Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

November 1

I would like to know the yields of bio gas by anaerobic digestion of Food Wastes(fruit juice,Souce & Jam industry waste) Vs. Brewery industry waste (using malt)...?? Need methane to CO2 ratios (Approximate values) in both cases...!!

Thank You... Malinda

What are the main functions of Phospholipase a2 enzyme. Which r its iso-forms

What happened when you used the "search" box on this (or indeed any and every) page on this site to look for the term "Phospholipase A2"? DMacks 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm thinking(and probably oversimplifying but please be tolerant) that our remote ancestors had radial symmetry which then lessened into mere bilateral symmetry(which is nostly on the outside now our inside organs aren't too symmetric anymore). If the mouth and anus are identified as "historically" isomorphic and symmetrically opposite, then things in the neck like the Adam's apple and thyroid could be presumed to be symmetrically opposite things like the genitals and prostate(in males), if one allows for blurring of the exactness through long evolutionary periods. But the Adam's apple and the genitals in a male both grow larger during puberty. These factors make me surmise that the same hormones, or perhaps hormones that are descended from the same original hormones and could still be similar, regulate the development of structures and nerve endings in the neck and private parts. So here is my question:

• Could hormones(perhaps mainly from the thyroid) which regulate the development of structures in the neck, so closely mirror hormones(perhaps mainly from the prostate) which regulate the development of the genitals in the male and the ability to feel sexual pleasure in that region, that sexual pleasure can be felt in the neck region, causing the pleasure of erotic asphyxiation, hickeys, and the giving of fellatio?--Of course much of the above could be applied to females with the homologous organs. But I haven't read of erotic asphyxiation among women.Thanks,Rich 06:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither of the expert types listed in your heading but still feel confident to argue your hypothesis to sound unlikely. Remember that the move from radial to bilateral symmetry happened extremely long ago. So much more has happened till then. Just observe that not only mammals, not only vertebrates, but even insects are bilateral. I imagine that the endocrine system over this wide range of the evolutionary tree varies tremendously. Furthermore, even a radially symmetric animal such as an earthworm has a distinct mouth and anus. Trying to explain such specific behavior traits as which kind of sexual acts turns somebody on with such a coarse thing as hormones is a bit too blunt. I wonder if they are even hereditary -- if not it would point to psychological, i.e. environment-induced causes. Oh, and I think I have read somewhere that there are women who enjoy sexual play involving choking.That none of them are dumb enough to get killed in the process does not prove that there are none. Simon A. 12:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT) First, the regulation of sexual maturity in puberty, and by connection the "adam's apple", is controlled by the sex hormones, none of which are secreted by the thyroid (or parathyroid) glands. Also, the thyroid is endoderm while the thyroid cartilage is mesodermal, so they "evolve" from different germ layers, and furthermore are on the same side of the trachea, which doesn't lend itself to the same kind of symmetry as the mouth and anus. It is unclear (to me) what you mean by isomorphism as it applies to the symmetry of the mouth and anus. I suppose they are both holes, but the nearby structures, the thyroid cartilage and thyroid to the mouth and the genitals and prostate to the anus, are not isomorphic in the sense you described. The sexual maturity of all of these organs is controlled, as I said earlier, by the sex hormones. These hormones are primarily secreted by the testes in males (with support from the adrenal glands, adipose tissue, even the brain), thus the prostate is not responsible for maturation of the "genitals", nor is the thyroid responsible for maturation of the "adam's apple". The sexual pleasure one might feel from the activities desribed is created in one place: the brain, and is summarily not due to any similarities, hormonal or otherwise, between the glands of the perineum and neck.Tuckerekcut 12:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I was sick to death of society and the human race and decided to get away from it all, drop off the radar, find a nice place in the sun and look after #1 - where would be the best place to go? Are there any isolated, yet hospitable places left on earth these days? I don't fancy the idea of living on some moss-covered rock in the South Atlantic. --84.69.57.172 07:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kure Atoll, Palmyra Atoll and Laysan are nice this (and pretty much every other) time of year. Assuming you could give the United States Fish and Wildlife Service the slip, it would be just you, the birds, the coral and an occasional scientist. Rockpocket 08:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on how much money you have to spend. There are lots of isolated places to live, but getting to them and having supplies brought in could be quite expensive. StuRat 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be suprised how much of the world is still wilderness. Just browse around on Google Maps and you'll see that human settlement really is the exception, not the rule. Even little old England has a great deal of untamed land. -- Chris 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to look after me, I'm already doing that. DirkvdM 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though the NW Hawaiian Islands were made into a maritime reserve in June 2006.--Russoc4 17:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitcairn. A country with a population of 45. No other habitation for hundreds of kilometres around and only an occasional small boat drops by because bigger ships can't approach it. "Leaving the island is hit-and-miss; one leaves when transportation happens by, not necessarily when one wishes to go." And you'll be living with the descendants of the mutineers of the Bounty, which is pretty cool. And if even that handfull is too big a crowd for you, it has a "nearly inaccessible interior" to get lost in. DirkvdM 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fully 10 percent of the population of Pitcairn island is now to be imprisoned for rape and indecent assault [1], in a new prison being constructed for the task... The long arm of the law reaches even there. --TeaDrinker 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are better off going to Henderson Island anyway; no-one there. Batmanand | Talk 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's still plenty of densely forested areas where a man could just disappear and live off the land, if he knew what he was doing. No shortage of food and water there. If you can make fire/shelter, know how to hunt/fish without using modern technology and are the kind of guy who looks at a deer and sees a month's-worth of food and a new pair of warm clothes, you'll be sorted. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure he'd have to live off the land. Without paying rent, taxes, and utilties, a hundred thousand dollars could last for decades. I think the key thing is to always assume you're going to run afoul of local or federal authorities, and be read to move on a moment's notice. But, the further you live from the nearest highway, the less you have to worry about this sort of thing. -- Chris 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to find an island solely inhabited by seagulls and, with my superior intellect and knowledge of their ways, rule over them as a living god! Muahahahahahaha!

Or at least hang out with them. I could catch fish, cook it and feed them - they'd probably think I was pretty cool for being able to do that. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who daydreams about impressing seagulls! Pesapluvo 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be to great black-backed gulls what Irene Pepperberg is to African grey parrots. I have searched far and wide but no-one seems to have seriously studied human/gull interaction on a one-to-one basis (though Audubon alluded to it in some of his writings). --Kurt Shaped Box 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, Kurt, have you read Jonathan Livingston Seagull ?

The Statue of Liberty. Anchoress 04:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unabomber tried this, and he went nuts. I expect that after living in a tent for a few weeks, especially when its cold, that even the smallest and most squalid room will seem like paradise. I think lots of people do do this - but they realise that they would not be able to stick living off the land for long, and just buy or rent a small house or flat somewhere. You are most likely to be anomymous in a big city. Then there is the gypsy way of life. A few miles away from where I used to live, a man lived out of a lorry for a few years, and may be doing so still. I am very skeptical that you could live anywhere in the UK without being bothered by people.

Has anyone postulated a Big Cycle, i.e., the point in the Big Collapse when it reverses direction and becomes the Big Bang and vice versa? Adaptron 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, some sort of Big Crunch!? Proposterous! ;-) Philc _T^E_C^I 11:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillating universe?--Light current 12:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These links should do. However, note that these idea are now in contradiction with recent observation which show that the expansion of the universe is not decelerating but accelerating and hence likely to end in the Big Rip. Can it be, BTW, that we have no decent article on this? Simon A. 13:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" is putting it a bit strongly. This crucially depends on the hypothetical dark energy being phantom energy, which at present is entirely speculative. And if it is phantom energy, it is not clear that its equation of state would remain constant until the bubble bursts.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Simon A. 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it called the Big Chill. StuRat 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that to refer to the Big Freeze rather than the Big Rip. Any evidence for the claim that this specifically refers to the Big Rip?  --Lambiam^Talk 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Ultimate fate of the universe, which summarises each of the leading theories. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of course there's always my explanation for the accelerating expansion. If we were falling into a black hole, wouldn't we see everything accelerate away from us? And wouldn't the acceleration be greater for objects further away? So wouldn't a Big Crunch be an explaination for the fact that we do indeed observe that? Alas, every time I put this theory forward, people start punching holes in it. It's pretty leaky now. But I made a controversial prediction that turned out to be correct, and the scientific community hasn't come up with a decent alternative yet, so that keeps me going. :) DirkvdM 17:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And before any of that, you will die. And then the sun will die out. THen the Milky Way will merge with Andromeda and wreak havoc. Tbeatty 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Sun might still be around when the Andromeda Galaxy hits us. StuRat 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say hit us, but given the incredibily low density of galaxies (millions of miles between star systems) there wouldnt actually be much hitting involved would there? Philc _T^E_C^I 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you neglect the gravitational effects, then that would be true. With gravity, however, the two galaxies have a major effect on each other, although, Andromeda being much larger, it ends up winning, with the Milky Way being "consumed". Many of the Milky Way's stars will be pulled into Andromeda, and others will be flung into space. The super-massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way will coalesce with Andromeda's. StuRat 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there's as much gravitational viscosity as the black holes would need to pull that off; moreover, we don't even know that there's truly going to be a collision at all (as discussed in the article). --Tardis 22:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had a brief search on the 'pedia and rest of the intarweb, but no luck. My guess would be either that the nerves are needed during the growth of the tooth or are vestigial. Any ideas?

