Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

September 9

Angioplasty vs. Thrombolytics

Which is the more effective treatment for an acute myocardial infarction - percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis? Does a physician ever have to choose between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John1234567890 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For acute MI, the most effective approach is cardiac catheterization lab assessment (which often involves recanalization of an occluded vessel). For institutions that don't have a cath lab, thrombolytics are the most appropriate secondary approach, while they send patients to a hospital with a cath lab. --David Iberri (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ozone cleaner

I'm having difficulty finding a device that will clean ozone out of a room. If you type "ozone" and anything remotely close to "cleaner" or "filter" into a search engine, you come up with hundreds of ozone generators. I want the exact opposite - a device that will convert the ozone in an ozone-rich room to something less hazardous, such as O₂. Is there anything like that available on the open market? -- kainaw™ 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Had a bit of an electrical problem? Hopefully you weren't tossing food in front of a microwave RADAR to warm it up! (Sorry, I have no idea how to absorb ozone; maybe you could spray some CFCs around?) Nimur 05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, ozone specifies that the decay time of O3 to O2 in atmospheric conditions is less than a half hour. If you are still having problems with ozone / ozone smell, maybe you have a more serious problem - some other chemical hazard? Insert standard "seek professional advice" comment... Nimur 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Potentially whatever is generating the ozone is still operating. Have you isolated the source yet? I remember I once had a defective light producing ozone but it could be anything electrical potentially. If you're unable to operate in the room because of the ozone, I would suggest you do what you would do if you have a shortcircuit. Turn off the room or house's power at the fuse box, ventilate the room and then turn off everything in the room. Turn the fuse back on and turn each device on one by one. Make sure you keep the room ventilated of course Nil Einne 09:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Google remove ozone. 152.16.59.190 07:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ventilation? DirkvdM 08:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ventilation is not an option and the source of the ozone is well known (liquid oxygen storage and a small room with over 300 power supplies sharing a closed-loop air conditioning unit). The ozone remover from the anonymous user's Google search should work well - if I can get administration to order one. Maybe I can find some OSHA regulation to force the issue. -- kainaw™ 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As Nimur says - the stuff decays naturally in 30 minutes or so. So it won't build up indefinitely unless there is really inadequate ventilation. If the amounts you are producing is so high as to represent a health risk even with that decay rate, then I think you have something causing arcing in those power supplies and the ozone is the least of your problems. Personally, I think I'd just install some big fans and blow it out to atmosphere. It seems like it should dilute rapidly and decay before it can do any great harm. However, this is definitely one of those "Seek professional advice" things. SteveBaker 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some copy machine and laser printers have an ozone filter. I can't imagine how it works, though. My understanding is that you have to dilute it, or let it oxidize something. --Mdwyer 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A catalyst to accelerate the decomposition of ozone back to molecular oxygen seems reasonable. Google for ozone decompose catalyst to see los of examples, including many that don't look like Infomercial crap. DMacks 07:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tin Oxide is used I believe. Polypipe Wrangler 11:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Detection of Maltose

I need to find a way to detect the appearance of maltose, or measure the rate of hydrolysis in starch? My project includes taking corn starch with different pH values, and testing the effect of amylase at different pHes on hydrolysis. Any help appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooooo (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be expensive, but you can use maltase and then look for glucose. ←Ben^B4 03:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The old iodine trick should work. Iodine will turn starch blue. But I don't think it will discolour maltose. I don't quite know what the effect of pH is on the colour of Iodine though, so this might make things a bit more difficult.PvT 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if there is a pH effect, you could do the test on a sample at the instant it's exposed to the conditions and compare it to one on a sample after some time. That way you're comparing two results that were under the same pH conditions (and then examine this change with respect to pH or amylase). Any time you have a variable, you need some sort of control group to see what its effect is, both on "what you're testing" as well as on the mechanism of the testing itself. DMacks 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone. I plan on using amylase (can't get maltase apparently) and checking the pH at every point of the expirement, before amylase, after amylase, before iodine, and after iodine and then repeating the experiment for discrepancies. Blooooo 19:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You could detect the hydrolysis of starch by other means. For example, you could make some starch gels ready for electrophoresis. Do the various treatments, and then electrophorese some standard things. Check with someone who does this sort of thing. Polypipe Wrangler 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the future

What is the chance that someone born in 1992 will live to see the year 2100? --124.254.77.148 08:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• This question obviously calls for speculation, so I'll speculate: I consider the chances to be rather low that anyone will be alive in 2100. In 1892, there was no foreseeable technology that could wipe out all of humanity. Just a half century later that was no longer the case. The democratizing nature of technology means that smaller and smaller entities become more and more powerful over time. In the beginning only the most powerful nations could build nuclear weapons; now some of the poorest in the world have them. It's easy to imagine that in the next 100 years individuals will have access to that level of destructive technology, in the form of genetic engineering, nano-technology, nuclear refinement, or -- more likely -- some unforeseen technology. At that point, all humanity will be subject to the Columbine/Virginia-Tech/September-11 crazies of the world. In short: don't buy any green bananas. --Sean 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You sound like Debbie Downer. —Keenan Pepper 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• It may call for speculation regarding causes and specific cases, but it can likely be answered in a statistical sense by reading Life expectancy#Calculating life expectancies. DMacks 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on recent mortality data from Canada shown here, out of every 100,000 babies born 99,268 survive to age 15 and 31 survive to age 108. So the probability that someone born in 1992 who has survived to age 15 in 2007 will survive a further 83 years to 2100 is 31/99,268, or about 0.03%. This assumes mortality rates remain unchanged for the next 80 years - in practice, they may well improve (leaving aside Sean's pessimistic scenario) so the probability may be higher (50 years ago the probability of a new born baby surviving to age 108 was only 0.003%). The actual probability for a specifc individual will be affected significantly by factors such a gender, life style, access to health care etc. Gandalf61 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the kind of answer I wanted. :) --124.254.77.148 07:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The maximum age humans could possibly reach is sometimes said to be somewhere around 130 years. For the largest part, this has to do with dna strands getting shorter every time they are copied or something (don't know the details). At the moment, in western Europe, people grow to be around 80 on average. Over the next hundred years we're bound to get a fair bit closer to those 130 years. So if the average age has risen from 80 to 108 then that number would be 50%. Mind you, that is in the West, and assuming no catastrophies like war or drastic climate change. See also maximum life span. For a completely different option see the first item in this section on my user page. DirkvdM 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to check back through our archives to several long and interesting threads about the highly controversial (but very entertaining) theory of quantum immortality which would suggest that everyone lives forever as far as they themselves are concerned. SteveBaker 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

wave ball

i was watching a re-run of nickelodeon's global guts and they had a wave ball in a pool that creates waves. could you please tell me how that ctually works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.201.93 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wave pool and [1]. They don't mention a wave 'balls' specifically but the basic concept is going to be the same. It might also help if you think of dropping a pebble in a body of water. You generate (small) waves. Basically the wave ball is doing the same thing but biger waves (think of dropping a rock) and at continually intervals. Nil Einne 09:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some specifications of "wave balls". As one might expect, the basic principle is a ball with a large amount of mass in it that is moved up and down to create waves. This particular company's product that I linked to seems to do some calculations as well to decide when the optimal time to move the weight up and down is, allowing it to multiply existing waves (and thus generating larger waves with less energy). --24.147.86.187 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes using constructive interference makes a lot of sense. Somehow I never thought of that Nil Einne 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

see www.wowcompany.com for the Wave Ball

Sensation of Vertigo

I used to think that the sensation one gets when looking over a cliff is that of "vertigo" but after reading the word's definition it doesn't seem to be the case. Is there a word for the sensation you get when looking over a precipous? Not a dizzying or moving sensation but rather, I am embarassed to say, something felt in the genitals. Again is there a name for this? 207.69.139.135 09:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Acrophobia the sensation is best described as a spinning sensation. It doesn't mention any feeling in the genital region however Nil Einne 09:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

When faced with even the thought of a remarkably steep cliff or something involving heights and a falling hazard, I get a very tingly sensation under my feet. 81.93.102.185 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

When looking off a tall structure at a dizzying height, I usually have to fight the urge to jump. I'm not a suicidal person, but I've always had this compulsion. I think it has something to do with my mind trying to break the suspense. --Sean 13:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Better read The Imp of the Perverse. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Read it? I wrote it! --Sean 21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you! Well, then, my hat is off to you! —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a question about this jumping sensation on the desks a few months back, but i'm awful with searching archives. It was created by myself but I was probably acting under an IP at the time. Can any ultra-searchers find it? Capuchin 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007_April_12#Desire_to_jump_from_a_height --Sean 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Better not read just do it. I must admit I thought this feeling was vertigo. You don't say exactly what happens in the genital region, but could that just be scrotal piloerection?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I can concur with the unpleasant sensation when looking down from a great height, but never from an aircraft. I had always assumed this was vertigo. There is an unpleasant sort of "butterflies in the stomach" feeling but also a similar sort of sensation in the genitals, not piloeraction but a deeper uncomfortable sensation perhaps like the testicles being drawn up. I have never experienced giddiness - just the sure and certain feeling that this high vantage point is going to collapse. However the good news is that if you force your self to stay there the feeling will pass, maybe 5 minutes maybe 15 but it will go. It took at least 15 minutes at the top of the Space Needle! Richard Avery 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Natural genetic engineering"

Hello. I'm just a high school student. In searching around the internet I've run across a concept, "natural genetic engineering," which I can't quite grasp due to the high level it's discussed at. It's all related to a certain biologist named James A. Shapiro. Can someone explain to me, in layman's terms, what this is? In particular I'm interested to know if it means that the life forms undergoing "natural genetic engineering" somehow "know" how to adapt to a new environment. Here are some links:

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/index3.html?content=genome.html shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2007.Colchester.pdf http://members.aol.com/jorolat/nge.html http://www.springerlink.com/content/v655m288l6457115/

Any help appreciated. Thanks. 76.247.78.219 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I might be too much of a fool to understand it, but it sounds like what he is calling "natural genetic engineering" is what the rest of the world calls "genetics." "Natural genetic engineering" is something of an oxymoronic term, if you ask me — genetic engineering implies human manipulation of what would otherwise be solely in the realm of nature; making it "natural" means removing the human component, yes? The work, from a brief skim, seems to be about the complicated ways in which genetic code can self-regulate and self-correct and that there is code which controls code and the like. All of which is true, but last I checked was subsumed by the definition "genetics" and, without human intervention, is not "genetic engineering" of any sort. The genetic code is quite complicated, and if he is just using the term to get outside of the simple "standard dogma" approach to genetics (which has been known to be misleadingly simple for a long time), I guess that is fine, but if you ask me the right way to do it—and the way most scientists seem to consider it—is to think of that complexity as being part of the definition of "genetics". Genetics has all sorts of regulatory functions built into the code itself—it is like a program that can reprogram itself, aside from doing all sorts of other things—and unless I've missed the mark, that's what he's chosen to label "natural genetic engineering." --24.147.86.187 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but it sounds like you got the basic idea right--the organism rearranges its genome in response to environmental changes. I've taken basic genetic sources but have not learned anything about that. What I've read about genetic adaptation are things concerning post transcriptional changes and feedback systems. An example of post transcriptional changes is when the transcribed DNA is spliced and rearranged. Feedback systems concern the regulation of protein production, where depending on the condition in the cell, the rate of a protein's synthesis is adjusted accordingly. The adaptation the guy talks about seems to infer changes in the genome itself. That is, sequences of DNA are rearranged to produce new programs (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). The post transcriptional changes and feedback systems don't have anything to do with changing the genome. 128.163.224.222 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For an opposing viewpoint: I was talking some time ago to a biologist I knew, and expressing dismay over some dangerous-sounding bit of "genetic engineering" that was then in the news, and he made the point that, in his view, he couldn't see any difference between that and regular old natural selection.

• Natural selection: organisms are selected based on their "fitness for the environment", where this fitness is actually determined by how successfully they reach maturity and reproduce. Random mutations (induced by e.g. cosmic radiation) introduce variability which may produce superior environmental adaptations which will then be selected for. Also, viruses and other pathogens occasionally swap bits of genetic material between unrelated species; this can produce spectacular mutations (which, again, if beneficial will then be selected for).
• Generic engineering: organisms are selected based on how successfully they reach maturity and reproduce, which is determined by whether some humans like the way they've come out, and let them reproduce. Random mutations (induced perhaps by deliberately-applied radiation) introduce variability which may produce desired adaptations which will then be selected for. Also, those humans may contrive to swap bits of genetic material between unrelated species; this can produce spectacular mutations (which, again, if beneficial will then be selected for).

The point is that, other than that there's an external agent attempting to direct the process towards a predetermined goal (which is, of course, most unlike natural evolution), there's really no difference in the underlying mechanisms or the potential outcomes of the "natural" versus "artificial" selection processes. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Softwood shipping Grade Markings

Sorry to ask this question again, but I can't get the answer, please does anyone know where i can get the softwood shipping markings? I have them from 1976 but most have chaged as lots of new ones out now, The main places the wood markings are needed from is Sweden, Finland and Russia I hope someone can help this time, I have been searching for then for weeks thank you Jasimps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.174.194 (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you ask a timberyard? I don't think there are many timberworkers online editing the science reference desk. Graeme Bartlett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if you get no responses after a couple of days it's because none of us know the answer. Continually re-asking the same question isn't going to get you anywhere. All reasonable questions are typically researched by at least a couple of people. For the record, I searched all over the place on the web and in paper encyclopedias in an attempt to answer your question the first time you asked it. I was able to find odd reports from conferences where shippers discussed timber markings - but I couldn't find any resource describing what they actually were. So sadly, I doubt anyone here will be able to help you. I like Graeme Bartlett's suggestion of asking someone who deals with timber shipments. But this service isn't magical - whilst we can usually come up with something, if the information just isn't out there, we can't find an answer for you no matter how many times you ask. Sorry. SteveBaker 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

True. But there's no need to scold the OP -- somewhere, in one of our RD instructions or guidelines, is or was the statement suggesting it's fine to re-ask a question after a week or so. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for trying anyway, I have been scolded and wont ask again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.174.194 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the Ref Desk guidelines, it's perfectly OK to re-ask a question - and I'm certainly not scolding anyone for doing it. What the RD guidelines don't say (and they probably should) is that your odds of getting a decent answer fall to approximately zero if you didn't get anything useful the first time you asked the question. It's a sad fact of life that we can't answer everything - and if we can, we generally do so the first time around. SteveBaker 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Creatine and Body Fat Percentage

I had my body fat percentage measured two weeks ago and it was 11.2%, but this week it was 13.5% using the same machine (its this thing that you put on your arm and I guess it sends a signal through you). I havnt gained any weight and my measurements havnt changed either. Is it because I started taking creatine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.139.80 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just a reflection of statistical error in the technique used to measure body fat. Also, from your description, I'm guessing the apparatus you're using uses bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for its measurement. I don't have any personal experience with the technique, but according to our article on BIA, it's apparently an inferior technique for measuring percent body fat. That in itself may account for the error.

Creatine by itself doesn't have an effect on muscle mass (and there aren't enough convincing data out there to reliably say creatine supplementation is at all worthwhile), but chances are that if you're taking creatine you're also weight training. In the long-term, weight training increases muscle mass and decreases body fat, although two weeks of it is unlikely to cause a dramatic change. --David Iberri (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

dietary supplement

what is and what is it used for .....Omega 3 Fish Oil?

angieb4756 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.120.234 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See Omega 3 fatty acid. Someguy1221 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

September 10

Problem with Video Divs on the Reference Desk

Hello fellow reference deskers. There seems to be a glitch in syntax which is botching up the formatting for the video files posted above. (My guess it is in Template:Video, but I'm not sure). Can anyone figure this out? Surely it's wreaking havoc on other pages which use the video template, and it's doing terrible things to the Reference Desk. Nimur 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Glitch is right! For some reason the two videos are sitting at the bottom of the page now (at least under my version of Firefox). I tried removing the <div>'s and <br> that Nimur had inserted, thinking that would help, but that led to a cascading-indent problem. Then I tried inserting a {{--}} template, which usually fixes those, but that rendered all the following sections bizarrely uneditable! WTF?! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out the offending videos - we can't have one fscked up question screwing up the entire ref desk. SteveBaker 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed what looked to me as two bugs in Template:Video, one of which was related to <div> usage. Now this historical form of the page appears to render correctly (or at least not crappily) for me (x11 build of Firefox1.5 on OS X). DMacks 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you kill yourself with a knife

I was watching "Rome", the HBO show, and it shows a woman standing on her knees, bringing her knife to her breast quickly, thrusting, and immediately falling dead. How realistic is that? It seems quite hard to be able to a) thrust the knife in the point which contains the right spot on the chest (wherever that is), b) to thrust it with enough strength by yourself, without being weakened by the pain which occurs right after you break the skin and c) to die pretty immediately (as opposed to dying from somewhat slow-occurring blood loss).

What are the chances of successfully doing a? What are the chances of successfully doing a & b? What are the chances of doing a & b & c?

Assuming the person has lay understanding of anatomy and average strength, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knyazhna (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See Hara-kiri.

The dagger to the breast is indeed a popular device in fiction, but I don't find it too far-fetched. A stab wound to the heart is, if not immediately fatal, nonetheless quite definitive and unrecoverable. You may not bleed out instantaneously, but it won't take long. (It most certainly will not be "somewhat slow-occurring".) And with a sharp knife, you can pretty easily slip between the ribs and puncture the heart. Yes, there'll be a moment of intense pain, but once your hands and arms are in motion I'd imagine you could follow through.

[ObDisclaimer: The Wikipedia Reference Desk cannot dispense suicide advice. If you need to kill yourself, consult a qualified professional. Jack Kevorkian's out of jail now, isn't he?] —Steve Summit (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but it's not quite "there". First of all, harakiri does not really apply, since you can see that by the ritual (first you cut your stomach, then your helper cuts off your head), one could be quite unsuccessful in actually killing oneself by one's own knife, and still complete harakiri (you just need good help). Also, Japanese swords are quite known for their sharpness. What is the likelihood that a woman's dagger is that sharp? Or at all sharp on any given day? Were there regular weekly sharpenings for lady's knives?

Secondly, I realize that it's possible for a&b&c to occur; I was wondering about the actual probabilities. Is it 80%? Is it 30%?

And, no, I'm not going to "try it at home" :) It really won't result in a scientific answer to my question, just anecdotal evidence. 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)~~

a: 89.1%. ("You can pretty easily slip between the ribs and puncture the heart.")

b: 76.4%. ("Once your hands and arms are in motion I'd imagine you could follow through.")

c: 93.7%. ("You may not bleed out instantaneously, but it won't take long.")

a & b: 89.1 × 76.4 = 68.07%

a & b & c: 89.1 × 76.4 × 93.7 = 63.7838%

Better than 50-50 odds. You're right: not something to try at home. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In Seppuku, only the men disembowled themselves. Women put the knife through their throat. I suspect their is a way to rapidly reduce blood pressure in the brain which would cause near immediate unconsciousnes. --DHeyward 08:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original poster is referring to the suicides ordered by Nero after the discovery of the Pisonian conspiracy. Our article on Seneca the Younger says that he cut his wrists and took poison and his wife attempted suicide by cutting her wrists. Our article on Lucan says he "opened a vein". I suspect that the dagger to the heart scene is a piece of dramatic licence. Gandalf61 08:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cato pulled out his own intestines following the Caesar-Pompey Roman Civil War, there's a new method for you to consider! He supposedly ripped out his own stitches from a previous semi-first-stage-hari-kari attempt and just yanked them out.... SGGH ^speak! 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cato really had guts, and no one could deny it. Edison 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the subsection Seppuku in modern Japan it says that in “In 1999, Masaharu Nonaka . . . slashed his belly with a sashimi knife to protest his forced retirement. He died later in the hospital.” So I guess you can at least cut your belly. I have also heard however that there is a reflex that stops most people from stabbing themselves, which is why people must literally fall on their knives. Either way I’m pretty sure it would be a quite painful death. I think if you were hyped up enough on adrenalin it might be realistic though. One other thing, I saw a performance of Romeo and Juliet where Juliet stabs herself UNDER her right ribcage. Anybody know if this is realistic? --S.dedalus 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably she was stabbing up under the ribcage towards the heart instead of trying to go between the ribs. I could not recommend the ease of this route in practice, but I believe that it is at least easier theatrically. Eldereft 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

aircraft weapons

i herd that during one of the world wars a fight aircraft was built and it had the machine gun placed behind the propeler.when the pilot was shooting the bullets would fly right between the propellers arms without ever touching them.please tell me if this is possible and explain if you can.thanx (please excuse the spelling not an english native) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.213.243 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See Synchronization gear. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The earliest planes had a V-shaped metal plate bolted to each blade of the propellor that would deflect bullets from the machine gun so they wouldn't shoot off the propellor blades - but this was kinda dangerous because the deflected bullets would fly off in all sorts of dangerous directions! Other aircraft were built with 'pusher' propellors mounted on the back of the plane so that a machinegun could fire forwards - but those planes had unwieldy twin-boom tailplane setups. Yet others used machineguns mounted on the top wing so that they would clear the prop - but those were harder to aim. The later invention of the 'interrupter gear' had a cam mounted onto the engine shaft that would push a lever to turn off the machinegun for a fraction of a second to allow the propellor blade to go past unscathed. These things eventually became used on all aircraft on both sides of the war. By WWII, the wings of modern monoplanes were sufficiently strong that guns could be mounted out to the sides of the prop - some planes had hollow prop-shafts with a gun that fired right through the center of the hub of the prop. Between those things, the interrupter was pretty much obsolete.SteveBaker 03:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But numerous WWII aircraft continued to use them, such as the Me-109, IIRC. Someguy1221 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shotgun speaker

Would the "shotgun speaker" design at http://forums.keenspot.com/viewtopic.php?p=3063548#3063548 actually work, and if so, how does it manage the directionality? --Carnildo 03:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A parabolic dish with a small speaker at the focus of the parabola and aimed back at the dish should do the job. The larger the dish the better (because - relative to the size of the dish - the speaker will be more concentrated at the focus). SteveBaker 03:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can see (and hear) this latter design in many museums, where they are used so that only a listener located directly below the speaker hears the narration for the exhibit they're looking at/interacting with.

Atlant 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know a parabolic reflector works. What I want to know about is the "shotgun speaker" design at that link. --Carnildo 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the answer. There is a parabolic reflector inside and that's how it manages directionality. If you need more information, tell us specifically what you need. Perhaps you don't understand why a parabolic reflector results in strong directionality? If so, reply here and I can explain it. SteveBaker 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any parabolic reflector in that description. As far as I can tell, the post is describing a bundle of steel pipes of selected lengths encased in a PVC pipe. --Carnildo 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that a "shotgun speaker" is the logical inverse of a shotgun microphone; I suppose there's no reason such a device shouldn't work.

Atlant 14:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

urgent biology question

Here is a situation " Some babies are allergic to milk. A similar fluid made from plants can be used as a milk substitute.These fluids must be well tested to ensure that they are as nutritious as milk. They are usually tested on rats.

what is a suitable method that could be used to carry out this experiment and what apparatus would be required?

Your assistance would be much appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.131.186.18 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like homework. Have you seen Laboratory rat? Graeme Bartlett 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Would "a similar fluid made from plants" be soy milk?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you have an "urgent biology question" because you want to test your milk substitute befoe you give it to your baby, I must remind you that wikipedia does not give out medical advice SGGH ^speak! 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'd take two bunches of rats - feed one lot milk and the other lot your plant-based concoction. Measure growth rates, disease rates, test IQ by running them through mazes, look for behavioral abnormalities, measure life span, fertility, etc. However, that wouldn't be enough. There could be chemicals in your plant-based pseudo-milk that would be carcinogenic over a period of time longer than the life-span of a lab rat. In practice, I suspect the process with Soy Milk was more like "We know there is nothing nasty in Soy beans because people have been eating the stuff for millenia - so if we liquidize them and feed it to babies, it shouldn't kill them." - you'd also have to look carefully for signs of deficiencies in the babies diets - probably adding a bunch of vitamins and minerals to make up for whatever is missing. SteveBaker 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times has flight evolved?

Our article on flying and gliding animals says that flight has evolved at least four times in the animal kingdom: in insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats. However, I seem to recall that the number should be five times, as insects have evolved two separate forms of flight; the mechanism works differently for a dragonfly than it does for a moth, for example. Is this correct? Has flight evolved four or five different times? — Brian (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Would ya believe that we have a whole article on insect flight? It sounds like what you are talking about is the difference between direct and indirect flight, according to that article. Fascinating stuff, I had never given it a moment's thought before! --24.147.86.187 07:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the key here is the "at least" part. In any case, I did a Google search for "the evolution of flight" and the first hit was a UC Berkeley site. It doesn't say much about insects, but has a good deal of vertebrate info. After the first search, I did a new search for the "evolution of flight in insects". And I got a bunch of cool stuff, but no dice on your question. So I plugged in "how many times did flight evolve", and I got this article, which says:

1. some investigators regard winged insects as polyphyletic (Matsuda, 1981)

2. majority favor monophyletic origin

3. Marden and Kramer (1995) defend idea flight could have evolved more than once

So I guess it is a bit, up in the air, so to speak. If you need me to find those specific refs for you, contact me on my talk page, I can email you pdfs (I gots lots of access to library sites :) ) --Cody Pope 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The original quote said at least 4 times. The answer might well be more than 5 because we do not have the opportunity to study all of the billions of extinct species. It's perfectly possible that other animals evolved flight - but subsequently became extinct. Hence an at least statement is probably the best we can make. SteveBaker 12:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the subtext was "How many times has flight evolved individually in insects?" From Cody Pope's research, it seems that the majority opinion is once, although some folks think it's twice. — Brian (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying fish, anybody? — PhilHibbs | talk 12:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see your fish, and raise you a flying squirrel. --LarryMac | Talk 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Both flying fish and flying squirrels (+foxes, snakes, spiders, frogs, etc) are gliding - they can't sustain flight. After an initial jump, they can only lose altitude. Birds, some insects and bats can gain altitude by flapping. SteveBaker 18:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, The Flying Nun was only a glider, too. :) — Scientizzle 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Flying Nun? — Scientizzle 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you're joking, but I think it's fair to count human flight. We can fly farther, faster, higher, and longer than any other species. And if we haven't "evolved" a way to fly, then neither have chimps "evolved" a way to get termites out of their nest with a blade of grass. --Sean 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? It's perfectly possible for a species to have a gene for making and using a specific tool. Human flight isn't "evolved" (in the genetic sense) - but (for example) Starlings can smash open a snail shell with a pebble even if they've never seen another starling do it - which suggests a genetic basis for their tool use. A single human would be unlikely to be able to build and fly an airplane if they'd never met another human before. I don't know whether tool use in Chimpanzees is genetic or learned. SteveBaker 18:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't remember any specific examples just now, but there are definitely some animal behaviors that are passed on by observation and imitation, rather than being instinctive. --Steve Summit (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My Flying Nun link was definitely a joke. :) I would understand the question "How many times has flight evolved?" to be strictly bounded by heritable genetic information resulting in body designs capable of true flight (not gliding). Human flight has no genetic root, so it's not an "evolved" behavior in the classic biological sense. The concept, however, might qualify as a meme; memetic theory incorporates many Darwinian elements. — Scientizzle 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article that ties together two recent reference desk threads: [2] R. Dudley, Atmospheric oxygen, giant Paleozoic insects and the evolution of aerial locomotor performance. Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 201, Issue 8 1043-1050. --Reuben 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

which is the largest flower?

