Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science
Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg
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)
- 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: [1] 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --antilivedT | 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. --antilivedT | 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:
- Facing only matters at close range. At intermediate or longer ranges, it's trivial to turn and face another aircraft.
- 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 [2] 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)
- Hello??!? Sense of humor <on> --DHeyward 07:20, 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)
- Oh, forgive me; I forgot to bracket my response with <devil's advocate></devil's advocate>... Someguy1221 08:36, 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: [3] - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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[4] (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)
- If the present bridge were the top of a dam, where else would it spill over? I don't know of any pass that low. —Tamfang 05:00, 16 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)
- Well I'm glad we're not being unreasonable here. —Tamfang 04:55, 16 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 as the integral form of . 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)
- 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)
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.
- CONS:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --antilivedT | 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)
- 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." --antilivedT | C | G 09:39, 13 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)
- 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)
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: [5]. 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)
- We're talking humans here, not salamanders. And IMHO it's accurate based on our understanding of human biology. You have to consider what't were talking about here. Bear in mind the poster wasn't just talking about a limb growing back but a limb growing back because the person wanted it to grow back. This would imply that the person through willpower alone was able to send the specific molecular signals resulting in limb generation. Would you say it's possible for a female who wants to be a male to grow a penis because they think they can? You can say "there's no known way this can happen" if you want. I prefer to say it is impossible Nil Einne 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Vranak 03:03, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- I think the OP was unsure if this was real which was I (and I guess others) pointed out it was obviously fake (since if it was real it wouldn't be so hard to find out about it). Specifically the OP said "It sounds the stuff of sciencfiction, but one person who swears this is true is usually a sane and sound person" Nil Einne 20:15, 18 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)
- You might want to take a look at race which has a fair amount of info on the genetic basis (or lack thereof) for race Nil Einne 20:33, 18 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)
- The three months one is obviously dodgy. What happens after three months that means you suddenly have to die? ΦΙΛ Κ 17:46, 17 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)
- The US is a net importer of natural gas (3.6 billion cubic ft imported of 21.9 bcf consumed), is just barely a net exporter of coal (1.105 million short tons produced, 1.102 million short tons consumed), and produces a bit more electricity than is consumed (3.9 billion kilowatt hrs generated, 3.7 consumed - but recall that most electricity is generated by burning coal). I do not have the gross energy balance, but it is certain that with the overwhelming contribution of oil imports that the net is pretty close to the value for oil. Cheers Geologyguy 04:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
pneumonia vaccine
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 [6] . 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- They are also a lot stronger when compressed end-to-end than from side-to-side. SteveBaker 11:28, 13 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)
- Msn messenger enables you to send text messages to mobile phones, that might be a start? SGGH speak! 10:38, 13 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. [7] 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)
- Liquid nitrogen will work better, isn't flammable, and is probably available on better college campuses everywhere.
- 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)
- One word: thermite. Lanfear's Bane 15:34, 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)
- 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 [8] 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)
- 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)
- 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 [9], 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)
- 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 [9], 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)
- 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)
- Ironically I just had to cut the cable of my bike a few days ago because I also lost the key. It was one of those plastic coated varieties with lots of strands of wire weaved together. It was disturbingly easy. I stripped away the plastic and then (with a friend) held the chain taut. Then I started cutting and within say 20 seconds I was more or less through. Bolt cutters would I presume also easily do the job. A D lock would be much harder but it will obviously depend greatly on the type. You could try with a hacksaw first and if you don't get anywhere, reasses your options. Bicycle lock means some. Alternatively you could try asking your campus security or perhaps at a bike shop or a locksmith as others have suggested. Obviously once you've found out how easy it is to actually break your lock depending on how risky the areas you store your bike and how valuable it is to you, you might want to consider a better lock in the future, just don't lose the key (make sure you have a spare!). BTW, you might want to tell campus security (or someone similar) about this before you start, it's likely to be the best way to avoid any problems if someone thinks you're trying to steal the bike. They'll likely ask for some proof it's your bike and if you don't have any they'll likely record your details so make sure you have your student ID, driver's license (if any or other forms of ID) and stuff with you Nil Einne 19:52, 18 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)
- 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)
- Zero if you're female Nil Einne 19:32, 18 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:
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.
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)
- Not only that but ball point pens do work in space to a degree evidentally, see Space Pen Nil Einne 19:30, 18 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)
- Let the temperature down, then try delicate ice sculpture, welding sticks of ice together with your breath through a straw.211.28.144.253 22:58, 16 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)
- Just my opinion, but lack of pain when there should be some would seem to lead to disaster. After all, the first primitive neural systems were/are just a sensor at each end hooked up to a muscle at the other end, so that when you get bitten on one side you move away. If that seems to be the basic underpinnings of the nervous system, I'd think that eliminating it would eliminate a major advantage the nervous system conveys. Similarly, the fact that evolution has allowed a great many disorders which allow there to be pain when there's nothing you can do about it, and substantially fewer disorders where there is no pain and there should be, would suggest their relative importances. Gzuckier 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- This doesn't answer your question but I heard of a case where a paralysed person put a hot pan on their lap while cooking. However tha pan was rather hot and this person ended up with some nasty burns on their legs because they didn't realise this. (Of course this isn't just the loss of pain but the loss of heat sensation as well). People who are paralysed have to learn many things, one of them is how to live with the loss of sensation including pain Nil Einne 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just FYI, pain and temperature are carried by the same pathways to the brain, so if you lose pain sensation, you lose temperature as well. --David Iberri (talk) 17:20, 19 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[10] 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)
- I actually did a little web search on the lycopene content of red bell peppers (one of my favorite foods!) a while back. It seems they have a little bit, but not really very much (much less than tomatoes anyway). The red color is probably cryptoxanthine. I was disappointed at the time. However the latest study on lycopene suggests it may not be quite the magic bullet that had been hoped. --Trovatore 23:09, 17 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)
Tomato stain will eventually wash out of a plastic container (or a plastic dishwasher interior!) but it takes a long, long time. My wife and I go round and round about this each time I rinse tomatoey things before putting them into our plastic-tanked dishwasher; she doesn't. Probably for this reason alone (domestic tranquility), I'd go stainless steel the next time ;-).
Atlant 14:42, 17 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)
- Sounds a bit specious and pessimistic to me. Vranak 05:00, 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)
- DNA has repair mechanisms though, if I recall correctly. Vranak 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Genetic mutations and cells' dying by accident are biologically and thermodynamically inevitable. Someguy1221 04:32, 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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."
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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- A partial restatement of some that has been said (largely by Steve and me) because this can be such a difficult concept to grasp that different wordings can be very helpful:
- What is required is an interface between two intelligent systems, in casu the wetware and the hardware. But you don't need to know the details of how each system works. The interface should figure it out itself, based on intelligent info-organising rules (sorry about the bad terminology). There is some early work in this field, with pilots controlling airplanes by thought, although I don't think the way that is done is what is needed here. It's too specific. There's this Finnish professor (forgot the name) who is working on letting neural networks develop their own connections in response to whatever they are connected to in the outside world. Give both the brain and the computer such an interface and they should be able to develop meaningful communication.
