Science desk
< August 27	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 28

Plants in anoxic environments

Plants "breathe" CO₂ in a manner analogous to animals breathing in O₂. But, as I recall, a 100% oxygen environment would kill us all in only a few days (or less, depending on pressure). Would a 100% CO₂ environment be similarly toxic to plants? How about a nitrogen/carbon dioxide mix similar to air but without the oxygen? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plants also need to be able to breathe oxygen as well. While oxygen is produced as a byproduct of photosynthesis, plants still need to take in oxygen for cellular respiration. The whole point of photosynthesis is to store carbon for later use; plants then use the products of photosynthesis to generate energy for various cellular processes; just as in animals these processes require an external source of oxygen. Think of it this way: you produce water as a waste product, but you still need to drink water to survive; the processes that make waste water are not the same processes that use water. Likewise in plants, some processes make "waste" oxygen, but other metabolic processes require oxygen to work. --Jayron32 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Help

Hello WikiReffers,

Please help, I keep finding these bugs in my appartment. Theyre about 0.5cm long, and I want to know what they are, and what I can do about it, if anything. I live in a large canadian city in Southern Ontario.Flickr Picture As always, much appreciated!

--Cacofonie (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me a lot like Otiorhynchus sulcatus, the black vine weevil. It's a common pest of garden plants, so not clear what it is doing in your apartment. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see hygene and housekeeping. Does your family have a sanitation plan? 76.254.20.205 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has this just happened this year? It may have been a good summer for them and the increase in the local population has had them spreading out. Your apartment might seem to them to be a nice cave in which they can dwell over winter. If this is the case then it might be worth finding out where their coming from. Being unable to fly, one has to ask if any of your neighbours have lush balconies of vegetation or if there is a green space very close, planted with the sort of things they favour. One point to consider, is that if your having these little visitors then it is likely that some of your neighbours are as well. Thus, get them on your side to help you hunt down their breeding site(s) will be helpful; especially if there is a resident that objects to your request to rummage through her bergenias– and don't just stop at the first site of infestation you find. Point out too, that although winter is coming and they'll soon stop coming – it might be worst next year. --Aspro (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Weather Service storm surge map

How is http://www.weather.gov/mdl/psurge/ even remotely accurate? Swells on the high seas are surge, and were exceeding 35 feet at areas on this map shown as only three feet above normal tide, right? Assuming this report saves money and/or lives in the future, where can I pick up the reward? 76.254.20.205 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the number 35ft? Pay attention to exactly what they're reporting. A "Swell" is a wave, waves aren't included when measuring the "storm surge". Also pay attention to if that's 35ft "above normal tide levels" or "above sea levels". The former is how it should be reported, but if you're a TV news show trying to make it sound dramatic, you can add a few feet and say "above sea level". APL (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two guys, a bald guy and a guy with horn-rimmed glasses on The Weather Channel reported a ~25 mile radius region with 35 foot swells, centered about 50-100 miles East of New Jersey around midnight Eastern time. "Normal" tide levels on the high seas are usually less than +/- 5 ft. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the surge doesn't include the swells which have a tendency to break as they approach shallow waters. The surge is the see level rise associated with the wind blowing the waters onshore. Dauto (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Height of the "Swells" is really only useful to you if you're on a boat, or an off-shore platform or something. APL (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swells average out over a fairly short distance. You go up and down a lot on the sea, but the level is unaltered. It's a form of energy disseminated in the water, making it vibrate like a plucked guitar string. The wavelength is short and the frequency is high. By contrast a tsunami might have a lower amplitude, but a very long wavelength and a very low frequency; so it is better able to penetrate the land. But storm surge is something else again - it's a vacuum sucking up on the ocean (plus rain pouring down on the area. It's like the difference between plucking a guitar string and pushing on it. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm surge has nothing to do with sucking up. It's just the wind pushing the water onto the land. Dauto (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm surge#Mechanics notes that rainfall and low local atmospheric pressure add a small additional amount to the wind-driven surge. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does precision come from?