Part of the reason I believe is to deter us from biting down so hard that we shatter them. Even human jaws are strong enough to do that. Anchoress 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Or, more generally, from doing things with your teeth that might be harmful to them. StuRat 14:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like biting newbies too hard?--Light current 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that we can feel if something is so hot or so cold that touching it with your toungue/throat etc.. will cause a burn. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the lips would be a better bet for that? Anchoress 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, and they are, but surely it makes more sense to have feeling in your teeth aswell, I wasn't saying it in preference to other ways of feeling, but in conjuction with them. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neat link. [2] We should do something as good for students. Basically, there is no such thing as a tooth 'nerve', it is merely the middle gunky part, with bloods vessels and nerves, called the dental pulp. It is necessary for the tooth to form, and later keeps the inside of the tooth hydrated. Later in life it shrinks, and sometimes dies, which means a nasty root canal job. --Zeizmic 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, when I still visited the dentist, I asked the lady cleaning my teeth whether, once grown, they are just static objects that don't change once they're fully grown. Not at all, she said -- they are very much living things. Teeth are only really hard on the outside, and they are well supplied with blood vessels and nerve endings. They also have repair mechanisms for taking care of minor scratches and so on. So it's not like dentists are absolutely mandatory -- healthy teeth are capable of mending themselves, just like everything else in our body. -- Chris 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No dentists needed? Heh, well, I beg to differ. - Dozenist talk 03:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me I would like to know who first came up with the term antisocial personality disorder and about ehn . Thank you.

What does that dream where your teeth start rotting out of your skull, cracking, splintering and crumbling away actually mean? I have that one fairly often. I remember reading somewhere that there is, psychologically-speaking, something very primal and deep-rooted (pardon the pun) behind it... --Kurt Shaped Box 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure its just your subconscious trying to tell you that teeth are going to fall out if you keep doing the things you do. Teeth being your most permanent possessions, it's a vivid image that is going to have a lasting effect upon your waking hours. -- Chris 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty much impossible to interpret symbols in dreams without context. Your mind is saying something to you; others can only guess at how your mind works, and not even that without getting to know your life situation pretty well first. (I'm feeling very Jungian today...) That being said, a quick googling should find some possible interpretations. In those google results, skip any sites that say "flying = travel, teeth = money, whatever = you'll meet a handsome stranger" :-) Weregerbil 17:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that certain dream themes were pretty much universal? The one where you're falling, or the one where you discover that a woman's vagina is lined with sharp teeth whilst having sex with her, etc. Has that all been discredited now? --Kurt Shaped Box 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been of the opinion that the teeth dream relates to self image concern, since losing teeth can be a permanently disfiguring experience. I have them from time to time despite taking good care of my teeth. --Jmeden2000 18:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, people tend to overanalyze dream imagery. Why should teeth falling out represent anything more unusual than a latent fear of having your teeth fall out -- or at least a general level, death and decay? -- Chris 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just remember being told a long time ago that Freud said that dreaming of losing/damaging your own teeth was something psychologically significant. Just curious as to what it was supposed to be about. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I had that dream pretty regularly -- until I got all my teeth fixed about five years ago! Haven't had it since. I think it's one of those real obvious ones: it means you are worried about your teeth (or, as we refer to them, those "tiny time bombs in your head".) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:50, November 2006 (UTC)

• What Dreams Actually Are

has been a topic everyone is always asking about, however I don't understand why people are not aware that medical science figured this out a long time ago. Which is to say, there is a factual explanation as to what dreams are, why they occur...the whole nine yards. It has been quite some time since I learned this in college, but I remember the general idea, which is as follows. When you are asleep, by no means does your brain "turn off". Sleep is an extremely complicated subject so I'm going to try and keep this simple (and brain functions are even more complex), but if you're really interested there is a lot of information on the internet that explains this. Sleep is for the purpose of resting your mind, not your brain. As a matter of fact, the brain can be even more active during REM sleep than when a person is awake. To explain dreams as simply as possible, this is basically what happens. Since the brain is still active during sleep, "thoughts" (not the best term but it's all I can think of) still occur, however because your cognition is resting, the thoughts are fleeting as well as in great quantity. Synapses are one of the major elements of the brains communication systems. For the purpose of simplicity, think of a synapse as one thing, whether it's in your life, your fantasies, or if it's a piece of furniture in your house (there are about one hundred trillion synapses in your brain). During conscious thought process they work together with the neurons and other parts of your brain. When you take away the consciousness variable, thought process is rather impaired. The thoughts are still there, but since they're not in use, the absence of the process part is where dreams come in: a random group of some of the billion thoughts in your head end up together. When you are awake, you select the particular thoughts and your mind fits them all together. But since the mind is not really in play, but the synapses are still firing all over the place, your brain does the best it can to have things make sense; i.e., your thoughts are linked together by whatever other thoughts your brain can use to piece everything together into a "story" of sorts. So the dream you had last night about riding the tea cups with your childhood pet at the Disneyland that happens to be in your living room as you and your deceased cat discuss the benefits of having your tires aligned DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING (keep in mind, to have that dream you have to have had a cat once, seen Disneyland, and have something with tires, otherwise those factors won't exist in your head). Since everyone has many dreams every night, on occasion you may remember one that it's totally outlandish. Further, it wasn't until recently humanity has learned about the brain, so for thousands of years people were forced to believe dreams met something. Add to that you have famous people like Freud who insisted dreams have meaning. You put all those influences together and everyone just gets brainwashed they mean something. Though everyone forgets the part about how Freud related everything to sex and was coked up every day. *** By the way, the dream about the teeth rotting/falling out that was discussed above was interpreted by Freud to mean castration due to guilt over masturbating. If none of this made sense, think of dreams as like "Mad-libs". Finally, I apologize if I misstated any facts or neglected something important, but I can't remember everything I learned in school! Therefore, you don't need to yell at me if I was wrong about something. However the gist IS correct. Even common sense can tell you that, since when have you had a dream interpreted for yourself right on? So, in conclusion, dreams do not have meaning. They are literally not much more than your unconscious imagination working randomly. Now you can tell your friends and family what dreams are, although they will likely insist that their dreams give the winning lottery numbers, and they just didn't get around to buying the ticket. SWEET DREAMS ALL!

I just found a hornworm that is about the thickness of my thumb and at least 10CM in length. I have never seen anything this large. It is unusual?

Our tomato hornworm article pointed me to this link: [3], which says they grow to about 4 inches long, which is about 10 cm. So, you have one on the large end of the normal size range. StuRat 18:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit OT but hopefully still of interest. This article was interesting http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/01/europe/EU_MED_Sex_Study.php (I actually read it in my local paper but it's more or less the same). Of course (not having read the published journal paper however) this does appear to rely on people giving accurate reponses so it could be misleading. What was surprising to me tho is that the fact Western people are more promiscious then Africans was supposedly surprising to the researchers. I'd never really thought about it much but I have to say, this was what I personally would have expected. Although I'm aware of the high prevance of STDs I would have put this down to other issues like health care, the kind of promiscuity that's practiced, use of protection etc. And I would have expected that the more liberal and more modern Westernised world to have a higher promisicuity then the more conservative African world. Does anyone else feel the same? N.B. Let's not get in to arguments about whether promiscuity is good or bad and no racism please Nil Einne 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just loved the quote from this piece I heard today on the radio: "People are just as likely to be truthful about their sexual habits as they are about their income or their voting choices"... Is it me or does this mean "Lie like a rug"? --Jmeden2000 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jmeden2000. I'm certainly not going to accuse an entire continent of lying, but consider that vs 50 years ago, the stats for female masturbation have gone up from something like 50% to something like 95%. It's not because so many more women are masturbating, it's that so many more women are telling the truth. It's amazing how many people lie, even when the survey is completely confidential. Anchoress 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered whether the scientists were surprised about the result or only the journalists reporting about it. For the question of accuracy due to untruthful answers: Psychologists have some tricks to lessen the problem a bit: AFAIK, one usually includes a question that is somewhat embarassing and for wich it is known that most people should answer yes (I don't know what they usually use but I imagine it something like asking men whether have masturbated in the recent year.) Then, you use this to estimate how many people have answered truthfully. Simon A. 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested v/v the study to find out exactly what questions they asked, and of whom. Because there are so many languages in Africa, and things can be mistranslated in ways that may seem innocent, but may cause an unexpected result. Like the question, 'Are you unfaithful to your spouse' might be translated to, 'Do you sneak around on your spouse' and if s/he is NOT sneaking it might give a skewed answer. Or if the question is, 'Do you have intercourse outside marriage,' or 'Do you have intercourse,' wouldn't catch the people having just oral sex. I'm not trying to justify an opinion that Africans are more promiscuous than the study suggests, I'm just speculating. Anchoress 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hydrolysizing big batches of protein and I'm concerned about the production of hydrogen sulfide, for my own safety. I'm testing acid, alkali, and protease hydrolysis. Are any of these methods more likely to produce significant H2S? (I presume the enzymatic method wouldn't produce any, unless there's bacterial growth). ike9898 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...I am a novelist and in the book I am currently working on the 'bad guy' has wired a public place with dynamite. Question: pyrotol was available after WWI, would it still be viable in the early 60's if stored properly? If so, how would it have to be stored? If pyrotol would not be viable, would dynamite still be viable from that time period? Or would dynamite still be avialable in the 60's, if so, how would this need to be stored?...( I know that pyrotol would not be available in the 60's, as they discontinued use of this after the Bath School disaster of 1928). I would appreciate any and all help some one would care to give me...thanks very much, Sandy G.

Is it possible to go into oncological research without an M.D.? As in, is there a Ph.D. program that will allow one to go into oncology research and still get to work with people/patients?

Thank you!

Maybe sorta if you went into Biomedical Engineering. BMEs often help in the clincal testing of new medical devices, but I think that their role in that case is primarily focused on the performance of the instrument, rather than the patient. ike9898 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that you could be involved in oncology research without an MD or PhD. As a nurse or lab tech, for example. Also, there are lots of PhD, non-MD scientist in cancer research, but I think these types are much more lab based than clinical (no patient contact). ike9898 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, the image was made between 1905 and 1915. Was it shot in color like several World War I photos or colorized much later? --Brand спойт 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was shot by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii who pioneered color photography I assume it was shot in color. - Dammit 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, his technique was to take 3 black and white photos of each scene, each with a different color filter (red, green, or blue). His idea was to use a projector to recombine them into a color projection. With modern technology, however, we can combine the three images into an excellent full color image. The only color distortions are when something moved between the three frames. StuRat 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrm, the link. —Bromskloss 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many waterfowl and some other birds, such as the ostrich and turkey, do possess a phallus. Except [sic] during copulation, it is hidden within the proctodeum compartment within the cloaca, just inside the vent." Vitriol 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual intercourse --Russoc4 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does "during copulation, it is hidden within the proctodeum compartment within the cloaca, just inside the vent" mean anything to you? Vitriol 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Except during copulation". I have personally seen a duck's penis FWIW. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close as I can figure, there are no errors in the original source. Why the [sic]? It certainly shouldn't read 'accept during copulation'. -- Chris 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that. Vespine 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got confused because I thought it was saying they possess a phallus, except during copulation it's hidden. I'll go edit that to prevent fuckups like mine. Vitriol 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see how you misread that. Just change two punctuation marks: ...[they] do possess a phallus except during copulation. It is hidden within the cloaca... Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, in a question now already moved to the archives, Keria wrote:

Which seats in a big airliner do you think are safer depending on the different types of crashes? It does happen quite often that a plane crashes and it is announced that "189 people died, and 3 survived" or sentences of that sort they never specify where the lucky ones were sitting. I was thinking more towards the tail of the plane, dont know why, it seems stronger somewhat but then that last Kentucky one only the co-pilote got dragged out of the burning plane by the fire brigade if I remember correctly. Any thoughts or statistics? Thank you.