- Note that the mind is not transferred or uploaded (or downloaded or whatever). One might say it transfers itself, but really what happens is that a new, bigger, mind emerges, existing simultaneously in the wetware and in the hardware. When the wetware dies, the old person really does die, so it is not transferred. But the bigger new ego feels like he is the same person (which just had a minor stroke), which is then potentially immortal (of course, it can still be killed, just not as easily). DirkvdM 09:41, 16 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)
- 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)
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)
- There's Stellarium; that's the one I use. Laïka 11:49, 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)
- In other words, you can generate photons anywhere along the electromagnetic spectrum. - 66.245.217.182 09:32, 16 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 [[11]]. 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- I'll have a look. 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)
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)
- Damn, you guys/gals are GOOD! Edison 00:10, 16 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)
- Thanks -- SGBailey 09:27, 17 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- I don't think significant figures really matter much standing by themselves (where there should be a ± standard deviation). Rather, I believe significant figures are most useful when doing arithmetic, where the question of "how many decimal places do I keep" always seems to come up. It's not really a measure of accuracy, but a systematic way to keep accuracy in check when doing math (ie measure two things with the ruler and divide them, and suddenly you have numbers down to the micrometer scale and beyond). See Significant Figures#Importance --Bennybp 15:47, 16 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)
- Reductio ad absurdum depends on the law of excluded middle - put simply, each statement is either true or false. In most moden interpetations of QM, this law does not always apply. In the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the statement "the cat is dead" is neither true nor false before we observe the cat. It is not just that we do not know whether or not the cat is dead - the cat really, truly, physically is in an indeterminate state - it is neither alive nor dead. In the double-slit experiment the statement "photon X passed through the right-hand slit" is neither true nor false unless we place a detector at one of the slits - in which case we destroy the interference pattern. See quantum logic for an attempt to develop a logic that is consistent with QM. Gandalf61 09:18, 16 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)
- disaccharides are neither monosaccharides nor polysaccharides, they're just that: dimers, disaccharides. Bendž|Ť 08:30, 16 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)
- 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)
- Use a two-channel arbitrary waveform generator programmed with a sine wave on one channel and a cosine wave on the other. You can then easily vary the frequency of the waveform that is output by the AWG.
- I dont have access to an AWG. What i think I need is a quadrature o/p sine wave VCO. I need sine waves (up to 4 MHz) to make the trace circular. The previous suggestion from Graeme only gives you a square wave o/p. I seem to remember a quad o/p sine oscillator made by Feedback Instruments but cant find the details now. Anyone know how those worked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.135.162 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, wouldn't the output of an integrator, by definition, be shifted 90 degrees from a sinusoidal input?
- You are correct that an integrator (or differentiator) would indeed produce an exact 90 deg phase shift for an input sinewave, but I would need to compensate for the 6 dB fall (rise) per octave somehow. This is not a trivial problem.(unless you or someone else knows different)--88.111.135.162 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Heart palpitations
What is the cause of heart palpitations and missing beats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.30.31 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Our article on palpitation has a great deal of information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
September 16
Carbon based fossil fuel
Is the supply of fossil fuels like crude oil, coal, etc, diminishing? If so, when will the supply run out? And why is combustion of carbon fuel still the most popular method to obtain energy? Are there many alternatives available? Thanks for answering. Oidia (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes - see the lead section of Fossil fuel.
- It's hard to tell, but some people suggest we're already on the downward slope - see Peak oil.
- Because it's (currently) cheap, easy and plentiful enough that people haven't been too bothered to seriously look into alternatives until somewhat recently. See Energy economics.
- Yes, but they are generally eiter expensive, inefficient, or in some cases still purely theoretical. See, for example Nuclear energy and Renewable energy. Confusing Manifestation 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- As fossil fuels become more scarce, their price will go up, and the more expensive of the alternative fuels will be more on par with the cost of fossil fuels. So I think eventually things will even out. --24.147.86.187 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fossil fuels are being used, so naturally the supply is diminishing (possibly, some is still being produced the way it used to be, but that will be negligible compared to the amount that is used). When the supplies 'run out' depends on how you define that. It will become ever more difficult (read: expensive) to extract the oil (or whatever). The low hanging fruit has already been picked. The murky oil fields in Canada that didn't receive any attention in the past because the oil was too hard to extract, are now receiving large investments because there is nothing else left. So oil won't 'run out' until we decide it's become too expensive - which is never, because our societies are so dependent on energy that we will pay any price. Unless alternatives become cheaper. But that requires investment in those, of which there hardly are any (in comparison). Fossil fuels are still popular because a lot of money has been invested in the knowledge and infrastructure (think of the many petrol stations, for example), so there is a huge (really, really huge) invested interest in maintaining the use of those. Even now, the amount of money invested in fossil fuels is more than ten times (for got the exact figures) larger than in other energy sources, and the biggest usurper of that remaining money is still nuclear energy. If, say, the development of solar cells had received the same level of investments as oil, then we probably would have stopped using fossil fuels years ago, when the low hanging fruit was all picked. DirkvdM 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is the supply of fossil fuels like crude oil, coal, etc, diminishing? Yes
- If so, when will the supply run out? It will become more expensive to extract as its deposits are used up - eventually other fuels will be cheaper.
- And why is combustion of carbon fuel still the most popular method to obtain energy? It's the least expensive, given the current industrial infrastructure.
- Are there many alternatives available? Yes, see Ethanol fuel in Brazil, Nuclear power, Fusion power and Future energy development for examples. --Duk 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fossil fuels are still the most popular because, in their way, they're still the cheapest. They are, in effect, a conveniently-stored form of millions of years' worth of accumulated solar energy.
- Suppose you inherit $1,000,000 from your rich uncle. You know that the money won't last forever, especially if you indulge in expensive pastimes. But on the other hand, it's fun to indulge in expensive pastimes, much more fun than, say, working for a living.