A CGI of the International Prototype Kilogram. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we make precise tools and instruments if all we once had was stone tools? Quest09 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement, while accuracy comes from measurements. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that really answers the question. Perhaps it might be better phrased as how do we make more precise tools with less precise ones? Clearly this can be done, but it isn't always obvious how. For an example of the problem, consider the Screw-cutting lathe - to cut a thread of a known pitch, one needs a precisely-made leadscrew, which it would seem could only be produced on a lathe with an equally-precise one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing engine has some nice historical information in it. Card Zero (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lathe and the lead screw, the chicken and the egg, irriducible complexity. This is an irrational conundrum created by a view point that is too narrow to address the question. If one views the lathe in a broader sense, such as it's three most basic components. 1.metal. 2.the wheel. and 3.the inclined plane it becomes easier to see how this extreme precision can be achieved in small gradual increments.190.56.105.236 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We actually answered that a few weeks ago Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 July 25#Lead screws primarily using the article ATG linked above Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recent example would be the meter, which eventually through understanding of the speed of light was redefined from a physical measurement of distance, dependent on a particular bar, to a measurement of time. And when we consider measurements of time, it should be apparent how precision can be increased - we go from looking at roughly how high the sun is, to measuring it with a little sundial, to measuring it with a big Stonehenge, to measuring it by exactly how many drips of water come down through a little hole, to how many swings of a pendulum or ticks of a catchment - each time replacing one big fuzzy measurement with lots of little standardized events. Eventually culminating in the individual oscillations of a wave of light of a standard frequency. (See second). Wnt (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fast weight loss - is it healthy?

I am a short 18 year old male. I started eating healthier a week and a half ago. Lately though, I have been losing weight fast. Yesterday, I weighed myself and saw that I lost half of a pound from when I weighed myself the day before. Today, I weighed myself again and noticed that I lost a whole pound. I am not on a crash diet and I ate a few unhealthy things, but a large percentage of what I ate is healthy. I went from 190.7 to 186.2 in a week and a half. Of course I am glad, but it seems too fast. Joe Chill (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the header says, we can't provide medical advice, consult a health professional. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for medical advice. My basic question is if there is anything documenting what is acceptable weight loss in relation to this. Then I can move on from there. Joe Chill (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first few weeks of any diet are the best for losing weight. After that, the metabolism adjusts to the new calorie intake and weight loss slows. You might find this site helpful in your weight loss campaign. Also, bear in mind that at 18, you haven't finished growing yet and so it would be natural to gain some weight because of the growing process. I would also recommend that you only weigh yourself once a week (always at the same time of day and wearing the same clothes, for accuracy). It is tempting to keep getting on the scales to keep an eye on things, but as you're discovering, it only makes you worry! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is useful information and a useful article. I have another question. What is male weight loss in relation to females? I don't know if I phrased that good enough. Joe Chill (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The limit on safe weight loss would be approximately proportional to starting weight. So, since most men weigh more, they could safely lose more weight per week. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. Its normal a the start to lose weight rapidly (its mostly fluid)– the rate then decreases . Ask you doctor for more advice but not here. --Aspro (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, about a pound per week is considered a reasonable sustained rate of weight loss. Weighing day to day will mostly only show weight fluctuations, not a consistent trend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now I can do my own research. Joe Chill (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing (maybe from Dr. Oz) that a pound a day, on average, is a good "rule of thumb" limit for the average person (with obvious exceptions for people who weigh very little to begin with). Note that measuring your weight from day to day isn't very reliable, as what you've consumed and if you've gone to the bathroom has a noticeable short-term impact on weight. However, over a week you should get more accurate results. You're weight loss seems to be on the order of under a half pound per day, so you seem to be in the safe range. Note that it's not symmetrical, though, and gaining weight back that quickly might very well be unhealthy. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the medical advice policy, I should have phrased it something like "What is considered healthy weight loss in the beginning of a diet for the average person?". I'm sorry about that. Joe Chill (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As others said above, this is just water. Two cups of water weigh a pound, so it is very easy for your weight to bounce up and down by a couple of pounds if you (a) do an hour of sweaty exercise or (b) drink a couple of beers. Unfortunately the water factor makes it hard to track weight loss -- you really have to average over a few days to get a meaningful result. I frequently go on long hikes and find that my weight has dropped by five pounds when I get back -- it nearly all comes back as I rehydrate though. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When one starts a reducing diet, or weight loss program, they may well have been eating a large amount of salty food every day. So a couple of factors contribute to weight loss at the beginning of a diet: 1) The digestive system might have less food in it on day 2 or 3 compared to the start, because less food is eaten each day. If the diet says "Eat lots of fruit and vegetables," then that might not be true, and there might be actually more pounds of food eaten per day, though lower in calories. 2. Salty food (potato chips, french fries, fried chicken, salted nuts0 can cause water retention. Some of the pounds lost at the beginning of a diet may thus be "water weight." These two causes can contribute to a quick loss of pounds, without there really being a quick loss of body fat. Then there is often a "plateau." One might lose 3 pounds in week 1, then 0 in week 2, causing one to abandon the diet in disgust and frustration, seeming like the body's way of making us stay fat. The pounds lost each week on average should equal the body;s caloric need less the calories consumed, with 3500 Calories per pound of body fat. A 500 calorie daily deficit would produce a one pound per week loss. If a diet is continued for weeks after the initial water weight loss and the likely plateau, then over time the loss should approximate that expected from the calorie deficit. No loss or a gain one week might be followed by a big loss the next week, if something bulky or salty were consumed a day or 2 before the weekly weigh in. Edison (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have noticed that my scale has a built in variance of about +/-1%, yours could be the same. Googlemeister (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morphological Crystallography revisited from the 2007 archives