• email removed to prevent spam* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.30.8 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably Rafflesia arnoldii? --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps Amorphophallus titanum? Capuchin 10:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, Antilived had it right. The thing that looks like a flower on the A. titum is actually a spadix (a stalk for holding clustered flowers which have no pedicles) surrounded by a modified leaf called a spathe. The actual flowers are arrayed in their thousands deep down in the spathe. Here are some pictures of them after having been pollinated: [3]. --Sean 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

what is the phenolics of lemon grass

what is the phenolics of lemon grass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.146.100 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at Cymbopogon? --Mdwyer 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Distance travelled by the Space Shuttle

Space Shuttle Endeavour has flown 19 flights, spent 206.60 days in space, completed 3,259 orbits, and flown 85,072,077 miles (136,910,237 km) in total, as of February 2003.

What does this mean? How is this distance calculated, given that at some point the vehicle leaves Earth's atmosphere and enters orbit, involving a change of context - technically, it was already travelling at 900 miles per hour (0.4 km/s)while on the ground, but at some point we consider it to be "travelling". When does this change take place?

For example, if I am on the ground, I am stationary. If I hover 10m above the ground, then I am still stationary. If I hover a mile above the ground, most people would say that I am still stationary. If, however, I hover 35,786 km above the ground, then I am travelling at 3 km/s in geostationary orbit. When does this change take place? How far up do you have to be to be considered moving as against stationary?

For a spacecraft like the shuttle, you could just measure the distance travelled since take-off, and count the motion gained from the Earth's rotation as a bonus. However, in a more general case of measuring space travel, the Earth is travelling around the sun at 30 km/s. A craft that leaves Earth orbit and goes around the sun independently is then considered to be going considerably faster than it was when it was in orbit.

I think the question of "how far has a spacecraft travelled" is even more meaningless than "how long is the coastline of mainland Britain". It all depends how you measure it, there is no "correct" answer.

— PhilHibbs | talk 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only meaningless if you don't define your terms carefully enough. The addition of the five words "relative to it's launch pad" to the question would be sufficient to give you a very clear definition of what is meant with a nice, simple, unambiguous answer. For the shuttle, that's actually a fairly useful and meaningful definition - and is almost certainly what is intended here. But if you were thinking of one of the Apollo moon missions, it would be less obvious that this makes sense because all the time the LEM was parked on the moon, it would be racking up miles relative to Houston without "moving" at all (relative to the moon). Without some kind of qualification, you can't talk about the distance that anything travels. The odometer on your car fails entirely to measure the distance travelled by the body of the car relative to you - or relative to the moon - or relative to it's own gear shifter knob for that matter. When we talk about distances travelled, we generally assume we're talking about 'relative to some fixed point on the surface of the earth' - this convention only starts to break down when we're talking about spacecraft and such. "How long is the coastline of Britain?" is a MUCH harder concept to pin down. SteveBaker 17:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So you'd expect that distance to be relative to a point on the earth. That would mean that its speed relative to the launch pad is constantly changing as it passes over it and goes round the other side of the world. The constant change of speed relative to the launch pad would make measuring the distance travelled very difficult. I'd expect that at some point they disregard the launch point and start measuring distance travelled relative to the centre of orbit, as circular paths are a lot easier to calculate than the twisty turny loopiness of a path measured relative to a rotating starting position. Maybe I'm wrong, and the start point adjustment is just a single matrix transformation applied to the velocity. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse 'speed' and 'velocity'. Velocity is speed+direction. The velocity of the shuttle does indeed change continually with respect to it's launchpad as it orbits. But it's speed doesn't change much in a stable circular orbit. In an elliptical orbit, yes, the speed changes - but the shuttle isn't normally in anything very far from a circular orbit. The calculations involved in changing the place you are measuring distance relative to are pretty trivial. I could do it with just a handful of lines of computer code (given a suitable math library - which you can be sure NASA will be using). But "distance travelled" isn't really important to either the navigation of the shuttle itself or it's controllers on Earth - these kinds of statistics are really only there to impress the press corps (who are easily impressed!).

Doing some 'mathematical archeology', my guess is that they are simply taking the number of orbits - which they know exactly (3259) and multiplying by the circumference of a 'typical' circular orbit. I guessed that they'd calculate that from the mean equatorial radius of the earth plus 300km as a 'typical' orbital altitude (the shuttle can orbit anywhere between 185 and 1000km altitude - but 300km is typical because that's roughly the altitude of the ISS). Multiply that out and if you pick the right approximation for PI and the right approximation for the mean equatorial radius of the earth and round the result to the nearest million kilometers and by an AMAZING coincidence, you get 137,000,000km - which is almost exactly what you quoted above.

This means that it's almost certain that the figure you have is a horrible approximation. They did the exact same very rough 'back of envelope' calculation based on the number of orbits and a guesstimate for the mean altitude. Since they count orbits relative to the launchpad, that distance travelled is (very roughly) the distance travelled relative to the launchpad. QED. The only horrifying thing here is that they unscientifically quoted the result to 9 significant digits. They should have said: "About 100 million kilometers" given the way they probably did the math. SteveBaker 14:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And here we have the reason I asked this question. Should a "horrible approximation" be presented as fact in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia isn't in the business of impressing the press corps. But this has strayed beyond the scope of the Reference Desk, this is a topic for the Talk Page. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, it is enough to say who says that this is the case and provide a reference. "NASA says that...yadda, yadda^[23]." is OK because you are documenting the fact that they claimed this - not that Wikipedia necessarily believes it to be true. Personally, I'd round off that number though. Giving the answer accurate to the nearest klick out of 137 million is ridiculously precise and more or less guaranteed to be wrong. SteveBaker 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Roundness

Why when you take everything down to atoms is everything round? From soap bubbles to stars to elctrons to the universe. Why is it all round? 89.240.69.176 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The sphere is the only shape that looks the same from every direction. —Keenan Pepper 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said electrons are "round"? Or the universe for that matter? And atoms don't really have a shape either; their wavefunctions stretch outward forever. --Spoon! 15:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And if you did have to assign a shape to an atom, it would most likely not be spherical. The electron cloud is described by the atomic orbitals, some of which have quite unusual shapes, not just a huge non-descript blob of "all electrons spread around the nucleus". DMacks 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Circles and spheres are efficient in many natural processes. Check out the On Being Round lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson (also available in his books and DVDs, though they are a bit pricey.) Weregerbil 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Among all solid shapes, the sphere has the smallest ratio of surface area to volume (same applies to circles when you're talking about 2 dimensions). A circular orbit (be it planet or electron) is the shortest orbit with the most constant velocity. If an object (or wave) expands equally in every direction, it makes a sphere (or circle... picture the ripples in a pond). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is, why isn't something round? If there are no particular features to make something have a corner or a side, it ends up round. Gzuckier 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that diagrams/pictures of what objects look like do seem to reduce everythign to being circle/spherical...Search electron in google image search - the first page is virtually all spherical shapes. The same is true for atom, and also proton. If these images are not what things actually look like even in their simplest shape then you can see where the confusion would lie. Certainly I was under a similar impression to the original questionnaire - everything looks like spheres connected with cylinders in the minature world...at least artists impressions do! ny156uk 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a huge problem, and one that can't really be solved well. A real danger I see in my classes is when people think one explanation or one model is the complete and exact picture of something. What subatomic things "actually" look like often isn't known and sometimes can't be known, often doesn't matter, and sometimes doesn't even actually exist. But we can still talk about them and describe them and draw them. We can draw them many different ways and make many different sorts of models of them, each way illustrates certain properties well, but is not useful (and sometimes very misleading) if one uses it to illustrate things for which it wasn't designed. A paper airplane sorta looks like an airplane and it flies, but there's nowhere to put luggage, but you wouldn't say "therefore real planes generally don't have luggage compartments". Drawing an atom as a circle or dot, and electrons as dots or circles around a nucleus does give a good general idea of what and where things are. If someone says "draw it", then you gotta draw something, and if you need to talk about the relative positions of two things, you need to draw "two things". So best we can usually do is to draw a circle or a blob. DMacks 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think it better to draw a large circle around the nucleus to represent the highest probabilities, and for a more advanced diagram play with the orbital diagrams. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

downloading something to a persons brain

is it possible that something like a new language can be downloaded to the brain of someone as waves a brain can understand , which will possible make him learn something new easily ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.116.238 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Save it for the future...128.163.170.178 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have sources, but no, I do not think it is possible, yet. It will definitely be possible in the future, as it doesn't break any laws of nature. — Adriaan (T★C) 15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not (or at least not for a long time). Brains "grow" their knowledge in a sense by making or modifying physical connections between neurons. It's a bit more complicated than changing the polarity of magnets to make 1s and 0s like we do in computers. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the theme is explored in film The Matrix, the short story/film Johnny Mnemonic (short story)/Johnny Mnemonic (film), and the short story/film We Can Remember It for You Wholesale/Total Recall, as well as the Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain".

Atlant 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the memories within a brain are made up of connections between cells. The way those connections form is different for everyone. To take a wild (but true) example - I'm British - before I came to America I had no need to know which US political party was which. I arrived here during the Clinton impeachment stuff - and I remembered that Clinton was a democrat because 'democrat' sounds a bit like 'DAME-o-crat' (dame==woman, woman==reason for Clinton's impeachment) and the opposition were behaving weirdly - like they were drunk or something - so I formed the connection "re-PUB-lican"...weird - but for a while that was how I recalled which was which. Now I have some brain connections that associate those things together. I'm fairly sure that nobody else made that same set of connections - everyone has a different means to remember facts like that. Hence to teach someone something (like perhaps to teach me which US presidents were with which political party), you'd first have to understand how all of their knowledge fitted together - then develop some kind of custom neuronal re-wiring that would be unique to that person. It's also likely that learning one thing changes your perception of other things. It might be exceedingly dangerous to have a machine teach you something because it could easily mess up what you've already learned. This seems exceedingly difficult - even in a sci-fi setting. It's tough to say it would be impossible though - as Adriaan90 said - no physical laws seem to need be broken to make this happen. SteveBaker 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way might be to add external memory (be it electronic or biological or whatever), let's say in the form of a helmet, to make connections short (an 'even neo-er cortex', let me call it the neoneocortex). But for that to work instantly, the brain of that person would have to be intricately analysed, at least the parts that deal with whatever knowledge you're adding. If those can be localised, that is, because a specific bit of knowledge is not in one specific place. Knowledge is not localised, it consists of connections between other pieces of knowledge, which in turn are just connections between yet other pieces of knowledge (I think that's what Steve meant to say). What is more feasible is to just make some connections between the 'two brains' and let them work out the right connections themselves through learning. In which case you're back to square one - the person still has to learn it the old fashioned way, he just has more brainpower. But this opens another avenue. What if it were seen not as an extension, but as an interface. On one side it talks to the original brain and on the other side to a computer. Then, at a conscious level, the person could download info to the computer and then absorb it on a subconscious level through the neoneocortex. Note that those are both actions of the brain, with higher levels helping lower levels through the use of a tool. DirkvdM 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Communicating with animals ??

animals produce sound waves that probably they understand but we humans dont, so it is possible to make a convertor that can converts animals sound waves to understandable sound waves to humans ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.116.238 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How we experience what we're communicatiing might be so different that the signifiers would make little sense. See qualia for some discussion. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking if it's possible to modify inaudible sounds so that we can hear them? Then yes, I think whale songs often need to be adjusted before humans can hear them. If you're asking if it's possible to translate animal 'language' into human language, the answer is typically 'no' because most animals don't have a structured language, but check out Waggle Dance 69.95.50.15 17:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we understand some animal "languages" just fine. We all know that when a cat is happy it purrs and when it's upset it yeowls and so forth. My dogs use a very particular 'hurt puppy' yap when they want to be let back into the house from the back yard and big deep barks when they are trying to scare off people who come up to the front of the house. They use distinctive body language too - who can mistake the big side-to-side wag (meaning "welcome") and the smaller wag (meaning "happy") and the front-end-down, rear-end-up-in-the-air (a "play bow" - meaning "What is about to happen is all for fun!")? There is even a sense of 'word order': A play bow followed by growling means something very different from a deep bark followed by growling. Barking+Tail wagging means something different from barking whilst jumping up and down with fore-feet only (which indicates frustration and a need to rush off and do something). I think we can learn and understand the language of familiar animals just fine. We know that cat's wag their tails when they are annoyed and dogs do it when they are happy (this explains a lot about why cats and dogs don't always get on very well!) You are assuming that what they are saying is a lot more sophisticated than that...but it's not - most animals are simple creatures with simple communication needs that they have evolved to deal with. SteveBaker 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That very last bit ('evolved') goes against the bit just before it ('simple'). Along the lines of what SB_Johnny said, they evolved in a different mindset and therefore speak (or communicate in whatever way) about very different things. Sort of like Eskimos having 20 words for snow, just taken much further. The only common grounds we have are basic things like anger and joy, as you described for your dog. Dogs don't understand most things we say, so we think they are stupid, but the reverse might also be true. So how do we find that out? Maybe a mind merger with the neoneocortex I described above, one for us, one for the dog? DirkvdM 07:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We might not be able to understand what they're thinking, because their brain is structured differently (ever read Thomas Nagel's essay, "What is it like to be a bat?") That doesn't mean that other animals have a complex language we simply don't understand. We can study a dog's brain and vocalizations and come to the conclusion that there is no complex speech behavior. -- JSBillings 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How does/does this theory apply to talking parrots, as a matter of interest? --Kurt Shaped Box 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the parrot mimics the sound, but does not usually comprehend the meaning of the words. Nimur 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hire a consultant. I recommend Dr. Doolittle, if he's available.--Eriastrum 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there has been extensive studies of parrot (or other bird) speech centers, so I couldn't comment. I'm just saying that in the case of User:DirkvdM's comment, it is possible to determine if there is complex speech by studying behavior and brain imaging. -- JSBillings

What makes you assume that communication between other animals is solely vocal? Once again you're antrhopomorphing (or what is the verb for that?). They may communicate with a combination of sounds, facial expressions, tail wagging, the way certain hairs stand up, and farting for all we know. I once heard of a people who can't communicate in the dark because they rely too heavily on gestures. (Sorry about this bit of QI trivia. :) ) Btw, you say we might analyse their speech. But has any such test been done? This reminds me of how we might test the presence of life on other planets based on such complexities. The Russians built a gadget to do that, which, when tested on Earth, concluded there is no life here. And that was when they knew what they were looking for. In the case of animal communication we don't even have that luxury. DirkvdM 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cloning Machine ?

is it possible to clone an apple for example by a machine, as a begining we add all the elements the apple made up of and place it in a machine , then give the machine the information of how these element are joined or made up , and then the machine uses this information and elements to make an identeical apple ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.116.238 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't have sources, but no, I do not think it is possible, yet. It will definitely be possible in the future, as it doesn't break any laws of nature (or does it? can't think of any). — Adriaan (T★C) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Impossible for now or in the foreseeable future. The field of organic chemistry, where chemists make compounds found in nature (and compounds inspired by those in nature), has been able to make complex molecules--but many molecules that are diagrammable on paper are still impossible to make due to their complex bondings and unknown reaction mechanisms. An apple consists of millions of cells, and each cell contains millions of such complex molecules, that it's practically impossible to make a machine like the one you described. It would take us not only a complete knowledge of reaction mechanisms, but also a machine that can do things in detailed 3-dimensional molecular level. I say it would never happen. 128.163.170.178 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly utterly impossible to create a perfect replica. For that you'd need to measure the position and speed of every electron and every atomic nucleus in the apple simultaneously and you can't do that because of the uncertainty principle. So we know for 100% sure that this is going to be a less-than-perfect copy (although perhaps it would be flawed in some way that we don't particularly care about - perhaps we didn't catch all of the vibrational modes of all of the atoms - so the temperature distribution in the copy is a bit incorrect). So if we admit that the copy only has to be good enough to fool the average person - perhaps it would suffice for the machine to analyse a single cell of the flesh of the apple, some representative cells from the skin, the pips, the stalk, etc - then to simply fill the volume of the flesh with identical copies of that one cell, coat it with a representative number of skin cells...and so on for all of the major structures of the apple. This (whilst still an exceedingly daunting task) would at least put the data capacities and bandwidths down to something conceivable at some time in the far distant future. There are still problems though. Assembling all of these structures atom-by-atom will take time - and during that time, some parts of the newly forming apple that have never been exposed to the air in the apple we are copying would indeed be exposed to the air in the copy (and no - doing it in a vacuum wouldn't help either). If you (say) started off by making the skin of the apple - it would collapse long before you could make all of the flesh inside. If you made the flesh first, it would start to go brown in the air before you could get the skin onto it. So it wouldn't be the same. You can't assemble the copy infinitely rapidly - and that's a problem. So this is another one of those ideas that seems reasonable in theory - but which has such an astronomical number of practical problems that seem insurmountable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• See also No cloning theorem for more pessimism on this topic. --Sean 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also see 3D printer for something that can do a similar thing inorganically. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A 3D scanner - coupled (via some fairly heavy computational stuff) to a 3D printer could reproduce the external form of an object to some degree of precision - a fraction of a millimeter for the best ones. So you could certainly (today) scan an apple then make a plastic model of an apple that was more or less the same size and shape. If you used something like a CAT scanner that can image the interiors of things - then the 3D printer could make the pips inside the apple. Some 3D printers could even make the skin, the flesh and the pips be roughly the right colour - but you can't "scan" the colours of the insides of things with any technology we have right now (or are every likely to have) without slicing up and destroying the object you are scanning. However, you most certainly cannot use a 3D printer to print an apple that you'd be able to eat - or plant into the ground to grow a new apple tree from - so in that sense, you can't reproduce an object like that. If course if the object you are copying were made out of the same kinds of plastics that your 3D printer is using then perhaps a reasonably exact copy could be made using these techniques. SteveBaker 13:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the goals of the RepRap Project is to create a 3D printer that can fabricate each of its own parts. Not quite self-replication, however, as these parts would still have to be assembled to create a duplicate printer. Gandalf61 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus there are a heck of a lot of parts that the RepRap won't be able to replicate - motors, computer chips, nuts and bolts, threaded rod, etc. SteveBaker 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "clone" when applied to organisms usually means that another individual is made that has an identical genome. We do that all the time for apples (the plants, not the individual fruit) and thousands of other plants. Any plant multiplied by vegetative reproduction (usually by cuttings or grafting) results in clones of the original plant. This is what cultivars are. Thus if you buy a 'Red Delicious' Apple you are acquiring a clone of the original Red Delicious. The original poster used the term "clone" in the sense of making an exact, atom-by-atom replica of a particular piece of fruit. As pointed out above, this is, of course, impossible. I don't think that "clone" defined as a replica is the usual definition, although meanings do change over time. What do the rest of you think about using the word "clone" in this sense?--Eriastrum 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary says:

1. A living organism (originally a plant) produced asexually from a single ancestor, to which it is genetically identical.
2. A copy or imitation of something already existing, especially when designed to simulate it.

So I think both meanings are OK - it was just unfortunate that the second meaning was intended when the object (being a plant) could easily be cloned (meaning the first meaning). However, the form of the question shows that the OP clearly intended the second meaning. SteveBaker 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Acid rain effect on churches

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am looking for pictures that clearly illustrate the effect of acid rain on churches, Plus a brief simple explanation of why for my 15 yr old son

Thanks for your help

Happy Monday

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.197.62 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article on acid rain has a few pictures, I don't see one of a church though. There is an image of a statue damaged by acid rain in that article. Splintercellguy 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(Although I haven't tried it,) A Google search for "Gargoyle acid-rain" will probably reveal something.

Atlant 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about churches - but the most clear example I can think of is the Caryatids in Erechtheum in Athens. These are female figures that support the roof of a temple of some kind. One of the Caryatids was taken by the British in the early 1800's (before acid rain was a problem) and kept safe indoors and in museums. The remaining Caryatids had to suffer the worst of Athen's pollution. Compare the sharp/well-defined carving in the leftmost photo of the Caryatid kept in the museum versus the smooth rounded-off ones that spent nearly 200 years in Acid rain on the right. (Actually, the one in the second photo is a replica - the originals having FINALLY been taken into protective storage to prevent further damage - but it is an exceedingly good copy). Look particularly at the details of the faces! You might argue that 200 years out in the rain and other weather did this - not acid rain - but recall that both the statue in the museum and the ones still outdoors had been there since 400BC. So the indoor one shows 2200 years of weather + 200 years in the museum and the outdoor ones suffered 2400 years of weather. The amount of weathering due to rain is therefore almost identical in both cases - but the last 200 years made all the difference. This is the clearest example of how modern pollution affects stonework because we can see what the objects would have been like had they not been exposed to it. SteveBaker 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Acid rain is a big problem for buildings made of limestone, as many statues, monuments and churches, certainly in the UK and probably elsewhere, are. Limestone is made of calcium carbonate, which is also used as an antacid. When a carbonate meets an acid, the carbonate reacts to form water, salt and carbon dioxide gas, which weakens the limestone. You can see this effect for yourself if you put a few drops of a weak acid like vinegar or lemon juice onto an antacid tablet: the antacid begins to fizz as the carbon dioxide gas is released, and then crumbles until you are left with just a sludgy residue - the same effect is happening with limestone buildings, just much slower. Laïka 10:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And, as this it the "science" desk, do the experiment. Go to a stone shop (quarries are cool!) and pick up a chip or two of limestone and marble. Take photos of them. Feel the sharpness. Then toss them into a cup of kitchen vinaigre. Look at them every day or so and take some more photos (and give it a stir). Watch what happens. No better explanation. Saintrain 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can changes in proportions of oxygen in our atmosphere affect combustion?

I've heard that the ratio of oxygen to inert gas in earth's atmosphere is finely tuned: that a greater proportion of oxygen would enable global incineration, and that a lesser proportion could make combustion impossible.

In my explorations of combustion and atmosphere on Wiki, I see no mention of anything like this. I'm attempting to help a friend with a sci-fi story idea, and need to know more about this. Do noble gases play a role in combustion in our atmosphere? Would an increase in argon or xenon affect combustion?

Thanks 216.151.17.169 17:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing; it's part of the Gaia hypothesis, although our article doesn't seem to touch in that facet. Where I remember reading about it is in James Lovelock's Gaia book, where it's discussed at some length --Steve Summit (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See Earth's_atmosphere#Evolution_on_Earth for some discussion. Speculation: I would think that a highly combustible atmosphere would be self-limiting, as each little spark would burn off enough O2 to get it back down to a reasonable level. --Sean 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The noble gasses (which used to be called 'inert gasses' when I was in school) are inert - they don't react with anything (almost). So they are not implicated in this process. (The Gaia thing is pure pseudo-science though - ignore it!) Oxygen forms a balance with plants chucking it out and animals and combustion eating it up. It appears that magically the density of oxygen is just perfect because anything that would spontaneously combust at this density has ALREADY combusted and there is none of it left. There is no free hydrogen in the atmosphere because as fast as it forms, it gets combusted into water. Ergo, whatever is left is things that don't spontaneously combust at this oxygen density. No magic - no "The planet is a life-form called Gaia" - just basic chemistry. SteveBaker 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen is the ninth most common gas in the atmosphere, so "none" is an overstatement. 76.231.189.193 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's one of a set of lecture notes from the University of Michigan called Evolution of the Atmosphere. According to this class: "Why does present-day oxygen sit at 20%? This is not a trivial question since significantly lower or higher levels would be damaging to life. If we had < 15% oxygen, fires would not burn, yet at > 25% oxygen, even wet organic matter would burn freely." --Reuben 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point. If there was <15% then animals would start to die off and things wouldn't burn - so the oxygen produced by plants would not be consumed as quickly as it is now. The oxygen density would then build up until animal life could recover and things would be able to burn again - to the point where the amount of oxygen produced equalled the amount consumed - probably at around 20%. If there were 25% oxygen and vegetation would burn much more easily - then we'd have a huge increase in the number of forest fires, etc - and these would consume oxygen until it fell back to the point where those fires would cease to happen...right around 20% probably. It's a feedback system that maintains stability at a particular point. SteveBaker 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is, of course, exactly what the Gaia hypothesis is really about. The whole 'life-form' thing is like Le Chatelier's principle. Skittle 23:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting speculation, but it doesn't always appear to have worked that way. From the same lecture notes:

According to recently developed geochemical models, oxygen levels are believed to have climbed to a maximum of 35 percent and then dropped to a low of 15 percent during a 120-million-year period that ended in a mass extinction at the end of the Permian. Such a jump in oxygen would have had dramatic biological consequences by enhancing diffusion-dependent processes such as respiration, allowing insects such as dragonflies, centipedes, scorpions and spiders to grow to very large sizes. Fossil records indicate, for example, that one species of dragonfly had a wing span of 2 1/2 feet.

so I would want to see some evidence that such a feedback cycle actually operates. --Reuben 19:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article that ties together two recent reference desk threads: [4] R. Dudley, Atmospheric oxygen, giant Paleozoic insects and the evolution of aerial locomotor performance. Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 201, Issue 8 1043-1050. --Reuben 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for such a feedback cycle is that it makes perfect sense. But that does not mean there are no other factors. Something else could thrown it completely off balance. So maybe something caused a mass extinction of animals, which led to a sudden rise in the oxygen level, which led to a mass extinction of plants, which led to a massive drop in the oxygen level. In other words, a chaotic system that eventually finds its balance again. Note that I have absolutely no factual knowledge in this field and I probably misused the term 'chaotic system'. DirkvdM 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Oxygen levels rose due to excess organic burial in the Carboniferous following the biological invention of chitin. 6 CO2 + 6 H2O <-> C6H12O6 + 6 O2 represents a balance between respiration and photosynthesis. By burying organic matter (i.e. the C6H12O6) before it can be consumed one gradually accumulated an excess of O2 over tens of millions of years. While combustion would become more common it didn't provide much of a control if concentrations can nearly double due to gradual imbalances. 76.231.189.193 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get that last bit. Over millions of years, even evolution could have reacted by putting more oxygen-consuming animals on the planet. Unless something else prohibited that or killed them off. DirkvdM 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I read a story by Edgar Allen Poe that has the Earth intersect the orbit of a comet consisting almost entirely of oxygen. For a while plants start growing like wild, but at a certain point the entire Earth combusts. Pretty cool.BungaDunga 01:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good one. The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion. --Reuben 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

electronics and communication

can some one help me out in telling me how does the the information transmission take place in wireless communication.what methods r used to modulated a signal and what is the method for the reconstruction of the original signal. is the wireless transmission take place as a analog or as a digital way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamuali (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked this question [[5]] and got some good responses. You should read those articles (radio, modulation, etc.) and ask questions about those if you have them. --Sean 18:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gray Hair

Why does gray hair not only lose pigmentation but also turn wiry? --WonderFran 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably it is losing its strength and thus becomes more frayed/frail looking. Grey hair might help, that is if that is even an article...ny156uk 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In regularly colored hair, melanin is produced in melanocytes around the hair root, and "injected" into hair root cells. Melanin inhibits cell division and promotes the hornification of these cells. During aging, less melanin is produced as the melanocytes die and fail to be replaced. Less melanin means a higher rate of cell division in hair root cells and, consequently, an increase in hair shaft diameter. When you increase shaft diameter the result is wiry hair. Rockpocket 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

MEDICAL EDUCATION IN CUBA

DEARS, i want an answer of a question related to the medical education in cuba. Does medical education in cuba is up to world level of medical education? How much importance is given to a student who has a medical degree from cuban medical institutes in europe, america and in other parts of world if he wants to study there or wants to job there? what about its curriculum? Is it cmpatible with other courses that are taught in other world universities? Level of practical work ? What about surgery ? Would you like to try to answer mi , if you know, because it is very very importante for mi?

  asifji  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 

Might I direct you to Education in Cuba. Students who have obtained their medical degrees in Cuba have been permitted to practice medicine in the United States. I can't speak for Europe. Someguy1221 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Permitted? Of course, why not? Hell, if even the US permits it .... . But I understand the questioneer is asking if a medical study in Cuba is likely to get him/her a job or extended study elsewhere. DirkvdM 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The news articles cited in my link, as well as the link itself, suggested that those American doctors who received their degrees in Cuba did all find practices in the United States afterwards. However, it also mentions they worked for low cost healthcare, which might imply low-income jobs. Someguy1221 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Europe might be a better choice. At least here in the Netherlands, there is no such thing as low cost health care. Everyone is treated equally. For example, when prince Bernhard was very sick, he had to await his turn, like everyone else. We are very proud of that (no irony). DirkvdM 19:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Douglas-fir in Europe

I would like to know

1. When Douglas-fir tree species only come from North America, Mexico and East Asia, where do the Douglas-firs in Europe come from?
   1. Do they all descend from American trees introduced to Europe? Can they be traced back even to David Douglas himself?
2. I have heard a story that the Douglas-fir became extinct in Europe during the last Ice Age. Is that true?
   1. And if yes, was it of an own species or the same still found today?
   2. Is it known what the distinctive ecological influence in Europe was, that it vanished there but survived in America and Asia, who both had an Ice Age too? --Vancouver robin 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cells

what are the functions of cells ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.140.71 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, you're question is pretty broad. You might start at the Cell (biology) article, and see if that doesn't answer your question. --TeaDrinker 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or whichever type of cell you are referring to.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about biological cells, well, they're the stuf we're made of. So what functions? All of them. DirkvdM 08:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The functions of cells is life - all of life (except for Viruses - which some people claim are alive and others claim are not). Our article on life says: Growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation. Which is pretty much the function of cells. SteveBaker 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cells also make sure that prisoners do not escape from prison.Mrdeath5493 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Says Mr Death ... is 5493 your cell number? DirkvdM 18:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

beaver diet

I just read a kids' magazine that says that beavers eat wood. This doesn't seem right to me, since I don't think anything bigger than a termite eats wood. The article mentioned that they store branches underwater to eat during the winter. Wikipedia's beaver article mentions wood being stored underwater for building, but I didn't see anything about them eating it. So, do beavers eat wood? And why do they store branches underwater? Couldn't they just cut down a tree whenever they needed it? Thanks Ingrid 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nhptv.org/Natureworks/beaver.htm suggests that tree bark is part of their diet. I would expect they store wood for building because in the winter food may be harder to come by and the energy required to cut down trees/get their wood would be too vast at that time of year? ny156uk 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Beavers eat bark and leaves, not wood. They do bring branches underwater to store and preserve for the winter, much like people store crops in root cellars, spring houses or freezers. Come to think of it, an ice-coated pond probably has a similar temperature range to a refrigerator, so perhaps that's the best analogy. They probably don't do much in the way of construction in winter, unless they're in a climate where the pond doesn't freeze. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Yikes! check out that root cellar article!