- On any given day, you have a choice: (a) get a job, or (b) play some more (and spend down your inheritance some more). If you're like most people, you'll keep choosing (b) until it's almost too late, or maybe even actually too late. And the situation is (I believe) exactly the same, on a macro scale, with human society and our inheritance of fossil fuels. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- But there's not just the added cost of having to develop alternatives faster in the future if we don't start (seriously) investing in it already. There's also climate change, and the cost of that could dwarf all that. The problem is that large companies have too many invested interests in fossil fuels and small companies don't have the money to invest. So governments should step in, but the democratically elected ones won't do that because their electorate is brainwashed with the help of the big money from the big companies (funding 'scientists' who spread all sorts of doubt about climate change). As usual, a disaster has to happen before anything is done about it. Such as the North Sea flood of 1953 that led to the Delta Works in the Netherlands. Except that it's worldwide now. DirkvdM 08:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great analogy. --Sean 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- We had this question (about oil specifically) the other day. At present rates of consumption, we expect to run out of oil in 500 years. Coal and natural gas would be available for much longer. Nuclear fuels would also eventually run out - but we don't know how large the reserves are - possibly tens of thousands of years. Fusion power (if we ever manage to get the technology right) will last until we've boiled the oceans dry - there is no practical way to run out. Solar, Wind, Tidal....same deal. However, it's a completely academic question. We now know that throwing carbon-dioxide (an inevitable by-product of burning oil, gas or coal) into the atmosphere is going to kill the planet LONG before we run out of oil (let alone gas and coal) - so we absolutely have to cut back on our consumption at least 4-fold, possibly 10-fold. This stretches our reserves out to a point where it no longer matters because improved technology will push down consumption faster than our supplies are shrinking. However, we DO have to cut back on our consumption somehow - and that's not easy. At this point, running out is NOT the issue. SteveBaker 15:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's nonsense to talk about 'when we will run out'. Using up all fossil fuels would be total madness, because at one point it would be so hard to retrieve that it would cost more energy than it would yield. The question is when it would run out economically, and that depends on how fast alternatives are developed (ie when do they become cheaper than oil). As for Uranium (and other fission fuels - not too many of those), some wild numbers are given for how long that would last (billions of years), but for that all Uranium would have to be used up and most of that is spread all over the Earth's crust, so we'd have to completely overturn the entire Earth's crust, down to 10 km or so. So same story there.
- Btw, you're overstating the effect of climate change. It's probably going to be sheer misery for the next milennia at least if we don't act quickly and most life on Earth might disappear. But not all of it. Some life will survive, even if only bacteria. It'll be just another catastrophy hitting the planet, and life will overcome it. What matters more is that we will probably survive too, as a species - we're resilient enough. But it's likely to not be a lot of fun for the next few generations (or 10 or 100 (1000 anyone?)). DirkvdM 18:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Delicious but dangerous
What foods are the most dangerous to eat? Not as in "highest probability of harm", but as in "most serious worst-case scenario". I'm especially looking for foods that are deadly if prepared incorrectly, like fugu and false morel. —Keenan Pepper 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Raw manioc is bad for you. A.Z. 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the most serious worst-case scenario is probably beef infected with mad cow. Frankg 07:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rotten meat > food poisoning. DirkvdM 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not what I'm looking for, because you can just get fresh meat instead. I'm looking for foods that are intrinsically dangerous. Many foods become dangerous when spoiled, but they also become less palatable. —Keenan Pepper 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Death Cap is poisonous, it even came out in Eragon. Just out of curiosity, is it just a regular question or are these stuff meant to be put in someone's meal? --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I don't think you understood the question. You can't eat death caps at all, if you want to live. On the other hand, fugu is served to people every day, and they are perfectly safe unless the fugu is incorrectly prepared. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. —Keenan Pepper 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not that much help, but I do remember reading a long time ago about a type of mushroom that was perfectly edible and pleasant, unless consumed with alcohol - at which point it becomes deadly poisonous... --Kurt Shaped Box 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like Coprinopsis atramentaria, though that one does not appear to be actually deadly. Unpleasant, however ... --Pekaje 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting - thanks. It's always good to fill the gaps in the pieces of knowledge I attained as an 8 year old... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anything from a dented tin can. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, that's not an intrinsically dangerous food, just spoilage. —Keenan Pepper 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Steak tartare? Probably not deadly but I know that you *can* get sick off it... --Kurt Shaped Box 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good, that's much closer to what I'm looking for. I had never heard of a dish containing raw beef before. —Keenan Pepper 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had some once (without knowing exactly what it was). It was actually quite nice. As I understand it, it's pretty safe it it's prepared with carefully-selected, properly-stored-and-handled muscle meat. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Eating the liver of a polar bear will actually cause you to OD on Vitamin A, although polar bear livers are large enough that they can be easily removed without leaving too many traces (unlike the poisonous parts of fugu). Potatoes are also poisonous if you forget to cook them (they contain glycoalkaloids, especially if you eat wild or over-ripe ones). Laïka 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and bitter almonds contain hydrogen cyanide, which must be thoroughly removed before eating. Laïka 19:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the toxins in potatoes are less from aging than from exposure to sunlight, and that cooking does not necessarily inactivate them. See solanine, and always peel all the green bits off your spuds. --Sean 14:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Frankg said eating beef with mad cow disease is bad. To my knowledge there is no proven connection between it and the similar disease that infects humans. Laïka said raw patatoes are poisonous. I've eaten them many times before and I don't think I ever got sick soon after. What's this for? Are you writing a story? Are you just curious? — Daniel 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has been linked to eating nerve tissue from cattle infected with Mad Cow (which was caused by Scrapie prions the cows got from eating meal made from leftover sheep parts). -- Kesh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Spanish Blood Donation Service declined my offer on the grounds that I am English and had eaten British beef during the 90s, so they think there's a connection. Richard Avery 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Humans ... not sure about the 'delicious' part though. --Duk 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pork, if not sufficiently cooked, can give you trichinosis. (In the US, this is less of a danger than it used to be.) Cardamon 03:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Brain (as mentioned by Duk) is an interesting food stuff. It doesn't have much taste, but the texture is quite interesting. But as the article points out, there are some risks involved. DirkvdM 08:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nardoo accroding to this and this. Here is more information on Nardoo. Cardamon 09:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Honey that is just fine for everyone else can be deadly to infants due to botulinum spores. --Sean 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Condensed milk is supposed to be A Bad Thing to give to babies. I'm not sure why - but it tells you not to do so on the side of the tins. --Kurt Shaped Box 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Chickpeas contain varying levels of antinutrients and can be dangerous in large quantities.
Atlant 14:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Water will kill you if you drink enough of it. (Water intoxication) SteveBaker 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Won't just about every single substance in existence kill you if you consume enough of it? --Kurt Shaped Box 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Creosote would be the best authority on that. "One little tiny wafer-thin mint..."