This subject is being covered on the U.S. TV show ABC News Nightline tonight (11:35 pm for Eastern Time viewers), and there is an an online article here on their web site. In summary, the article says that preparedness is more likely to matter than where you sit, but that there is a small advantage to having an aisle seat and, of course, to being relatively near an exit.

--Anonymous, 21:20 UTC, November 1, 2006.

And it happened again last week in Nigeria 96 death and 9 survivors in a 737 crash. Survivors believe God/Allah gave them a hand and they don't seem to have a clue about much.

"I don't know exactly what happened after the plane crashed - we were shouting for help and still praying."

Then some farmers nearby rushed to their rescue undoing their seatbelts to drag them from the wreckage.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6102618.stm

Keria 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The back of the plane typically suffers the least amount of damage on impact. That's where they keep the black box in the bigger planes. I'm not sure if that translates into passenger safety, but it is likely. ---J.S (t|c) 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Worst Case Scenario Handbook: Travel Edition, the back of the plane, is indeed, safest. This request to relatives booking flights has resulted in my seat being so far back I don't have a window, and can watch the flight attendants make coffee. Russia Moore 04:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that anyone that's been around the net for a while (especially Usenet) will have come across people who believe that they are the victims of "psychoelectronic" attacks - be it from the CIA, MI5, the Elders of Zion, Freemasons, Illuminati, Knights Templar, Scientologists, or whichever group it is that they happen to have issues with. They often speak of devices capable of forcibly reading data from the human brain (a mind probe, if you will), causing great pain and long-lasting side effects to the victim - or technology capable of writing data to the brain (false memories, loud electronic screeches designed to drive the subject insane, etc.). These 'psychoelectronic weapons' are often mounted on satelites but apparently can be used at ground level too, over shorter ranges. The supposed victims of pschoelectronic warfare actually do sometimes sleep in aluminium foil hats or line the walls of their bedrooms (the technology supposedly works better on the sleeping) with thick aluminium/lead plate in order to deflect the waves/rays/beam/whatever. Sometimes, they claim that they are unwilling guinea pigs in the testing of new military technology and that soon it will be possible for the 'mind control satelites' to routinely record everyone's dreams, which will be then kept on file for future use against the subject.

So, my question is thus: Is there actually any theoretical basis to any of this stuff, or is it just sci-fi that certain mentally-ill people have been taken in by because it seems to fit in with the symptoms of their illness?

I wouldn't even know where to start looking for this on WP. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about here? Seriously, an understanding of how the mind works is barely in its infancy. These people need to go back on their medications. Clarityfiend 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the technology read people's thoughts with a captive subject, with a "thought reading helmet", let alone from a satellite… If that capability existed don't you suppose we would have heard of it by now with places like Guantanamo? I bet they'd love to be able to do it. Current technology is collectively known as Neuroimaging. As to the indiscriminate beaming out of some kind of waves that can slowly drive people crazy or stupid, that doesn't sound quite as far fetched. I have heard theories that certain types of radiation can affect mood, but I've not come across any real case scenarios. Either way, I don't believe something like this could exist in such secrecy. And the fact that people have been claiming this at least since the cold war, 'the commies were doing it', leads me to lean towards just a classic conspiracy theory. Vespine 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a brainwave (heh!). I remember reading something along those lines and now I've found it. Sonic_weaponry#Designed_to_emit_sound_as_an_irritant - I suppose that it's theoretically possible (but very unlikely) that some of these people have had infrasonic weapons used against them (I guess that the security services might have an interest in subtly driving certain 'subversive' individuals insane). --Kurt Shaped Box 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try telling those guys that. The standard response is usually along the lines of "'They' are using their psychoelectronic devices to purposefully manifest symptoms of a mental illness in me in order to discredit me because I got too close to the truth. One day you will understand too.". It's absolutely impossible to reason with them. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting theory on what is going on there is Susan Blackmore's idea that the phenomen of sleep paralysis might be responsible for accounts of people who feel controlled by outside powers. She was thinking of medieval accounts of succubi and incubi, and modern talk on abduction by aliens. Maybe this is the same here. Or, we are just talking about good old paranoia and schizophrenia. Taking into account that shizophrenia is a rather common desease, you should not be surprised to meet many of these people on the net -- and not all are aware that they are ill. Simon A. 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfoil hat seems like a reasonable place to start, though most of the links there to viable scientific topics aren't likely to contain info about the pseudoscientific applications - you most likely will have to read some of the external links for that. I'm assuming "psychoelectric" means manipulation via EM radiation.

Note that scientists can "read people's thoughts", to a very limited and crude extent, in a laboratory setting. For example, a test subject given a radioactive tracer glucose solution to drink and then monitored on a PET scan device, can then be shown photos of strangers and loved ones. Different areas of the brain will "light up" depending on their reactions to the photos, enabling the scientists to have a rough idea of what each subject is thinking. StuRat 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 1946, an alien ship was stripped at Area 51, revealing an organic conductor with interesting magnetic properties. In 1951 DuPont started manufacturing pillows containing TMS devices that allow the NSA to take control of you brain and make you vote for Ralph Nader. --JWSchmidt 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did we evolve the ability to be tickled?

I fancy it was to protect vulnerable parts--Light current 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what pain is for? Under the arms I'd believe, but sole of your feet? How is that more vulnerable then a lot of other places that aren't typically ticklish? I'd be more likely to think it's a by-product of a certain level of skin sensitivity, not necessarily a separately evolved ability, so to speak. Vespine 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont believe the sole of the foot thing, get a sharp knife and draw the blade along the sole of your foot from heel to toe (or the other way if you prefer) and then youll see what I mean. The skin there is very soft.--Light current 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who wear shoes all the time. Those who never do (or did, like pretty much all of our ancestors) will have a thick layer of callus. It will actually be the thickest 'skin' of the body. DirkvdM 13:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on tickling mentions some hypotheses. Simon A. 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll know when we have spiders or centipedes crawling on our bodies? That 'tickling of tiny legs' feeling is one of the most uncomfortable, disconcerting sensations of all for me, even if it turns out to be a 'false positive'... --Kurt Shaped Box 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the enjoyable sensation of being tickled by a loved one serves a social purpose. Note that it's difficult to be tickled by a stranger, showing the "ticklish" reaction involves complex social interactions, not just a raw sensation. Also note that the person doing the tickling is almost always dominant (as a parent) and the one being tickled is submissive (as a child). Thus, it may serve a very subtle purpose of reinforcing power relationships, without resorting to violence, to establish dominance. StuRat 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When inflating something with my lungs (an innertube, an air mattress...), after a while I start to feel a bit lightheaded. Why is this? Does it have to do with the increased amount I'm breathing in and out (essentially I am hyperventilating), or is there a different reason? — QuantumEleven 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidly increasing and decreasing blood pressure, so something along the lines of orthostatic hypotension? Thats if it is similar to the 'headrush' experienced when standing after having remained in a relaxed state for a while. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Often people Valsalva when they blow up an innertube. Increasing the pressure in your chest decreases your blood return to your heart and lungs, causing decreased delivery to your brain and the feeling of dizziness. InvictaHOG 23:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is simply hyperventilation.  --Lambiam^Talk 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not hyperventilating when you are blowing up something! You might be taking larger tidal volumes, but your minute ventilation will drop because your respiratory rate drops. InvictaHOG 11:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with the hyperventilation hypothesis. Minute ventilation is the product of respiratory rate and tidal volume. The vital capacity used to blow up an innertube might be 2.5-3 litres, i.e. five to six times "tidal volume", to maintain your "normal" minute ventilation you would have to take only 2-3 breaths per minute, which is unlikely as you are trying to blow up this darned inner tube as fast as possible. Hence, hyperventilation and a drop in PaCO2. Mmoneypenny 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who replied - quite a few interesting links there for me to peruse! :) — QuantumEleven 07:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for this? I have it.

Insects don't bother me at all. Arachnids only bother me if they're close to/on me and I'm taken by surprise. Centipedes and millipedes make me flee in terror at the very sight of them. I can't even kill them because that would mean having to approach them. Certainly seems that for me, more legs = more danger. Why do I have this? I don't remember something terrible happening to me as a child with these foul beasts to trigger it off - I've always hated (yes, it is complete and utter hatred - they disgust me and I would destroy their entire kind if it was in my power) them as far back as I can remember. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entomophobia includes various classes of bugs such as arthropods, which is what Myriapoda are, so that might cover you. Er, I mean that might describe your situation. DMacks 23:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myriapodaphobia? That sounds like it could be right. Well, there's a Google hit for it anyway. Doesn't look like there's any support groups though... :( --Kurt Shaped Box 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shold force yourself to get over it. It isn't good to have that much of a hatred for a, basically, defenceless animal which does, basically, no harm to humans. They can bite, but pain always goes away, they are not like spiders, of which some species can kill you. Next time you see one, wear gloves, and pick it up. It will probably try to walk onto your arm, at which stage you change hands. If you can stay calm, you should get over the phobia. I was always afraid of them, but I find watching them, and the synchornisation of their legs, really fascinating.