Date of Death

I am not sure how to phrase my question, or even if it is a "science" question, so please bear with me. Thanks. (Perhaps this is a humanities / sociology question? Unsure.) Can anyone offer some entries on a list of advantages versus disadvantages of an individual knowing his precise date and time of death, while being oblivious to the manner of his death? A related question #1: would any of those advantages / disadvantages on the list change if the individual were also to know the manner of death in conjunction with the precise date/time of it? A related question #2: same as above, but for another individual (i.e., not for one's self) -- such as having that info about your spouse/child/sibling/parent/best friend/boss/neighbor/mailman/etc. In other words, I am not trying to take a poll such as "If the information were available to you, would you elect to know or would you elect to not know your date/time/manner of death?" I am asking, what are the factors that one would consider (i.e., the advantages and disadvantages) in order to make such a decision? And what are the advantages / disadvantages to society as a whole and to individuals of having versus not having this information? Assume that the information is 100% accurate and unable to be manipulated (i.e., you can't change it -- it is 100% certain). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

This isn't a scientific question, but it certainly could be a science fiction question. ;-) It seems to me that the entire thing revolves around the notion of predestination (fate), which is of course against our notions of free will, self-determination, and all that. We all like to think that the future is undecided — and maybe it is — and knowing anything that certain about it, especially something as monumental as our own deaths, definitely throws a wrench into that. Now, of course, we all know that we will die, eventually, but the timing could make a lot of difference: if I were to die tomorrow, would I be doing something which is onerous in the short term (graduate school) but beneficial in the long term? Would I bother making long-term investments in people, places, things? Would my balance of life swing much farther towards "live for today" than "invest for the future"? --72.83.173.248 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes -- and, to that extent, it is essentially a question of psychology (of the individual) and perhaps sociology (of society in general). Thus, perhaps appropriately, a "science" question. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

You really can't demand a scientific answer to an impossible and entirely hypothetical question. Clearly, nobody can know the precise date of their death with any degree of certainty (unless perhaps they are literally dying and the answer is clearly "today"). Even if you had a good estimate from your present age, health, etc - and if you stayed at home to avoid car accidents - there could always be a mountain-sized meteor smacking into your house at any time. Since knowing your death date precisely is impossible - how could anyone investigate how an individual might react? At best you're going to get a bunch of non-scientific speculation - and this reference desk is the wrong place for that. But there is an even worse problem here. If by some amazing feat of research, you could figure out this "exact date" - wouldn't the person involved immediately change their behavior? If you know you'll live to be 100 years old - why bother exercising and driving carefully? You "know" you can't die from a car crash or a premature heart attack - so why be careful? This is truly an unanswerable question. SteveBaker 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. OK. OK. Calm down, Steve. Thanks for the input. But, let me re-phrase here. Actually, this is neither an impossible nor a hypothetical situation. That is -- isn't it rather "common" (for lack of a better word) for doctors to inform terminal patients things along the order of "dear patient, our best medical estimate is that you have X months to live" ...? If I had to re-phrase the question, it might take the form of something like this. Let us assume that a specific individual is given the following information, which is 100% accurate and "fixed" (cannot be changed) -- exact date / time / manner / cause of death. Repeat: This is merely an assumption, that is, a premise to the question. Assuming this set of facts: from a psychological standpoint, what would be the advantages / disadvantages of the individual having / not having access to this information? Also, from a sociological standpoint, what would be the advantages / disadvantages to society as a whole? Psychologically, is it "healthier" to know or not know? That is probably a better re-phrasing of my original question. And, the more I think about it, the less impossible and hypothetical this scenario seems. In the grand scheme of things, 99.999% of us do not, in fact, know the details of our death. Nonetheless, there are a significant number of people who do, in fact, have such details -- on some level or another, in some form or another. Examples: terminal patient informed by doctor that you have X months to live; individual who decides to commit suicide; individual who decides to go shoot up a McDonald's knowing in all probability that the police will eventually kill him; individual planning euthenasia or mercy killing; individual planning a murder; individual who decides to "pull the plug" (disconnect respirator/ventilator/etc.); kidnapping victim who is told by his captor, "I will kill you tomorrow if your parents don't pay the ransom"; individual enters surgery knowing that survival odds are slim; the six Utah (or Ohio?) miners trapped in a mine for weeks and weeks and weeks without rescue; a car crash victim in a remote, desolate area who is pinned down and can't escape; individual who survives the sinking of a ship and floats in the ocean for days upon days upon days with no rescue; individual in a car/plane/train that is about to inevitably crash; etc. etc. etc. Granted, these are extreme cases, in relatively small numbers ... yet, nonetheless, it happens. "Many" people can and do know the time/date/cause/manner of their death. So, no -- it is neither impossible nor hypothetical. The examples I gave are hardly far-fetched ... in fact, they pretty much happen every day of the week. No? Thoughts? (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

When doctors say that, they are certainly not giving anything like an exact date - it's going to be a WIDE spread "six months to a year" or something. You are saying "what if the exact date is known" - and it can't be/isn't - so how can you possibly expect a reasonable answer. Nobody can POSSIBLY know what this knowledge would do to a person. So the answers you'd get would simply be wild speculation. The cases where it's suicide or something like that - you aren't talking about a person with normal feelings - you are talking about someone who is suicidal. Their feelings are all about the suicide nothing to do with the consequences of having that exact knowledge. Even suicidal people don't have exact knowledge - they could still be run over by a car on the way to buying the poison/gun/noose and most suicides fail on their first attempt anyway. Our suicide article says there are between 10 and 20 million attempted suicides each year - but from their breakdown of successful suicides suggests maybe a million worldwide...so even if you plan a suicide, you only have a 5% to 10% chance of knowing the date of your own death. Sorry - but there is no way you'll get a well-informed, scientifically credible answer to this question no matter how you twist it around because the entire premise of it is impossible. SteveBaker 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the reply. Hmmmmm. I sincerely do not understand your resistance to my question. Perhaps you are being too literal, or perhaps I was. However, if you read the very first words of my question (above), it says: "I am not quite sure exactly how to phrase this question, so please bear with me." As far as doctors informing terminal patients of their impending death. Yes, at the beginning of the process, it is probably a broad range ("six months to a year"). As the terminal disease progresses, however, I am sure that the "date of death" becomes more certain and fixed, more able to be pin-pointed exactly. I am sure that there are many, many, many cases where doctors say to the patient's family, something like: "You should say your good-byes to your grandmother, I don't think she will make it through the night" (or such). My point is that, at some point in the medical process of a terminal disease (not necessarily at the beginning stages / onset), the doctor can and does estimate a reasonable date of death. (Yes, OK, the doctor will not literally say: "The death is 100% certain to be on May 7 at 10:28 am exactly" -- but you know what I mean.) Furthermore, a patient can wait forever to see a doctor and then, when it is "too late", come in with an advanced stage of the terminal disease. In this scenario, the doctor can estimate more closely than that "six months to a year" broad range -- since the diagnosis is being made at such an advanced state of the terminal disease (i.e., a patient who waits until the "last minute" to visit a doctor, when he feels sick). OK, yes, literally ... I did say "what if the exact date is known" (which you say is impossible). One -- Are you more comfortable if I change the semantics to something like, "what if a statistically sound estimate of the exact date is known" ...? Come now. And two -- I gave several plausible examples (above) where a person can very well reasonably know the details of his death in advance (suicide, murder victim, plane crash, falling off a ship, miners trapped in mine, going in for a risky surgery, etc. etc. etc.). I think those are very plausible things that happen every day of the week in the real world -- hardly far-fetched at all. You also state, quote, : "Nobody can POSSIBLY know what this knowledge would do to a person." Why do you consider this an impossibility? I disagree. All you need to do is find an individual (or 25, or 100, or a thousand individuals) who have indeed experienced the scenarios I have described above and, for whatever reason, lived ... as opposed to died. (Example: All the trapped miners died on day 17 except for one miner. That one miner was rescued on day 18. Which is exactly what happened in that Sago Mine Disaster a few years ago in West Virginia (?), I think. Example: You enter a surgery with a 99% chance of not surviving, but you do survive. Example: A murderer lines up 25 people and shoots them one by one. You are next in line (#26), and the cops kill the murderer at that very moment. Etc. Etc. Etc.) I don't understand why you claim it would be impossible to know what this knowledge would do to a person. All we need to do is talk to / interview / ask the people who have had the experience and who have had this knowledge (i.e., a reasonable and sincerely-held -- but incorrect-- belief that they are to die, but they don't in fact die). You also discuss the suicide situation at length. It missed the point to the extent that I was illustrating that an individual can, with certainty, "know" his exact date/time/manner of death. In any event ... I am befuddled why you think this premise is -- as you say -- impossible. Seriously. By the way, I have not delineated any specific time frame here. Perhaps, you are mis-interpreting the question to apply to "people who know these details years and years in advance". Not necessarily. The time frame might be years in advance or it might only be a brief 1, 2, or 5 minutes in advance. You don't think that the Utah trapped miners, at some point, "knew" that they were going to die? You don't think that some murder victims, at some point, can "know" (and digest the fact) that they are about to die? Any way, respond if you like. I suspect that you and I are talking about apples and oranges, however -- and we are not really on the same page. Hence, two such widely divergent perspectives on the question -- which, granted (and, admitted) was difficult to articulate. At this point, if I had to (yet again) re-phrase, I would say something like: What are the psychological advantages/disadvantages to an individual knowing / not knowing the details of his death? And, is it "healthier" to be aware of or to be oblivious of these details? This is a premise, which I do not consider impossible at all. Perhaps the following "twists" of semantics will bring you on board with me? (1) To the two questions I posed a few sentences back, perhaps add the phrase " ... even if the person has that knowledge only for a brief moment ... " (or such). And (2) We can re-define the word "knowing" as meaning "having a reasonable and sincerely-held belief, whether such belief ultimately proves to be correct or incorrect" (or such). Maybe those semantics will clarify my question better? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

To take these 'examples' one by one:

terminal patient informed by doctor that you have X months to live; - doesn't know the exact date plus or minus six months probably.

individual who decides to commit suicide; - has only a 1:10 to 1:20 chance of actually knowing the date exactly - and even so, this is not someone whom we can study scientifically to get a good answer.

individual who decides to go shoot up a McDonald's knowing in all probability that the police will eventually kill him; - again, this is not someone whom we can study - so we don't know the answer.

individual planning euthenasia or mercy killing; - only knows the date on which someone else will die - not themselves.

individual planning a murder; - ditto.

individual who decides to "pull the plug" (disconnect respirator/ventilator/etc.); - ditto

kidnapping victim who is told by his captor, "I will kill you tomorrow if your parents don't pay the ransom"; - will hold out hope that they'll escape or the random will be paid or that the captor will not carry through. Also, this is another person whom we can't study.

individual enters surgery knowing that survival odds are slim; - Still doesn't know exact date.

the six Utah (or Ohio?) miners trapped in a mine for weeks and weeks and weeks without rescue; - the longest anyone survived a mine collapse is 11 days. They held out hope of a rescue and they didn't know an exact date for death.

a car crash victim in a remote, desolate area who is pinned down and can't escape; - doesn't know the exact date of death and would hold out hope of rescue and we can't study the ones who got the date right!

individual who survives the sinking of a ship and floats in the ocean for days upon days upon days with no rescue; - again, they hold out hope of rescue - don't know when they'll die.

individual in a car/plane/train that is about to inevitably crash; - It's rather hard to ask them their feelings on the matter!

SteveBaker 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again, Steve. I think that our replies "crossed paths" -- so, I am not sure if you saw my immediately preceding reply? I think that we were both typing simultaneously -- oblivious of the other's reply -- and I happened to hit "Enter" a few seconds before you. Anyway ... I read your list of "one-by-one" examples above. I think that you have missed the point of what I am trying to ask. I think that you are being far too literal. Nearly all of your "one by one" examples list (above) focuses on the term "exact date of death". I am not, I repeat not, focused on the "exact" date of death. You keep focusing on that, and I don't know why. And this mis-communication is probably why you are so vehemently defending your point that my premise is impossible. So, for clarity -- I am not concerned with "exact" date of death. As I proposed above, I can play with all sorts of semantics to clarify this. (But I thought that you got the "drift" of what I was saying.) Instead of saying that "a person knows his exact date of death" ... let's say ... "he knows a statistically significant estimate of his exact date of death" ... or ... "he knows his exact date of death with a reasonable degree of statistical probability at the 99% confidence level" ... or ... "he knows his exact date of death within a plus/minus degree of statistical error" ... or whatever semantics will satisfy you. Stop focusing on the word "exact." Think of it this way. In the grand scheme of the question, does it really matter that the miners think / "know" that they will die on Day 18 versus Day 22? No. The number 18 or 22 is not important. The general idea / concept is that the miner is saying to himself: "Geez, within the next 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 days, I will die under the circumstances of x, y, and z." In my immediately previous sentence, the numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 are not particularly relevent or important to the concept. Rather, it is the concept that: "Wow, I have come to accept the circumstances of my death and I now acccept that my death is inevitable / clearly going to happen / without question ... and whether it is on day 6 or day 8 is not particularly relevent." The second thing you seem to focus on is whether or not, in a practical sense, we can "interview" these people. That is really outside of the scope of the question. In other words, just assume that we can interview them (which, I have pointed out in my previous post, we can in fact do). So, perhaps if you do these two things, then we will be on the same page when reading this question and approaching this topic: (1) remove the literal word "exact" and be satisfied that the person has a pretty "good sense" of the circumstances of his death, plus or minus some statistically insignificant margin of error; and (2) assume that we can interview them -- which we can, in some cases. In reading through your point by point list (above), your focus is on these two issues (1 = we can never truly know the EXACT moment of death ... and ... 2 = even if we could, which we can't, we still cannot access / interview / talk to these people). But, those two points and focuses are misguided and tangential to the question. If you care to, please free your mind of those two thoughts -- accept the premise of the question -- and let me know your thoughts. It's really not that difficult. Is it a good thing or a bad thing ... is it healthy or unhealthy ... is it desirable or undesirable ... for a person to have access to this detailed death information, assuming that somehow such access can be provided? (The degree of detail in the death information is what is bogging you down.) If it helps, re-phrase the question such that a person is XXX % ( say, 95% ) certain of his exact date of death ... or 99% ... or 99.999% ... or whatever number. To placate your concerns for exactness in the date/details of death, we will agree that x cannot equal 100%. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Ignoring the difficulties of muggles, I'd say it depends on whether you're thinking of a magical/'advanced science' 'fate-testing' machine which tells you exactly what you'll die of whether it's through violence, accident or health problems, or whether you're dealing with magically accurate medicine that predicts what health problem will kill you and when. With the first scenario I'd imagine you'd get a lot of people who are predicted to die at some much later date becoming extreme risk taker, even trying to 'cheat' the machine by doing ridiculously dangerous things, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't die. Whether the knowledge given by the machine affects the accuracy would depend on the universe you've picked and how the machine 'works'. With the latter scenario, I'd imagine that people given a long time to live would become excessively cautious, as they believe they have a lot of life to preserve. Those with not long left would probably go through the same things as terminal patients currently do, which there should be studies into for you to read. I'm not convinced that knowing the exact time and day would make much difference compared to knowing 'a couple of weeks' for example, apart from making the situation seem more certain and helpless, but when you're looking at longer time-frames, it could make a big difference.

Socially, I think it would be problematic. Insurance companies, and even employers, would probably be very interested in the results. Medicine could also seem a little depressing when everyone's deathdate is known. With children, why educate the ones that won't make it past 20? Etc.

Sorry not to be more specifically helpful, but I thought I'd try to get the ball rolling again. Maybe someone else has more specifics? Skittle 23:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This Google Scholar search indicates some studies in the general area, although there are a lot of other subjects there too. This sort of thing can certainly be fruitful as a psychology/sociology thought-experiment :) Skittle 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is my reply to the original question. Also see Last Night (a quite good film covering this subject) and Kübler-Ross model (“the process by which people deal with grief and tragedy.” according to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross).
Possible disadvantages:

• Fear
• Panic attacks
• Depression
• Sorrow
• possibly anger
• possibly attempted suicide

Possible advantages:

• having the opportunity to resolve ones worldly affairs.
• having the opportunity to possibly fulfill any religious last rights.
• having the opportunity to prepare one’s self for death.
• the opportunity to tell loved ones any final things.
• being able to think of some really good last words.
• possibly having the opportunity to engage in a few sexual orgies.
• eating anything you want without fear of getting fat.
• telling your boss just what you think of him or her.

--S.dedalus 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I also just realized (yet) another example of a plausible (and relatively common) scenario in which an individual "knows" the details of his death in advance ... that is, a prisoner sentenced to execution. In fact, I believe that there is something referred to as "death row syndrome". (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Well, yes, except that death row syndrome is very similar in effect to a person being informed by a doctor that they have 'x' months to live. In either scenario the individual is not absolutely certain of their time of death, commutation of death sentences do happen and this would cause a spring of hope in the individual. Richard Avery 08:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree with you -- no doubt. But, again, my original question concerns people who "know" of their death in advance -- not necessarily with 100% absolute certainty -- but 90%-95% (or whatever). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Psychology

According to psychologists, strong forces are at work influencing our behavior and the way we lead our lives. Identify three examples of these forces. What are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.169 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, homework question? Start with psychology. --jjron 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and gravity! Seriously, though, this sounds like a out-of-textbook sort of question. If you can't find the answer there, narrow down the question if possible. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the weak force! anonymous6494 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"The weak force is a strong force at work influcencing our behaviour...". Hmmm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Though the weak force is stronger than gravity, of course! Cyta 07:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wooty meant to put Electroweak instead of electromagnetism (or if he didn't, he should have) :) Capuchin 08:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you tell if the weak force is stronger than gravity? They have different units. It's like saying a mile is longer than a minute. — Daniel 22:47, 11 September 2007(UTC)

But a mile is longer than a minute..unless you're going over 60mph... -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely the main three 'forces' that influence our behaviour are sexual drive, social conformity and social competition. I can't understand why the dicussion is limited to physical forces. Richard Avery 07:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because people are sarcastically pointing out that we don't do homework for people here, although we may indicate helpful areas. Also that asking vague, textbook-specific questions here won't result in helpful answers. Skittle 11:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Richard Avery 07:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'll posit thirst over any kind of social mumbo-jumbo. Saintrain 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

September 11

Lift/Drag/Thrust/Weight Diagram

I recall from early physics classes that the classic simplified version of lift-drag-thrust-weight for aircraft mechanics is the first thing that pilots learn about. Yet, I can't find an image or diagram of this model anywhere on Wikipedia! I've found some similar versions from a few other websites. I was about to expend some effort to make a nice SVG version similar to this image. Any suggestions or prior work? I found this, but it doesn't show the plane (so it's not very useful for lay-person usage). Nimur 02:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a line drawing of an aircraft, there's a whole pile of them on Commons: commons:Category:Aircraft line drawings. Perhaps you could slap the lift/drag/thrust/weight arrows on to one of those? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Holes in Cheese

This is a serious question; I am curious to know why some cheese has holes and others don't. I would really like a detialed answer with "chemistry", or the chemistry of what happens. Thanks! Phgao 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

From the article on swiss cheese: "In a late stage of cheese production, the Propionibacter consumes the lactic acid excreted by the other bacteria, and releases carbon dioxide gas, which slowly forms the bubbles that develop the [holes]." --π! 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So I would take it that this bacteria produces the holes in all holed cheese? I think I'll do a bit more reseach, and that article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propionibacter_shermani looks like it could do with some work. Phgao 09:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Illness causing hair loss

When I look up "hair loss" in Wikipedia, it brings me straight to "baldness". Is it true that extreme illness or stress can cause hair to fall out? Is there a term for this? Are there any particular diseases for which this is considered a common symptom? (Of course, excluding hair loss as a result of cancer treatment.) --π! 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alopecia areata, totalis and universalis? Capuchin 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant, something that's not usually considered simply "baldness". Losing hair as a side effect as another disorder, not specifically a hair-loss disorder. --π! 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand, you're looking for "baldness" that is not "baldness"? Capuchin 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to use some of these symptom search engines and see if they come up with anything. I can't as i'm at work: [6] Capuchin 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, WebMD had some good answers! Hair loss can be a symptom of: "mental or physical stress, such as recent surgery, illness, or high fever", "poor nutrition, especially lack of protein or iron in the diet", ringworm of the scalp, thyroid disorders, lupus, syphilis, cancer, and hormonal changes. --π! 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And I didn't notice it in the baldness article before, but the scientific name for hair loss caused by stress is telogen effluvium. --π! 10:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re Capuchin - I assume Pi is talking about things that generally cause temporary hair loss rather than permanent baldness, for example chemotherapy typically leads to temporary baldness, but the hair usually grows back once the treatment stops. --jjron 08:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

From alopecia areata: "About 50% of patients' hair will regrow in one year without any treatment." Capuchin 08:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw hair loss with lupus once.Polypipe Wrangler 11:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(Standard medical disclaimer: This is not medical advice. For any medical condition you should see a licensed medical professional.) There is a list of 343 causes of hair loss at Wrong Diagnosis, but even with such a complete list I see that they didn't include Mercury poisoning. 152.16.59.190 05:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidence of brain tumours

Is the incidence of brain tumours in the developed world increasing, and if so, what theories have been advanced to explain this? Our article mentions increasing incidence of brain tumours in children, but doesn't say anything about adults. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two possible reasons: either 1) our capacity to diagnosis brain tumors is increasing and we're now picking up more tumors than we were previously able to, or 2) the actual incidence of brain tumors is increasing. The fact that humans are living longer and that age predisposes to cancer supports the later argument. An argument for the former is that recent advances have allowed for improved diagnosis (eg, MRI and CT) and classification (eg, widening criteria necessary for diagnosis) of tumors, including brain tumors. This article expands on that argument, noting that the incidence of some "not otherwise specified" primary brain tumors have gone down while the number of more specific diagnoses for primary brain tumors has increased. There are plenty of hypotheses out there that specific chemicals are responsible for an actual rise in brain tumor incidence, but I don't know of any epidemiological studies that have made any good conclusive arguments (then again, I haven't really looked). --David Iberri (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone dies of something. If we wipe out a disease - or make cars safer or have better law enforcement to reduce the murder rate - then INEVITABLY something else increases in prevelance because in the end the total of the probabilities of dying from all possible causes adds up to 100%. Cure cancer and everything else increases in probability. A better measure would be the average age of people with the disease. If that's decreasing then you have a real problem. If it's increasing then we probably shouldn't worry. SteveBaker 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the average age of people with brain tumours? And is it increasing or decreasing? There must be statistics on this somewhere. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthrate skewed towards males?

This newspaper article suggets that even in industrial countries birthrate is skewed towards male offspring. I would have thought it would be 50/50? Why is this the case? http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=294933 Quote, "the ratio in industrialised countries is 107 to 104 boys for every 100 girls." Phgao 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Males die younger. I think nature strives for somewhere around 50:50 after "corrections" (probably 50:50 at childbearing age or something). Capuchin 10:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

see Sex ratio --Spoon! 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Red countries have unusually high numbers of males; note that many are patriarchal societies which often abort or abandon females.