Fusing vertebrae
When do vertebrae stop fusing in humans? ←BenB4 13:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure I understand the question entirely. It is my understanding that vertebrae do not normally fuse in humans, except in abnormal circumstances. If vertebrae fused together - one to another - I assume that's what you mean, the spine would lose its flexibilty. There are a group of fused vertebrae at the lower end of the spine they are called the sacrum and they form the posterior part of the pelvic girdle, they show no flexibilty in adulthood although they are not completely fused in the prepuberty period. There is a pathological condition called ankylosing spondylitis(have a look) which causes the vertebrae to fuse together and this results in considerable mobility problems for sufferers.Richard Avery 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vertabrae#Sacral says those are "fused in maturity" but there is nothing in the ssociated article -- when do the sacral vertebrae usually fuse? ←BenB4 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, huh, I see what you mean. From my meagre knowledge of a twenty year nursing career I reckon they fuse at about the same time as the shafts of the long bones fuse with their extremities. This happens during puberty and a little after. It's a variable proces, depending on each individual. I think it is unlikely that there is much separation between the sacral bones in infancy, the spaces may show on a radiograph, but for general physical examination they would feel solid. Richard Avery 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Re:The Sun and Moon
How does the Sun's gravity make stuff orbit around it? I only have a rough metaphor (made by me) for the phenomeneon, but I don't really understand it. Also, are there any pictures of the Moon's orbit around Earth? My sister asked me a question about the phase of the Moon and I need it to answer her. Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you seen Orbit#Understanding orbits and Lunar phase#Names of lunar phases? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- For the "how", are you starting from "gravity exists and pulls objects towards each other", or something else? If you start from there, then the link above to the Orbit article should be a reasonable explanation. Otherwise, you're looking at a slightly more complicated explanation. Confusing Manifestation 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- How gravity makes things orbit? Well, normally, an object (let's say a space ship) in deep space with no stars or planets nearby will travel in a straight line at constant speed (no friction) forever. When it's near a star (or a planet or something big and heavy like that), gravity will pull the spaceship towards the star. Now - imagine if the spaceship was already moving at right angles to the line between it and the star. It's tendancy to go in a straight line (in the absence of gravity) would make it gradually move further from the star. Now, if (by a amazing coincidence) the distance it would normally move away from the star in one second were EXACTLY equal to the amount it would fall towards the star in one second because of the gravity - then it would end up staying the exact same distance from the star...moving around it in a perfect circle forever. That's a perfect circular orbit. Now, it turns out that if things aren't exactly right for a circular orbit (for example if the gravity were a bit stronger or the spaceship were moving a bit slower) then you get an elliptical orbit...but the exact "why" of that is hard to explain in words without resorting to a lot of math.
- The phases of the moon are something different. The moon moves in a roughly circular path around the earth - and the sun is a very long way away with the earth going around the sun in a roughly circular path with the moon constantly looping around it. The resulting path of the moon around the sun looks like a spirograph pattern. What this means is that as we watch the moon from the earth, the moon is being lit by the sun from all sorts of different directions - sometimes, the sun is on the opposite side of the earth from the moon - and the whole of the 'front' of the moon is lit up. Other times the sun is off to one side of the earth as the moon is overhead and the side of the moon nearest the sun is lit up. As the position of moon goes through this 'spirograph' pattern the relative position of sun, moon and earth changes gradually over a month or so and the moon is lit first from 'behind' (the moon looks dark because only the far side is lit), then from one side (a 'new' moon), then from in front (a 'full' moon), then from the other side (a 'waning' moon) and then from the back again. SteveBaker 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Relative Age of Races
Is it true that the Negroid race is approxiamately 225,000 years, the Caucasoid race is approximately 110,000 years old and the Mongoloid race is about 40,000 years old? 4.242.18.225 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- There might be answers in our article on Race (although in an initial skim I didn't spot any). —Steve Summit (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't really sound right to me. For one thing, it assumes a very old and now fairly discredited tripartite racial model. It also falsely assumes that the "older races" have not been differentiated at all in that time, which is not true in the slightest. That is, it sounds like a misunderstood interpretation of the recent single origin hypothesis. As an example of the falsity of this assumption, the Kennewick man, for example, looks very little like the "native" residents of that particular area that he was found in, even though very little time had passed between them. "Racial" characteristics are largely superficial and are fairly malleable as populations merge and separate. "Race" on a genetic level is a set of relatedness between various populations (at best—most of what we assign to "race" colloquially is culturally constructed mixed with a little bit of superficial biology), and are never static. --24.147.86.187 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have answered here: [12]. StuRat 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cute that you copied the question there so that you could disagree but not have people argue with you. Smooth move. Anyway, you really don't know what you are talking about, and the disparagement of the answers here as "politically correct" (and somehow tying affirmative action to that) is both insulting and intellectually dishonest. --24.147.86.187 14:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- When you use terms such as 'Race' there are a lot of touchy concepts raised. There is no defined genetic definition of Race as is commonly used, it is simply a set of common characteristics in a population. Genetic studies have found that humans have an unusually low amount of variation between diverse populations. In fact, some studies have found that two people of the same "race" might differ, genetically, more than between two people of different "races". However, there has been speculation as to how humanity spread across the globe, and were subsequently isolated enough such that each subpopulation to develop independently, which you'll see in the Subspecies as clade section of the Race article. -- JSBillings 12:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Dacryocystorhinostomy in the UK
In the UK (England, in fact), does the NHS tend towards the use of external or endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomies, or do they use both procedures in equal preference to eachother? I found a NICE document from 2005 (ish), saying that it was basically "ok" to use the endoscopic method, but I was wondering if anyone here had any experience of the same? Martinp23 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Science blog
Hello. Could you recommend a daily science blog or news site? Someone pointed me to gizmag.com but they seem to be mainly interrested in cars and phones. Any recomendation for a general science news site? Thank you 81.242.81.35 16:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/ - they are just an aggregator, but they do a great job. ←BenB4 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.scienceblogs.com - Several blogs by various scientists and academics hosted by Seed Magazine. PZ Meyers has a very good one called "Pharyngula." -- Kesh 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Scientific American has a good blog and they cover the gamut of science & technology. — Scientizzle 15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Radio brightness of this or other earths
Looking at the radio rather than the visible spectrum,
1) how bright is the earth compared to stars (including the sun)? I vaguely remember hearing it would be very bright due to the great amount of radio transmision.
2) If there was another earth identical to ours in 2007, but placed near the hub of our galaxy the milky way would it stand out and be easily spotted? (So either the answer will be "no" or we are alone at least in this galaxy).
3) Would the radio spectra of earth be different in quality from stars and stand out?
4) Are there any objects in the sky which have a similar radio spectrum? (Presumably answer will be "no".)
5) How far away from earth could you be and still (if you were very clever and had unlimited resources) watch tv or listen to the radio?