As for the why are you scared of them, it might be a snake things. Their movement looks much like a snake, and we are hardwired to be scared of snakes. --liquidGhoul 01:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know it's not healthy to hate something that much. If, for example I hated Jews as much as I hate centipedes, history would remember me as *worse* than Hitler. It's like I have some sort of mental barrier in place that stops me from accepting centipedes as part of my world. I have nightmares about centipedes all the time and every time I wake up from one, I have the urge to destroy every single last one of them, yet I'm still too scared to go near them, which makes me hate them even more. If I had a gun and I saw a centipede, I would shoot it dead and feel good afterwards. No doubt about it. Heh, that sounds so messed up now I've typed it out. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They creep me out, too. I think it's either how fast they move or all those wiggling legs that makes them creepy. I notice I'm scared by any insect quicker than me, as that means it can crawl on me before I can stop it. On the other hand, slow moving or still insects don't bug me much at all. :-) StuRat 03:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Shaped Box has a phobia. He need hardly equate that with racism and mass murder. The obvious thing to do is to avoid the object of your hatred/fear. The only real problem is whether he is now obsessing about the phobia. If he can't refrain from doing so, then he could use the services of a trained mental health professional.

It is not the dislike of these creatures that is the issue, but the nightmares. It's perfectly okay for Kurt Shaped Box to have the hatred as long as he isn't constantly thinking about it.

B00P 08:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you have such a hatred for something, to the point where you want to wipe it off the earth, you are bound to unwillingly pass that on to others. Centipedes and millipedes play an important role in most ecosystems. I'm sure Kurt won't willingly do anything to cause the extinction of any species of an animal. But it sounds as if he would if he had the technology. We need to encourage and teach others to value biodiversity, and attitudes like this don't help. I don't mean any offence, but talking about extinctifying (I made that up, I'm tired) a huge number of species because of ignorance, when there are so many people in the world working really hard to do the conserve them through intentions which are purely for the benefit of them or human kind, pisses me off a bit. Even if it is in good humour. --liquidGhoul 13:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider a fear to rise to the level of a phobia unless it interferes with his life in a significant way. As there is very little benefit to allowing centipedes and millipedes to crawl on you, avoiding this is not really a problem. StuRat 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, c'mon. liquidGhoul is going over the edge. Kurt Shaped Box is hardly in a position to be wiping out whole ecosystems. And the notion that he will infect the world with his hatred is also quite wrong. My mother had a horror of rodents which she did not pass on to anyone else. I detect a whiff of "Political Correctness" with the insistance that everyone must accept and love everything (with the exception that it's okay to reject anyone who doesn't). Additionally, there is a huge difference between what one thinks and what one does. The danger in the idea that they are the same leads to the belief that once having thought of something, one is already "soiled." And if that's the case, it isn't actually worse to act out on one's negative ideas. Well, that's wrong. Our thoughts come unbidden; it's what we do with them that counts. In the case at hand, the only question id how much they are tormenting Kurt Shaped Box. If they're interferring with his life, then he should get help. Otherwise, it's just a quirk. B00P 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets out of hand, guys - I would just like to inform you all that I was slightly tired and emotional last night. Perhaps the 'Jew' analogy and suggestions of legitimized centipede genocide were slightly ill-advised when perhaps a single line stating "Centipedes really scare me" would have been sufficient. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not double post and be patient. You asked this same question all of 8 hours and 5 minutes before asking it again. Have you looked at your original post, where Light current has provided a helpful link (in the question)? That's likely to be all the information we have on the subject. --Tardis 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me which would be the more valued result, removing one proton from each nucleus of a sample of gold or adding one proton to each gold nucleus?

The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom of a given element is called the atomic number. Here you will find List of elements by atomic number helpful. Melchoir 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 64.12.116.74, who asked this homework question and the one immediately following:

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.. --Tardis 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since removing a proton would produce platinum (at a value of £108/g for 99.995% pure), and adding a proton would produce mercury (which goes for around £70/kg at the same purity), I'd say the more valued result would be removing a proton. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question could be more complex than we assume, if the number of neutrons is also considered. Thus, if we remove or add a proton from/to an isotope of gold, and leave the number of neutrons constant, will it produce stable mercury or platinum, or will it decay ? If so, how quickly will it decay, what will be the decay products, and what are their values ? StuRat 03:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and it appears that the only stable isotope of gold, AU-197, would be changed into either PT-196 or HG-198, both of which are also stable. StuRat 03:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Even before that, what might be the value of a source of those unstable isotopes? If it's just a thought experiment, may as well include in it a physicist being offered a coupla grad students or other cheap labor to do it on a useful scale on demand. DMacks 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're running with the question, the prices should be adjusted by the price of the nuclear binding energy. And, for bonus precision, the price of protons. Melchoir 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the atomic masses listed in the periodic table not whole numbers?

Try the first few paragraphs of Atomic mass. Melchoir 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namely the first sentence of the second paragraph (it's an average of all the Isotopes of that element). Martinp23 23:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an average, it is proportional to the isotopes found on Earth, e.g. if there are two isotopes, 50% of which are on isotope, then the AM would be exactly between them the AM of both the isotopes. --liquidGhoul 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a more correct term would be weighted average.

But the occurrence of different isostopes isn't the only reason why atomic masses (or atomic weights as we used to say) are not whole numbers. There are some elements where only one isotope occurs in nature and yet they still have non-integer atomic masses. For example, beryllium is all beryllium-9, but its atomic mass is 9.012+, not 9.000. Carbon-12 is the only isotope whose atomic mass is an exact integer (12.000) and that's because the atomic mass unit is defined in terms of carbon-12.

There are two reasons for this small variation between isotopes. One is that they have a different ratio of protons (which are a bit lighter) to neutrons; beryllium-9 has 4 protons and 5 neutrons while carbon-12 has 6 of each, so naturally beryllium-9 should have an atomic mass a bit greater than 9. But there's a second reason, which is that different isotopes or elements have different amounts of binding energy. which is expressed as mass (see mass-energy equivalence, which is to say, E = mc² and all that).

This last effect, known as the "mass defect" or "packing fraction", is what makes nuclear reactions an energy source. If you could make a fusion reactor that would convert beryllium into carbon (not a practical proposition, but these are the elements I used as my example, so let's stay with it), then the excess mass in the beryllium atoms would provide the energy released. Again, see binding energy for more.

It is sometimes useful to refer to an isotope by as a simple whole number, a count of protons and neutrons; that's what we're doing when we say beryllium-9 or carbon-12. But the term for this is mass number, not atomic mass. And it only applies to specific isotopes, whereas an element consists of a mixture of isotopes.

--Anonymous, 01:20 UTC, November 2.

Why is it, if one sqeezes someones leg just above the knee with ones hand, it makes them feel uncomfortable (not ticklish exactly), whereas, if one squeezes ones own leg in a similar manner, it is quite bearable. Is this the same thing as ticklishism?--Light current 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like part of social conditioning in western culture... anything above the knee and on the inside tends to be "off limits" in a "show me where he touched you billy" kind of way.

Then again, expected sensation and self-inflicted sensation is usually more bearable then the surprise kind... ---J.S (t|c) 00:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. I keep having dreams about being breastfed by some of my favourite large breasted female celebrities. Really vivid ones too, I can taste their sweet milk, feel its warmth and I get really turned on by it. Sometimes I have sex with them whilst nursing from them. I often wake up having ejaculated in my sleep. When I'm awake, this feels creepy and wrong but still there's a part of me that wants to find a woman with milk in her breasts and do it for real. Am I really fucked up for thinking this? I don't know anyone I can talk to about this.

So...is this actually causing you some sort of problem? or are you just boasting 8-)--Light current 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just feels "sick" to me. Like I subconsciously want to have sex with my mother, or get involved with all that weird adult baby stuff. It's like the idea of drinking breastmilk really turns me on but the implications of why I want to do it scare me, if you know what I mean. My dreams usally involve MILF age women too, which makes the connection with my own mother seem more apparent. For the record, I don't fancy my mother but I'm scared what my head is trying to tell me. --194.164.208.87 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take it at face value? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, lactophilia isn't the most bizarre or disturbing fetish you could have. Just take a look at some of the entries on Template:Paraphilia for some reassurance if you're worried about appearing weird. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I just found out that I have a smoking fetish. I love the taste of cigarettes in a woman's mouth when I kiss her, the smell of smoke on her hair and clothes, etc. and I do tend to seek out women that smoke. I didn't even realize that it was a 'fetish' as such, or that there was a particular name for it. Knowing that, do I feel any different about it? Hell no. ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd love Morticia Addams..."Do you mind if I smoke ?". :-) StuRat 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to worry about. The female breast is an erogenous zone; according to the erotic lactation article, this fantasy is more common than we might think. The sex-positive movement suggests liberating ourselves from the repression and shame associated with many consensual sexual activities and fantasies that has been foisted upon us by puritanical prudery. If no one is harmed, how are such activities and fantasies to be regarded as wrong? Sexual Puritanism is responsible for shame over the human body, shame over human sexuality, etc, which it justifies with nothing more than bizarre claims of a "war" between the flesh and the spirit, the body as an instrumentality of the devil, and other such nonsense. To hell with that :) Personally, I found the description of sucking the milk from a woman's breasts to be highly erotic -- quite an appropriate word since the ancient Greeks regarded Eros as a divine experience. 75.26.10.224 01:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound like anything to worry about. IMO, breasts are the best part of a woman's body - the bigger the better (as long as they're natural and about the same size on each side) as far as I'm concerned. You can rub them, squeeze them, grope them, squidge them together, use them as a pillow, suck them, bury your face in them, nibble them, lick them, kiss them, hump them, etc. etc. etc. I will never get bored of breasts. ;) If they have milk in them, they'll be bigger still - which is a Good Thing in my book. You're not actually having sexual thoughts about your own mother, so what's the problem? --Kurt Shaped Box 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! Don't say that! You'll give the guy who was having wet dreams about his mother a complex ;).. There's nothing "wrong" with having a sexual dream about your mother.. I definitely agree about the comments above about puritanism, I find personally find it disgusting and perplexing that war and death are more socially acceptable on the media and in the news then two people loving each other. Vespine 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry. :) I do know what you mean though - gratuitous violence on TV is fine but sex is taboo. The act of destruction is more acceptable than the act of creation. Bringing life to an end is superior, morally-speaking than bringing about new life. That's *really* fucked up. --Kurt Shaped Box 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weirdest example in the US was the editing of Conan the Barbarian (film) (Arnold's first big movie) for TV. The scene where a person is beheaded is kept in, while a scene showing a bare-breasted woman was censored for being "obscene". StuRat 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So god damned it people!? HOW do we affect change?? Issues like this make my skin crawl, I can feel it in the deepest part of my being! Let's EVOLVE! There seem to be SO many like minded people yet so much of our lives are led by these evil crypto fascist ultra conservatives. Is it strange to sometimes think you understand why people start cults?? ;) Vespine 04:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWCD? (What Would Che Do?) ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 06:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che would execute anyone who disagreed with him. StuRat 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been around usenet for any length of time (ten years and counting...) and met all the trolls, kooks, drama queens, stalkers, and pedants, you'd soon start to come around to his way of thinking. First up against the wall when the revolution comes will be the people who use 'we' instead of 'I' in their postings to imply that their opinions have some sort of support outside of their own heads... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we hate those guys here. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which electrons are most responsible for the properties of an atom?