One reason I've heard given is that in a society where children are at high risk of dying, it makes more sense to produce lots of females, which boosts the birth rate at the cost of genetic diversity (few males producing many children narrows the gene pool), while when most children survive to reproduce, there is no need to produce more than about 1 child per person (2 per couple, hence the classic 2.4 children concept). As a result, this society needs fewer females and more males, which will then increase the gene pool and reduce the incidence of genetic disorders. Incidentally, one cause of the high male-female ratio is that in both India and China, the largest centres of population in the world, boys are more highly regarded than girls and, with China's one child policy especially, families may choose to selectively abort female babies or not report the birth to the authorities, thus allowing them to try again for a boy. Laïka 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

looking at it from the other direction, "female" sperm carry an x chromosome, "male" sperm carry a y chromosome. The y chromosome is a lot smaller than the x chromosome, and the sperm is such a stripped down little hot rod that it makes a difference in its speed, so that "male" chromosomes have a better chance of being the first at the finish line, i.e. the ovum. Gzuckier 16:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Several obvious problems with that including that evolution wouldn't have allowed the such a travesty of an imbalance to have survived so long, and also it doesn't account for why this only applies to to certain countries, especially seeing as most are skewed towards females, notably Russia which had, and apparently still has, a massive imbalance towards females caused supposedly by food shortages. Combined with the reasoning above and that, females intrinsically seem to be smaller and naturally less active than their male counterparts, and more likely to survive in a food shortage. ΦΙΛ Κ 18:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had a reference for this, but I have heard this discussed on more than one radio show (NPR, not Rush Limbaugh), and if I remember correctly there was something about the pH of the vagina and uterus being governed by stress hormones, which apparently can have some effect on the survival rate of x-carrying and y-carrying chromosomes. (some more about that here, try googling "sperm gender pH acidity selection" and you might find more. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! I think there should be a distinction made; yes it is true that in china the male/female ratio is skewed, but that doesn't explain why the *birth* male/female ratio is slightly skewed, as is said in the article above. That is to say the birthrate even in industrialised nations is around 105boys per 100girls, even though this even outs as the population ages as males die younger. What User:Philc_0780 said could be it, but I'm still not sure. Phgao 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Relative size of the sun

If the Earth was the size of a pinhead, how big and how far away would the Sun be? I was thinking about this and realise I have no idea - I mean I know it would be big, but what, as big as a fridge? A house? A country? 195.60.20.81 16:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You can get the actual sizes by reading our encyclopedia articles: the Sun has a diameter of 1.392×10⁹ m and is 1.496×10¹¹ m from earth. The Earth has a radius of 6,372.797 km. In your model, the earth is a pinhead (estimate about 1 mm for convenience), so you just need to scale all the measurements to match. Actually, the Sun article even tells you explicitly that its diameter is equivalent to 109 earth diameters, so that's 109 pinheads without having to do any math at all, or 109 mm (which is about 11 cm). DMacks 16:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this question interesting. Thanks. So, you are saying that ... if the Earth were the size of a pinhead, then the Sun would be the size of 109 pinheads ... correct? And what about the distance? Measured in pinheads, how far is the distance from the Sun to the Earth? Also, can you give a reference example, such at the question originally posed? That is ... can you please fill in the two blanks with the names of a common and recognizable everyday household object: If the Earth were the size of a pinhead, the Sun would be the size of a __________ ... and the distance of the Earth to the Sun would be the size of a __________. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

For the distance, the sun is 1.49e11/6.37e6 or 23478 earth diameters away. If the earth was 1 mm, that would be 23478 mm = 23.4 m, or about 25 yards.128.163.170.17 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So that's a pinhead and a grapefruit and either end of my standard swimming pool.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Make that a football, because I just bothered to actually measure a pinhead and it was 2.5 mm wide. It's rather common to misjudge the size of small round objects. DirkvdM 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, depends what kind of pins you use for reference (I hate using "normal" objects for reference size when the object's variation is so relatively large). The pins I usually use have a head that's just the end of the wire pressed down (like the head of a nail), barely wider than the wire itself. Very much smaller than the easier-to-handle (and admitedly better for building a scale-model:) than the oversized plastic heads as in Image:2006_01020005.JPG. DMacks 20:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• 128., I believe you mixed up radius and diameter. If the Earth was 1mm in diameter, the sun would be 11.7 m away. --Sean 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• You might also be interested in Solar system model. --Sean 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to add pinhead to our list of unusual units of measurement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In which case we might also add the distance between the tips of my thumb and little finger when I spread my hand, which is 20 cm (21 cm if I overstretch it). Very handy to know when I don't have a measuring tape at hand. I did add the 'Balkenende' as a unit of income. DirkvdM 19:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Determine the voltage/current for random LEDs

Hi all,

If I were to get a big bag of random LEDs (like those here with big ones, little ones, rectangular ones etc, how could I determine the correct voltage and current to use them with? Can I just go by the color, like in the chart at the bottom here — is that the same for all shapes and sizes? Can I use my multimeter to work it out?

Thanks! -Sam. 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article on LEDs contains a table of voltages for different colours of LED - all LED's of the same colour take the same voltage range. You should properly connect up the LED with a current limiting resistor - but the amount of current required for a particular LED depends on the nature of how it was manufactured - and how much light it's going to put out - and to know that you need a data sheet. You could hook each one up in turn to a variable resistor and slowly change the voltage until the LED lights with an acceptable brightness (or blows up!). That would let you know how big a resistor to wire up to each type. SteveBaker 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And, assuming your series resistor is (or can be) big enough, the voltage you start with doesn't matter so much. Just use 3v or 5v or whatever you've got handy. When you've chosen a resistance that seems to give you the right brightness, you'll have empirically determined both the LED's current draw and voltage drop. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Connecting it to e.g. a 20mA current source would also work, if you have one handy. Then you can slowly crank up the current until it's bright enough for your purpose. --antilived^{T | C | G} 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But if you don't know what a current source is and how it differs from the more usual constant-voltage power supply (i.e. voltage source), definitely go with Other Steve's variable resistor suggestion instead. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: 20 mA is too much for some LEDs; I'd start with 5 mA instead. Also, a very few LEDs contain internal resistors or current-limiting chips; these will give surprising results as you vary the voltage/external resistor, but if you know these variants exist, you'll be able to figure out what's going on if you see one. Finally, while diode voltage and color are intimately related for monochromatic LEDs ('cause it produces photons with x electron volts of energy), the operating voltage for "White" LEDs varies depending on which technology they use to produce the "white" light; today, most are actually blue LEDs with phosphors/scintillators that convert some of the blue to yellow.

Atlant 14:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on the size of the LED. Most of the 3+mm LED's that I get to play with will work happily with 20mA, but definitely not the SMD ones. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I'm pretty sure you always want to use a series, current-limiting resistor. That is, you would never ask for an LED's "voltage rating", and then use a power supply of exactly that voltage, without a resistor at all.

One reason is simply that the voltage is so low. The voltage drop across a forward-biased P-N junction in an ordinary silicon diode is 0.6v. I'm pretty sure the voltage drops in LED's are comparable. But that's considerably lower than the power supply voltage in any typical electronic circuit. (Part of the reason is that the power supply voltage in any typical electronic circuit has to be substantially higher than 0.6v, and in fact higher than 2×0.6v or 3×0.6v, precisely so that it can overcome the voltage drops across the P-N junctions in the circuit's various other diodes and transistors.)

But more importantly: a diode is most certainly not an ohmic device; that is, it does not obey Ohm's law. If I were to put a forward-biased diode (light emitting or otherwise) across an 0.6 volt power supply, how much current would flow? An almost infinite amount, actually. Other than the 0.6 volt drop across it, a forward-biased diode looks a lot like a dead short; in fact in most cases (e.g. rectification) that's it's job.

So you want a resistor in the circuit to limit the current, and once there's a resistor in there limiting the current the voltage is going to have to be higher than the diode's voltage drop so that it can also accommodate the voltage drop across the resistor, and once you've got a voltage drop across the resistor you might as well adjust the resistor's value until you end up with a total voltage that matches the one supplying the circuit you're driving the LED with.

It's for this reason that the primary electrical specification for an LED is the current, I think (that is, the value you want your current-limiting resistor to limit the current to), with the "voltage" buried in the fine print, because in practice you hardly care about it at all. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's this called?

(I was going to say "what's the matter with my mind?", but it seems too melodramatic). I've been enjoying contributing here over the past several days, and it really strikes me how my mind is what my wife calls a "steel trap" for abstract things like the scientific names of organisms and random trivia, but I can't for the life of me remember people's names without hearing them or reading them repeatedly. This applies equally to people I meet, actors, etc. (but not, oddly enough, to politicians). I know it's a form of selective memory, but it's really embarrassing sometimes, and I know it's not unique to me. Is there a name for this problem? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Autism is often characterized by highly developed mental faculties with very poor social skills (such as proper behavior around people, and inability to use names, etc). It doesn't sound like you're there, but my understanding of psychology is that there's a very broad spectrum, rather than precise categories. Nimur 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! I can relate only too well to you, Johnny, but I'd shrink from any thought that I was even minimally autistic. (People who know me may well disagree.) I know exactly what you're experiencing. I have a mind full of a bazillion bits of (mostly worthless) information, but putting names to faces - and even recognising faces I've met before - is becoming harder and harder. It's very embarrassing, and I'm aware I've unconsciously developed ways of avoiding revealing that I don't remember the name of the person I'm with. I always assumed it's a part of the ageing process, and I've more than once wondered if I'm meandering slowly but inexorably into Alzheimer's territory. -- JackofOz 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can also relate very well. My wife has an irritatingly reliable memory when it comes to names, faces, what people have given or gotten what gifts and what people wore at events even in the distant past. On the other hand, I have an extremely hard time with it. I also wondered what the matter was until it struck me: I didn't really care all that much. I can recite baseball stats and comic book lore and an insane amount of science type stuff. Why? I find it interesting. To be blunt, I just don't care for most people all that much; I don't *hate* people, I just find most folks tedious or irritating. Uh, present company excepted, of course. I think my issue is that I unconsciously decide not to expend the energy to memorize a name/face combo because I unconsciously don't care to. By that same token, I can remember a great many details about the friends I do have, probably because I actually pay attention when they're talking.... Matt Deres 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Me too." I think part of it is that I remember data better if they're part of a pattern, and the names/faces of random people aren't. Every time I start a new job, someone leads me around and shows me all the people there, and maybe they remember me but for me it's a dead loss: they don't individually attach to anything yet. —Tamfang 07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The inability to recognise faces is called Prosopagnosia. Graeme Bartlett 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And the inability to remember names is Dysnomia. Although I'm not sure if this covers the inability to remember names (which I can relate to) when one can still remember most other things quite normally. Someguy1221 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And a realted thing is tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomenon, when you cannot recall on time when you need to say it, but it is in the memory hidden away. Graeme Bartlett 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamfang's description nails it fairly well... maybe it's just that I am using mnemonic devices for other things that I'm not fully aware of. I think Dysnomia might be the word I was looking for, thanks Someguy1221!

From what I understand of it, Autism would be a problem in relating to others, not naming them (a subject/subject relationship, rather than a subject/subject-as-object relation). That's sort of the problem though... people often think it's rude not to lremember their name, when it's really just a memory problem :). Probably not Alzheimer's though... I've had this problem as long as I can remember :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 08:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Autism isn't it - people with extreme autism wouldn't be generally likely to ask questions at the Wikipedia reference desk - and those that could would be very aware of their problems and the cause. Try Aspergers syndrome - similar kind of thing but very commonly undiagnosed (I have Aspergers and I didn't find out until I was 45 years old!). Dysomnia would prevent you from remembering other facts - not just names - and we know you can remember lots of other stuff very well ("a steel trap"!) - so that's not it. But let's not stray into medical diagnoses because that would be 'A Very Bad Thing'.

What is much more likely to be the case (and this is a problem I have) is that when you first meet someone and they tell you their name, it simply doesn't matter enough to you to make you want to remember it...especially when you are about to launch into a complicated discussion about something. There is something bigger on your mind at the time - and the name gets crowded out. You have to make a conscious effort to listen for the name, ask for it again if you aren't sure you got it right - repeat it back to the person - and (crucially) keep it in your head long enough for it to lock into long-term memory. At my last company, everyone had to wear security badges with their names on them - so partway through a conversation with a stranger, I could check their tag and be sure I'd gotten their name right - that helped a lot. Where I work now we have a database of employees with names and photos - so in the worst case I can look up their picture and get a name that way. SteveBaker 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Akin to mnemonics, a tried and tested way to remember names is to make a connection with something else, preferably something absurd. For example, to remember SteveBaker's name, you could envision him as a stevedore balancing a bread on his head. But it can be simpler. A neighbour of mine is named Gideon. So I think of a bible to remember his name. Later I learned he is a Jew. Which I then added to the association. Not because it makes sense, but because it makes no sense. Does that make any sense? DirkvdM 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How does that not make sense? The Gideon for whom the Bibles are named was, of course, Jewish. --Trovatore 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that, but that is totally irrelevant here. The point is that the association helps you remember the name. Whether it makes any sense is irrelevant. It actually helps if it doesn't make sense. DirkvdM 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rear Facing Missiles

Why don't fighters (or any other aircraft for that matter) mount rear facing missiles to use on pursuing aircraft? Since modern missiles are all-aspect they could easily track a pursuing aircraft and could be used to destroy them or at least force them to break off pursuit to evade the missile. Exxolon 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a basic two-fold answer to this:

1. Facing only matters at close range. At intermediate or longer ranges, it's trivial to turn and face another aircraft.
2. Missiles are largely ineffective at close range, as demonstrated by the F-4 Phantom (among others) in Vietnam.

— Lomn 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete guess, but maybe because planes fly forwards through the air, it might be aerodynamically easier for the missile initially to face forwards. --70.174.143.76 01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, a plane's targetting radar usually faces forwards, so in the absence of airborne (AWACS) or ground based radar, you would need to orient the plane towards the target to get a lock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.29.51.251 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that a rocket (unlike a bullet) leaves its launcher at zero relative speed. When you launch one backward, it's at the same airspeed as you but tailfirst, and its fins tend to flip it around. —Tamfang 07:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps our OP is thinking of Firefox (movie) which featured rear-firing thought-controlled missiles on the (then fictional) MiG 31. The real MiG-31 is called 'Foxhound' and has nothing particularly fancy about it!

I used to design simulators for F16's. F18's, F117's and F22's, so I can claim some expertise here. I don't buy most of the preceeding arguments - I think Lomn has it about right. If they wanted rear-facing rockets, they could make them. They don't exist because they simply aren't needed. A hypothetical rear-facing rocket would come with rearward-pointing targetting equipment. All of these missiles have their own radar or IR camera guidance systems anyway - which the host aircraft ties into before launch in order to lock on to the target - so that's absolutely no big deal. The missile could be equipped with fins that only popped out when its airspeed was large enough...or it could have fins at the front of the missile to keep it stabilised until it's at zero airspeed which then retract when the thing has forward airspeed. However, these missiles accellerate at an ungodly number of g's and often have vectored thrust to help steer them. I think they could remain stable long enough without all of that complexity.

The fact is that (Hollywood notwithstanding) here in the 21st century you don't chase the other guy's plane around the sky in ever decreasing circles like a world-war one biplane until you get on his tail about 100 feet away then carefully line him up in your crosshairs and shoot the missile - that's just dumb! This happens in "Top Gun (movie)" and nowhere else! The plan is to sit around 10 to 20 miles away, line him up in your radar and shoot him down from a very great distance! Most aircraft can simultaneously lock on, launch and fire at a handful of enemy planes at once! Some of the more modern varients have sights built into the pilots helmet that project crosshairs onto the inside of the cockpit canopy to show where the targets are as he turns his head to look at them. Even if you are facing the wrong way - if you aren't right up close then you can shoot the missile forwards, have it go around in a nice gentle curve and whack the guy who is behind you. The pilot pretty much chooses who to hit and the aircraft, sensors and missiles figure out how to do it. Missiles go much faster than a plane and can turn way more sharply - why chase the enemy with an aircraft when you can keep your expensive plane and vulnerable pilot a nice long way away - and chase the bad guy with a homing missile? This is really not a problem with modern technology. For the most modern aircraft, air-to-air combat is pretty much an irrelevence (except maybe for taking down helicopters) - these days the big concern is ground attack - and rear-mounted missiles don't offer any kind of theoretical benefit in those cases. SteveBaker 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly it's really a case of this tech isn't deployed as it's not needed. Most engagements are beyond visual range and with off-boresight launching you can fire missiles behind you anyway at any appreciable range. Actual dogfighting is so rare that such as system would very rarely be of any use.

Of course this does beg the question of why fighter pilots have to meet such exacting requirements if all they essentially do is sit up there in the sky and program a computer to blow the enemy planes out of the sky.

And it's very indicative of the way modern warfare is conducted in that the individual skill of a pilot may not count for anything at all if there is a mismatch in the level of technology in use. He who has the best weapons and platform wins regardless.

Exxolon 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are far more applicants to be pilots than there are planes for them to fly - therefore the airforces of the world can afford to take the best applicants whether they need the best or not. To be fair, there are some tasks that require good eyesight, excellent reactions, spatial perception, etc. Landing on a carrier deck comes immediately to mind. Technology certainly plays a major role - not only in the plane but also in the pilot training. Until just recently I designed the simulators that these guys learn their jobs on - one shouldn't underestimate the value of training - a fighter is a REALLY complicated machine and the pilot has an insane amount to learn in order to operate it correctly. But the era of the manned fighter is coming to an end. We've seen the 'spotter plane' role be taken over by the unmanned 'Predator' UAV - it can stay in the air for 36 hours and costs a tiny fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft. Now the Predator carries air-to-ground missiles and the light ground attack role is gradually switching over to them. It's only a matter of a few years until we start to see unmanned aircraft doing all of the dangerous 'up front' stuff in fighter and ground-attack roles. When you take the pilot out of the plane, it gets smaller, cheaper and lighter - also stealthier and more expendable. Many modern fighters can pull more G's than the pilot can stand without blacking out - and getting the pilot out of the machine can only help. I think we have maybe a decade to go before we have no more fighter pilots in the USAF. SteveBaker 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You could just have a device that tosses out a handful of random left-over nuts and bolts. Gzuckier 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Water to burn

A fanous medical researcher discovered that if he exposed seawater to radio frequency energy, hydrogen was liberated and would burn. The article [7] talks about the ocean as a fuel source. So: how much energy do you expect it takes to break the hydrogen bonds, compared to the energy derived from burning the hydrogen? Edison 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of my question. If you liberate the water using a combination of radio waves and heat, and then burn that to get water again, you're no better off energy wise. It would be analogous to splitting water completely using electricity and then burning the hydrogen and oxygen; there is no net energy gain. I have yet to see a scientific writeup of this, and am mostly curious why it has to be salt water (and does the kind of salt matter? ie NaCl vs. KCl vs. CaCl₂). Of course these will be tested since this is a relatively recent discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennybp (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has an article on the inventor, John Kanzius. Abecedare 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it has to be sea water? The primary reason AFAIK why most attempts to liberate hydrogen from water use sea water is because there is a lot, lot, lot more sea water then there is fresh water. Many places have problems with the lack of fresh water and some people even believe there may be major wars of water in the future. However obtaining sea water is not a problem and we're not likely to run out of it any time soon. BTW, although it's true you're never going to come close to breaking even let alone having a net energy gain from liberating hydrogen, the idea is that you use some sort of environmentally friendly power source e.g. solar to generate the power used for splitting the water and you then have an environmentally friendly fuel you can use for things like cars or more generally as a energy store. Whether or not this will work out or stuff like electric cars (with batteries) and biofuels is a better idea remains an open question Nil Einne 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got another idea for a great energy source: compressed springs. Get a bunch of these, in a convenient size and configuration, and every time you need some mechanical energy, release one. If you need electrical energy instead, arrange things so that the releasing spring drives a generator. When your springs are all unsprung, just squeeze them back again and start over. Presto! Infinite energy! —Steve Summit (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you squeeze them back again? Either you would have a heck lot of manual labor or more electrical energy to run the very act of compressing the spring back. Besides, you would have to have a lot of spring to generate a sustainable amount of energy. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You've understood the problem with the guy who's claiming to get energy out of burning seawater. --Reuben 01:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> This keeps coming up - it's bogus. You take water - you apply a certain amount of energy to break the oxygen/hydrogen bond. Then you burn the hydrogen into oxygen - remaking the bonds and liberating some energy and some water. The energy to break the bond is the same as you get back when you re-form it - but your machine cannot possibly be 100% efficient - so you lose. The first law of thermodynamics applies no matter how devious you are with using salt water and radio waves or any other wierd gadgetry (typically magnets are also involved) - and it says you can't gain energy out of thin air like this. Think about this. Use electricity to make radio waves, use the radio waves to split the bonds of some water and liberate oxygen and hydrogen. Then we can burn the hydrogen in a fuel cell or something to make electricity. Let's use the electricity to split up more water - and put the water back into the tank. What we have here is a perpetual motion machine...unless some energy is lost in this process. We know from the laws of thermodynamics that perpetual motion machines are impossible. So it's a given that it will DEFINITELY cost you more energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen than you'll be able to recover when you burn the hydrogen. Definitely, no doubt, no debate, for sure. So why mess around with the water and the hydrogen - let's just take the energy we'd have used to split it and use it to drive whatever it was you were going to drive with the hydrogen. The ONLY reason to do this inherently wasteful thing is if it's more convenient to store the hydrogen than it is to store the electricity. The problem is that too many people are enamored with the idea that somehow, if they could just come up with some tiny efficiency improvement (typically involving magnets and radio waves and such) then they could win on the deal. In their very next breath they will say it could be used to power a car - then come the accusations of 'big oil' and car manufacturers supressing the technology, threatening their lives, etc. Typically they'll patent their bogus contraption and then claim (to gullible investors) that "it must work because the US patent office investigated it and they say it works"...<sigh> SteveBaker 02:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a proper closing tag. Steve, really! DirkvdM 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, according to our article, John Kanzius "admits that his machine requires more energy than it releases". —Steve Summit (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have admitted at one point that it used more energy than it released at that point, but according to the blogosphere, he's now claiming to be over unity. Unfortunately, the only sources on this are Kanzius himself and Roy, filtered through rather naive local reporters and blogs, so the signal to noise ratio here is basically zero. --Reuben 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of energy potential in the ocean. We use it all the time through the magical properties of water vapor. The sun picks up part of the ocean, puts in a cloud, moves to a mountain, drops it and lets it turn a generator and then put it back in the ocean. You could then use that electricity to separate hydrogen from oxygen but that's not very efficient since it takes a lot of energy to separate those bonds. It would be better to use the electricity to separate hydrogen from fuel oil. --DHeyward 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The energy there comes from the sun, not the ocean. You're describing hydropower, which doesn't take energy from the ocean at all. -Reuben 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello??!? Sense of humor <on> --DHeyward 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault... it's (temporarily) out of commission after seeing some of the news stories on this. --Reuben 07:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It's vital to distinguish between actual energy production and mere energy storage.

• Hydroelectric energy is, as you say, driven almost directly by the sun, which is responsible for the elevation of water vapor into the atmosphere. (It has little to do, as Reuben noted, with any "energy potential in the ocean".)
• When we burn fossil fuels, we are in effect cashing in on solar energy captured millions of years ago by plants.
• Electricity generated by photovoltaic cells and solar-powered heat collectors is obviously directly powered by the sun.
• Energy derived from windmills is extracted from weather systems which are ultimately powered by the sun.
• Geothermal energy is extracted from the latent heat of the earth's core, left over from the primordial fireball (of sorts) out of which our solar system was formed. By extracting that energy we're hastening the cooling of the planet to a degree, but of course it was cooling down anyway.
• Nuclear energy is derived from radioactive elements left over from that same primordial cauldron.
• Any energy we manage to extract from the tides is in a roundabout way stealing angular momentum from the moon. (But, again, that was happening anyway; we're just riding on its coattails.)
• If we ever succeed in sustained, controlled fusion, that will be essentially "free" energy, "burning" hydrogen to helium and costing us nothing other than, in a small way, hastening the iron death of the universe. (But so far our attempts at fusion have all required quite a bit more energy input than we've gotten out, and the equipment required is decidedly not free.)

But just about everything else -- batteries, hydrogen electrolyzed from water, chemical energy of all kinds, springs, water pumped uphill, etc. -- is just storage, is just conversion of existing energy from one form to another. The conversion and storage may be very, very useful, but it doesn't create any new energy. (In fact, it always loses a certain amount of energy, because no storage process is 100% efficient.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate in this day and age that all the world is controlled by powerful corporations, many of whom are intent on preventing the rise of any cheap new technology that might weaken their stranglehold on global wealth. Can you imagine what Kanzius' inventions would do to the electrical and pharmaceutical companies? If he provided proof that his inventions work, or details of their manufacture, they would be stolen out from under him, and the man himself would be brutally silenced. We should applaud him for his efforts, and provide him the support he needs to make cheap and effective sources of power, as well as the cure to cancer, available to the world populace. Someguy1221 04:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Either your tongue's in your cheek, there, or you really haven't gotten this discussion at all. TANSTAAFL. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All I've seen so far are you guys reiterating the version of science that's been fed to you by the government and multinational corporations. Someguy1221 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, no.

I don't expect to convince you, but the key difference between science and other, faith-based systems of thought is that you do not have to take science on faith. Many people do, of course (and this is rather sad), but when I say that perpetual motion is impossible and that you can't create free energy from nothing, I am most certainly not just regurgitating something I've read (much less something I've been fed). I understand this stuff, it makes sense to me, it all hangs together as part of a huge interwoven tapestry of scientific ideas, all supporting and reinforcing each other, all confirmed directly by empirical evidence or by ironclad logical chains firmly rooted in empirical evidence.

Scientific truth is not just another belief system which you're free to choose or not choose based on fashion or sociopolitical whims or what feels good or who shouts the loudest. If you understand science, really understand it (and anyone can), the chances that there's something so wrong with it that a heretical result such as perpetual motion might actually be possible are precisely 0.000000000%. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm SomeGuy, do you seriously mean to say you believe that conservation of energy is a myth dreamed up by the government and multinational corporations? Really now? I hope this is just another case of my tongue-in-cheek detector being out of alignment, and that you're not serious. --Reuben 07:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forgive me; I forgot to bracket my response with <devil's advocate></devil's advocate>... Someguy1221 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good because I was just about to mentally bracket it with <complete idiot></complete idiot>! SteveBaker 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's better. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are really two questions here:

1. Is electrolysis involved?

2. Is more energy generated than put in?

As for #1, I'm skeptical, but it's conceivable. He's reportedly using ~14 MHz (quoted here from one of the videos). It only takes a few V across salt water to get H₂ and O₂, so the voltage is easily sufficient. That's also true in a microwave oven at 2.45 GHz, yet your microwave oven doesn't generate hydrogen gas when you use it to boil water. It would be spectacularly dangerous if it did! 60 Hz has been reported to work (although perhaps not as efficiently as DC). The question then is whether or not 14 MHz is a low enough frequency to have any significant effectiveness in electrolysis. It's a question of the time constants for mass transport. It seems unlikely, but not impossible. Alternative hypotheses: something akin to a microwave plasmoid?

As for #2, not on your life. If he's right, he's using RF energy to break apart H and O in water, and then burning the hydrogen to make water. If it were able to generate net energy, as Kanzius does appear to be claiming, it would be a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! --Reuben 08:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In a very important sense - it doesn't matter a damn how his machine works. It can't be an 'over unity' device because of the first law of thermodynamics - and it can't be "extracting energy from water" because the net result of burning the hydrogen is water so any (hypothetical) energy he extracted would have to be put back in again. So at best it's an energy conversion/storage device. Looking at it in that regard (which is the most charitable thing I can manage), it's only really useful if there were an abundant source of these radio waves out there that was going to waste - and there isn't. Failing that, you'd have to make the radio waves using electricity. On a very large scale, that could be 98% efficient - but we don't know how much of the radio energy goes into splitting up the water and how much is wasted in other ways. If you just want to take electricity and use it to split water into hydrogen and oxygen then you'd use electrolysis. Electrolysis (done right) is about 70% efficient - and theoretically, with the right catalysts and such, it could be made 94% efficient. So I suppose it's just possible that this guy has come up with a fractionally more efficient way to convert electricity+water into oxygen+hydrogen. It's not breathtakingly, amazingly great - and it's only going to work on very large scales because small-scale radio transmitters are much less efficient than electrolysis - and we're assuming that all of the radio energy does indeed go into splitting water molecules and none into heating things up or other wasteful side-effects. Look guys - we've seen these ridiculous claims dozens and dozens of times before - and every single time they are bogus. That should come as no surprise because the first law of thermodynamics is one of the most solidly proven laws we have - it's been around a very long time and it has stood the test of time. It's not likely to be broken - and if it is, it won't be in 'normal' realms of matter and energy...it'll be something in a black hole or at a quantum level or something wierd like that. It won't be in some rinky-dink experiment with radio waves and seawater taking place in someones garage. SteveBaker 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve, of course, the laws of thermodynamics are not broken, see the "not on your life" in my answer to #2 above. But the question remains, what is the flame? It's actually quite surprising if RF can dissociate water. The frequency appears to be far too high for electrolysis (you really want DC), and far too low for photolysis (you need UV). If it were hot enough for thermolysis, the water should be boiling. So if there really is a significant amount of hydrogen coming out, that is indeed unexpected, interesting, and worth understanding. My guess is, this is not a hydrogen flame at all, perhaps an RF plasma of ions from the match. --Reuben 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the flame is indeed hydrogen burning in oxygen (possibly with traces of sodium from the salt making for a pretty colour). RF (at reasonable power levels) can't dissociate water - but how do we know that our enterprising inventor didn't put some kind of induction coil/antenna into the tank to convert the RF into electricity again? Given the exceedingly dubious credentials of the "scientist" whom he demonstrated this to, it's possible that the whole thing is a total fabrication. (See below - the scientist turns out to be an 84 year old guy who believes in healing people with magnets...(why is it always magnets?!)). The motive of these crackpots is often to pursuade gullible investors to give them money - many of them end up in front of a judge as a result of this dubious practice. Nothing short of peer reviewed papers in long established journals and duplication of the experiment by some reputable institution should be considered as 'proof' that this event happened at all...and even then, remember the cold fusion fiasco. SteveBaker 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Two problems: 1) the induction coil would still be going at the same frequency! Same issue as before! 2) I think we should give the local news reporter enough credit to suppose that he would have noticed that. --Reuben 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind - I watched this video of the actual demonstration: [8] - no induction coil - and that yellow flame isn't hydrogen, it's a hydrocarbon probably. I'm pretty sure there is some clever cheating going on here. What's that red stuff in the bottom of the testtube at the beginning of the video? What is the purpose of showing it with a paper towel first and then moving on to doing it without a paper towel? I'm pretty sure now that he's actively cheating by putting something into the test tube that's actually burning away - maybe a smear of wax or some oil floating on the water. I'm now on the side of seeing this as some clever fakery. I'd want to see this done with a new test tube - fresh out of the box and salt water made with distilled water and sodium chloride - not pulled out of some canal where it could be polluted with who-knows-what. But I certainly wouldn't credit a news reporter with noticing cheating - and I wouldn't put it beneath him to have deliberately looked the other way in order to get a good story. SteveBaker 12:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, claims of 'over unity', 'perpetual motion', or other technological miracles usually stem from one of (or a combination of) the following factors.