80.0.135.165 18:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Not sure. 2) and 5) I'm often told that a typical high power radio transmitter can transmit far enough that a very sensitive radio receiver could pick it up from 4 light years away (well, that's all very general isn't it, so a good deal of range depending on how good equipment you're talking about). However, if you're using this baby as your radio receiver or transmitter, that thing can reach far. Not sure how far, but easily many thousands of light years. 3) The radio spectra of the Earth would noticably different from those of any star, so informs me a planetary scientist. 4) He also tells me that no radio signals have ever been detected not-of-earth-origin that were undoubtably intelligent communication. Further, only a handful of radio signals have ever been detected that have not been explained by natural phenomena presently understood. Someguy1221 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, detecting Earth from a distance would be difficult except within around 70 light-years or so. Much more than that and there'd be no radio signals from here at all. Richard B 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for answers so far. Its the first question that particular interests me - ignoring the fact that radio started about 80 years ago, are we a bright beacon in space that would stand out in the radio spectrum sky? Perhaps this could be estimated by adding the total amount of radio and tv transmitter power and taking away the proprtion absobed by the earth. Would this be greater than the radio power of the sun? 80.3.42.129 13:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we are a large radio beacon at all. I read someplace (I think it was on the SETI web site) that the amount of normal radio/TV/radar we humans emit is less than we could detect with our most sensitive radio telescopes at a distance of 4 lightyears (the distance to the nearest star). So it's very, very feeble indeed. The thing with radio waves is that their energy decreases as the square of the distance. Remember that your local radio or TV station starts to fade out at maybe 100 miles from the source - at 200 miles, it would be 1/4th as loud, at 400 miles, 1/16th as loud, at 800 miles, 1/256th as loud...at 4 light years...it's too feint to detect, even with our most sensitive devices. This is one of the problems with SETI (looking for alien civilisations by listening for their radio transmissions) - it's only going to work if the aliens have some INSANELY powerful radio transmitters. So it would take aliens quite close by (cosmologically speaking) with much more advanced radio telescopes than we have to be picking up "I love Lucy" (1951) out at 50 lightyears. SteveBaker 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The colour of Light
Further to the above question on 'Green', I am a bit confused about all this colour being to do with light waves that are reflected. If I was to switch on a red lamp, surely it is giving red light off, not absorbing green and blue light inwardly and reflecting magenta out? How does this work? Is it something to do with the red glass absorbing the green and blue light energy? --russ 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely. Red glass only permits red light to pass through (for visible light, anyway). Other colors are absorbed. However, you can have a light emitting diode or a laser that only emits one color (a narrow band of wavelengths). An important distinction from the above question is that the lamp is generating its own light, and not simply reflecting light from another source. Someguy1221 19:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, neon lamps emit an orange light, and many other types of lights emit a characteristic color. StuRat 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can have a red lamp - that emits red light. If you look directly at the lamp, it looks red because it's EMITTING red light. But things that are not light sources (a table or something) are only visible by the light they reflect. When you see objects illuminated by that light, you see the light reflected by that object. White light (which is the normal thing we experience - from the sun or 'white' lamps) contains all of the colours. When lit by white light, the colours of objects depends on the colours they reflect. A green object reflects green light and absorbs everything else - so we see green light reflected off of it. However, if you were to view the world in light from a red lamp, the green object would absorb the red light and reflect...nothing...there is no green light there to reflect. So a green object will look black when lit with red light. In actual fact, it's rare for a green surface to literally only reflect green light - it'll usually reflect a little red and blue also...but nowhere near as much as it does green. So when you actually use a red light, green objects will just be very dark - not literally black. If you go out at night into a street that's lit with orange 'sodium' lights, you'll see that everything is in shades of orange depending on how much orange light they reflect. Some objects that are really bright colours in daylight will look very dark indeed if they aren't reflecting orange light. SteveBaker 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
And Energy, too
At school, we were always told that energy took several different forms: potential, kinetic, light, sound, nuclear and so on. My question is that if light has something to do with moving photons, sound to do with moving atoms bouncing on the eardrum, nuclear to do with emitted particles and so on then surely they are varieties of kinetic energy and not forms in their own right? Furthermore, if you are deaf, then does sound energy exist? If there are other forms of energy that our senses are not able to detect then how would we ever know to look for them? russ 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sound energy (the energy stored in sound waves, which is really just the kinetic and elecrostatic potential energy of the particles carrying the wave) exists whether or not you can sense it. Further, there are forms of energy we are incapable of sensing on our own. Nuclear energy was unknown until the discovery of radioactive materials, and not understood until quantum mechanics existed. Gravitational waves carry energy, but were themselves unknown to exist until the theory of relativity. However, scientists still came up with ways to try to detect them, and might actually succeed one day. Someguy1221 19:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Nuclear energy is a form of potential energy. Other than that, all of your examples are forms of kinetic energy (although I think it might be arguable with light). Every particle is energy, although only massless ones (such as photons) can be considered kinetic energy. Sound energy exists whether or not you can hear it. People can't detect most forms of energy directly. One way to know to look for a form of energy is if the energy in a system doesn't appear to be constant, such as the sun radiating more energy than can be explained by chemical energy (this was noticed before nuclear energy was discovered). — Daniel 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sound waves can be detected by the deaf. Low frequency waves can be felt as vibrations and higher frequencies will cause waves to form on water. And, of course, they can see the volume meter move on an amplifier. So, there are other forms of energy (like dark energy) which are much harder to detect than sound is for the deaf. StuRat 22:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sound is just vibrations. The vibrations are there whether you are deaf or not - and deaf people can still feel very low frequency sounds vibrating in their stomaches or if their fingertips are resting lightly on a flexible surface...just like hearing people can. So the energy is still there - even if it's not being heard. SteveBaker 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you're technical enough about it, thermal energy in opaque electrical insulators tends to travel as sound, as well. It's inaudible, but it heats up your skin, which allows you to sense this form of energy indirectly. Of course, it's indistinguishable from heat energy which has traveled as light or as diffusing electrons. Also note that sound is quantized; a particle of sound is called, unsurprisingly, a phonon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ozone effects
If the ozone layer disappeared, would blacks have a better chance of surviving than whites? I remember hearing somewhere that white people have a higher chance of UV poisoning.--130.126.67.144 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, blacks have an almost-nil incidence of skin cancer, so yes, I would think that might be the case. Vranak 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- This document says whites have about 10 times the chance as blacks of getting melanoma, so not quite nil, but still a pretty good adaptation for spending time in Africa. --Sean 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- But don't forget that sunscreen exists. This would mean that those living in poverty (who couldn't afford it) would likely fare worse. StuRat 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- And also don't forget those living within a couple thousand miles of the poles; not much sunlight reaches there anyway, comparitively. Someguy1221 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- See this about biological effects. If the ozone layer disappeared completely, there could be a breakdown in the entire foodweb, and getting skin cancer may be the least of our worries while we starve to death. --jjron 07:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Diagram
Do you know of any scientific diagram shaped roughly like some kind of bird, perhaps a bat? Would probably be named after the man who invented it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.107.4 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rorschach inkblot test? -Arch dude 22:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Penguin diagram? Half on the ball :-) Someguy1221 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