This question was first posted by me way back in april 2007 under the following title.

Morphological Crystallography, the Tschermak forms and the 48 simple forms in mineralogy

However it was left totally ignored and unanswered being 23:51, 11 April 2007 the date of the last appearance on reference desk/Science, seen here [1]

After more than 4 years, i thought re-posting the same question again, in hope anybody would please offer some kind of answer to the questions i pondered back then, still unanswered now. (As a sidenote i think is not as hard as to find Who shot JR?)

---Morphological Crystallography,the Tschermak forms and the 48 simple forms in mineralogy---

Hi ,i have been astonished by this subject on my mineral science class last monday about this topic.
What are the Tschermak forms?
Are they related with Gustav Tschermak von Seysenegg?
What are them in the first place?. Does they only belong to the isometric form (crystal forms classes) system on morphological crystallography? HappyApple (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does appear to be the correct person for whom the question is named. Tschermakite is a type of mineral (maybe that's the "form" of certain chemical compositions the question is referring to, based on Crystal structure or other crystallographic properties?), and he published a major work on systematic mineralogical analysis. DMacks (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only hits I found on Google for "tschermak forms" were from Wikipedia, but "tschermak form" pulls up one hit [2] where "R₂O₃ (Tschermak) solid solution" is mentioned. This might be related to Tschermak substitution at [3]? Also found [4] with apparently a different meaning. I think the original poster should explain more about where he's encountered this phrase and what he expects it to mean, in case there's been confusion in selecting it from its context. Wnt (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it might be related to the 230 crystallographic groups. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To DMacks, I did guessed the guy who was related with the Tschermakite may had been related to the "tschermak forms" back then, however i have no any references which back that affirmation. About the word "form", actually seems to be related to geometrical form rather than a specific Tschermakite-like structure. As it is mentioned below.

To Wnt, Tschermak substitution "may be" related with Tschermak and chemical substitution in inorganic reactions, but not with "tschermak forms" hence "form" it has a more geometric-shape approach rather than chemical one.

Few was known about the "inner structure" of minerals back in the mid 1800s, since the X-rays and the core experimental crystallography was developed in the early 20th century, most of what was known at the time derived from the the works of people like Stensen from the 17th century.

I believe the meaning what was supposed to be it is more closer to Dana's work. Being that said, how many of these forms were and which where the tschermak ones and which not?.

To SemanticMantis, your approach seems to be close to what i believe it is, but i was not sure back then. After looking through i found that maybe it is related to the 32 point groups which are seen here [5] on wikipedia article, they give the credit for all this research to Christian Hessel but not Tschermak, could be they did find the same thing at the same time or did work in separate?. How about the 32 types of morphological structures?. Are the 32 solids named after Tschermak are there even more? HappyApple (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What species is this?