• Sheer fraud.
• Delusion or error of various sorts:

• Failure to accurately measure energy in or out of a system.
• Failure to account for one or more sources of energy into the system. (Non-obvious power sources, energy stored prior to the start of measurement, etc.)
• Failure to include all important physics/chemistry in the model chosen; failure to justify (or be aware of) any simplifying assumptions that may fail under unusual conditions. (See EmDrive.)
• Failure to do the math correctly.

• Genuinely new physics or chemistry that doesn't violate conservation of energy but requires an extension of our understanding of conservation principles.

The last case is very rare, and should only be considered after the other much more likely explanations have been ruled out. If we gave a scientist in 1875 a little lump of plutonium, he'd be faced with a 'perpetual motion' type of problem—not knowing about radioactivity, he'd be faced with a material that constantly generated heat without combustion or chemical reaction.

Much more often today, a self-described 'scientist' will announce his 'discovery' of a novel physical principle fabricated on the basis of sloppy experiments and wishful thinking. (An example from not-too-long-ago on the Ref Desk would be Ruggero Santilli, his magnecule theory, and his ridiculous paper, "A new gaseous and combustible form of water".) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and fooling a local news reporter about science is not particularly extraordinary. --Sean 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I periodically put in the effort to try to fix up Water fuel cell and Water fuelled car - it's pretty futile though because the nut-jobs on those pages mostly outnumber the (relatively) sane scientists. If you want to see some empassioned arguments in favor of all of this junk science, check out the talk pages of those two articles. It's truly depressing reading. SteveBaker 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think there might be something to this. No, I'm not suggesting that he's successfully violated the first law of thermodynamics- I understand enough science to know that this law is about as solid as anything can be. If the radio energy required to do this is less than the power you get right then, this may be a useful technology for making engines. Yes, the water is just storing energy, and we're not coming out ahead in the grand scheme of things, but we already have the salt water. We can consider it effectively "free" for our purposes. And yes, I realize that eventually the burned-up stuff will need to be turned back into water, and yes, this takes energy, but the atmosphere will do this by itself if we just leave it alone, right? In other words, the work that needs done on the other side of the cycle will be done using (I presume) solar power, which is effectively "free" to us. The earth already has a water cycle which operates using energy we can consider "free", since we don't have to go out of our way to make it happen. Friday (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it needs to be turned back into water, it's that the very act of burning the ("activated"?) water creates water. The reaction is hydrogen + oxygen = water + heat. This heat would be less, or at the very most equal to, the energy required to loosen the bonds. So you are taking water, loosening the bonds, burning it, and getting water back again. If you just loosen the bonds (and let the atmosphere do the rest), you don't get any work out of it. I personally find the discovery cool from a chemistry/physics standpoint, but not necessarily practical for engines, unless it was more efficient that an electric motor or something. --Bennybp 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The energy is not there in the water to start with. Water is the low-energy state. You're putting energy in to get H2 and O2, which have chemical potential energy, i.e. the energy you put in has been stored in their chemical state. Then you burn the H2 to get H2O, going back to the low-energy state. At most, the burning gets out as much energy as you put in. It's exactly the same as pushing a ball up a hill, and then recovering energy as it rolls back down. --Reuben 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reading the original article that our OP quoted. In there it says "Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College lab to confirm his own observations." - which certainly makes you think: "Wow! A serious scientist at an established university says that it works! But then it says "The scientists want to find out whether the energy output...would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery."...which is an immediate red-flag. If you had invented a totally revolutionary technology that produced energy in an utterly new way - why on earth would you start even thinking about putting it into a car before researching how and why it works and collecting your nobel prize? It's a classic mark of a crackpot to move directly from experiment to functional technology without looking carefully at the intervening science. So I looked up this Rustum Roy chap. The first Google hit said: "Rustum Roy cannot be described by any professional label."...uh...huh...OK, that's not a good sign. "He has interwoven throughout his 60 year career..." (yeah - he's 84 years old) "...both world-class science and active participation in reforming theology and the practice of religion. He is at once a distinguished research scientist and a social activist, a societal reformer and a champion of whole person healing (CAM)."...hmmm. So what about this 'whole person healing' thing? Well, it turns out this is another of those "something magical happens with magnets" thing: "Ayurvedic Healing and the Science of Electromagnetic Healing" according to the website relating to the conferences he presented at. So the so-called scientist who is backing up these crazy claims is actually someone who was indeed once a respected scientist - but in his 80's has turned to religion and bizarroid healing-with-magnets stuff. This is not someone whose opinions I'd trust. SteveBaker 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

September 12

White bread - is it bad for the gulls?

I've seen this subject raised in various places online by those with an interest in feeding the larids. Is white bread *really* an unhealthy food to give to the gulls? The 'common wisdom' seems to be that one must only feed them wholemeal bread, as white bread is nothing but 'empty bulk' and 'bad for the babies'. Anyone actually know the facts? I very rarely feed them the above for this very reason - but I'm beginning to wonder if there's actually anything to it. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurt, if anyone else had asked this question, we would have been waiting for you to answer it! DuncanHill 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, white bread is bad for kangaroos and wallabies as it causes their teeth to rot. Your gulls don't have teeth do they? I expect that they may suffer a vitamin and protein defficiency if you fed them too much white bread. White bread with sugar on it has been called white death. Graeme Bartlett 01:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wonder if sugar causes 'beak rot' in birds? Never considered that before. I know that I used to envy my pet birds for having no teeth when I was a kid - my mouth looked like (and still does look like) Shane MacGowan's due to a genetic thing and causes me much pain and hassle. :) I've noticed that the gulls will only really eat bread if there is nothing else to be had. Bread is considered the standard 'bird food' but I've noticed that they prefer meat, boiled eggs and cheese. Guess that you can't teach an old carnivore new tricks. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's exaggeration to call white bread "empty bulk." I'm comparing a loaf of white vs. wheat right now, and I see exactly 186 calories per four ounce serving in both nutritional fact labels. Surely, the methodology may be called into question; whether the numbers are exact; how much actual caloric content can be absorbed by a human dietary tract (let alone a bird!) Nonetheless, I think that's a largely false claim that the wheat bread is more nutritious. I see equivalent carbohydrate, sodium, and even protein, in both of these loaf labels. Nimur 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not disputing that there may be too much hysteria about the 'badness' of white bread, bear in mind that one of the disadvantages of white breads or more generally refined cereals is that they tend to have higher Glycemic index. Although in the case of breads according to the GI articles some brown breads can be just as bad due to the addition of enzymes. White breads or refined cereals also tend to have less Dietary fiber and lower vitamin and mineral levels. (Not talking about sodium or potassium here which most people probably don't have trouble getting) The low vitamin and mineral levels are the predominant reason AFAIK why things tend to be called 'empty bulk'. Nil Einne 20:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And deciding what you should do depends on what you are trying to achieve. Do you want segulls to pester you for food, in which case feed them (anything). But if no one ever supplied them with food, they would leave humans alone. Are you feeding a pet that you want to keep healthy, or just some random birds that will appreaciate anything better fresher than the normal tip food that they consume? Graeme Bartlett 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is probably irrelevant, but I've heard that feeding Paracetamol or Panadol to gulls causes them to die, but this may be a myth. But I think that feeding animals food which is not their normal food causes them to be too reliant on this food, and thus lose the ability, or want to look for their own food. A recent study which I remember ready did a survey on innercity seagulls and seagulls near the coast with no humans around. The inner city ones had a higher death rate and were fatter; with less muscle. The coastal ones were leaner and more muscular and capable of living longer. So.. that's why we are often told not to feed wild animals. (could be a part reason). Phgao 04:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When i worked on a gull colony 23 miles away from San Francisco the gulls there would feed their chicks any amount of human rubbish from the city. Gulls are natural oportunists, but I doubt Giants game hotdogs are the best food for growing chicks! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Eating one panadol pill for a seagull, is probably like a human eating 50 or 60 pills. It's bound to have a bad effect! My science teahcer used to feed sodium metal to gulls, that was unhealthy. I think they will eat anything white. But they won't touch fruit and vegetables! Graeme Bartlett 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did he (your teacher) do that? Sounds like an arsehole to me. Gulls will eat boiled potatoes and sliced apple, FYI. --Kurt Shaped Box 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Graeme. I basically like to feed my local flock of gulls a decent meal three or four times a week. There are about 25 birds, mostly lesser black-backed gulls that hang out in my street and build their nests on the rooftops in the surrounding area. I first got 'into gulls' in a big way (though I always thought they were interesting) after I hand-raised an orphaned gull chick (she turned out to be a great black backed gull - an absolute tank of a bird) and started feeding her every day after she fledged. The other gulls started coming for food at the same time, I started to recognise individuals and it all went on from there, really. Quite a few of my neighbours feed them too. --Kurt Shaped Box 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If we can accept that refined white flour is bad for people, certainly it would be bad for all mammals. Metabolism and malnutrition are the same whether you're a chipmunk or a beluga. Vranak 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But a seagull isn't a mammal. SteveBaker 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that feeding them anything other than their natural diet of fish or whatever would be bad for them. It doesn't matter what's in the bread so much as it's filling the bird's stomach with something that isn't full of the things that fish are full of. SteveBaker 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually give the gulls that much bread of any kind myself - just the odd few slices here and there to save it going to waste. I generally give them cooked beef/chicken/pork/sheep (my local butcher does me a deal on offcuts and offal - it all goes in a big pot and gets cooked up), boiled potato and boiled eggs. They seem to be doing well on it - loads of large, strong-looking GBB/LBB fledglings with good plumage this year. --Kurt Shaped Box 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why feed them at all? Will they starve to death without your intervention? --24.249.108.133 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

a wild and crazy question

I know this is a wild and crazy question and one that will require a computer but here goes. How much of the central valley would fill with water and how long would it take to fill if you replaced the Golden Gate Bridge with the tallest possible dam? Clem 05:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a dam joining the highest point in San Francisco with an equal height in Marin, or what? (Hm, how high is the saddle point of the San Bruno gap?) —Tamfang 07:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

...with and without all coastal land mass gaps filled in to the same height as the dam. Clem 07:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the water source. Is it the sacramento river? The would keep rising up through the source whihc would probably be a larer volume than you are contemplating. --DHeyward 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Central Valley is immensely big. You'd need to estimate its volume though to start with a question like this. My quick Google Earth measurements make it feel like it can be approximated as an prolate spheroid with dimensions 400 mi * 64 mi * 1000 ft or so. You do the math. --72.83.170.138 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Current weather conditions give a non-tidal flow rate of about 1000 cubic feet per second[9] (at the Folsom Dam at least - it's the only figure I could find, and I'm assuming no rain is going to fall, which would speed things up, nor water evaporating, which would slow things down (hopefully cancelling each other out!)). Using 72.83...'s estimate slightly tweaked (taking half of a 400 mi * 64 mi * 2000 ft ellipsoid instead), I get a volume of 3 × 10¹⁵ cubic feet (20000 cubic miles). This would take 95,000 years to fill if dammed.

The Golden Gate Bridge however is only 27 metres (90 feet) high. At this level, I can assume the valley is an elliptical prism 400 mi * 64 mi * 90 ft, which would take only (!) 6,400 years to fill before water begins to lap over the edges. I don't know about what would happen without all the other land being filled in - I'd imagine that it would fairly quickly find another route to the sea over the San Francisco peninsula. Laïka 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And when you're talking about such geologic size scales, you can't consider things like ground to be water-tight! See groundwater for an introduction. Just because you "seal off" the above-ground flow pathways does not mean the water will stay inside the basin! Incidentally, we have an entire article on groundwater modeling, including links to software packages such as FEFLOW and Visual MODFLOW. These look to be commercial software simulators. Nimur 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not planning to build a dam there. I happen to live in the central valley and would be very upset. — Daniel 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if my mom increases my allowance, like she promised, and stops making me buy my own lunch at school. Clem 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Embarrassingly simple work question

Heyo there. I have a rather simple (and therefore embarrassing) question regarding mechanical work. According to the article work is defined as the scalar product of displacement and force. I had some difficulty understanding that article as it also mentions distance, but my textbooks support the idea of force x displacement. If I were to pick up an object such as a pen and raise it by a distance of x metres vertically and then drop it to the floor, would I be doing any work on the pen? I would argue that since displacement is 0 then work must be 0, but I could also see it as being the sum of the work required to raise the object and the work done while it drops. Which of these interpretations is correct? Many thanks Vvitor 07:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

While raising the pen, you are doing work on the pen. Simultaneously, gravity is doing negative work on the pen. For the time period in which the pen is moving up with constant velocity, the force of gravity equals your force raising the pen, and so in this period of time no net work is done on the pen. And so during this time, while the pen is gaining gravitational potential energy thanks to your own work, it gains no kinetic energy. Remember, the net mechanical work done on an object over a period of time equals its change in kinetic energy. When you first begin raising it, you must exceed the force of gravity to accelerate the pen upwards, and in doing so net work is done on the pen (confirmed further by the fact that it has gained kinetic energy). When you stop raising it, your force is less than that of gravity, to allow it to slow to come to a stop (confirmed as the pen loses kinetic energy). Since the pen began at rest, and stopped at rest, it gains no kinetic energy in the whole process of raising it, and so no work has been done on it. When you release the pen, gravity is the only force acting (ignoring air resistance), thereby allowing it to gain kinetic energy, and so work is being done on it as it is falling, as potential energy is converted into kinetic (gravitational potential energy is really nothing more than an expression for the work that gravity is capable of doing). So, in short, in raising the pen you do work on it, but all the work is cancelled out by gravity and turned into potential energy. And net displacement is not inherent to the equation for work, only the differential displacement. Net displacement is merely sufficient for calculating work done by conservative force fields, like gravitational fields and electric fields of stationary charges. Someguy1221 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is completely wrong, because you are forgetting about potential energy! The work done to lift something is w = mgh (assuming no net change in kinetic energy). --131.152.105.20 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looking at the article, I see where the confusion may have arisen. The actual definition of mechanical work is the integral equation. The two algebraic equations above it are less-than-accurate expressions that only suffice for some simple examples. Someguy1221 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is rather...surprising, I must say. I was taught that a change in gravitational energy equals work, but your reasoning sounds clear enough. Thank you so much for your explanation. The reason I am asking this question is because I received something similar on a test, and I wasn't sure I agreed with the way it was marked. In the test question, a worker wishes to carry 850 tiles to a roof and he can carry 10 at a time. To lift them, he stands upon a barrel and lifts the load the rest of the way, steps down, repeats 85 times. Apparently the correct answer involved calculating the work done in one load, involving the worker's mass, the mass of 10 tiles and the formula Ep=mgh, and multiplying it by 85. I'm going to have to consider your explanation and read up a great deal more on what I initially thought was a simple concept. Thank you once again! Vvitor 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome, but let me just reiterate...A point that should be made very clear in any homework or test question is the destiction between work done by and work done on. Work is certainly done by the worker, but no net work is done on the tiles, overall. Someguy1221 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think of work as the amount of energy you expend transporting a test particle in a conservative field, i.e. I think of $W=\Delta V=\int _{\mathbf {x} _{i}}^{\mathbf {x} _{f}}-\mathbf {F} (\mathbf {x} )\cdot d\mathbf {x}$ as the integral form of $\mathbf {F} =-\nabla V$. This was clearly the intended interpretation in Vvitor's test question. In this interpretation kinetic energy isn't involved at all, and the work involved in transporting the tiles isn't zero. One can argue about whether the work is done on the tiles or on the field, but in any case there's a net energy transfer which is later reversed when the tiles are transported back to ground level, and W measures the amount of that transfer. -- BenRG 11:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the poor wording of the question. The worker (no pun intended) steps up onto a barrel, moves 10 tiles onto the roof of the house, steps down and repeats. At the end of the 85 loads, the 850 tiles are on the roof and the tiler is on the ground. The exact wording of the question, such as "work done by...on..." is also unclear because of my poor memory. I recall the question asking "how much work does he do". It's ambiguous, I know, but I've sadly come to expect this kind of ambiguity on physics tests. Thank you for your insight Vvitor 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

microorganisms

what are the benefits of being small to a bacteria such as E.coli in comparism to a eukaryote such as paramecium.discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.134.148 (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that, at the top of this page, it says: Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first. Rockpocket 08:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a template for that do your own homework thing. It's {{dyoh}}. — Daniel 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Measure of temperatures

The records and the measures of temperatures are in umbra or under sun? --Vess 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the weather, air temperatures are normally measured in the shade.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The temperature of an object out there in the world depends on a balance between the energy it absorbs by conduction through the air, the input of energy from the sun and the sky - versus the energy it loses due to infrared radiation and conduction out into the air. Hence, if the sun is beating down on your thermometer, the solar input can push it's temperature up much higher than the surrounding air - and the temperature it'll show won't be the air temperature - it'll be it's own temperature. Putting it in the shade helps that somewhat by shutting off the solar input contribution - and whilst it's still absorbing a little extra energy from the sky, the temperature it reads will reflect much more accurately the energy from the surrounding air. Hence - only readings made in the shade are meaningful measures of air temperature with most kinds of thermometer. SteveBaker 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A Stevenson screen is used to provide both shade and protection from wind chill. DuncanHill 13:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually a Stevenson screen is specifically designed NOT to provide any wind chill protection (not that the term 'wind chill' has any good definition when not relating to clothed humans). Wind chill comes about in humans because when there is no wind, our bodies warm up a boundary layer of warm air. Our experience of (say) 10degreeC is not of air at 10degreeC touching our skin it's something warmer than that because of that boundary effect. When the wind blows, it moves that boundary layer away and we feel what 10 degreesC actually feels like - which is to say colder than it feels in still air. So "wind chill" is a downward adjustment of the temperature to a level that represents what temperature still air would have to be at in order to produce the same sensation. It's beloved by TV meteorologists - but completely bogus as a scientific measurement. So: Far from protecting any kind of boundary layer around the thermometer, you most definitely want it to be exposed to the wind in order to get an accurate measurements of the true air temperature! That's why the Stevenson screen has slats all round it to let the wind blow through the box. SteveBaker 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GPS TIME SYNCH

HI SIR, i searched in ur wink guide about the gps but i dint find the relevant info i need...so plz do the needful.... i wan the PRO'S AND CONS how the gps has its hand on relay time synchronisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.162.226 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question - but GPS relies heavily on time, each of the satellites of the GPS system broadcasts the time to high precision. GPS units on the ground read the time signals sent by each satellite all at the same instant. Because the satellites are all at different distances, their time signals are delayed by different amounts due to the speed of light. Knowing where the satellites are in space and the time they sent their signals allows the GPS unit on the ground to figure out where it is. Clearly, it's essential that the clocks on all of the satellites are accurately synchronised and the guys at the ground station that run the GPS system make sure that this is very precisely the case. Your GPS unit therefore has a very good and extremely accurate knowledge of the time just as a part of what it does. As for the Pro's and Con's:

• CONS:
  • A GPS unit is a lot more expensive and a lot bulkier than a wrist watch.
  • GPS doesn't work underground or inside some buildings (although the GPS unit may continue to give you the time, it won't be being synchronised with the satellites anymore).
  • The GPS system is under the control of the US military - I guess that in some applications you might be concerned about whether they might turn it off in times of war - but since an increasing number of critical systems use GPS, this is becoming less and less likely to happen as time goes on.
  • Another problem with GPS is that if the ground unit has been switched off for an extended period of time, or if it's been turned off, then moved a hundred miles and turned back on again - then it can take it quite a while to lock on to enough satellites to get a decent result. Normally, it uses its internal clock to estimate the positions of the satellites, so things go fairly quickly.
• PROS:
  • It is exceedingly accurate - to within a few nanoseconds in fact!
  • The time-zone can be generated automatically because the GPS unit knows where it is in the world.

I hope this answers your question - if not, please rephrase and clarify what you need to know. SteveBaker 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, if you actually need the time accuracy you can get from GPS, is that it isn't exactly the same as civil time. I think it's a UTC0 versus UTC1 difference or something like that. It appears to be roughly a half-second difference from my observation, comparing a clock synched with WWV to a GPS handheld. Admittedly it's also possible that the response time of the LCD display is different between the two instruments. --Trovatore 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About Sinter & Pellet (copied from Village Pump (technical))

Dear Sir,

I would like to ask a question that What is the difference between Sintering & Pelletizing (Of Iron Ore Fines)?

Could you help me in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.70.129 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am copying your question to the Science reference desk which is a better place for this type of question. DuncanHill 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sintering which see, is a general term for joining things (powder usually) using heat, pelletisation almost certainly refers to making pellets, which could be by sintering though other methods are possible (such as removing liquid from a solution/suspension of the fines maybe)87.102.16.32 14:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

note, there is an article on Pelletizing though I'm not convinced that it's written in english - take a look anyway - and improve it if you can...87.102.16.32 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Typically iron dust is formed into balls (maybe as a wet sludge) then heated(sintered) to dry out and fix in shape. This 'sintering' wouldn't be/need to be as extreme as the sintering used in forming ceramics/cermets etc...87.102.16.32 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also pelletization of iron ore can use a binder see http://www.cs.akzonobel.com/MarketSegments/Mining/Pelletization.htm (which may not need sintering - just drying)

also see this diagram http://www.kudremukhore.co.in/pelpro1.htm which should give a rough idea of what happens - note the separate stages of mixing, 'balling','rolling' and heating last - 87.102.16.32 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some good pages about both these subjects if you want to know more - just to a web search for either of the two terms.87.102.16.32 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid question about light reflection.

Pardon my ignorance. White objects are only white because they are reflecting all of the wavelengths of light that make up white light. But if they are reflecting all of the visible spectrum why aren't they truly reflective like a mirror? Jooler 13:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because their surface is diffuse. A mirror is specular. Capuchin 13:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because dull surfaces are microscopically bumpy - each tiny part of the surface reflects light off in a different direction - so the light is scattered more or less evenly in all directions. Very shiney surfaces (such as mirrors) are polished flat so that all of the light is reflected in one direction. Some surfaces are bumpy but have a larger fraction of the surface pointed in more or less the same direction - these are the majority of objects that show shiney highlights - but aren't as flat as a mirror. When you wax your car, you are using the soft wax to fill in the microscopic cracks and dimples in the paint - and the result is a shinier car. SteveBaker 13:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm... But you'll never polish a white car to the point where it reflects like a mirror, and if you take tin-foil and keep on crunching it up and flattening it out, it will never look white. Jooler 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The car has a layer of the bumpy white paint, which is then covered by a smooth layer of varnish - this is howe they can be both white and shiny at the same time. For the tinfoil, you'd need to get the surface really bumpy. While you would not be able to get it this rough by crumpling it, if you were to rub it quickly with sandpaper, it would definitely appear much whiter than it did before. Laïka 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What a nice experiment! I just tried it with a ScrotchBrite pad and it turned the foil from reflective to dull white. I'll have to remember this one! - hydnjo talk 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm.. I just tried it with some foil and some fine grained sandpaper, but the foil just looked scratched and torn rather than white. Jooler 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that we're talking MICROSCOPICALLY bumpy. Crumpling foil up still leaves flat bits maybe a millimeter across. I'm talking about bumps that are maybe 1000 times smaller than that. Well maintained, polished car paint DOES act like a mirror - you can easily see your reflection in it. Take a look at my 1963 Mini Image:1963 MkI Mini.jpg - look to the right of the nearest headlamp and you can see my wife's silver Mazda reflected in the green paint. That doesn't mean that the paint is reflecting all colours equally though - it may be absorbing some of it (which is why that car is green). Car paint cleanly reflects some percentage of the light (from the surface of the clear-coat) - and scatters the remainder (that penetrates through to the pigmented paint beneath). SteveBaker 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But I can put a nice shine on a black car and see my reflection in it nearly as well as a shiny white car, and yet supposedly the black car is absorbing light of all wavelengths and the white car none. Jooler 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As SteveBaker says, it's the clear-coat that makes the car shiny - it is this that reflects your image. What is under the coat doesn't matter, as either way, the paint is not specular reflective. Laïka 11:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. In detail, it's something like this: 50% of the light striking the car is reflected (as in 'angle of incidence equals angle of reflection') back as a 'mirror-like' reflection by the clear-coat. The remainder of the light hits the underlying pigment in the paint. Depending on the colour of the pigment, some wavelengths of the light are absorbed and the remainder scattered off in all directions by the irregular surface of the pigment. If you have a red car - then it absorbs all of the frequencies that are not red and scatters red light in all directions. This scattered light is mixed up with the 50% of light that was reflected by the clearcoat. In fact, (to correct Laïka) normal 'gloss' paint does reflect. What happens is that as the paint dries, the pigment settles towards the underlying surface leaving the oily varnishes to float to the outside - so again, there is a thin layer that works kinda like clear coat on a car...but not as well. Also, when you think about the irregular surface of the pigment, it only scatters light in all directions if the surface it utterly random. Generally there are more microscopic parts of the surface that are parallel to the underlying sheet metal than there are parts that point off at crazy angles - so the reflected light won't be truly uniformly scattered unless the pain is 'matt' paint that's designed to do that. Gloss paint settles down with a larger proportion of the final surface being smooth. Car paint is becoming very complex stuff though - my orange MINI Cooper had paint that looked orange from some angles, yellowish from others, pinkish from others - and that's down to some seriously complicated surface chemistry. SteveBaker 14:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Jooler 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Airspray

I have a can of airspray, which sprays out plain old air at a high pressure. The air is kept under pressure by propane, butane, and "aliphatic hydrocarbons", whatever those are. The can gets extremely cold to the touch after only minutes of continuous use. Why does this happen? JIP | Talk 14:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Break out the Gas laws. (See especially Charles' law and Gay-Lussac's law.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the butane and propane will be (probably) liquids in the can due to being under pressure.. releasing the valve lets these liquids boil/vapourise - which requires energy.. - shake the can - you should be able to here the liquids sploshing about.. (it is possible of course just to compress air without using the hydrocarbons.87.102.16.32 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Those air sprays don't actually spray much (if any) air. You could theoretically pressurise air like that but the pressures would be huge and you couldn't get much into the can. Using liquids that boil at close to room temperature/pressure allows MUCH more gas to be stored without a heavy pressure vessel. But yeah - boiling those liquids takes energy and that cools the resulting gas considerably. SteveBaker 16:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They sell instant flame throwers? I thought canned air is non-flammable. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The can I have on my desk (Jessops own brand) is marked as "Extremely Flammable" and "Contains petroleum gas (LPG)". DuncanHill 09:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep - the same with mine. SteveBaker 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

transistor

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#transitor/logic_gate_switching_energy

I asked a question over there, but someone here might be able to answer - hence the link.87.102.16.32 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Coprolalia - How does person learn the obscenes words?