Bob and Sue ? :-) StuRat 06:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ones orbiting it. Would you like a more specific answer? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe outer most ones. The ones in the valence shell--Light current 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which properties? Optical properties (photon energies of several electron-volts and lower) - the outermost one; that's why an electron in the outermost orbit is called an "optical electron". Chemical - several outermost ones, see previous answer. Interaction with X-rays - depends on the X-rays energy and atomic number. Interaction with gamma radiation - the innermost ones. Nuclear reactions and interactions involving atomic electrons - the innermost ones. And so on. By the way, technically the electrons are indistinguishable, so a better way to ask the question might have been "Electrons in which orbitals are most responsible..."; but those are really technicalities. Dr_Dima

You forgot to mention the kind of properties handled by the real estate agent electrons --froth^{T C} 23:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have question about the conservation of momentum and energy consumption using the kenetic energy formula, m*v^2/2. It seems to me that, if we had a row boat with a frictionless hull and a man rowing, every time he pulled on the oars he would expend energy and one could estimate the energy consumed by looking at the mass and velocity of the water he was moving. Say that he could accelorate 100 kg of water to 1 meter per second every stroke producing a force of 100 newtons. If he and his frictionless hull massed 100 kg as well, then he would be accelorating 1 meter per second every stroke, using 50 joules each stroke. After 100 strokes he would have used 5000 joules of energy, and would be traveling at 100 meters per second. However this can't be right because the kenetic energy formula for a 100 kg object at 100 meters per second says that we need 500000 joules. What have I done wrong? Thanks 71.7.199.126 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he's accelerating the water and himself? (in opposite directions)--Light current 01:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "50 joules" part is wrong. Energy = force x distance, so in order to exert a constant 100 newtons against the water, you need 100 joules of energy for each meter you travel relative to the water. So you have to stroke more energetically as you speed up, and need higher power (= energy/time) to keep accelerating while moving at a higher speed. --Anonymous, 01:45 UTC, November 2.

I haven't checked your math, but two points to remember: First, Newton's law is F = ma, not F = mv. Second, and I suspect this is more important, the energy required to cause a given constant change in the velocity of an object depends on the initial velocity of the object. Even if you stay in the rower's frame of reference, it costs an increasing amount of energy to push on the water as it starts going by faster. Melchoir 01:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, the math makes it equal to 500,000 too. K.E. = ½(m)(v²)= ½(100)(100²)= 500,000. --AstoVidatu 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, so on the second stroke the energy required is 50 newtons times 2 meters since the boat is moving at 1 meter per second? --71.7.199.126 02:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the rower exerts exactly 50 newtons of force during the time it takes the boat to move exactly 2 meters, then yes. However, I wouldn't count on that being the case, since the boat is accelerating during the stroke. Given simple starting assumptions about how much momentum the boat gains after each stroke, it is much easier to just calculate its kinetic energy before and after, and subtract. And remember, this is just the energy required to move the boat; you'd have to do a more sophisticated analysis to add in the additional energy that gets wasted in the water. Melchoir 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this question stems from a running (amicable) disagreement with my girlfriend. she, when boiling water (e.g. a teakettle), prefers to use a medium or low flame, believing that it conserves natural gas. i prefer to use the highest possible flame: i think one needs X amount of heat energy to raise the temperature of Y amount of water Z degrees, and one has to burn the same amount of gas to produce that much heat whether one burns it quickly or slowly. which one of us is correct? 67.68.215.151 01:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both. At low flame, heat energy is lost due to cooling basically as a function of time and ambient temperature. At high flame, heat is lost simply because the pot can't capture it all and it's wasted. So there is an opimal point. Personally, however, my time is more valuable than the natural gas and I will put it on the largest flame that the pot can cover. That's the quickest boil.--Tbeatty 01:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need the optimum energy transfer rate from the flame into the water. This means that you should use an electric kettle! 8-)--Light current 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be rather easy to tell if you are wasting heat. Since it isn't being absorbed by the kettle, it must escape around the kettle. You will be able to feel a draft blowing out from underneath it. The optimal temperature will be at a point where very little heat rushes out from under the kettle. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! i'll keep these answers in mind next time this comes up. 67.68.243.140 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flame should be almost completely blue. Yellow and orange indicate inefficient combustion. -THB 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that whether it is winter or summer makes a major difference (assuming you're in a temperate zone):

• In summer, the escaped heat must be countered by increased air conditioning, at a high energy cost.

• In winter, the escaped heat warms the house, reducing the amount of heat needed. If it's a gas stove and you have gas force-air heat, it's even more efficient to heat your home with gas burners than with the furnace, as they don't suffer from the inefficiency due to the venting of the combustion products. Of course, those fumes are toxic in large quantity, so completely heating your home in this manner would be unwise.

One final thought, covering the pot also makes a huge difference in how quickly it boils and how much energy is used. StuRat 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the gravity of a body in space increases (say from the accommodation of material coming from outer space) and the orbiting bodies would have to increase their orbital velocity in order to maintain their orbit and there is no limit on the size of a neutron star except the total amount of mater in the Universe is there a neutron star size at which its gravity is so great that no particle, not even one orbiting at the speed of light would have sufficient velocity to maintain its orbit? Adaptron 01:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna think and write at the same time, so go with me here. Centripital Acceleration has to be equal to gravity in order for the object not to fall into the star. C.A. = (v²)/r. The speed of light is equal to 299,792,458 m/s. And gravity is equal to (G(m))/r² (assuming that the particle speeding around the star has inconsequential mass). Thus if (6.67 x 10^(-11))(mass of neutron star)/(r²) > (299,792,458)²/r; or if (5.99 x 10^28)(radius) < mass, then even stuff travelling the speed of light should be sucked in. I think we call them black holes (?). Note that r is measured in meters, and mass in kg. --AstoVidatu 02:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC a Neutron star is one that lacked sufficient mass to become a Black Hole. Therefore there is a maximum/critical size where a neutron star will collapse. See also Chandrasekhar limit--Tbeatty 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Schwarzschild radius. --Tardis 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this point of collapse of a Neutron star into the formation of a Black Hole then be the point at which no particle, not even with an orbital velocity of the speed of light, be able to maintain its orbit and if so what size would the Black Hole have to be so that no particle in the Universe could maintain an orbit? Adaptron 02:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As for your second question, "size" isn't the proper term, since the radius of the event horizon depends on the density mass of the object in question - like Tardis suggested, Schwarzchild radius describes that better. The dependence of the Schwarzchild radius on mass ultimately means that a sufficiently large object of any density can become a black hole. And black holes have a large range in sizes.

For a little bit of extra fun, there has been at least one documented instance of a white dwarf which exceeded the Chandrasekhar limit, for reasons which have yet to be documented fully.