Photo taken at Wayanad on 2011-08-21. Kindly identify the species

. --Preethi Rajasekaran (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some sort of Iguania so it might be one of the Oriental garden lizards (Calotes versicolor) as they change colour to blend in with the background. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More likely to be the Nilgiri forest lizard (Calotes nemoricola), imo, though all seven species of Indian Calotes are found in Western Ghats. Fits the description in our article on C. nemoricola. Also perfectly matches another photo of the species from Sringeri, quite near Pookode Lake.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What laws of physics are violated in the The Adjustment Bureau

Same as the title. It is for schoolwork. I can't pick out which laws were violated even though I know that they were. I have to identify them and I need credible sources that explain the laws that were broken (not in the context of the movie necessarily). --Melab±1 ☎ 21:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That trick where they teleport using the doors appears to be instantaneous (faster than light) transportation. You should easily be able to find sources which explain why this isn't possible. Though it could've been slower than light.. it's not explained. Staecker (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film's plot involves angels who are omnipotent and omniscient. That violates every law of physics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the film strongly suggest that the agents do have limits on both their abilities (they must use doors and persuasion as opposed to just teleporting and forcing their will on people) and knowledge (they must consult their ambiguous book and library.) It's better to see the film as an allegory or at least a metaphor instead of trying to shoehorn it in to sci-fi. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkest hour

Sorry to ask here, but searching for 'darkest hour' turns a lot of non-relevant results. I want to know which is the darkest hour at night. Some say that's before sunrise, but intuitively I would say that's exactly between sunset and sunrise. Where I am now, sunset is at 07:47 and sunset at 20:54. So, is the darkest hour at about 2:20. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me too, but I take issue with your comment about "non-relevant results". It all depends what you're looking for, and at that point of your post you hadn't even made that clear to us. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call that good communication style. You start by making people curious about what's coming next. Ask in the lang RD for more about this issue that you took issue with. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume it's most likely to be darkest before dawn in a town where the bars are open to 4 a.m.... Wnt (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various definitions of twilight may be of interest to you, specifically astronomical twilight. In practice, the darkest hour will be heavily dependent on the phase of the moon (and its associated rising and setting time) and timing of local light pollution. The darkest hour may well be just before the dawn given a waxing gibbous moon. -- 110.49.241.90 (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the darkest hour is at near 2:00 AM. --

Σ talk contribs

23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly mind 2:20 AM? 88.9.108.128 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Between, say, 2 hours after sunset and 2 hours before sunrise, I'd expect basically zero sunlight to hit the dark side of the Earth. So, then, most of the light will come from the Moon (reflected sunlight) or artificial light. When those are at a minimum depends on the cycles of the Moon, whether it is cloudy (which might block moonlight but reflect artificial light back down), and when street lights, etc., go on and off. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, even half-way through the night, an infinitesimally small amount of daylight would be repeatedly scattered through the upper atmosphere to reach you. Can anyone here calculate just how much light that would be, and how it would compare to, say, the light of a single star? -- 110.49.241.229 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the tenth of January; I still ain't had no sleep/She comes walking in the nighttime made of wings

Parents know best. The darkest hour is just before dawn. (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It nothing to do with the heavens – its a proverb. Means that things look at their blackest just before hope lightens your horizon (or something like that). Even Thomas Fuller used it.--Aspro (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "It is always darkest just before the day dawneth" - Thomas Fuller. It's (not its) a pithy saying or bon mot. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a real "darkest hour". On a clear, dark night, far away from any sources of light pollution, with the moon not visible, there is still a glow visible in the atmosphere opposite the sun's position. I last saw this when I visited the Mauna Kea Observatory and the person giving the lecture pointed it out to me.

And then there's starlight. In the northern hemisphere in August, you get a stronger glow from the Milky Way (the central bulge of the galaxy is right overhead) than you'd get in February. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also need to take into consideration factors such as bright planets (especially Venus), the auroras, any bright comets, and even the zodiacal light and the Gegenschein, for areas of very low light pollution. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]