I posted on the talk page to suggest it should be in the article, and then thought, why not look here? Sorry if this should be in language - but I'm more interested in how certain words are "plucked out" and then used by someone with Tourettes Syndrome or something else. However, it could also be a question of language, becasue you can't use words you don't know.

My question is, okay, someone with this will automatically start using taboo words, right? But, what if they have never *heard* the taboo word in question. They can't use a word they don't know.

I'm presuming, of course, that it works this way - say I know someone with TS who has never heard ****, putting 4 stars to mean a generic curse word. He hears it, I act shocked, and so he figures it's taboo. Does the part of his mind that says not to say it then turn off, or what?

Granted, it's hard nowadays to grow up and never hear a curse wrod, but that actually brings to mind a related question. What about someone growing up in an environment where the words are *not* taboo, like some inner cities where every 2nd word is ****? Does this person then *not* say the taboo word becasue where they've grown up, they haven't learned it is taboo?

I think the first may relate to why only a minority of people with TS use coprolalia, and maybe the 2nd does a little. I've alwyas thought the stigma of someone like that always using it was dumb becasue it ignored the basic rule of language I cited above - you can't use words you've never heard. But, I'm curious as to how that happens, and also how it's effected by a culture in which the certain words aren't taboo. Would a child of bizarre parents who taught him that the word "table" or "chair" is taboo shout "table" or "chair"? 209.244.187.155 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Edison 16:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is the society which perceives the disease, and not the individual who has the disease. Anyway, I think any introduction to Psychology will quickly make it very clear that social norms are always relative to the surroundings. Nimur 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Or cultural anthropology, for that matter. Shakespeare in the Bush is a classic account, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of To Kill a Mockingbird: "Bad language is a stage all children go through, and it dies with time when they learn they're not attracting attention with it." --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Seal identification

Hi, can someone tell me what species this seal belongs to, please? I suppose it's an earless seal of some sort, but I think this image would be a nice addition to the relevant species article. --Kjoonlee 17:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• It looks a lot like this Common Seal here: [10]. That said, they all kind of look the same to me. --Sean 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Sean that it is a Common Seal (or Harbor Seal) Phoca vitulina.--Eriastrum 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regeneration of limbs

I've heard, from two seperate sources, of a young boy who was very interested in Salamanders and such creatures who could regeneration limbs. The boy then was involved in an accident which caused him to lose a leg (or an arm, not sure) As he'd witnessed the regeneration of limbs with Salamanders, and no one told him otherwise, he believed that he could also grow a new leg. No one contradicted him, and in time this is exactly what he did. One of the people who told me this say they saw photographs of this, in stages, on the web. I have, despite numerous searches of various sites, never found such a thing. Has anyone out there seen or heard of this? It sounds the stuff of sciencfiction, but one person who swears this is true is usually a sane and sound person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.229.90 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely false because other then the biological impossiblity, if he had happened believe me it wouldn't be hard to find stuff about it. Definitely the mind can have a major affect on your health, see Placebo effect but it is most definitely not capable of causing the regeneration of a limb Nil Einne 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, why is this a biological impossibility? If lizards can re-grow tails, if salamanders can re-grow limbs, and if humans can re-grow tonsils, why would it be an utter impossibility to re-grow limbs? Just because it's never been documented it doesn't mean a declaration of impossibility is appropriate. Impossible is a rather strong word. Vranak 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It'd be more accurate probably to say there's no known way this can happen. Friday (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Vranak 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to find mention of this on snopes, but as said above- if this had actually happened we'd expect it would be major news. Since it's not... Friday (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that limb regeneration in mammals is prevented by scar formation. If scarring can be stopped, far more regeneration could take place (but at a slower healing rate than with a scar). Graeme Bartlett 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But if this had happened, it would be REALLY common knowledge - it certainly wouldn't be hard to find. I don't believe it. SteveBaker 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the people here on the reference desk have grown a limb or four at some ealier stage in their life, so it is known that humans can do it. It is under the circumstances of the OP that this is not possible (after amputation). And will to regrow a limb would make no difference either. Stem cells for regrowth are found in the finger nail bed. But how can you make them grow a whole arm, that is the tricky part. Graeme Bartlett 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a fiction children's book to me. Reminds me of a Paul Jennings one where a boy grows back his finger repeatedly. Aaadddaaammm 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fingertips can grow back. But I have to believe that regrowing a complete adult arm, joints and all, off of a stump, is quite a different thing than growing it from nothing in the womb. Someguy1221 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, another reclassification under urban myth!!! Richard Avery 07:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "A guy I know says he saw it on a web site" is not extraordinary evidence. --Sean 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's understood. The OP is not asserting that the story is real, he's asking if anyone knows the source for the story, presumably the one that had pictures. The story is also ringing a very faint bell for me, but I don't recall ever seeing photos of the supposed re-growth. Matt Deres 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That kind of thing would be ridiculously easy to fake. If it was real, it would be easy to find. SteveBaker 20:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

terms related to livestock management (Spanish translation)

How do you translate into Spanish the following terms: - Stockbook =  ? - Stud enterprise =  ? - Register stockbook =  ? —190.66.253.179 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really a question for the science desk - may I suggest you ask at the language desk instead? SteveBaker 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Relatedness of the Human Species?

I recently read that a new study shows that human beings are less related to each other than was previously thought. I was wondering how this new data effects other scientific data regarding human genetics. For instance it had been thought that modern Homo Sapiens branched off from archaic Homo Sapiens about 225,000 years ago. Since that date is based on calculations involving genetic relatedness is that date still accurate? Similarly is it still true that Caucasoids branched off from Negroids 110,000 years ago and that Mongoloids branched off from Caucasoids about 40,000 years ago? 207.69.139.139 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

These dates would have been estimated by looking at the vaiations in a small number of genes. By considering more and more genes a more accurate estimate could be made. However just because there is a great deal of variation accross people does not mean that the branch point is different. The variations could have been in the population the whole time, and the variations could be in genes that do not matter in a negative way whether or not they differ. What it means is that whole (or a big sample) of populations of people need to be compared with each other to estimate a divergence point, rather than considering one sample individual. Graeme Bartlett 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you right - I think there is a misconception. You said "The variations could have been in the population the whole time" - but that's not possible. At the point of a genetic mutation - all of the offspring that carry the mutation are descended from a single individual (although possibly with more than one mate - but you can eliminate that issue by using mitochondrial DNA). That sharply limits the diversity of the gene line from that point onwards. So, for example, at the point where Homo Sapiens split from the rest of Hominidae, one creature and one only had the mutated gene that made them different from the other great apes. Every single one of us is descended from that one individual. That's why this genetic distance thing works. If we had the genetic map of that individual, we could count the number of differences from that in the 'junk' DNA and because this has nothing to do with evolution and those differences happen at a reasonably predictable rate, we could estimate the elapsed time since that common ancestor. However, we don't have the DNA from that individual - so we have to deduce what it's DNA was like by examining the junk DNA from a lot of modern people and analysing the patterns of mutation to figure out what our common ancestors DNA must have been like. The reason our number for that is approximate is because we keep finding more individuals with new differences in that area of their DNA and that fact pushes the date of that last common ancestor back or forwards in time. But there is no ambiguity - every single change has happened since that common branch point. SteveBaker 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

September 13

The Body's Capacity & Ability To Die

Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Let's assume that we have an "average" person (whatever that means ... average age, height, weight, health condition, etc. etc. etc.) And this person wants to die (i.e., "passively" commit suicide). Let's assume that there is nothing at all wrong with his mental health ... that is, he is not suicidal / depresssed -- but, rather, that this is simply a medical experiment. Say that this person simply goes somewhere (let's just say, he goes and lays on his bed) and he simply stays there. Never, ever leaves the bed. (For illustration, we can add the fact that he is restrained / handcuffed / etc. -- although that is irrelevent, I think.) The location of the bed is essentially irrelevant -- but I want it to be a controlled environment (like his bedroom) -- as opposed to outside in the desert or a mountain or the ocean or his back yard or the highway or whatever (where contending with the elements and/or with intervention of other humans/animals is an issue). This person affirmatively does absolutely nothing -- does not eat, drink, medicate, etc. -- he just passively lays on the bed ... and (perhaps) his body naturally / passively excretes or sleeps or whatever a human body would passively do. About how long would it take for him to die? I assume that the cause of death would be lack of water / dehydration --- is that correct? (I have always heard that when you are lost or deserted or abandoned, the critical health worry is lack of water.) If so, what exactly would happen to his physical body that would cause the body to die? In other words ... no water enters his body ... and then what ... so what? What is the reaction of the body, at this point? Finally: if the person were unrestrained and free to move about (no handcuffs) ... would his physical body (and/or his mind) somehow "force" him to seek water/food/assistance/ at some point? In other words, does the body have some type of defense mechanism that will force the guy -- whether he wants to or not -- to extract his body from danger and seek survival (i.e., food, water). Restated, perhaps: which would "trump" the other ... his (mental?) willpower to die or his physical body's natural / reflex / defense mechanisms to survive? (if the latter even exists). Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Yes the restrained guy would die of thirst. But I would expect the thirst and hunger to overcome the will to die (if the person is in normal health and psycology). Graeme Bartlett 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as with your previous question - you are asking a very contrived hypothetical fenced-around-with-caveats question. What makes you think that anyone would have ever studied such a thing? If they haven't (and it's pretty certain that no such study has been or ever (ethically) could be done) - then how on earth do you think anyone can come up with an actual answer? You're just going to get another bunch of complaints about the question and (possibly) random speculations! SteveBaker 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of people have had access to food and water, and yet had the willpower to refuse them until death. See Hunger strike for examples. Typically humans can live for several weeks without food, and about three days without water. In favorable conditions, people have lived longer than two weeks with no water supply. The current documented record is 18 days.

If you stopped eating and drinking you would typically lose 2-3 liters of water per day. Once about 2% of your normal water volume has been lost, you would begin to experience thirst and discomfort, loss of appetite, dry skin and constipation, like a bad hangover. Then your heart rate would increase to compensate for decreased plasma volume and blood pressure, and your body temperature would rise because of decreased sweating. At around 5% to 6% water loss, would become sleepy, experience headaches and nausea. At 10% to 15% fluid loss, muscles become spastic, vision fails, and delirium may begin. Above 15% are you will not survive as you will begin to suffer multiple organ failure because your blood will be too viscous and you will have too high a concentration of salts in your plasma. Rockpocket 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a "Rule of 3" for human survival? All things being equal: three days without water. Three weeks without food. And three months living outside without shelter? --24.249.108.133 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a practise that is currently under discussion in the Netherlands as an alternative to euthanasia (or stopping the administration of medication - quite the opposite). It's called versterven - that's a link to the Dutch article, which doesn't link to any other language Wikipedia and neither Wiktionary nor my dictionary gives a translation. It is generally used for old people for whom there is no point in living on. No food or drink is given to the patient, who (the article says) dies from dehydration after a few days (up to two weeks), as a result of vital organs failing one after the other. "It is a slow, but mild and peaceful way of dying provided the patient gets proper care, such as administration of pain killers and the wetting of the lips, which suppresses sensations of thirst. Refusal to take food or water is a natural phenomenon in late stages of dementia and several other diseases. [...] Experts estimate that in the Netherlands, in 4 to 10 % of mortalities, 'versterving' has taken place." So it's quite common. Exceedingly common even. In the Netherlands, at least. Does anyone know the English word for this so I can put this translation in an English article? DirkvdM 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Murder Victim's Multiple Stab Wounds

When reading news accounts of a crime, I often see things like this: "the medical examiner states that the victim was stabbed 128 times" (or some such). How in the world do they calculate that number? I don't understand. Not to be crude -- but -- when a body has been stabbed umpteen gazillion times, what in the world can you distinguish? Isn't it all just one big "glob" of a mess that would be impossible to sort out? Yet, they always seem to have the exact, precise number -- how is that? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Once the body is cleaned, assuming it hasn't been completely mutilated, it wouldn't be that hard to make out individual wounds. Someguy1221 03:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I don't think I ever heard of a number as big as 128 - it's usually less than 20 and even then you tend to hear things like "at least XX" - meaning that they counted XX holes but they aren't sure whether some of the holes represent multiple stabbings. SteveBaker 03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone is stabbed xx number of times, chances are it was done in a maniacal fashion. I can't see an enraged killer stabbing someone xx times precisely in the same location with the same angle and force. Check out old coroner photos. Crime scenes are pretty gruesome, but once the body is washed, it's pretty obvious where each would is. --24.249.108.133 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's not too hard to tell where the knife has gone in pretty much near the same area. There is a whole grim science of this sort of thing. --24.147.86.187 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Imported energy

what is The share of energy resources used by the United States that comes from other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.105.119 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This was asked just a few days ago. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day and produces only 8 million. Therefore about 60% of oil is imported. It's likely that natural gas and other resources are imported too - but I don't have figures for that. SteveBaker 11:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just oil, not other energy sources. Also, you are talking about the net result. The US could export some oil and import other energy sources, which leads to the question what precisely the questioneer wants to know. DirkvdM 09:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

pneumonia vaccine

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

Statistical information and not advice was requested by this question which makes the removal of this question highly suspicious as to the true purpose and intent of the science reference desk. I am very disappointed with the Wikipedia science reference desk for being unwilling to provide reference to statistical data for various medications such as side effects and/or number of deaths or other complications. In fact I have lost all confidence now as to the Wikipedia having any authoritative information to give versus pure speculation. Clem 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded on Clem's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The responses to the original question serve as a perfect example of how otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable persons can fall victim to mind set. The intent of the original question was no more than to determine why prolonged muscle soreness is a side effect of an pneumonia vaccine. Instead of a straight answer however what we find here is a dance based not on providing a simple reference or answer but a dance based on a mind set inappropriately applied for no other reason than to show off ones talent to do the dance. Clem 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for that debate - please take it to the Discuss section or to private talk pages. SteveBaker 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Molar Mass of a Specific Substance

What is the molar mass of a substance for which each molecule contains 9 carbon atoms, 13 hydrogen atoms and 2.33*10^-23g of a complex ion? It is a challenge question that was asked at school, and I don't know how the complex ion part fits in.- 210.49.128.130 06:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say just do it like a normal problem. The molecules consists of carbon, hydrogen, and a complex ion, and between that mass and the periodic table you know the individual masses of these constituents. However, that figure for the mass of the complex ion seems awfully low. Someguy1221 07:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter what the complex ion actually is in this case, and it does work out to a near-integer molar mass. (I agree that it's a not a particularly complex complex—the complex ion in this case is something more like hydroxide or methylene than one of the big six-liganded cobalts at complex (chemistry).) You're given the complex ion's contribution to the mass in grams per molecule, and you need to convert that into grams per mole. How would you do such a conversion? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

By multiplying the mass of the complex ion by Avagadro's number? - 210.49.128.130 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Strength of chicken egg shells

I need to know at what pressure a standard chiken's egg shell will begin to crack and eventually break. I have researched through certain encyclopeadias and some wikipedia articles but haven't been able to find a definite answer 41.241.236.5 10:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This would not be a constant and would vary from egg to egg, from chicken to chicken, even breed of chicken to breed of chicken. Factors such as the chickens diet can affect the strength of the shell - low protein or vitamin D can cause thinner shells [11] . A small, invisible to the eye, facture or imperfection in the surface of the shell could render it very fragile. Lanfear's Bane 10:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

They are also a lot stronger when compressed end-to-end than from side-to-side. SteveBaker 11:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the story that the even the current World's Strongest Man would be unable to crush an egg by compressing it end-to-end? It's certainly an oft-repeated 'fact'. --Kurt Shaped Box 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that's a joke/trick to get people to try it - they brace themselves and apply a lot of force - the egg crushes really, really easily (duh!) and kersplat...you have egg on your face! SteveBaker 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't be surprised that this has been studied in depth here -- kainaw™ 15:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually supposed to be impossible for a human to crush an egg by squeezing. For the einstein year of physics, the IOP released a booklet of 20 physics "tricks" and this was one of them. I have a copy in front of me. "Challenge the audience to break the egg just by squeezing it, wrapping the egg in a plastic bag if they wish, believe it or not it can't be done!". They make sure to explain that hair-line cracks could make the egg break easily, and that any rings could apply uneven force which would break it. Yes it sounds a bit rubbish for a physics demonstration, but these "tricks" were designed to be done with very common materials. Capuchin 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The document is avaliable here. The egg thing is on page 23 and there are videos of all the demonstrations in the document here. I find the video of the guy (lady?) trying to break the egg hilarious :) It's hard to shake the notion that it should be easy to break. There's lots of good stuff in there. Capuchin 07:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR -- If you apply EVEN pressure, eggs really are difficult to break. The problem is that when they DO finally break, they do so while you're applying a lot of pressure to them. That's how I painted my parents' ceiling with egg. --Mdwyer 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

mms thru orkut!

Is there any chance of sending a song from "Youtube" to mobile...? or is there any other site which will enable us to send MMS thru computers to mobiles? Temuzion 10:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Msn messenger enables you to send text messages to mobile phones, that might be a start? SGGH ^speak! 10:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I already know the sites through which I can send dry text messages for free, unlimited time...I need some websites of not text mesages...but which will enable us to send multimedia messages..! Temuzion 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird bug

I was wondering if someone could help in identifying this insect. I live in hyderabad, INDIA. Does it bite humans ? Here is a snap I took, I am sorry I do not know how to embed the snap here. Thanks to all of you. [12] Vijeth 12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a grasshopper, and I don't think it bites. But I have no idea of the species. Graeme Bartlett 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Graeme, It does look very scary though. I find the colors very intriguing. Vijeth 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an amazing looking creature. Do you want to upload it to wikipedia? You click on the uploadfile on the left, select a copyright and point it to your file, and give it a name and description. Hopefully someone knows more exactly what it is. Graeme Bartlett 12:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did upload the file, and yet I do not know how to embed it here. I think I named it ColorfulGrasshoper.jpg Vijeth 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can embed it using [[Image:ColorfulGrasshopper.JPG]] - or to display it at a more reasonable image size, and with a title, you could say [[Image:ColorfulGrasshopper.JPG|250px|thumb|A colourful Grasshopper]]. SteveBaker 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You all. Now I am wiser. Vijeth 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is Poekilocerus pictus. They won't bite you but you should under no circumstances eat it — they eat milkweed and are thus poisonous (which is probably what all those colors are trying to convey). --24.147.86.187 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

These are very common where I live but instead of milkweed sit down to a table of Philodendron. Clem 01:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I went out to check, and its still there on the same branch as yesterday. Is it dead ? And yes I don't think I plan on eating one too soon. :) 202.53.8.234 09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve, shouldn't you remove this question? Isn't 'does it bite' a health-related question? What if it's seriously poisonous? Or am I not allowed to say that because it might unnecessarily scare the questioneer, as TenOfAllTrades recently told me? DirkvdM 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussing the color of it's skin may be a health question but could be race related which definitely qualifies it for speedy removal. Clem 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Breaking locks

Ok, this is a serious question and I'm not a criminal so don't go calling the police of anything lol
I've lost the key to my bicycle lock and now the bikes stuck at college. Short of getting bolt cutters or a chainsaw, how can I cut or break the lock? Its a D-lock (like a large horseshoe). My mate told me that if you put lighter fule in the lock and light it that it will unlock. Is this true? Any help, thanx! Hyper Girl 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, lighter fuel as in naptha wouldn't do much. But liquid butane, on the other hand, would. You'll find it in the janitor's closet as 'gum remover', or in electronics stores as 'freeze spray'. As the liquid boils away, it freezes the lock enough to cause it to become brittle. One it is brittle, it can be broken with a hammer or a prybar. That's the theory, anyway. In practice, you'd be better trying some of the other suggestions, here. Most of them are less flammable. --Mdwyer 22:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense says that something as simple as that is very unlikely to work, otherwise bike thieves would be doing it all the time and no-one would spend money on such an insecure type of bike lock ! I suggest you find a locksmith's shop or hardware store and ask their advice. And next time get a spare key cut and keep it somewhere safe. Gandalf61 14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a popular Internet fact that certain models of "Kryptonite" brand locks can be opened in seconds with a ball-point pen. (Search YouTube for this.) Otherwise, if you don't know how to use a lock-pick, I'd just suggest just taking a hack-saw to it. (If you still have any paperwork proving you own the bike, I recommend putting that in your pocket, it would make things easier if a cop notices you.)APL —Preceding unsigned comment added by APL (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, do *not* use a chainsaw for this. You will hurt the saw, and most likely yourself as well. An angle grinder would be more appropriate, but that too can be a harsh mistress, so wear proper safety gear. --Sean 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Know anyone with an Oxyacetylene torch? Those D-locks can be tough. Take all appropriate safety precautions, of course. --Kurt Shaped Box 15:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I found that it was much easier to drill right into the key-hole (well, it is actually a circle) of the D-Lock. It is the weakest point. With a 1/2" drill bit, it takes about 5 minutes to remove the lock and it falls apart. This is not useful for thieves because it makes a hell of a lot of noise. -- kainaw™ 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One word: thermite. Lanfear's Bane 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A jack can also be used to break a U-lock as well. Donald Hosek 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Some locksmiths might have tools that can pick your lock. If not, an angle grinder will probably do it; but takes a while. --192.58.221.248 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You could also get/borrow a sledge hammer and knock it out of its housing with that. Aim for the "lip" of the straight part of the lock, swinging away from the U part of it. --24.147.86.187 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the single defining feature of one of those things is that you shouldn't be able to get them off without the key! The good ones are made of case-hardened steel - which will take a very long time and a lot of hacksaw blades to get off. Drilling out the lock is probably the least tough way in - a hand-held drill with a range of bits would get you through it. I think we can discount the lighter fluid thing - that's exactly the kind of urban legend that's NOT going to work. You could probably get it off with a lock-pick - they are illegal in the USA - but easy to find on the Internet - and they are really alarmingly easy to use! (I'm not telling you how I know this!) You can also employ a locksmith to get it off - they are skilled and licensed to use those kinds of tools. As a lateral-thinking kind of a question - what is the D-lock wrapped around on the bike? You can saw through a wheel fairly easily if it's not also wrapped around the frame - most bike wheels are pretty cheap to replace. A photo of the locked up bike might reveal some cunning topological things that could help. SteveBaker 20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Go up to a campus cop or building custodian, smile your sweetest HyperGirl smile, show him some proof it is your bike, and ask if he could please help you out by using his bolt cutter. It will take about 2 seconds to cut the lock off. Or go to the hardware store and buy a hacksaw and an extra metal cutting blade, then spend 5 minutes or so cutting through the lock. Either is far, far cheaper than hiring a locksmith. If you go to a locksmith with the brand of padlock and the number on the bottom, he should be able to make a duplicate key for a small price. Edison 17:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a reasonably good bike lock, made with 3/4" case-hardened steel, you'll be hacking away with that hacksaw for hours and getting through an awful lot of blades. Bolt cutters won't touch it either (and if you try, you'll damage them). If you intend to brute-force your way in, then drilling out the lock (which won't be made of really tough materials) is the way to go. Look here [13] some of the bike locks succumbed to a hacksaw - but in one case, the reviewer said "Sawing on the 16 mm shackle for five minutes only got me about 3 mm deep." in another "Unlike less hefty locks, the hacksaw and the bolt cutters barely ruined the finish on the chain. However, I did wound the Beast with the hammer. My battering dented the padlock and made it impossible to open without a screwdriver."...not all bike locks are that sturdy - but in some cases, hacksaws and bolt cutters won't help. SteveBaker 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The questioner did not specify what make or model of lock it was, so it may not be the sturdiest $90 5 pound lock. A 5 pound lock adds substantially to the mass of a bike whose designers made it lightweight, and some lock purchasers do not choose the heaviest lock. Lesser locks were opened easily by the writer of the Slate article, and with respect to hacksawing 3 mm into a 16mm shackle, the writer estimated he could have finished sawing through it in 35 minutes. I would suggest that on a campus, via the social engineering practice described by Mark Twain with respect to white-washing a fence [14], it would be possible to get passersby to volunteer their efforts. Several hacksaw blades would be cheaper than a locksmith. Edison 18:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming a homogenous material. I was involved in testing some jailbars once, and one of the tests was to see how vulnerable to cutting they were. The first hacksaw blade cut a notch 2mm deep in the bar before hitting the hardened core; the next 49 blades all wore out without making the cut measurably deeper. --Carnildo 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever try the classic 'file of the type that may be hidden in a cake', as a matter of interest? --Kurt Shaped Box 17:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

sex

what should be a healthy penis dimension —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.85.243 (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See penis. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also micropenis for a quick ego boost. --Sean 15:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And human penis size Laïka 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The health of the penis and its size are two completely unrelated subjects. Unless you have elephantitis. --24.249.108.133 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Humor in bad taste, man, humor in bad taste... :) bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Corpus Cawhatum?

I was watching a TV science-fiction show the other day and one of the key plot points was that left-handed people were able to process a particular chemical better as the corpus callosum is larger in those of a sinister nature. Technobabble aside, is it true that that particular part of the brain is larger in lefties than righties? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this paper in the journal Psychobiology, "Left-handers possess slightly larger CCs than do right-handers...". I think I'll add that to the article. —Keenan Pepper 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The theory is that most right handers are very solidly right handed - but left handers tend to be more balanced in their abilities between left and right. One easy demonstration of this is that most left-handed people can write better with their right hand than right-handed people can with their left hand. Since these abilities have to do with the left and right sides of the brain, it's not unlikely to suppose that a left-hander has/needs better communication between the two sides than a right-hander does. The corpus callosum is the structure that connects the two sides of the brain and contains all of the 'wiring' that goes between them. Whether having a bigger corpus callosum tends to make you turn out to be left-handed - or whether being left-handed from an early age causes the corpus callosum to grow larger to cope with the increased demand is unclear. But the end result is that the difference is there. SteveBaker 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a point to keep in mind is that lefties go through life in a world that's backward to them. It's important for them to be able to use their right hand at least to some degree, whereas there's less incentive for a righty to learn to use his/her left hand. I'm at work, so I can't check the site Keenan posted, but I'd bet the authors were careful to point out the direction the causation went, or if that's even been determined. Matt Deres 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

I have 2 questions. Would a sudden nuclear splitting of any thing (for instance, of an apple or even a man) lead to the nuclear explosion? Where can I find the chemical formulas of common food item (bread, beaf etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.14.38 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your second questions, beef or bread won't have a chemical formula, as they're not uniform chemical compounds as such; they're made of varying amounts of water, proteins, fats, vitamins, and other compounds that do have chemical formulas. You might google "beef chemical composition" to get a rough idea, from which you could say that it's, for example, 70% H₂O, 12% NaCl, and so on. jeffjon 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

By "nuclear splitting" I assume you mean nuclear fission? If so, then no, things apples and human bodies cannot undergo nuclear fission and release energy. Organic matter is mostly made of light elements like hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Except for hydrogen, these nuclei can be split, but the process absorbs energy rather than releasing it. The reason is that for light nuclei, the nuclear binding energy increases with increasing mass. Only heavy nuclei like uranium and plutonium can release energy through fission. Image:Binding energy curve - common isotopes.svg may be enlightening.