September 17
Recycling plants
I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction online as to where I can educate myself about recycling plants. I would be extremely grateful! thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.91.198 (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- What are you interested in recycling ? Metals ? Plastic ? Paper ? StuRat 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- You might try Materials recovery facility and Recycling. At first I thought the OP wanted to know about how to recycle his azaleas, and was a bit confused. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Recycling azaleas? Look at composting. -- 22:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- You might try Materials recovery facility and Recycling. At first I thought the OP wanted to know about how to recycle his azaleas, and was a bit confused. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Rotating liquids
My kid is doing a project for an upcoming science fair, and I was thinking about helping her build something like this:
It looks cool and it's more original than a baking soda volcano, so I like it :) Would basically any two non-mixing substances work (I assume they have to have different densities)? Like cooking oil and water? Any other suggestions? How fast would it have to rotate? I guess you could experiment to find that out (depending on the amount of fluid, I'm assuming), but some equations would be neat. Me and my offspring would be very grateful and if she wins a prize or something, you're all getting barnstars :) Thanks in advance! 83.249.113.29 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dunno about the physics, but the fluids are easy: I believe it's traditional to use mineral oil and water in all such non-mixing-fluids gadgets. You can use any old water-based food coloring to give the water a pretty color, and/or a nonpolar dye for the mineral oil. --Steve Summit (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Remember the rule "like dissolves like." i.e. Nonpolar substenses will not disolve/mix with polar substenses. (yes, in other words) 2.(see below). A pratical use for this is that a parabola will focus light, so if one of the liquids were mercury, you could have a realy big mirror, like for a telescope. (sombody did this once) 3. when a liquid is spun, the surfice will become a parabola, just like in the photo. a parabola can be expressed mathamaticly 4. you will get a parabola no matter what speed it would be spun at, but the greater the speed, the deeper the curve. (one could also do a study about rotation speed and curve steepness/depth) 5. Youre welcome. hacky 03:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the topic of reflective parabolic liquid surfaces, see liquid mirror, mercury mirror. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of the original question, I think we should say that a real mercury mirror is not a suitable candidate for a science fair project because of the dangers of mercury poisoning (although building a demo model with a safe liquid would be fine). Gandalf61 13:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The speed you'd need to rotate it would depend on the ratio of the densities of the two liquids and the diameter of the tank. But I'd guess that a really low speed would work quite well. I would grab an old bicycle with a set of Derailleur gears. The bicycle frame should simplify the mechanical construction. I'd attach the pedal end to the tank and the back-wheel end to an electric screwdriver (those have fairly low speeds and lots of torque - so probably better than an electric drill. The bearings on the pedal end are strong enough to support a person standing on the pedal - so it should be plenty strong enough to support the weight of the water tank. Placing the chain onto the smallest gear first would give you the slowest speed of rotation - which will give the drill the extra torque needed to get the tank started - and also be slow enough not to slosh liquid everywhere. If you find you need more speed, you can move the derailleur up to a larger gear wheel. If you need less speed, you could put the back wheel back on the bike and use an electric drill with the chuck pressed against the tyre to spin the thing REALLY slowly. Tell us how it goes! We need pictures! SteveBaker 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
looking for the name of something
what would the "study of the relationship between the mind and the body" be called? I know it will end in "olgy" but I don't think it is psycology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.185.11 (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on what you mean by "mind." If you're talking about the physical aspects of the brain, that would be covered by neurology. If you're talking about "that which does the thinking," that would be psychology. If you want to know the relationship between mental processes and physical/chemical interactoins in the brain/body, you're thinking of neuropsychology. If you want to know the true distinction between the mind and the brain, you'll have to look towards philosophy. Someguy1221 05:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Could science genetically engineer an organism which can survive for extended periods of time in outer space?
Let’s say a being which can work and move in outer space for about 36 hours without need for special gear, and for even longer on terrain at almost zero Kelvin, with very thin atmosphere. 5 hurdles as far as I can see.
1. Zero pressure. Could be insuperable, I thought, but then we have sea bed creatures that live in pressures hundreds of time greater than at sea level. If they can do it, why could we not design a creature that can do with one less than us. Just a case of having a very sturdy casing with pluggable orifices and insulation for eyes etc.
2. Zero Gravity. Big problem with terrestrial animals, but fish exist in what is virtually zero gravity.
3. Cold. Well insulated skin would be needed, perhaps like a polar bear’s. Also the type of anti-freeze found in salamander blood.
4. No air. Whales can dive for hours without air. Organism would have to be able to super-saturate blood and organs with oxygen, to be released gradually.
5. Damage by cosmic rays. Genetic code would need to be double coded with extra checking bits to overcome radiation damage.
All in all, I can’t see huge problems here. In the next 50 years we will have the technology to do this. Why do I ask? Because this being, which I see as some kind of beaver with tentacles, will have HUMAN DNA, it will be our homogenobased descendant (my coinage). Let’s face facts. We will not conquer space and other planets looking like tourists from Sydney. Extreme conditions will require radical modifications to the morphology and genetics of the human organism. Yet virtually all the commentators on humans in space ignore the fact that what is happening now in Genetics is far far more important than progress in the rockets, ray guns and robots fields that so entrance sci fi addicts to the exclusion of all else. What say you? Are we going to be carrying bits of earth environment around with us forever, like deep sea divers, or am on the right track? A new man who can live in extreme conditions with a minimum of special gear. Myles325a 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- But the whole point of sending humans to space is that it is actual humans that go. If you're not going to send actual humans, why not just send robots of some type and cut out all the mucking around (hell, they could even carry some human DNA with them if you really want the DNA out there)? Or am I missing your point? --jjron 07:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Good luck. 2) This one is easy, humans can already operation in zero gravity. 3) Near 0 Kelvin, seriously? Consider that there is almost no motion at such temperatures, so you couldn't do it with anything resembling a known life form. The insulation required would be incredible, just keeping something at 70 Kelvin for long periods requires an extremely well built thermos. And antifreezes don't work even at 200 Kelvin; I've confirmed this myself. 4) Yes, giant air supply is possible somewhere...in theory. Not that genetic engineering is at the point where we can add new organs to an organism, aside from making mice grow human ears. But I guess if you're starting with something that can already do that, good for you. 5) Biologists still haven't fully figured out how organisms naturally control their genes, so genome-wide alterations aren't even in the scope of speculation yet.
Now, I hate to have been a pessimist, but it's simply that a lot of people have a distorted view of what genetic engineering can do. Genes aren't the blueprints for the body that the press and popular culture often make them out to be. Individual genes just code for chemicals, and it is individual chemicals that are the targets of current genetic engineering projects. Someguy1221 08:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)- Cold isn't that big of a short-term problem because there's not much anything to leak heat to. However, over the long term...it's a huge problem. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 08:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Good luck. 2) This one is easy, humans can already operation in zero gravity. 3) Near 0 Kelvin, seriously? Consider that there is almost no motion at such temperatures, so you couldn't do it with anything resembling a known life form. The insulation required would be incredible, just keeping something at 70 Kelvin for long periods requires an extremely well built thermos. And antifreezes don't work even at 200 Kelvin; I've confirmed this myself. 4) Yes, giant air supply is possible somewhere...in theory. Not that genetic engineering is at the point where we can add new organs to an organism, aside from making mice grow human ears. But I guess if you're starting with something that can already do that, good for you. 5) Biologists still haven't fully figured out how organisms naturally control their genes, so genome-wide alterations aren't even in the scope of speculation yet.
