack 58.167.246.100 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lorcaserin and what else? - FDA approved Obesity medication

i'v heard that except Lorcaserin, there's gonna be another Med', what is it's name? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.115.101 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What kind of chemicals would be produced when a Polyethylene plastic bag is burnt? How?

Sometimes I can smell a bit odor, so I guess it is not burnt into just carbon dioxide and water.--Inspector (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

First the long polymer chains can be broken down into alkenes and alkanes. These may give the waxy smell. There may also be partial oxidation of these to an aldehyde or primary alcohol. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Combustion#Reaction mechanism suggests it starts with a hydrogen atom being stripped off by oxygen. The radical part of the polymer is highly reactive and can then further react with O₂ to form a peroxyl radical, which in turn can steal another hydrogen atom to make another radical and a peroxide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Does infrasonic results resonance in human body?

My physics teacher, as well as many Chinese websites [4][5][6][7][8], says that infrasonic results resonance in human body, thus 'infrasonic weapon' can be made. But Chinese Wikipedia says infrasonic doesn't damage human tissues, and English Wikipedia says it just cauese pain in the ear drums. I can't find anything about 'infrasonic weapon' which work by making resonance to human body on English websites, can anyone provide any information about it, please?--維基小霸王 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There's something in the Vladimir Gavreau article, but the article seems to think that it may have been imaginary. 71.79.67.209 (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Properties of blood

From my understanding, blood is a shear thinning fluid. So it acts like a liquid when you apply shear to it, I.e. when flowing but when the flow rate is reduced it behaves like a solid and that this is the property of blood which helps with clotting and recovering from injuries. My question is how does this property interact with platelets etc to help with this process? Is it the fact that platelets work better in more viscous fluids? 176.27.208.210 (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)