At this point you might ask, why don't light nuclei undergo nuclear fusion and release energy that way? It's because the nuclei are all positively charged, so they repel each other strongly whenever they approach, and they cannot get close enough to fuse together. If you subjected an apple or a person to the temperature and pressure at the center of the Sun, the hydrogen in them would fuse into helium and release energy. You would need even higher temperatures in order for the carbon and oxygen to fuse. —Keenan Pepper 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some common food items that are pure chemicals - water (H₂O), salt (NaCl), sugar (C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁), alcohol ((C₂H₆O)...but most things are vastly more complex mixtures. Things made from plant and animal tissue (bread, meat, peas, potatoes, etc) will contain (for example) DNA which is a horrendously complicated compound whose formula would comfortably fill a telephone book. So there is really no chance of getting the formula for something like that. SteveBaker 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just take a look at Titin:

(Click "show" to see the ridiculously long chemical name)

Methionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylar ginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylala nylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylpro lylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucyl isoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylal anylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethi onyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleuc ylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolyl prolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamylly sylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginy ltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylgl utaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisole ucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthr eonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmeth ionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylar ginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspar tylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanyla lanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylmethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalany lvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartylalanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanyltitinmethionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylacetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserxisoleucine

!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt Shaped Box (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've formatted with a rollup box so we don't have to see that horrible chemical name (also it messes up the horizontal scroll). Nimur 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - but that's only the name - the formula is MUCH bigger! SteveBaker 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it handy? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I think this explains a little mystery -- I was wondering why this RD was 328K after the archiver ran tonight, instead of the usual ~100K. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "nuclear splitting" - but lets give that a shot. Atoms contain protons and neutrons (and other stuff). Most atoms in food have a few dozen protons and neutrons (at most). But atoms with LOTS of protons and neutrons (like maybe 100 of them or more) tend to be a bit unstable - they'll be sitting there and suddenly (for no obvious reason) kick out a neutron or a proton and in the process, they turn into something else.

For example, Polonium-210 atoms (the stuff that Russian guy in England was poisoned with) will sit around for weeks or months and then suddenly (and for no obvious reason), they'll turn into common-or-garden lead...atom by atom over the course of years, your lump of lethally dangerous polonium will change into boring old harmless lead. The protons and neutrons that these substances kick out are the radioactivity that you pick up with a gieger counter or whatever. But the atoms that make up almost all day-to-day objects (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen) are utterly stable - they aren't big enough to be unstable - so an apple (which contains sugar, water, starches and proteins - all made up mostly of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) isn't radioactive at all - it's atoms stay just the way they are (although they'll eventually rearrange themselves from nice, tasty apple molecules into nasty smelly rotten fruit molecules...but all of the ATOMS are pretty much still the same). So no radiation.

But even a lump of weapons-grade uranium the size of an apple isn't going to explode in any particularly exciting way. It'll sit there emitting radiation as its atoms s-l-o-w-l-y turn from uranium to something else to something else...until it turns into something stable and stops being radioactive anymore. Some materials (like Polonium 210) do this fairly quickly (a matter of months to years) - others take thousands of years to decay. Now - here's the sneaky part. Some of these unstable atoms can be persuaded to kick out not one - but a couple of neutrons if you whack them hard with another neutron. So one atom could decay naturally - and the neutron it kicks out could hit another atom, causing it to kick out more neutrons (rather than waiting a few thousand years to do it 'naturally'). In a small quantity of (say) uranium, (like a chunk the size of an apple pip) that event is rather unlikely. The odds of one neutron hitting another atom are pretty small. But if you take a LARGE chunk of the stuff - then the odds get better because there are just so many more atoms it could hit. A chunk the size of an apple would be warm to the touch because of the heating caused by all that radiation. But at some point - if the lump is big enough ("critical mass"), nearly all of the neutrons that are emitted hit other atoms which kick out more neutrons that are ALSO likely to hit more atoms and make yet MORE neutrons. Before you know it, every atom in the entire lump of material is chucking out tons of radiation...KERPOW! (to put it mildly) - you have an atom bomb.

But this can't happen to an apple because it has super-stable atoms. Even if you put a chunk of radioactive uranium right next to the apple - the atoms in the apple are just too boring and stable - so neutrons come in from the uranium - hit the atoms in the apple and nothing much happens. So no KERPOW! So, to cut to the chase, an apple isn't going to explode no matter what you bombard it with.

SteveBaker 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're a space artist ...

Let's say you're an artist on a spacecraft heading to Mars. Strangely, you are not required to perform any science experiment because they are taken care by robots. You're on the trip simply because we need to provide museums with top class original artworks (e.g.: pictures of nude Martians). What can you do to fulfill your job while you are in space?

• Oil painting: Pigments stick well to the palette and canvas. Oil does not float. But the solvants may kill you and your pilot. Canvas may be heavy for a space trip.
• Water color: I guess water and zero gravity may cause much trouble.
• Pencil, crayon, pastel sketch: You need to fix yourself and the paper to the wall otherwise you may simply push yourself away from the paper.
• Fountain pens, ballpoint pens, technical pens: Generally, these ink-based tools require gravity.
• Taking photos: This shall be a piece of cake.
• Carving: In addition to weight limitations, you may need sophisticated tools to help you keep the material from moving. On the other hand, dusts may damage your space craft.
• Airbrush painting: Microscopic particles may be harmful to your health and also the spaceship.
• Sandpainting: No gravity; no fun.

What else can you do? -- Toytoy 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably none of the above because you'd run out of materials - mass being at a premium - and (as you say) little bits of 'stuff' floating around isn't recommended in zero g. I think your best bet is Photoshop. You can paint on a computer screen in zero g - you can send your pictures off for other people to look at, comment on, publish, by radio - and the entire gizmo is powered by the solar panels. One decent terabyte hard drive can hold more pictures than you could paint in a lifetime. Of course you might not literally want photoshop - there are lots and lots of other art programs - I'd take along a copy of Maya for 3D sculptural work. Or you could do it on the cheap with GIMP and Blender. You could take along a digitizing tablet with a pressure sensitive stylus for a more hand-painted feel. Incidentally, pencils and 'pump-action' ballpoints work OK in zero g (Remember that business of NASA spending a fortune developing a zero-g pen, then when they finally linked up with the Russians in the Apollo/Soyuz mission, the Russians were using pencils -- I sure hope that's an urban legend!) People anchor themselves to convenient surfaces with loops that they can tuck their feet into. Velcro is everywhere! I don't think sketching with pencils, crayons, felt-tips or ballpoints would be technically difficult - but lugging lots of spares and tons of paper might not be too great. Taking photos is indeed a piece of cake - but in the large inky voids between Earth and Mars in a teeny-tiny spaceship with just a couple of colleagues for subjects - your photos will definitely start to look a tad repetitive after the first few dozen! "This is Joe at the front of the space ship. This is Joe at the back of the space ship. This is Joe upside down at the back of the space ship...no - that's not Joe upside down at the front of the space ship - you just have the photo the wrong way up." ...yeah - that's going to get old fast! SteveBaker 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The pressurized ball-point pen is an urban legend with a bit of truth in it. The pen was developed by an independant company using private funding, and was offered to NASA as a promotional gimmick to help them sell to their real market: the Air Force. In addition to working in weightlessness, a pressurized pen doesn't leak at high altitudes, and can write at any angle -- useful at 50,000 feet when the only available writing surface is the underside of your fighter's cockpit canopy.

And no, the Soviet Union didn't use graphite pencils: graphite flaking off is a major short-circuit hazard. They used grease pencils. --Carnildo 22:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Snopes said both sides used both. --Ybbor^Talk 22:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Spider Robinson's Stardance trilogy is based on a dancer who explored free-fall dance. Why worry about existing art forms in space? In general, new technology both requires and enables new art forms. If you are absolutely stuck on static visual art, use the GIMP or Blender. -Arch dude 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pain

Totally hypothetical question here: from a medical perspective, which is likely to be worse: something hurting when it shouldn't, or something not hurting when it should? --67.185.172.158 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Both are bad, and the degree of harm associated with each depends on the severity and extent of the condition. It's worth bearing in mind that loss of (or inappropriate excess) sensation of pain isn't a black and white matter. Depending on the patient, loss of sensation may be partial or complete, affecting small areas or the entire body. Inappropriate pain may be mild soreness or excruiciating burning. You really don't want to have the worst cases of either.

Pain has a number of benefits for the normal individual; see Pain#Survival benefit for some details. People without the ability to feel pain are susceptible to a great number of maladies, see Congenital insensitivity to pain, Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis.

Nerve disorders causing inappropriate pain, meanwhile, can lead to serious physical and psychological harm. (See neuralgia, phantom pain, chronic pain.) Trigeminal neuralgia is often excruciatingly painful, and has gained the grim moniker 'the suicide disease' in some circles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's the solution to safely asking medical questions here - just say it's hypothetical. :) DirkvdM 18:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomato and Plastic.

Why is it that microwaving anything with tomato in it in a plastic gladware/tupperware/whateverware container makes the plastic go red in such a fundamental way that you can't ever clean it off? Nothing else I cook in them ever does that and the stuff washes off other kinds of containers just fine. Is there some magic formula of common cleaning substances that'll get rid of it? SteveBaker 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this Steve! The red colour in tomato is Lycopene, a terpene that is oil or fat soluable, and is more likely to dissolve in a hydrophobic plastic surface. Also heating above 100 degrees, which can happen in non water phases has a destructive effect on the plastic. Graeme Bartlett 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it the same stuff that removes the skunk smell? or is a bath of tomato juice just a myth? :) Capuchin 07:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not 100% myth, but it is not a very effective way of actually removing skunk smell. It is an OK way of "masking" it. Though frankly if you have been skunked, masking it is a pretty good alternative if nothing else is available! Note though that if you have actually been skunked your nose will in the short term lose a great deal of sensitivity and you won't even realize how bad you smell (I know from experience!). --24.147.86.187 12:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks Graeme - that's a superb answer! So basically, if I microwave my left-over spaghetti/meatballs in a plastic container, I'm screwed. The colour has DISSOLVED into the plastic (now that's an odd thing!) and is therefore immune to being washed off or bleached out. Wow! Oh well, I guess I'll have to reserve the red-tinted containers for tomato products only. I presume that the Lycopene that's dissolved into the plastic isn't doing my food any harm - I mean, it's not harboring bacteria or anything because it's safely locked inside the plastic - right? There should be a market for pre-tinted red tupperware that doesn't show the dissolve lycopene! Many thanks! SteveBaker 13:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found a simple and cost-effective way of avoiding this problem. I don't eat anything with tomatoes in! DuncanHill 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a product available in the US that is supposed to deal with these stains. It is used in a dishwasher. I haven't used it myself and don't want to add any commercial links, but perhaps Googling for "plastic booster" might lead one in the right direction. --LarryMac | Talk 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Active ingredient appears to be Benzoyl Peroxide...sounds like it's a bleach which is also used in the manufacture of thermoset plastics...I guess that makes sense, it could also dissolve in the plastic and bleach out the colour and since it breaks down rapidly with heat, it's going to disappear quickly when you next use the container. Neato! I'll see if I can get some. Thanks! SteveBaker 20:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My ex was a fount of knowledge regarding anything in the kitchen and she used to spray chopping boards with a nonstick cooking spray when preparing tomato dishes. I think she did the same for chilli and red peppers, maybe they contain lycopene as well. I googled here[15] and found a few pointers which seemed to indicate that this might work even when you microwave a dish. Regarding your link to benzoyl peroxide I guess you noticed it's highly carcinogenic? Personally I'd avoid it and try using glass or porcelain for heating up tomato dishes in the microwave as they won't stain so you can use everyday detergents for cleaning. --Cosmic joker 00:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As our article on the stuff says, it's not carcinogenic when diluted (it's used in Acne creams for chrissakes!) and it has a very short half-life when exposed to heat. That's gonna be OK in a dishwasher. SteveBaker 17:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

September 14

living forever

If a human brain could be transferred into an entirely mechanical body, could that person live forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.182 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, cells of the brain would still deteriorate and die. Would you live longer? Maybe. Depends on what you would have died of to begin with. But there are plenty of degenerative neurological conditions that, if they wouldn't kill your mechanically supported brain outright, would certainly turn you into a vegetable, up until death finally caught up to you. Someguy1221 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Still deteriorate and die? I question whether deterioration is inevitable in the first place. Vranak 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Genetic mutations and cells' dying by accident are biologically and thermodynamically inevitable. Someguy1221 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DNA has repair mechanisms though, if I recall correctly. Vranak 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but DNA repair mechanisms inevitably won't correct all mistakes. Indeed, for certain types of repairs, they have as high as a 50% chance of getting the fix wrong. DNA repairs can even cause mutations that weren't there in the first place. Someguy1221 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit specious and pessimistic to me. Vranak 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which emoticon to respond to this with. What do you think?  :-D or :-p Someguy1221 05:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Something in this discussion feels to me more like

"But it could be...

No, really not..."

"But it could...

Honestly, no..."

"But it could......

The simple answer is, nobody has put a human brain into a mechanical system, independent of the body. We don't know enough therefore about what such a change would do. We know for example that the brain is not an isolated unit, that much of its processes including neurotransmitters once believed to be exclusive to the brain, are in fact strongly tied into bodily processes. We know the brain is not just an isolated organ, that has a blood supply and nerve connections and that's all. We know that the human mind is not just the same as the brain, so we cannot even assume that because a brain is physically okay, the experience will be subjectively handled without trauma or damage (consider phantom limb issues and psychological mental health concerns for minor examples of mind != brain). And we know that it cannot self-maintain without error, indefinitely.

Undoubtedly a person who could not get bowel cancer, liver failure, heart disease, lung cancer, due to not having these organs, would not be prone to the risk of death from them. So they probably would live longer. But for reasons above, we don't have enough information to estimate what their life (or fate) would be longer term, and it's likely that there would be subjective (to the person) or objective (biochemical) issues not anticipated if an isolated brain were ever created.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A different spin on this -- if the brain was understood well enough that one could emulate the physical functions of the brain in a computer, would the "mind" live forever? Even if you've barred any type of biological breakdown that isn't inherent in the structures of a brain, would the emulated "you" live forever? Maybe if you really underclocked the emulation hardware, making it seem that 10,000 years is a second? Eventually, the heat death of the universe would end your existance. So, no, you can't live forever. -- JSBillings 13:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so pessimistic. I think this can (and will) be done. Assuming the continued growth in computing power according to Moores law, I calculated that the computing resources to simulate all of the neurons in the brain (along with simulating all of the ancilliary chemistry and some set of sensory inputs) in 'realtime' will be with us in perhaps 30 years - for a machine costing under a million dollars. We can do it sooner - but the cost of the hardware doubles for every 18 months earlier and halves for every 18 months later. You could also do it sooner/cheaper by accepting a computerised brain that ran slower than realtime (so time would seem to speed up for the person being simulated - and for the people watching the simulation, the person would be thinking and responding very slowly). Simulating neurons is fairly easy, mathematically, and we use small artificial neural networks for all sorts of day-to-day purposes already. I don't think this will be at all difficult in 20 years from now.

The tricky part would be transferring the human mind into the machine. Scanning every single neuronal connection in a living brain seems very, very hard to me. Not impossible - but very tough. Taking a terminally ill person - scanning their brain into a computer - then (when they are dead) turning the computer on to allow their personality, memories and intellect to continue would be a nice trick - but technologoically, it would be exceedingly difficult and any slight mismatch between the simulation and the real brain in terms of simulated chemistry or neural responses could be devastating to the simulated mind. So I've been wondering what other possibilities there are.

Perhaps a more likely approach is to connect up some large number of artificial neurons to a living brain and let the brain start to use them as if they were biological neurons instead. This kind of thing is already being experimented with on a very small scale - and the work is promising. If that could be made to work on a very large scale, it might be expected that the person would just naturally start to use the computer for storing and organising memories just as they do with their biological neurons. As more of the electronic neurons start being used, the person would no longer be able to function without the electronics - so this is rather a point of no return! It would then be necessary to very gradually shut down parts of the biological brain and use the well known "plasticity" of the brain (which is well known to allow it to recover function from injury by shunting tasks around internally) to force the mind to nudge itself over into the electronic section of it's structure as the biological part is shut down (perhaps surgically - perhaps radiologically). Eventually, there would be no biological brain left - with all of the functionality being carried out inside the computer. At that point, you disconnect the computer from the body and the person inside cannot easily tell the difference. Obviously there would be some drastic steps involved - we would have to offer the growing electronic brain access to sensors - cameras, touch, hearing, etc - and as those senses start to function, remove the biological senses one by one. Doing it this way avoids the need to 'scan' anything and makes it a gradual process. However, I could imagine this taking years to do because the brain plasticity thing take a while to recover. Since it's unlikely that we would find it morally acceptable to start doing this to someone who is going to live for many years to come, it's hard to see how this could come about in society...although I'm sure the engineering will be quite well understood by the time the computing technology gets to where it needs to be. But with the increasing use of computers throughout society - and a large fraction of some people's "world" being on-line, perhaps over the next 20 years, this won't seem such a bad thing.

The consequences of this once the mind is inside a computer with electronic sensors (and robotic 'telepresence' bodies maintaining any physical being we might wish to have) would be profound. We could live for as long as we desired - a periodic 'backup' of the state of the electronics would allow us to survive any kind of catastrophy. As technology improves, we could add new brain capacity and speed up our thoughts as computers get faster. Speeding up thought is just like slowing down time though - and that's not very exciting to me. What's more interesting is deliberately slowing down brain function to allow you to 'fast forward' reality. If you are stuck waiting for something to happen - then slow the clock down on your computer and time will pass more quickly for you. If you want to jump forward in time, your mind can be dumped onto a disk drive for a few years and turned back on when you get where you want to be. Sending people to other solar systems is not a problem because you can slow down their clocks so that they think they are travelling at any speed you like (you can make it seem like your travelling faster than the speed of light - although in reality that's impossible). Other weirder things can happen: You could start up a second computer, running the same software as yours and suddenly there are two of you. This is like cloning happens in science fiction movies where the clone is the same age and has all of the memories of the original!

Predicting the future more than maybe 5 years away is tricky - but this scenario is quite compelling and there are no obvious technological barriers to making it happen. What is not clear is how a human mind - devoid of bodily aging and chemical failings - will stand up to thousands of years of memories accumulating in a much larger neural network. It's possible that the architecture of our minds is not suitable for that kind of 'scaling up' and we'd simply run out of places to store things - or connections between ideas would simply become too entangled resulting in who-knows-what mental problems. So immortality (in terms of greatly lengthening the duration of our experience of life) might still not be achievable...although living for tens of thousands of years by 'fast forwarding' through it ought to be quite possible. We could also be expected to retain 'backups' of people while they are 'in their prime' and saving them for future generations - so long after someone 'died' of mental complications, we could still boot up the backup copy and have them live the latter parts of their lives again. They would of course be unaware of their other lives - except via history books and whatever other records their 'other' selves might leave behind. The world, run like this, would be a very confusing place - but I'm sure we could learn to deal with it.

SteveBaker 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Which assumes that all that makes up a person, is modellable by appropriate biochemical models, and that given ssufficient knowledge of the physical organ of the brain, and sufficiently powerful parallel computing resources, this can be modelled. Perhaps it can - or perhaps it can to within detectable limits. But it's far from clear whether that's guaranteed, or whether transferance of a dynamic system can be moved in that way. Let's say that it's beyond todays science - but todays magic is often tomorrows science too. We just don't know, so "what I think" and assume is not much use in getting an answer. The simplest answer is probably, "yes, something like that is possible, but we don't yet have a good idea what the result will be if we try, because everything major involved is way beyond present day research and solid tested knowledge". That's what makes science fiction so much fun, you get to play with myriad "what I think"s. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what has been said here is completely speculative and, though cited with modern theory, is no clear reflection of what we might expect in the future and when we might expect it. I'm sure amazing technological advances in health care are to come, but even if you assume that your brain will one day be completely mechanical and last forever, that still doesn't answer the question. There is still disagreement among philosophers about Personal identity (philosophy). What makes you the same person over time? Also, what about the basic definition of biological life? If you don't consider your desktop to be alive right now, it is likely that you will never be able to call a completely mechanical human "alive."
In my opinion, no matter how powerful computers become, the basis of their operation will be rule based. The basis of biological function is rooted in Brownian Motion. As far as I can see, these are at odds. To echo F2's point above, emulating the brain is not just a function of computing power; It also has to be possible.
Mrdeath5493 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst there may not be agreement amongst philosphers - I don't really care because they are not doing the work. I care about what biologists have to say about the complexity of the simulation I'd need - about the effects of chemicals in the brain, about the structure and behavior of neurons. I care about the amount of computing hardware that might be required and the speed it'll have to operate at. I would need to come up with a way to get the 'software' out of the skull and into the circuits. Philosophers are welcome to sit off to the side and debate in the abstract - but they don't have a clue about how all of this stuff works...they are about as qualified to answer the question as geography professors. I think most scientists are pretty clear on the fact that the brain is just a big biochemical machine - and I don't see why (in principle) it can't be emulated in software (or perhaps on custom hardware) sufficiently accurately to do the job. The entire question is "How do you do the transfer?" and "How soon (if at all) will we be able to build computers that complex?". I don't know why you think brownian motion has anything to do with how we think - I've never seen science to that effect - and even if there were, it's only input would be some temperature-dependent randomness - which is trivially easy to add into our simulation. Sure computers are rule-based - but all signs are that so are brains. There is zero debate about whether we can simulate a neural network in software - I can do that - I have done that. Randomness is not difficult to add. The idea that there is something mystical about brains is not something that science is in any way indicating. They are horrifically complicated - and 'emergent behavior' in complex systems is a given. But we aren't trying to simulate higher brain functions here - that would be tricky - probably impossible. We're merely saying that you can replace the low level 'meatware' that the mind runs on with electronics. If you can understand a brain cell in enough detail, you can reproduce it. SteveBaker 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article called Mind uploading. Mind uploading is a great topic for science fiction. Science fiction stories about mind uploading are often written by physical scientists who have amazingly little interest in the details of biological brains and how they produce minds. Most details of how brains produce minds remain to be discovered, so speculation about the practicality of copying a mind from a biological brain into another substrate strikes me as premature, if fun, speculation. Current suggestions about how such a mind transfer might be possible are probably doomed to be as silly as early ideas about how to achieve human flight or reach the Moon. I have a question for fans of "living forever". What does it really mean to "live forever"? Biological minds change through time. Is the mind produced by the brain of an 80 year old really the same "person" that was produced by that brain 60 years earlier? I'm not sure that the idea of trying to make a person "live forever" makes any sense at all. If you did produce some kind of artificial mind that could retain continuity of thought and personality over millions or billions of years would that artificial construct be a human mind?. --JWSchmidt 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification. When I brought philosophy into the subject I wanted introduce the concept that if you completely replaced all of your body with new parts, that you might not be considered the same person. The possibilities of completely mechanical people or brain switching are both widely used as thought experiments in modern journals. There is no consensus on the subject, but a fair number of people argue that if you did replace all of your body with mechanical and computer parts (including the brain) that you could not, by definition, live forever. This has nothing to do with the continuity of memory (or body) and everything to do with the fact that we can not reasonably define any computer as "alive." All of that assumes that you could transfer a brain to a board of course. So, in response to the original question, I'm saying that even if I grant the fact that it is possible to replace everything (including the brain) with a computer or mechanical part, that you could not by definition "live" forever because you would not be "alive."
On top of all that, Brownian Motion has everything to do with every process in the body. If it were not for the random movement of particles in solution obeying the laws of physics, no process in the body would work. People often talk about body processes in terms of purpose (i.e. "The mRNA binds to the ribosome in order to start transcription. A signal recognition particle the binds to the amino acid being produced and takes it to the Endoplasmic Reticulum...") However, there is no intent among molecules. Their behavior is a function of concentration, free energy, and etc. The fact that a whole bunch of these randomly occurring processes are arranged in a way to keep us living is a miracle once you understand how random and seemingly out of control it actually is. I was thinking that computers might have a problem getting random enough to emulate it properly (ya know, the whole Matrix concept). However, complete randomness may be something they do well. I'm just not really sure because all I do is read about the body all day :P.Mrdeath5493 02:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there good reason to restrict use of the term alive to biological organisms? "Artificial life" as a generalization of the concept of "life" sometimes seems overly optimistic given that current attempts to create artificial life forms are rather primitive. However, philosophers such as Daniel Dennett argue that there is nothing magical about the life forms that evolved on Earth. Is there anything that can prevent us from making man-made devices with interesting behavior that many people will feel comfortable calling "alive"? You could adopt a definition of "life" that excludes man-made constructs, but many people prefer operational definitions: if a man-made device behaves sufficiently like what we expect of a living thing, why not call it alive? Daniel Dennett has addressed the idea that some essential element of "randomness" might fundamentally underlie those physical systems that people perceive as having a mind (as opposed to mindlessly mechanical systems). For Dennett, these arguments are often in the context of refuting the notion that quantum uncertainty produces free will. However, the same arguments apply to "random" processes like Brownian motion. Living organisms succeed in the presence of "random" processes, but folks like Dennett suspect that you can replace biological processes that involves "random" molecular events with functionally equivalent process that are as rigidly precise as a digital circuit. According to that view, it is just an unimportant fluke of nature that biological life happens to involve "random" molecular processes: that randomness is not essential to life or mind. Anyone with an interest in how we get away with talking about "body processes in terms of purpose" should take a look at Dennett's writings about the intentional stance. --JWSchmidt 04:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it all comes down to the same thing, Philosophy. I don't think anyone can accurately speculate whether or not a brain can be replaced by a circuit board. So, it is a question of the definition of life. Dennett is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many competing and more widely accepted accounts than his. I'm sure we could get away with using intentions to describe cellular processes if we didn't want to cure disease. Its just more complicated than that; and it does actually matter what is happening. As for the definition of life, there is a general consensus (with a minority objection of course) among philosophers that the basic principles of biology suffice in defining what is alive. Among biologists there is no conflict; I'm pretty sure a computer would fail the "made of cells" part. So there is a very good reason to restrict the term "alive." There is an incredible forum of discussion over this issue in both fields.
Mrdeath5493 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Until someone builds man-made devices that pass the Turing test and other more stringent tests for human-like behavior there is plenty of room here for philosophical speculation about mind uploading. There is room for philosophical disputes arising from different intuitions about the future course of neuroscience research and the ultimate impact of that research on philosophy of mind. To what extent is it just wishful thinking to assume that accurate speculation about mind uploading is possible without paying close attention to the details of biological brains and how they produce minds? I guess it would be "good news" for philosophers if it turns out that they can reach useful conclusions about mind uploading without being bothered to learn pesky details about brains, but I think the history of philosophy contains many warnings that should make philosophers nervous about ignoring scientific details. If you define "star" as a point of light in the night sky attached to the celestial sphere then you might find it all too easy to conclude that by definition "a massive, luminous ball of plasma" is not a star. For biologists, traditional definitions of "life" that were created to ONLY deal with life as it has evolved on Earth can be viewed as definitions of "Earth's biological life". I do not see a barrier to adopting a broader definition of life that includes non-biological life forms or any new forms of life that exobiologists might discover. It is true that many philosophers are not happy with Dennett. Dennett takes seriously the need to be well-informed about scientific results when philosophizing. Many philosophers prefer to believe that they work on a logical plane that is detached from the nitty gritty of physical reality. --JWSchmidt 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve, there not being enough space to store all info is no issue. That's actually how the mind works - it drops whatever is less essential. It uses this efficiency to fit a model of reality in the limited space of the brain. The bigger the brain, the more it can store, but it can never store all of reality, so it still needs to drop info.