Just been reading a few recipes for locust on the web and I'm now wondering why people who live in areas affected by plagues of locusts don't just go out and gather these fat, tasty, nutritious insects by the sackful and use them as a food source to replace the crops consumed by the swarm. AFAIK, locusts can be ground into flour and used to make bread, can be eaten as meat and also keep for a long time if dried. Why the big panic about them? --84.69.57.172 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but if I had spent two months plowing, planting, growing, and watering my crops, I wouldn't want them to be eaten. Also, one must consider that not everyone shares your interest in eating insects. I know they have lots of protein, but a lot of people, for some reason, don't find the idea of eating locusts appealing. ;) --AstoVidatu 02:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A much better idea is "Locusts as Bait for Food for Humans." Teach cows/pigs/sheep/fish/chicken to eat them. --Tbeatty 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God told the seagulls to eat locusts. --Kurt Shaped Box 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just squeamishness. If people actually tried them, they'd probably like them. They had a rat problem in Vietnam not so long back. In order to counteract this, the government started a campaign urging people to eat more rat meat - it worked. Just about everything that crawls or walks is food. If the human race is going to survive, we'd better start realizing this. --84.69.57.172 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Galah? Those things are apparently almost completely inedible, no matter how you cook them. --Kurt Shaped Box 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's nothing about insects that makes them inherently less appealing as food than carcasses of dead animals. If appearance is the problem, you can always process them into something that doesn't look like insect bodies. --71.244.111.101 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting point. There is no real reason why the majority of species that we consider to be pests cannot be used as food, if we drop the 'I don't like it - even though I've never tried it' thing. I'm sure that even rats and street pigeons can be made palatable and safe to eat if prepared in the correct manner. Same with starlings and house sparrows in the US - and obviously Australian rabbits. It's a simple solution and the Vietnamese had it spot on - "if there's too many of them, dine on them exclusively for a time to 'thin the herd'". --Kurt Shaped Box 06:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a practical reason to avoid eating small animals. The amount of work to "gut" them becomes greater relative to the amount of meat produced. Thus, most small animals aren't eaten at all or are a rather expensive treat. For insects, however, people eat them whole, assuming that the bacteria in their gut won't be a problem. I'm not quite sure why that's the case. StuRat 18:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there would be considerable difficulty in gathering the locusts once they've taken to flight. They could, however, be gathered while still on the ground. Since they all move in one direction, on the ground, I would think collection trenches could be constructed for this purpose. If people don't like eating them, they could be ground up (the locusts, that is) and used as protein supplements for livestock or as fertilizer for crops. StuRat 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could find it but there are communities that eat locusts. I saw a video clip of a village in Africa with a huge pile of locusts that the locals had gathered using long "net fences", the women of the village were coming up to the pile and scooping up bowlfulls to take back home.Vespine 04:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many societies that eat insects - grasshoppers are apparerntly common in rural cuisine in Mexico with some fancy restaurants in Mexico City serving insects as well. The Yemeni Jews are said to be the only Jewish group to retain the knowledge of which locusts are "kosher" which is mentioned in the very short "Locusts as food" section of our locust article. I think that they would be rather easy to collect by nets in the air. In the U.S. Midwest we sometimes have cicada barbeques during the largest brood emergences (just google "cicada recipe") Rmhermen 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locusts are supposed to go well with wild honey. Edison 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching through the Electromagnetic Radiation article. It lists properties but I am not sure where to identify the origins of electromagnetic radiation 69.150.209.13 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accelerating charged particles. --Tbeatty 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources, depending on the frequency. Stars are one source of certain frequencies, as the radiation is given off by atoms undergoing fusion or decay. Neutron stars, supernovae, and black hole accretion disks given off other frequencies of EM radiation. There are also man-made EMs and some "background radiation" remains from the Big Bang. StuRat 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if this is for school you fill in the blank with "accelerating charged particles." :) You know light counts as EM radiation? Photons are often created in subatomic reactions, symbolized by gamma X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerating charged particles aren’t the only source, though, right? Particle-antiparticle annihilation will create EM radiation. So will switching from a high-energy to a low-energy orbital. Anyway, if you’re looking for specific examples: humans, TVs, mobile telephones, light bulbs, and fire are some of the obvious ones that come to mind as I glance around the room. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simpliest answer: highly energetic objects. You won't get much radiation leaking out of a nuclear core, if you dropped it down a glacial crevasse. Surround it with high explosive, detonate that, and you've got a rather different scenario. -- Chris 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic radiation is one of the four fundamental fources of the universe. To get into what causes there to be four fources and not five and what gives each force its properties is something that can't be answered with surety. superstring theory has an answer to this but is, at the moment, an untestable theory. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the use of wikipedia I have analyzed that the sun is the main source for electromagnetic radiation, it is mostly composed of hydrogen and helium, which seems to give its nuclear fusion reaction. So does nuclear fusion also cause electrons jumping orbitals, hence releasing electromagnetic radiation? 69.150.209.15 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "jumping orbitals" is the right term, as both hydrogen and helium posses a single S orbital, with a single electron in that orbital in the case of hydrogen and two sharing the orbital in the case of helium. StuRat 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help because I am stumped. Strontium, SR(Number 38) is especially dangerous to humans because it tends to accumulate in calcium-dependent bone marrow tissues, CA(#20). HOW does this fact relate to what you know about the organization of the periodic table? I missed this on a test and he will not give us the right answer, so I would just like to know why I was wrong because I have no clue. Thanks!!!!

It's answered on the Strontium article.--Tbeatty 02:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your teacher being unwilling to tell you what the correct answer is, that is rather unacceptable, in my opinion, both because it's counter to the overall purpose of education and because students have a right to double-check the grading process, as teachers often make mistakes. I suggest you discuss this with your parents, and have them complain to the teacher and school administration. You might, however, wish to have them wait until the end of the school year, after grades are all in, so he can't retaliate against you. StuRat 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

odd isn't it. given that school-level chemistry these days is often taught by non-chemists, kind of makes me think the teacher is unsure of their own answer. 132.181.173.233 04:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad teachers are universal. You never forget them. I used to be good at Chemistry at school - then I had a crap teacher in my final year who screwed everything up for me, completely turned me off from the subject and didn't get around to teaching us everything we were supposed to know for our exams (he also hit me with his car one time - but that was unrelated). I failed miserably. --Kurt Shaped Box 07:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am surprised that your teacher could not just admit to the phrase "They're both in Group 2". G N Frykman 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Abbreviations of elements in the periodic table are only written with a capital first letter. The second one is never capitalized. (so it's Sr and Ca instead of SR and CA) - 131.211.210.17 10:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

                       CENTRIFUGE TO SEPARATE COCONUT OIL FROM COCONUT MILK.

I wanted to do above with a motor of RPM 23000, and 1500 W mounted on a Cylinder of 2 ft. heigh and 6" in diameter.In this case Cylinder (bowl) is stationary and it is the roter which revolves the coconut milk with in the Cylinder. I made small holes on the shaft of the roter to bring down the oil if separated from Coconut milk.I used racers and water seals at the top lid of the cylinder and at the bottom of the cylinder, in the mechenism,in order to do this experiment. Also made two ports on upper level of the cylinder and outer (at loverlevel) edge to expell the water and heavy particles respectfully. How ever much I adjusted the shape the size and vertical level of the roter (FAN) I did not get any liquid (expected oil) through the hollow roter shaft with which provided holes to enter oil in to it.I expected to drain out oil through the rotor shaft down wards. The Coconut milk sent to the cylinder moves up to the discharge port provided on the cylinder [to expell only the denser liquid (Water)] without doing any separation . In other wards no liquid touched the roter shaft after passing the upper or lower level of the roter. My question is - What steps and adjustments should I do in order to keep the coconut milk rotation in the cylinder as a whole in order to get the separated oil without being liquid taking a parabolic shape at the middle ?. (Coconut milk which has 30 % oil is a juice extracted by pressing fresh coconut.

--Ishitha777 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Thank You. K.Samarasinghe.[reply]

I'm not an engineer, but I am pretty familiar with machinery, pumps and blue prints, that kind of stuff; I don't think I'm being unreasonable by saying your description is really, really hard to understand, you lost me on "small holes on the shaft of the roter"... I am not particularly familiar with centrifugal separation techniques so someone that is may be able to make more sense. Otherwise, maybe draw a diagram. Vespine 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for you to post a link to a drawing of this contraption? Here's a link to a coconut milk centrifuge: X but it doesn't show the actual mechanism. I don't think you can avoid the parabolic shape--my blender makes the shape unless the liquid is too viscous. My thought is that cold pressing would be easier. -THB 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here you go: [4] and [5] have the info you need. -THB 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the effects of someone jumping from behind you and clapping their hands against your auricles? I hope you know what I mean. X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd hurt and there's a chance that it might burst your eardrums? We used to do that all the time at school - we called it "Tangoing" (after the UK fizzy drink - one of the ads for Tango had a fat guy running up to people and ear-clapping them). AFAIK, the kids are still "Tangoing" each other. There was a rumour that someone had once been "Tangoed" to death that everyone seemed to have heard but I think it was just an urban legend. The ad got pulled because everyone was copying it (video here). --Kurt Shaped Box 06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought WP would have an article on boxing ears (which is an older term for it), but apparently it doesn't (at least not that I can find). In addition to causing pain, ear boxing can cause some disruption of the eardrum(?) or inner ear, which can disturb the balance of the person being hit. In rare cases, it can also burst the eardrum, leading to permanent deafening - this is unlikely, though. Some of the (nonfictional) devices in the sonic weaponry article may have descriptions of similar effects.

The Tango advert got pulled after a child had his ear-drums perfurated. So, I wouldn't suggest trying it out! Englishnerd 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC). Also if you are jumping out at the person, there is every chance they could get some, albeit mild, whiplash. Englishnerd 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pain, anger, retribution, ad infinitum. -- Chris 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some research into MOSFET oxides, but the samples I have have phosphorus doped source and drain, on a very lightly phosphorus doped silicon substrate.

I was wondering what effects having all N-type regions will have on the threshold voltage. In the threshold voltage page the definition is the voltage required to push all the majority carriers away from the gate creating a depletion layer (at higher voltages the inversion layer forms). But I don't really have an inversion layer do I? And my majority carriers aren't pushed away. My results do show a threshold voltage at about 0.3 volts, and yes the thing works.

One more question, often one finds references saying that the inversion layer comes from minority carriers in the substrate, but this feels wrong to me? Does the 2DEG come from the source and drain or the substrate? In my case it may be both right?

Thanks very much, Frontier

Depletion mode mosfet. Tbeatty 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not always on. There's still a potential barrier when no gate voltage is applied and no current flows. I did a Hall analysis on it and found 0 carrier density at positive 0.2 volts on the gate.

What's the gate material? And then look at the work function difference.--Tbeatty 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're all silicon dioxide. Some are thermally oxidised (dry, wet, dry). Others use other oxidation texhniques. The base is very lightly doped. It's almost intrinsic.

Gate material is usually polysilicon and there is a work function difference between the bulk and the gate due to doping differences. This is MOS, there is no base. --Tbeatty 08:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry I answered a different question. I oxidised a lightly phosphorus doped crystalline silicon substrate in an oxidation furnace; that was the field oxide. Then etched holes for the source and drain with HF, indiffused phosphorus, etched the gate region again with HF, reoxidised in a furnace the gate oxide, then evaporated aluminium for the gate contact. There's more to it than that, but yeah.