- Note that making organisms that are resistant to even extremely high doses of radiation is possible—nature has already done it with Deinococcus radiodurans. D. radiodurans will survive a dose of radiation a hundred times that which would kill a human being. Nicknamed 'Conan the Bacterium', it is also resistant to heat, cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid in addition to intense radiation. Of course, scaling that up to anything bigger than a bacterium is an exercise left to the reader. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why you'd bother. It's much simpler to provide a life-support suit of some kind. I could certainly imagine a suit that would keep you safe in vacuum/zero-g for 36 hours - existing space-suits can keep you alive for 8 to 9 hours - quadrupling that shouldn't be too big of a challenge. The insanely low temperatures you talk about are not relevent in a vacuum. The whole concept of temperature is meaningless in a vacuum - deep space doesn't have a temperature because there is nothing there to measure the temperature of! A big problem may well be shedding heat - not retaining it. The creature you envisage would probably be totally crippled in a 'normal' environment - this seems like a ridiculously drastic step compared to wearing a space-suit. If you insist on thinking about it this way, far from being a "beaver with tentacles" (where the heck did THAT idea come from?!) - that seems like the worst possible design! If you are really concerned about unprotected survival in low temperature and vacuum, you'd want something close to being spherical so as to minimise surface area and maximise the ability to contain internal pressure sufficiently to prevent liquids from boiling...tentacles are definitely out! But operating in almost absolute zero environments is just not going to happen. SteveBaker 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I, for one, support our new tentacled space beaver overlords. --Sean 14:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why you'd bother. It's much simpler to provide a life-support suit of some kind. I could certainly imagine a suit that would keep you safe in vacuum/zero-g for 36 hours - existing space-suits can keep you alive for 8 to 9 hours - quadrupling that shouldn't be too big of a challenge. The insanely low temperatures you talk about are not relevent in a vacuum. The whole concept of temperature is meaningless in a vacuum - deep space doesn't have a temperature because there is nothing there to measure the temperature of! A big problem may well be shedding heat - not retaining it. The creature you envisage would probably be totally crippled in a 'normal' environment - this seems like a ridiculously drastic step compared to wearing a space-suit. If you insist on thinking about it this way, far from being a "beaver with tentacles" (where the heck did THAT idea come from?!) - that seems like the worst possible design! If you are really concerned about unprotected survival in low temperature and vacuum, you'd want something close to being spherical so as to minimise surface area and maximise the ability to contain internal pressure sufficiently to prevent liquids from boiling...tentacles are definitely out! But operating in almost absolute zero environments is just not going to happen. SteveBaker 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- See pantropy, and I think you really want to read a book called The Seedling Stars. --Reuben 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
double acting gasoline engines
hey friends i ve designed a double acting gasoline engine.i really want to know that whether such engines r availaible.if not then it would be a great matter for me.
regards
Reveal.mystery —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- There are an awful lot of alternative configurations that have been invented already. The Bourke engine might be what you are thinking of - or perhaps Split Cycle Engine, or Twingle engine, or the Stelzer engine. I strongly recommend looking at all of the links in the table at the bottom of those pages that contains links to dozens of articles to alternative kinds of gasoline engine. SteveBaker 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"violotion" of law of conservation of energy ?
According to special relativity the mass of any object or particle increases with increase in speed . is'nt that a violation of law of conservation of energy ? because we know mass is a form of energy .
- Except that you have to supply an object with that same increase in energy to make it speed up. Conservation achieved! Someguy1221 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it's more common now not to talk of mass changing at all, but to modify the formula for energy. If you want to think of mass energy equivalence, it is easier to think of the extra kinetic energy acting to cause the extra mass, rather than vice versa. Cyta 08:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The concept of invariant mass (as distinct from relativistic mass) is probably useful to mention here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. When physicists talk about "mass" in a relativistic context, they almost invariably mean invariant mass. Relativistic mass is relatively uncommon. In popular books and articles, it's the other way around, and this leads to a lot of confusion. I believe the physicists switched over some time around 1950, as it was gradually decided that invariant mass is a more useful concept. So now physicists don't often talk about mass changing with velocity. --Reuben 16:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The concept of invariant mass (as distinct from relativistic mass) is probably useful to mention here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it's more common now not to talk of mass changing at all, but to modify the formula for energy. If you want to think of mass energy equivalence, it is easier to think of the extra kinetic energy acting to cause the extra mass, rather than vice versa. Cyta 08:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some large field maples (20m) in my garden one of which needs to be felled. They are old slow growing trees (the garden has been cultivated since the thirteenth century). The tree has a good straight trunk but I want to know whether the timber will weather outside well (e.g. can I season it and then use it for raised beds). All I can find on google is the same couple of texts repeated endlessly about it being good for musical instruments, mallet heads and bird's eye veneers, not the weatherability of large planks. --BozMo talk 09:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Generally, maple is too expensive for that kind of usage - that's probably why there is no information about weathering outdoors. You might want to investigate whether you can sell the trunk and use the money to buy some (much cheaper) pressure-treated lumber which will last for a very long time. SteveBaker 12:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm curious: why are you taking them down? Are they unhealthy? --Sean 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Only one. Planted too close to other trees (or they were planted close to it) and is dying back from the top. There are more magnificent ones I won't touch. --BozMo talk 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Heron
At the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, I would like to ask: what bird is this ? and whether this photograph I took, may be added to the relevant article. I would appreciate any help. I am sorry in advance if it is not too useful. :) Vijeth 09:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have any Asian ornithologists here? It should be emphasized that the picture was taken in Hyderabad. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'd start looking under cranes Richard Avery 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
aerodynamics
can an aeroplane be stand still at a place like a helicopter?203.94.231.74 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on the aeroplane. Most cannot but see Harrier Jump Jet as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs) 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- In general, not unless they've been specially designed to do so (as the Harrier was) - but aside from that, with the right conditions (if the wind speed is equal to the air-speed of the aircraft), a plane will appear to be standing still from the point of view of someone on the ground. Hence, some aircraft have a low enough stall speed that they can 'hover' in fairly modest winds. Also, aside from the Harrier, there are also the Tiltrotor craft that blur the line between a fixed-wing plane and a helicopter. SteveBaker 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Other designs that allow fixed-wing aircraft to hover and/or land vertically are tiltwing and the (not very practical) tailsitter design. All designs are based around the requirement to smoothly change the direction of thrust between horizontal in normal flight and vertical in a hover. Our article on VTOL gives a good overview. Gandalf61 12:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if a jet with enough horsepower to accelerate straight up, and thrust vectoring for control could point upwards and hover for a bit? That would be a neat trick. --Sean 15:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Prototypes of the flying flapjack could hover vertically if the wind was just right. Someguy1221 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Symmetry
What is the likelihood of getting a wart in the exact same spot on each index finger? Clem 12:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Warts are caused by a viral infection through the skin. If you spend time with your two index fingers pushed against each other symmetrically the chances might be quite high... --BozMo talk 12:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- When I was a child, I had a small plantar wart in the exact center of my fingerprint whorl. I have always considered this to be non-random, so maybe there's something to it. --Sean 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reminds me of ol' Dan Tucker, who died with a toothache in his heel :-) --Trovatore 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, I just noticed that a plantar wart is foot-only by definition! OK: I had a thing that looked just like a plantar wart in my finger. :) --Sean 19:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reminds me of ol' Dan Tucker, who died with a toothache in his heel :-) --Trovatore 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Naming of electronic components
What is the basis of naming electronic components?
for eg:1N 4001 etc?