You've got the right idea, though (well, at least in part of your discourse). Transferring the mind 'as is' to a computer won't work. It wouldn't even work with another brain because the wiring is wrong. You'd need an exact copy and that won't work until we have a replicator or teleportation or something similar. Instead, the mind should be linked to a computer that works with the same sort of principles, also creating a model of the outside world through interaction with it. If done right, the two will start to interact with each other and slowly merge until after a while they're really just one mind. So when the biological part (the wetware) dies, the (by now much larger) hardware-ego would barely notice it, more like a very minor stroke (the bigger/faster the hardware the more minor it would be). There's no need to actively shut down the biological parts (which would also raise legal issues). Just let the wetware and the hardware merge and then let nature take its course with the biological part. Also, why make exact copies of the human senses? Just use whatever sensors technology has to offer at the time. The mind will adapt. It's specifically good at that (the learning process).

An important angle is how someone would perceive the change. They would indeed not be the same person, as several people pointed out already. But as MrDeath said, that's normal. I am definitely not the same person I was, say, 20 years ago. Yet I perceive myself to be the same person. Not all memories are intact, but those that are make me feel like the same person (a special case is that I consider myself to be the same person as when I was a baby, even though I have no memories of that). As the biological and computer minds merge, the resulting mind will be different, partly because it uses different sensors and actuators, but if the merger works, then the memories of the wetware will get linked to ever more mental constructs in the hardware and thus effectively partly transfer into the hardware. If the hardware is much bigger, then the ego will also shift to that part of the new brain more and more, until eventually it largely resides there. In the transfer it will change, but because the change is gradual and most memories are transferred, it will still perceive itself as the same person, even after the wetware dies.

An interesting consequence: If more people do this (all of humanity?), then they can (and therefore will) connect through the Internet and merge. Ultimately, there would be just one human being, if one can call it that. This raises the issue of who it thinks it is. All the merged people at the same time? After a while that will feel like a distant memory, just like how I feel about when I was 10 years old. I know I was and I still have occasional vivid memories of it, but even though I consider it to be me, it feels somewhat alien.

Btw, Steve, I consider myself to be a philosopher and I know perfectly well what I'm talking about (I think). :) Actually, focusing too much on the way human intelligence works on the cellular level can restrict your perceptions of how it might work. One needs to be an abstract philosopher to understand this. Which you are (even if you don't know it). You just need to 'let go' a little more. :) DirkvdM 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Prefacing a long discourse with "If done right..." is constructive for selling a story idea to a science fiction book publisher, but this is not the science fiction reference desk. Is, "If done right, we could use robotic probes to gather data from every location in the solar system," science fiction or science fact? Collecting data at the center of the sun would present serious practical problems. Similarly, it is not at all clear that we will ever have the technical ability to connect two brains so as to allow the transfer of memories from a human brain into another brain in such a way that we would feel justified in saying that we had successfully transfered a human mind or "person" to a new brain. Digital electronic computers were designed to facilitate the uploading and downloading of data. Biological brains are the result of a billion years of evolutionary design that makes no concessions to the goal of transferring memories or personalities to an external substrate. There are mechanisms by which parts of brains can "mirror" or "reflect" the activity of other brain parts, but it is a large leap of faith to assume that such processes will in practice ever allow the transfer of a "person" from a human brain into a another brain. Focusing too little on the way human intelligence works on the cellular level can allow philosophers to imagine and hold unrealistic views of how easy it would be to upload a human mind to a new brain. --JWSchmidt 18:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are saying pretty much exactly the same thing as me. The very first bit isn't quite right though. The mind is indeed quite ingenious at fitting 100+ years of memories and algorithms for how to do everything from walk to solving a Rubic's cube into relatively few "bits" of storage. However, as efficient as that is, it's still about a million times more bits than we can currently store in fast memory in a $1,000,000 computer. That's 20 doublings of performance, Moore's law says one doubling every 18 months - so we have to wait 30 more years to get 'brain-sized' computer hardware at affordable costs. The way that the brain stores that information and how it does it is going to be hard to store - but the plan (which you evidently endorse) to allow the brain's natural plasticity to let it migrate into computer hardware seems like it might work. That approach would not require understanding how the brain's software works - we're replacing the hardware. This is a commonplace occurance - we have software that emulates (for example) a Nintendo 64 game console on a PC which has totally different hardware. Once you have that working, you can run N64 games on your PC. The point being that you don't have to understand how the game works in order to do that. Same deal here - we don't need to 'decode' how the mind is working on the wetware of the brain - we simply need to emulate the brain on computer hardware (which I contend is fairly easy with 2000's technology if we only had the horsepower and capacity. The mind operates on the brain by rewiring it...we can't (easily) figure out how the wiring has been done (and it's different for each person and from one day to the next). Hence we can't 'scan' a brain into the computer - so allowing the mind to rewire our computerized brain-simulator and thereby migrate onto it is perhaps the easiest way forwards. I'm pretty sure it can be done - and if it CAN be done, it's pretty clear that sooner or later it WILL be done - because there are rich geeks who would like to live forever (and to fast-forward through the boring bits). SteveBaker 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"That approach would not require understanding how the brain's software works - we're replacing the hardware." <-- Can you provide some links to reliable scientific sources that describe what "brain software" means? --JWSchmidt 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to find references - I'm using the term linguistically to distinguish the cells and the chemicals from the higher level processes and emergent behavior. The term is a self-evident analogy with computer software. SteveBaker 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

climatology

Are there any computer model/simulations available that illustrate what will happen to global climates if the Oceanic Belt ceased flowing ? (Other than the "Little Ice-Age" during 1400 to 1850 A.D.). Has there been any government research into this possibility ? email removed to prevent spam—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.138.141 (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about ocean currents, there are a number of computer models to calculate the effects. This site contains a number of simplistic modelling programs listed under "Data Resources" and suggests there are more advanced (and presumably more accurate) models that are running today on supercomputers (so go become an oceanographer if you want access to one ;-) ). Someguy1221 03:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean shutdown of thermohaline circulation. Not a very extensive article given the potential importance of the phenomenon (the gigantic consequences and the fact that it might actually happen in the next few decades, even though chances are small), but following the links might lead you to an answer. DirkvdM 07:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Accurate orrery

Has anyone ever designed a computer-based orrery that is accurate in every respect? I have seen (both on-line and in software) computer models of the solar system, but without exception they always miss on at least one (usually many) aspects. For example, they they may show accurate orbits as viewed from above, but the planets are just solid spheres that don't rotate. Or there are problems with scale. I'm pretty sure with 21st-century technology it is possible to design an orrery that replicates everything on a zoomable — all of the orbital elements, planetary sizes and axial tilts, satellites in their proper sizes and positions (although that last might be too much to ask). Also, time elements such as orbital and rotation periods that are accurate relative to each other. Is there such a program / software / whatever? Or am I wrong in assuming that such is technologically possible? — Michael J 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like celestia? I believe that's fairly accurate on the solar-system scale. Capuchin 07:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd use Celestia; it's accurate for the next few thousand years, and it takes into account elliptical orbits, satellites, quite a few planetoids, asteroids and comets, and not only do planets rotate and orbit accurately (you can even plug in a specific date and time and see how the solar system will look on that date), but the planet surfaces are made from NASA photography and are hence pretty realistic looking (although on planets such as Mercury where photographic coverage is not complete, there are some blank grey areas...) And, it's free! (see links from article) Laïka 08:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And there are a great deal of community add-ons too, some realistic adding space stations and new textures, some adding death stars and things... Capuchin 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I was wondering if there is any freeware which can help in identifying the heavenly bodies one might see, based on the viewers current location on earth ? something more accurate than google earth 4.2. Vijeth 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many many such programs to help with stargazing. I don't know the names of any of them though! Capuchin 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check it out on google. Oh yeah I removed the redundant "heavenly body in the SKY" part. How silly of me. Vijeth 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's Stellarium; that's the one I use. Laïka 11:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The combination of Google Earth to go virtually to any location, Stellarium to see the sky from that location, and Celestia to travel to anything you see there is amazing. Alfrodull 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, Celestia. I'd never heard of it. I'll check it out. Thanks! — Michael J 10:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The nice thing about Celestia (being Open-sourced) is that you can chat with the authors on their mailing list. So if there is a feature that you feel is missing then you can discuss it with them. If you have good ideas that are reasonable things to add to the package that they have not yet come up with, the odds are good that someone will add it into some future release. Of course if you can program a computer you can also do it yourself and have the change become a part of the package into the future. SteveBaker 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Energy level of photon .

Is there any energy level for photon . If there then what is the lowest energy that a photon may have ? what is the hieght permissive energy that a photon may have ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamiul (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No photons may take any energy. The photon is essentially just energy, a 0 energy photon does not exist, but any slight energy above that is possible. Neither is there a maximum theoretically, although there may be a practical maximum based on what produces photons. High energy photons can lose energy through Pair production, though I doubt this provides any upper limit. Cyta 07:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A Photon is a derivative of an electronic orbital's loss of energy, right? If this is true, then a photon only have a limited number of energy levels. In that case, What is the photon's lowest possible energy level? = The lowest energy loss that an electron orbital can make. Right? And because electronic orbital gaps are known, and we should be able to say what the lowest energy level of a photon is. It would be a chemical question in this case. That said, we do have to go on and say that this answer is incomplete. Because 1) photon energy can be lowered or raised depending on the relative velocity between the photon emitter and the photon receiver. Fex, the relative velocity is high and divergent? So the photon appears to have less energy. 2) In metals, a sea of electrons is formed by the nature of covalent bonding. And in this sea of electrons, minute electromagnetic energy changes happen in response to electric currents. This sea of electron forms a surface holding electromagnetic tension. Photons are emitted as the tension subsides. So in this case, What is the photon's lowest possible energy level? = depends on the electric current driving electrons through the metal conductor. InverseSubstance 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Snowy Tree Crickets.

Does anybody know where snowy tree crickets, which obey Dolbear's Law, can be found? We have a stub on tree crickets, but they don't seem very snowy to me, and it doesnt indicate where they can be found! Capuchin 09:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found this page which suggests they are from all over North America. It also suggests that the chirp rate is faster on the west cost than the east, while still being proportional to temperature. Maybe some kind of evolutionary change? Not sure I can quite see the driving force for it. (not that I can see the driving force for it being proportional to temperature in the first place, it looks like it's probably a side-effect of some other change). Capuchin 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it suggests that they're faster in the west to distinguish between other crickets. Can anyone think of a reason why it would be temperature dependant in the first place? Capuchin 09:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation, but I always presumed that they are reliant on the resonance of some structures in their legs whose stiffness depends on temperature - or possibly that the sound carries better at some frequencies than others and that is dependent on air temperature. The east/west coast thing is almost certainly some structural difference in the two populations brought about by some evolutionary pressure or other. SteveBaker 12:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

science

how many time takes the light to reach the earth from sun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.10.87 (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For the speed of light, see Speed of light. For the distance from the Earth to the Sun, see Earth. For a formula to convert these figures into a lenght of time, see Speed. Capuchin 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Or alternatively: click here. Unless you want to work it out yourself with the information I gave above. Capuchin 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer is: about eight minutes. --Taraborn 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Or a bit more if it is light reflected from the Moon. And for the nearest star it is just over four years and for the most distant star it should be about 14 billion years (when we get to see it and assuming the Big Bang theory is correct). DirkvdM 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Type II supernovae

Request for help from anyone with access to definitive and current resources.

Sources in the Supernova article vary; some say that specific burns take a day, some that they take 2 weeks. These sources are all credible - academic papers, online university lecture notes.

Can someone do some research and figure out what the current scientific consensus is on this? Thanks!

See Talk:Supernova#Type_II_timing_contradiction.3F

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

iguanas

How fast does an iguanas heart beat?Hapshepsut 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article "The relationship between heart rate and rate of oxygen consumption in Galapagos marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) at two different temperatures" (catchy title!) in The Journal of Experimental Biology says it's between 32 and 106 beats per minute depending on how warm the creature is (remember they are cold-blooded) and on whether they are resting or exercising. SteveBaker 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

US PATENT

How can I find if a specific US patent number is in force and that the renewal annuties or maintenance fees have been paid for that patent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.135.6 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of online patent search services - I used to like the one IBM ran - but it's been taken over by Delphion and it's not free anymore. But you can also use the US Patent Office search or even Google Patents - those should say when the patent expires. SteveBaker 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Google Patents is excellent. It does not say when a patent expires, though. It will tell you when it was issued. From there you can figure out if it is more than any possible renewal can extend (14+ years). As for more than that, I would check with USPTO, I am sure they have information on that somewhere. --24.147.86.187 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Try the USPTO's Public PAIR at [[16]]. It doesn't directly answer the question whether a patent is in force, but it does provide such information as filing date, issue date, patent term adjustment, and maintenance fee payments. --Anonymous 14:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.68.224 (talk)

Why do cells divide?

Why do cells in the human body divide? After the sperm fertilized the egg, and when we were still an unicellular organism, why doesnt that one cell (us) just get bigger, instead of dividing? Is it because the larger the cell, the less nutrients will reach the core of the cell? Thanks. Acceptable 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See Surface area to volume ratio. Basically, the volume increases by the cube (x³) while surface area increases by the square (x²). Generally, the smaller the cell is, the faster things diffuse. If the cell was to simply grow larger, eventually it would grow so large that a) its volume would be too big for the uterus and b) diffusion would be too slow to sustain the cell. There is a certain point where cells are at an optimum surface area to volume ratio. After that, they must divide. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There are special conditions under which individual cells can be large such as when producing egg cells, but most large cells form a multi-nucleated syncytium. In metabolically active cells, there are probably constraints on size due to several effects including the limits due to diffusion and the limits imposed by the number of genes in a chromosome set and the needed level of production of RNA. Also, when forming most structurally large tissues there are probably advantages to having either small replaceable components or small information processing units (nervous system). A few cells get around the RNA production bottle neck by generating special amplified chromosome sets. A great advantage of multicellular life comes from cellular differentiation which is facilitated by the chromosomes inside nearby cells being in isolated compartments where different sets of transcription factors and other regulators of gene expression can specialize, resulting in the production of specialized cell types. --JWSchmidt 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To steal another poster's very cool answer from a few days back, take a look at caulerpa. It looks like a full-sized plant, and it's all one giant cell! Wacky! --Reuben 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

September 15

Green

So, I'm wondering what makes things look green, right down to the atom. Why do some chemicals and minerals reflect green light while others don't? What is at the heart of this? Wrad 04:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A small note: some objects will give off green light – it's not just a matter of reflection. Vranak 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How so? Wrad 04:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to really understand this you'll likely need to read about light. There is a visible spectrum of light that we can sense with our eyes. So when we see something, light is reflecting off of it (life from the Sun or a light bulb). The color we see has to do with what wavelengths of light reflect off of that object. So, if you see something that is green, than the object off of which that light was reflected absorbed all but the green wavelength of light. If you see something yellow, than it absorbed all but the yellow wavelength of light. Black objects absorb almost all light. White objects reflect it all back.
Mrdeath5493 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of all this. I want to go deeper. Wrad 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A little bit deeper into why things would absorb certain colors. The absorbance of the photons of a specific wavelength (and energy) depends on the structure of the molecules in the object, and the available electronic transitions in the molecule. For example, if a material absorbs yellow, it is because there is a transition corresponding to the energy of the "yellow" photons. If it doesn't absorb green, there is no transition the the corresponding energy of the "green" photons. Also see energy level, although I'm afraid the articles aren't written too well, and someone without physics/chemistry background, especially quantum, may not get all of it. There are probably better articles out there. --Bennybp 06:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Wrad 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article on chromophores is fairly easy to understand (compared with those given above) - a chromophore is an area of a molecule such an azo dye (used to dye fabrics) which contains groups such as benzene rings and double bonds. As a result, electrons can move from one area to another with ease, which means that energy levels are close together, and therefore photons of visible light can be absorbed or reflected (many chemicals are white or transparent because these energy levels are too far apart, and therefore correspond with high-energy light instead such as ultraviolet). Laïka 07:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

answer details please .

scientist say that when photon hits an electron revolving in the orbit of an atom ; then the electron absorb the photon and raise to upper orbit for a small time; after that time the electron release the same energy that it absorbed from the photon and get back to it's previous orbit . now i want to know :

   1.how the electron can raise to upper orbit while the upper orbit is filled by electron already ?
   2.what is the exact time that the excitedelectron stay in upper orbit ? 

is this time constant in all case ?

   3.when the excited electron return to it's normal state ; it radiate the absorbed energy . 

what is the direction of the radiated energy ?

   4.on which factor this direction depends on? 
   5.could this direction could be changed in any process ?
   4.is the energy of the excited electron exactly same before and after the process ?
 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamiul (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Question1 - the electron is raised to an empty orbit.

Question2 - no idea I'd like an answer to this too.

Question3,4,5 - It's usually assumed that the energy is radiated randomly in any direction.. However I can't guaranteee this is always true.

Question6 - Yes.87.102.47.225 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In Question 1 you are probably thinking of the Pauli exclusion principle, which prevents two electrons being in the same quantum state. Note that an electron's state is not determined by its orbital alone; it is determined by a combination of four different quantum numbers - see electron configuration - so several electrons can occupy the same orbital. However, it is generally correct that only the outermost, highest energy electrons (called valence electrons) are excited by incoming photons, as they are the ones that have nearby empty states to move into.

For Question 3, our article on spontaneous emission says the direction and phase of a spontaneously emitted photon are both random. However, for Questions 4 and 5, see our article on stimulated emission, a different emission process in which the phase and direction of the emitted photon are not random. Gandalf61 08:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer to question 2 boils down to 'it depends'. In general, excited states that are further from their ground state decay more rapidly—the more excess energy in the system, the fast that energy gets shed. Beyond that rule of thumb, you need to start getting into some hardcore quantum mechanics. The lifetime of an excited state depends strongly on the molecules involved, their environment, and whether or not a transition is 'forbidden'. Since excited state lifetimes are sensitive to their surroundings, they are often used in research as a sensitive probe to study the interactions of molecules (see, for example, Fluorescence lifetime imaging).

To answer the second part of the question, the relaxation of a molecule from its excited state to a lower energy state is a stochastic process—like radioactive decay, one can make statements about the probability of a molecule returning to a lower-energy state, but one can't pin a specific time on a particular molecule.

The answer to questions 3, 4, and 5, are, again, 'it depends'. If the excited state has a long lifetime, then the molecule will be able to move about and tumble around between the time that it absorbs a photon and the time that it emits one. If a lot of tumbling occurs, it will appear that there is no relationship between the incoming and outgoing photons. However, if the excited state lifetime is short, or a molecule is bound so that it isn't free to rotate, the incoming photon and outgoing photon will tend to be polarized in the same plane. Measurements of fluorescence anisotropy – that is, measurements of how much of the original polarization is preserved – are used by chemists to determine how fast molecules are tumbling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture: Milky way

In today's featured picture, Image:Deathvalleysky nps big.jpg, Why does the milky way appear to have a dark stripe? I thought it was comprised of lots of stars and should thus be a band of brightness. -- SGBailey 08:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Milky Way not only contains lots of stars and gas, but also a considerable amount of dust. This tends to obscure light in the human visual range, though telescopes sensitive to other wavelengths can often see through the dust clouds. --Pekaje 12:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of the dust is in the form of carbon particles, similar to smoke, as well as other more rock like particles. Infrared can pass through dust more easily. Graeme Bartlett 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this by now classic picture. Observe how the center is obscured by dust in the visual-light (optical) image but we can see through to it in the infrared range. Because infrared light is blocked by the atmosphere such pictures have to be taken from space (here done with the COBE and the IRAS spacecraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanders muc (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

meaning of organic cloths

please can you anybody explain the meaning of organing cloths —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.97.201 (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Organic or organing? In what context? Do you mean organic clothes such as those made from cotton and hemp?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at this one. Assuming you're buying clothing and you see one specifically labelled organic cloth. It means it's made from cotton, hemp, silk, or other natural materials (like Shantavira said), and not materials like nylon or polyester. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would take it to mean that the cotton or other natural fibre was produced using organic farming techniques, such as no pesticide, GMOs or artificial fertilizers. Graeme Bartlett 21:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Science: Neptune Plant

What are the commercially available 'non-botanically categorisable' deodorising Neptune Plants? Are they seaweeds, hydrozoan colonies, bryozoans, algae or artificial? 81.140.42.10 10:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Alan Lewis

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see neptune plant. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A few questions about distilling

1. If red wine vinegar were distilled, what would result? Would it become a sort of horrible brandy? If white wine vinegar were distilled? If rice vinegar were distilled?
2. Could alcohol be distilled using absorption by a sponge rather than condensation? Imagine a quantity of wine in a vessel, the top of which is blocked by a sponge. Heating the vessel to the boiling point of ethanol, would the ethanol vapors tend to be absorbed by the sponge, or would they simply evaporate through the sponge into the surrounding air?
3. What results from the distillation of beer? Anything worthwhile?
Any insights or comments would be appreciated, if possible in layman's terms.
-Kent, 129.174.54.141 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. In general, vinegars – including wine vinegars – contain little to no alcohol. The wine vinegars are produced in two fermentation steps. The first converts grape sugars to ethanol (ethyl alcohol) in the wine; the second fermentation then converts the ethanol to ethanoic acid (acetic acid). You could increase the concentration of acetic acid through distillation, but you wouldn't be able to recover much (if any) alcohol that way.

2. There are a number of different techniques that can be used to separate or enrich the amount of alcohol in solution. In principle, it would be possible to use a 'sponge' with very tiny pores that would allow water molecules through but not allow ethanol molecules to pass. This sort of idea is used in so-called molecular sieves.

3. It depends on the type of beer. Most beers don't do well with conventional heat distillation, as heat or bright light can cause chemical reactions that unfavourably change their flavour (see lightstruck beer). Other types of distillation can be used, however. Freeze distillation is regularly used to make ice beer, for instance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To expand on 3, the answer is "a spirit". Whether it's a worthwhile drinking spirit, or something you would use only for cleaning engine parts, depends on how you handle, distill, condition, and adulterate it. Remember that all {?) drinking spirits are made first by preparing a beer-like fermented drink, and then distilling that. That basic beer ("wash") could be filtered and clarified and you could drink it (I've drunk unfiltered, yeasty, wash at a distillery tour, and it tasted like a very rough dark beer). So if you distill proper beer you'll end up with something you could call vodka; if you distill it and condition it differently you could call the result whiskey. I'm not sure the molecules described the lightstruck article TenOfAllTrades pointed out will make it to the final spirit - the rigors of being boiled several times will destroy lots of molecules that would otherwise flavor the final spirit. Despite the hocus-pocus that fancy spirit producers would have you believe (whiskey distillery tours are full of claims of uniqueness that border on witchcraft) the output of the still is largely industrial-grade ethanol, flavored only by those few molecules hardy enough to survive all that boiling (the raw spirit from the Lagavulin Single Malt still takes like ethanol and smoke). All of the color, and most of the flavor, of spirit drinks like whiskey comes from the conditioning (that is, from sitting around in a sherry cask for a decade or so). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.148 (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What city is Near the pipeline bridge over the Yukon River?

i am trying to write a book about this subject but cant find a city near the pipeline can soem1 help me?76.22.186.240 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of the pipeline

Rampart, Alaska looks to be the closest town, but perhaps is not to be counted as a city. Fairbanks is a city though. Did you look at Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Graeme Bartlett 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Measuring SigFigs

When using a regular ruler with marked millimetres, I should be able to get two decimals places in respect to Significant Figures (1.22cm), this works out to 3 SigFigs. Assuming I am measuring two objects with the same ruler, one of which is 1.22 cm long and the other is 11.44 cm long. How should I write the one that is 11.44cm long? "11.44" has 4 Sigfigs, contrary to "1.22"'s 3 SigFigs. However, I am still able to get the same accurate reading in respect to the number of decimals. Should "11.44" be rounded to "11.4"? Thanks. Acceptable 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a requirement to only use 3 figures? I would suggest that you do not round off your more accurate measurement unless you have a good reason to. The accuracy varies by a factor of 10 over the 3 significant figures range. 1.00 and 9.99 vary from 1% to 0.1% accuracy. And if you measured something smaller, say 0.96 cm you are suddenly down to 2 figures, but your measurement is still almost as accurate as your 1.22 cm measurement. Graeme Bartlett 21:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific method

Does reductio ad absurdum apply when discussing quantum mechanics?--88.110.108.191 21:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be, reductio ad absurdum is a logic technique, so if you can make a statement about quantum mechanics, and then find it implies something untrue, or contradictory, then you know the original statement is false. However just because a statement sounds crazy, weird, or absurd, it is not the same as being false. The field of quantum theory has many strange conclusions, so you will have to to more careful not to let your common sense interfere! None of this would I count as scientific method though. Graeme Bartlett 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add that reductio ad absurdum is always true, it may or may not be used, but if you claim it is untrue, all of maths and most science theory will be unavailable for your use! Graeme Bartlett 22:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what flavor of QM you subscribe to. The famous Schrödinger's cat thought problem is a classic example of this; Schrödinger proposed it as an example of how ridiculous the Copenhagen interpretation of QM's approach to the world is, but it was taken up as a great example of how to view the world through a QM lens, and is now famous as a way of thinking about QM rather than an argument against its way of thinking.

So anyway. According to Schrödinger's point of view, yes, it applies. According to Bohr's, no, it doesn't, because you expect the quantum world to look absurd from a macroscopical logical point of view, and showing it to be so doesn't disprove a thing. --24.147.86.187 21:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between monomer and polymer carbohydrates?

I know that Glycogen, starch, and dextrin are polymer carbohydrates and glucose is an example of a monomer etc, but I have another question. Are monomer carbohydrates effectively monosaccharides (divided into pentoses and hextoses?) and polymer carbohydrates polysaccharides, but then where do disaccharides fall? Are there any fundamental differences in the function and actions of these different classes of carbohydrates?

Phew, lots of questions. Thanks, RHB - Talk 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The monomers ( which are mono saccharides) dissolve easily in water. However the polymers (which are poly saccharides) are much less soluble. This means that the polymers are trapped inside a living cell, whereas the monomers, can travel in blood or sap and move through cell walls. Disaccharides are made from a pair of monosaccharides. They are soluble in water, but may have to be broken down to move through a cell membrane. Note that some oligosaccharides (containing a few nonosaccharides entities) are used to decorate some proteins glycoprotein and appear on the ouside of the cell membrane. These are important for recognising cells by antibodies etc. Graeme Bartlett 21:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Circular oscilloscope time base

Any ideas for generating a circular timebase synchronized to the input signal? I think I need a quadrature o/p sinewave vco, but having difficulty getting a design for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.30.31 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally you would be talking about a fixed frequency for a circular scan. All that you would do is trigger from the signal, or possibly use a phase locked loop to synchronise to the input frequency. You are right, you would need a sinewave with a 90° shifted wave (cosine wave!) to operate the X and Y inputs. Do you then plan to use your input signal to modulate the brightness on the display, or do you want to control the distance from the central point on the screen to generate a polar plot? Graeme Bartlett 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some displays will demodulate an input signal into I and Q components and then use these to drive the X and Y deflections on the oscilloscope. Graeme Bartlett 22:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. But I need a quad o/p osc whose frequency I can vary somehow to give me timebase expansion (like on a linear sweep scope). Yes the time base needs to be phase locked to the input signal-- so I need a VCO quad osc- right? I planned to have a pseudo polar display where the i/p signal just modulates the Y axis. This is far simpler (and looks better) than having the i/p signal modulate the trace amplitude radially.--88.109.30.31 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

One option is the Costas loop. It uses a VCO with a 90° shifter. It should be possible to approximate this with an analogue circuit across your frequency of interest. Another method is to use a frequency squarer (multiply the input signal by itself), this will double the frequency, and you can lock onto this with a 90 degree phase sift easily extracted. Graeme Bartlett 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Heart palpitations

What is the cause of heart palpitations and missing beats?