Ok, I watch too much CSI but how long can HIV remain viable after the hosts' death? And, do different viruses have different within-host postmortem survival rates?? --Cody.Pope 06:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that people got HIV from blood in blood banks, probably a good long time.--Tbeatty 08:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different situation, because donated blood is processed and refrigerated to keep it fresh and 'alive'. Anchoress 08:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's a preservative and anti-coagulant added to blood. Not sure what else is done to whole blood. I'm not sure it's any more "alive" than uncoagulated blood in dead people though. --Tbeatty 08:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, HIV can't survive in coagulated blood. So it probably won't survive very long in a cadaver. WB Frontier 09:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder: would you get AIDS from eating steak from a poz corpse? I reckon it wouldn't do much good for your immune system, at any rate. -- Chris 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you break out the Chianti and fava beans, let me advise against this idea. A virus isn't really "alive" in the sense that it actively does anything, it just "exists". It's existence tends to cause copies of itself to be produced, however, in the right environment (a primate's body, in the case of HIV). So, the question is, how long before it would degrade to a point where it couldn't cause copies of itself to be produced. I would expect the body would need to be in an advanced state of decomposition for this to be true. I believe, however, that the virus is damaged by oxidation if exposed to atmospheric oxygen. So, drops of blood which have dried out are probably not potential sources of AIDS (although they may contain other contagions). StuRat 17:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any virus is guaranteed to be destroyed by enough heat, and the heat of a frying pan is almost certainly enough to destroy HIV. So the answer would probably be "no" as long as the thing is cooked properly. Somebody out there probably knows the exact temperature at which HIV denaturates irreversibly, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 100 C - even the most hardy of RNAs and DNAs melt at less than that. That said, drying is not necessarily enough to denaturate viruses. It's not unreasonable that a drop of dried blood could still be infectuous, at least for perhaps a day or two. --BluePlatypus 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drying does imply oxidisation and HIV is vulnerable to oxygen, so my 'guess' would be that HIV would not survive drying. As for the eating, assuming you are having HIV tataki (very rare) I believe the oral contract rate is quite low. The mucus membranes of the mouth and following tract can absorb the virus but I believe the chance of that happening is relatively low. After that the stomach acids are definitely too much for the virus. I say 'low' but it is still something I wouldn't be willing to personally test! Vespine 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, drying does not imply oxidation. Whatever gave you that idea? Drying implies the loss of water. And for a virus, it doesn't even imply that, in the short term. If you go read the HIV article, you'll see that the virus is contained within a lipid envelope, which does a good job of keeping it from dehydrating (in the short term). And there's no reason to "guess" because there's plenty of experimental evidence on the fact that HIV can remain infectuous for days after being dried. See, for instance van Bueren, et al (J Clin Microbiol. 1994 February; 32(2): 571–574) --BluePlatypus 22:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is the tides vigrous during no moon day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.11.77.8 (talk • contribs) .

A new moon is when the moon is directly in line with the sun, thus only the dark side of the moon is visible from earth. Since the moon and sun are in a line (called Syzygy), their gravitational attractions both work together to make a stronger tide, called a spring tide. --TeaDrinker 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just 'cuz you don't see the moon, it don't mean it ain't there. -- Chris 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gravitational attraction of the Moon pulls on the water regardless of the position of the Moon. The gravitational force travels right through the Earth, so the pull exists even when the Moon is on the far side of the planet. The only difference in the pull (other than the direction) would be because the Moon is slightly farther away (the diameter of the Earth) when on the far side. Compared to the orbital distance of the Moon, however, the diameter of the Earth is small. Also note that the Sun has an effect on tides, as well (although less than the Moon, due to it's much greater distance). StuRat 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has something to do with Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#boiling_water_and_conserving_energy. I wonder if it is more effecient to boil water in a microwave oven than on a stove with optimal flame ?--Wikicheng 13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "optimal flame"? —Bromskloss 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the power output of your microwave, compare it to the joules released through the combustion of gas.

Yes, it is more efficient, as microwaves specifically heat only water molecules (well, they also heat metals, but hopefully you don't have any of those inside), whereas the stove also heats the pot and air. However, using the stove may still be less expensive, because natural gas typically costs less per unit of energy than electricity. StuRat 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - an editing conflict. For you to use a microwave oven there must be a power station somewhere nearby which burns that same gas you are trying to save, to produce electricity that your microwave oven consumes. What you are asking is whether the power plant is more efficient than your gas stove in bringing a given amount of water to a boil. The ansewr is: I don't know, but it's easy to check. Follow these steps:

1. Find out how much gas it takes to boil the kettle. To do so, take your montly gas bill. Divide the total quantity of gas consumed (per month) by the estimated time (per month) your stove is lit, and multiply by the time it takes to bring the kettle to a boil.

2. Find out how much electricity it takes to boil the same amount of water in a microwave oven. To do so, multiply the power rating of your microvawe oven (in watts) by the time in seconds it takes to bring the water to the boil. The result is in Joules.

3. Burning a cubic meter of natural gas yields approximately 39 megajoules. Efficiency of a typical fossil-fuel power station is approximately 40%, so that's about 16 megajoules of electricity per cubic meter of gas. (see "energy content" section of Wiki natural gas article, and "Super critical steam plants" section of Wiki Fossil fuel power plant article for these data and much more).

4. You do the math :)

Let us know what you've got. Dr_Dima

Note that electricity is typically produced by some method other than burning natural gas (since natural gas is quite useful as is). Those methods include burning coal, nuclear reactors, hydroelectric plants, etc. Also, the monthly natural gas usage is likely to include their oven, furnace, water heater, and possibly clothes dryer. Pilot lights for those devices may also burn gas, even when the devices are not in use. StuRat 18:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some references to weather records dating back to 1816 (the 'Year Without a Summer'), but I've been unable to find them. I am looking for day-by-day temperatures in New England that year, because I want to determine just how anomalous it really was, and do some analysis of the weather pattern. Any way to find weather data back to 1816 would be greatly appreciated.

-[User: Nightvid]

The wiki article is here. I can't help you otherwise, what you are asking is pretty specific. It might be best to ring the New England meteorological group to see if they have it in their archives. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although NASA is usually the best place for this, it seems in the New England region it only goes back to 1880. I don't have any data, but I'll advise you that a day-by-day temperature record, of a single year, and of that time is

• highly inaccurate
• fairly useless

Brian Fagan's book could help? Good luck. X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, wise guys. I have read something about "Lewis acids", etc. but found nothing like "Lewis conjugate" which Señores Hernando et al. chemisorbed on gold in this article: PRB 74 052403. Thanks for your time. 193.232.124.163 13:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want Conjugate acid, except that the article mostly deals with the Brønsted-Lowry definition. Still, a redirect shouldn't hurt. (There are also conjugated Lewis structures, but I don't think that's what is meant here.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I chased down the cited article, and they seem to mean a conjugated system after all. Now I'm getting confused. I think I'll turn that redirect into a disambiguation page for now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ilmari. I'll try to figure out. 193.232.124.163 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question is concerned wthh silicon controlled rectifiers. I don't seem to understand the theory of SCR's too well - but that I can get over, I will study a bit more. As a side question, are there any specific pages which explain the theory and working of SCR from the basics ? The wp page is more like a reference than a step by step explanation (which is how it should be)

My question has more to do with the application of SCR - What are the advantages of SCR over an equivalent diode only rectifier ? In fact, the way we were taught in school, seems to suggest that the output voltage of SCR is "clipped" in the beginning by "alpha" degrees, where alpha is the delay after which a triggering voltage is applied to the gate terminal. Would that not lead to decrease in the output voltage ? Why then, is it said, are SCR's more useful than normal diode-only rectifiers ?

Thanks. --RohanDhruva 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is in the name: Silicon Controlled Rectifier. More useful because they are controllable as to the part of the cycle at which they start to conduct and therefore they can be used to vary the amount of power delivered to an electrical load. Ordinary diodes cannot do this. (they always turn with about 0.6 volts forward across them)

The average power delivered to a load depends upon the (square of the) average voltage supplied (See RMS). If you can vary the 'time on' to 'time off' ratio, you alter the time average of the voltage applied to the load and hence the average power.8-)--Light current 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an in-depth discussion, see http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_7/5.html or our article at Silicon-controlled rectifier. --Jmeden2000 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the response, that explains it ! :) --RohanDhruva 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH KENTUCKY'S SOIL 208.61.241.196 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, do not type in all caps - it is very rude.

Second, the answer to your question is mu. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you've linked to a monster of a disambiguation page, right? Presumably the one you meant was mu (negative). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's wrong with Kentucky soil. Leave the land how it is for twenty years, and you'll see all sorts of wonderful things sprouting up. Perhaps, not things that you would fancy eating, but I'd wager that there'd be plenty of pretty vegetation. At worst, you could burn that, then your soil will be good again for a few years. -- Chris 16:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any specific info on soil deficiencies common in the US state of Kentucky. However, if you contact the Kentucky Department of Agriculture, they should have info on potential problems and solutions: [6]. StuRat 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT A DAMN THING. Some people have good luck growing bluegrass, which at least looks nice. Some grow Tobacco, some grow Cannabis (drug), or hay. Farmers grow tomatos and other veggies, corn, & soybeans . Except for the floodplains of major riversand, much of the soils lacks the deep black humus seen in, say Minnesota, and there is a lot of clay soil. But it generally has abundant water and a long, warm growing season. Acid soils are supposed to be good for growing popcorn.