Its kind of a homework question. But googling 'naming of electronic components' wasn't very helpful (yet).
For zener diodes I think that the name incorporates the breakdown voltage; right?
the page Electronic_component does'nt seem to have it. Still searching
If someone knows a link or something where it is discussed in detail It would be helpful.
59.93.41.117 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think JEDEC were responsible for categorising and maybe naming in conjunction with the manufacturers--88.111.135.162 15:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
railway semaphores
Why did I.K. Brunell device and built semaphores on the GWR that indicate clear in a downward position? This construction is more expensive and more prone to failure than the everywhere else used signalling by which the arm is pointing upward to indicate clear. wally. 82.173.141.164 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Mama seagull - will she recognise her own offspring?
It's getting to about that time of year when this year's fledgling gulls are cut loose by their parents to fend for themselves. Just wondering - will the mother/father gull treat her/his 'grown up' offspring any differently to any other gull when if/when they encounter each other in the future - or will they be seen as just more gulls to squabble with over food and perches? I know that magpies tend to stick together in family groups but it's quite hard to tell with gulls - as they never really obviously interact with each other in a friendly social manner (they just kinda stand near each other if they don't want to fight). --Kurt Shaped Box 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
steam engine advantages at high altitude
"Steam locomotives are especially advantageous at high elevations as they are not adversely affected by the lower atmospheric pressure. This was inadvertently discovered when steam locomotives operated at high altitudes in the mountains of South America were replaced by diesel-electric units of equivalent sea level power. These were quickly replaced by much more powerful locomotives capable of producing sufficient power at high altitude."
In reading that I thought it to be dubious for these reasons Studying the statement that asserted that steam engines are advantageous at high altitude is a partial truth. While it does satisfy Carnot's cycle by having high pressure steam coming into the engine, and exhausting the steam at very low pressure. (thermodynamically efficient) it does not take into account the combustion of the fuel used to heat the water to make the steam. Any engine that derives its power from chemical energy (diesel, jet, gasoline) requires a certain amount or ratio of fuel to air to operate properly. Recall that the supercharger was used in war to maintain sea level pressure so that aircraft would maintain power at all altitudes (turbochargers). The locomotive style boiler has no means of forced induction and as a result the air is "rare" and thus the sociometric ratio is compromised. I think this issue should be addressed. Spencer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.91.22 (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds like something that should be addressed on the talk page of whichever article you are referring to. If you return to that article and click on the "discussion" tab at the top, you will be able to address your concerns to an audience that is more specifically interested in and informed on the topic. --LarryMac | Talk 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- That assumes that the availability of oxygen is going to be a limiting factor for a locomotive at any reasonable altitude. Is that a reasonable assumption?
- In a (non-turbo, non-supercharged) internal combustion engine, the amount of fuel that can be burnt (and therefore the amount of energy that can be extracted) per unit time is a function of the total amount of fuel and air that fits in the cylinders and engine revs (more revolutions per second means more combustion cycles). As you decrease the atmospheric pressure, the amount of air that the engine ingests per cycle falls, reducing the amount of fuel that can be burnt and limiting the available energy. The maximum speed of the engine is limited by its mechanical strength, so you can't restore the lost power by cranking the engine faster.
- In a steam locomotive, coal is shovelled into the firebox, where it is burnt in available air at atmospheric pressure. Air is continuously drawn into the firebox, and combustion products are continuously vented through the smokestack. As long as it's possible to draw air through the firebox drafts then the coal will continue to burn. (In other words, at any reasonable atmospheric pressure, the coal in the firebox will be able to suck in as much air as it needs at any given time. Contrast this with an internal combustion engine, where each volume of air has to be drawn in mechanically.) Will the combustion of each lump of coal proceed more slowly with the lower partial pressure of oxygen? Possibly—but you can get around that by adding a bit more coal (increased combustion surface area) to maintain the same total amount of heat per unit time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Freaking out. (Bio/Med Q.)
I'm freaking out. I clean my desk and other surfaces in my room with alcohol which seems to 96% ethanol and i presume 4% methanol. When its all evapourated the room usually has a fairly strong odour to it. Is the amount of methanol in the air enough to do any damage to my body? i probably only use a small amount of the liquid each time and its only %4 anyway and by the time its dispersed amongst my room it probably woulndt be in any concentration that would do any noticeable damage... Right??? any im only exposed to it for 5minutes until diffused out windows/other rooms ect and no longer noticeable. I know this is probably silly but thanks anyway. Lolfalroflealal 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Standard alcohol formulations such as this are 95ish% ethanol and the rest is primarily water not methanol (but only you have the actual bottle to read the ingredients on this particular product). See azeotrope to learn why 95% is a convenient concentration. DMacks 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not give medical advice. I have never heard of a cleaning/sterilizing solution containing so much methanol that its vapors do harm. That said, it couldn't hurt to leave a window open. Plasticup T/C 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Cosmological Redshift and the conservation of energy
Consider a photon created shortly after the era of recombination. At the time its wavelength would likely be about 966 nm, corresponding to an energy of 1.28348270 eV. Now say that it travels along, not interacting with anything, for 13.5 billion years or so. During that time the Universe expands significantly and the photon's wavelength is increased to 1,900,000 nm. It now has only 6.5255*10^-4 eV of energy. So it lost 1.28283015 eV without any interactions. When I asked my physics professor to explain this he replied "under the most general forms of general relativity, energy is not conserved". True? False? Plasticup T/C 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strange but true! In fact, there's no good way to define the total energy of the universe in general relativity! --Reuben 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Break out the Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor! It's controversial and some people think it's hand-wavey, but it lets you conserve something like energy in general relativity. Damned if I know how to use it, though. See also "Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? for a summary and some good references. (The nutshell answer from that site is "In special cases, yes. In general -- it depends on what you mean by 'energy', and what you mean by 'conserved'.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Understanding Motion
My question is:
How do I calculate the velocity and accelaration of a free falling object if the object is 45 meters above the ground and free falls to the earth?