How does the oxygen bond to the nytrogen? I´ve learned the oxygen can only have two covalent bonds, and the nytrogen, three. If two electrons from each are in the bond, the nytrogen doesn´t have its octet complete. What happens, then? A.Z. 14:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that unpaired electron is what the article means when calling the molecule a free radical. Melchoir 15:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitric oxide is a somewhat unusual molecule in that it has an unpaired electron, making it technically a free radical, but an unusually stable one. It structure is best analysed using molecular orbital theory. Effectively, NO has three filled bonding orbitals and one half-filled antibonding orbital (see f.ex. page 8 of this PDF), meaning that there are, in effect, 2.5 bonds between the atoms. For a more in-depth study, see for example this article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now that last paper is interesting. To me anyway. (Although it's a bit old and the theory is low-level) Unfortunately it doesn't give a population analysis (although this is much more advanced stuff than what the original question was about). But FWIW, the picture in the Nitric Oxide article, with the dashed third bond is misleading. A better one would be *N=O, because (and the article makes the point) it's not significantly contributing to the bonding; The unpaired spin population is highly concentrated to the nitrogen atom and the (Mulliken) bond order is 1.9 and not 2.5. --BluePlatypus 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two normail bonds are shared, and you can also have dative donding, where only one atom contributes electrons in this case, they share an electron from the oxygens now complete outer shell, in order to also complete the nitrogens outer shell. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information that the molecule is not stable is good enough for me. The other things you said are a little bit harder for me to understand and, even though I would really like to study those advanced matters, I have no time to do it right now. Thank you very much! A.Z. 16:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense that an area of space with more matter has a greater density. Does this mean that absolute density is matter without space and if so what would matter then occupy? Adaptron 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you please elaborate? Dr_Dima

Remember the old comedy routine where someone pushes down on a bed spring and another spring pops up? Absolute values tend to do the same thing. For instance: can you reach absolute zero without also having absolutely no heat? If you think of increasing density as simply the process of removing space then at some point you are faced with the dilemma of having to remove absolutely ALL space - in order to achieve absolute density. 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dare I say your question exhibits absolute density. -- Chris 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and your response absolute space. Adaptron 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean vacuity (Dictionary.com: 2. absence of thought or intelligence; inanity; blankness: a mind of undeniable vacuity). -- Chris 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the gravitational singularity in a black hole an example of "absolute density" ? That is, as far as we know, the singularity is a geometric point, with absolutely no volume, but a finite mass, thus infinite density of matter. Of course, there is a finite volume within the event horizon, so a black hole does not have an infinite matter density if measured in that manner. StuRat 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC) StuRat 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, as you approach the singularity, the density rises asymptotically towrd infinity (the last time I looked). The orig Q, however does not make sense. The Q should have been: Is there a theoretical maximum density? A: No (not as far as we know) 8-)--Light current 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, unless the black hole was actively "feeding", would there be any mass outside the singularity ? StuRat 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe average density of the sphere formed by the singularity at the centre and you on its surface. Sorry wasnt clear

--Light current 18:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black holes aren't actually infinitesimally small with infinite gravitational force, the best we can do with mathematics for now is to arrive at that conclusion. X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it the other way, that, as far as we know, the gravitational singularity is a point of infinite density (as our article claims). We could be wrong, if there is some yet undetected force that prevents the infinite collapse, but I wouldn't assume that to be the case. The only argument for making such an assumption is that it would make things more like those we are familiar with. This isn't a good way to do things, however, as we already know that things behave in bizarre ways at such different scales, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics, etc. StuRat 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of StuRat standing on the surface of a singularity, wouldn't someone who lives in infinity regard us as living in infinity? In other words, is infinity reversible? (Did I just introduce cultural relativism into Kosmology?) DirkvdM 08:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can u please provide me a micropropagation protocol for citrus limon? i need it for my tissue culture work... please.. i tried to search it on thenet but was not able to find the apprpriate results.. please help me!!

Can flea eggs survive and hatch if they are 'squeezed out' of a flea rather than laid by the female? When either my cat or dog has fleas I go for a 2 pronged attack - a good flea collar and regular grooming with a fine-toothed comb (the sort used for head lice is good). the fleas are picked up between the teeth of the comb and then I can pick them up between my finger and thumb to kill them. But, as it's impossible(?) to kill a flea by squeezing between the soft flesh of fingers, I squeeze it between my fingernails instead (I was taught a little rhyme which goes "break their back, they don't come back"). this works well (although is a little messy if you kill a flea which has just fed). However, if you get a pregnant female, squeezing the flea will cause flea eggs to burst from the flea - sometimes quite violently. I'm sure that some must fall back onto the animal. I understand that flea eggs which have been laid conventionally can lay dormant before hatching.

(also, if I might, a related question. Is there any evidence to suggest that fleas know where they're jumping to?)

thanks and sorry for the long question!

simon

• I always found a lighter to be a useful tool in one-by-one flea killing. Roast the ones you catch on the comb. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the egg is ready to be laid, then yes, it may well be viable. I suggest you drown the fleas, instead. Keep a bowl of water next to you and stick them in that. Don't just drop them in, as the surface tension may allow them to stay on the surface, then they could escape when they float to the edge of the bowl. On the other hand, if they are under the surface, it becomes a barrier to their escape. Then flush them down the toilet once done grooming the dog. StuRat 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered abotu vaccuuming the up then spraying insecticide into the vaccuum?

I suspect they may be able to jump out of the way of the vacuum cleaner if still alive. Try powdering the carpet with a flea pesticide first, then wait until they are dead, then vacuum the floor. Keep the kids and pets out of the room while the powder is on the carpet to minimize their exposure. You might want to wear a breathing mask when vacuuming, to limit the amount of flea powder you inhale. ("Vacuuming" = "Hoovering", for you Brits.) StuRat 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: vacuuming, water and insecticide: a) a drop of dishsoap will remove enough of the surface tension to allow the fleas so sink; b) rather than insecticide in the vacuum, use a couple of moth balls; and c) borax is a good (and healthy, and environmentally-sound) alternative to pesticide. Just sprinkle it on your floor (and actually fleas prefer floor cracks to carpets), leave it for a bit (don't recall how long offhand, but that's what google is for), then vacuum it up. Anchoress 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always say take a page out of nature's book: Make like a chimp and eat the fleas, no mess, no fuss, no chance of eggs getting anywhere.. Ok, but really, an ex-housemate of mine once had a cat and he didn't look after it, the thing got so flea bitten I could no longer stand it. I'm not a cat person, but it got a bit hard not to notice when you could see fleas in its FACE when you gave it a pat. Anyway, to get to the point, all I did was get those liquid flea drops that you drip on the back of your animal's neck, after about 3 applications (which were all in the one packet), the cat was flea free. i can't remember the specific one I got but it was something like advantage Vespine 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon,I wash my dogs in Dawn dish detergent,this works well.After I wash them ,I have a cup of hot water with a drop of dawn in it.I pick the fleas off, and put them in the cup this kills them.I find this method works.I hope this helps.Andrea216.218.118.90 01:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)216.218.118.90 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs have less layers of skin than humans, therefore it might be harmful to use dish soap to wash pets. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By this, I mean the kinda thing like a group of fish is called a school, what's a group of Jellyfish called?

According to List of collective nouns by subject I-Z, a "smack of jellyfish" is conventional, with a "fluther of jellyfish" as a slightly uncertain alternative GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booorrriiinnnggg. That should be changed to a "belly" or even a "peanut butter sandwich" of jellyfish. Clarityfiend 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to come up with one for Reference Desk contributors... Vitriol 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....how about a "straitjacket"? Clarityfiend 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "group"? That's certainly the most common one when we're talking about jellyfish. --Bowlhover 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this indentation was about Reference Desk contributors. For some, 'pack' might be appropriate. DirkvdM 08:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "fester" of contributors? Philc _T^E_C^I 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "gaggle" of contributors, similar to geese? A "parliament", similar to owls, sounds far to civilized for us. ;o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'consensus'? OK maybe a 'disruption' or possibly a 'catastrophe'--Light current 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question should be moved somewhere--Light current 02:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could have an 'addiction' of RD contribs I suppose--Light current 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know who developed the technique amniocentesis. The article doesn't say so.

Christopher

I don't know who developed it. Dr. David Brock is well known as the pioneer of the test for checking on the welfare of the fetus. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am asking because one of my biology lecturers, Dr Roger Sutcliffe said something along the lines of him developing it, and I am wondernig if he said that HE had co-developed it.

Christopher

Four different groups of researchers are credited with the dis­covery in 1955 that the sex of human fetuses could be predicted through analysis of fetal cells in amniotic fluid: one each in New York, Minneapolis, Copenhagen, and Haifa (Shettles, 1956; Makowski, 1956; Fuchs & Riis, 1956; Serr, Sachs, & Danon, 1955). A short while later the Copenhagen group became the first to report that they had performed an abortion in order to prevent the birth of a fetus, diagnosed as being male, whose mother was a carrier of hemophilia (Riis & Fuchs, 1960). Pre­natal diagnosis through amniocentesis was, if you will excuse the pun, born; the year was 1960. [7] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is their a way of estimating the amount of thermal energy a person gives out in different circumstnaces, specifically:

1. When doing a sport? 2. When sitting down?

Also how does this amount change depending on the temperature at which this 'act' is being carried out in? i should add for an average person (whatever that is). A general answer will suffice.

Thanks

Me22ac 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All energy that your body used ultimatively ends up as heat. So you can safely use the usual table about how many calories you burn when doing what kind of excercise. For the energy needs withou exercisew, see basal metabolic rate. Simon A. 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the effect of the ambient temperature, I would model it as three independent events:

• Basal metabolic rate, which is energy used to beat your heart, breathe, etc., and which ultimately becomes heat. This is a constant.

• Exercise related energy, which is used by the voluntary muscles, along with an increase in heart rate and breathing rate, all of which also ends up as heat.

• Energy used to maintain body temperature (this only applies to warm-blooded animals). The rate of thermal loss is proportional to the difference in the temperature from the skin to the environment. Wind, humidity, and clothing, of course, also effect the rate of thermal loss.

StuRat 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant to point out that if your energy used to maintain body temperature varies much from the "standard" values associated with room temperature, you notice by, well, feeling hot or cold. So if you're out jogging in winter, dressed more warmly than you would be in summer, but feeling about the same thermally (on average), you should be able to re-use the "normal temperature" jogging statistic. --Tardis 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is a gas turbine engin good for—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.236.116 (talk • contribs)

Chrysler experimented with gas turbine engines in cars for a while. See the link for other uses. StuRat 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High power, light weight, pretty good reliability owing to mechanical simplicity, pretty good efficiency. This makes them widely used in aircraft in the form of turboshaft engines.

Atlant 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the caption for the Finding Nemo trailers right that there are 3,000,000,000,000 fish in the sea? If thats right, thats overwhelming! If it is true, are most of them in the Pacific, the largest ocean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs)

Stuff like this is impossible to prove or disprove. It can be an estimateif they're considering how much of Earth is covered by water (about 70%), and how deep fish can live, and a lot of other factors. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News item: "World's Fish Supply Running Out, Researchers Warn" By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 3, 2006; Page A01

"An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, based on a four-year study of catch data and the effects of fisheries collapses.The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors are wiping out important species around the globe, hampering the ocean's ability to produce seafood, filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease." [8] --GangofOne 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's only 500 times as many as there are humans. And humans are just one (sub)species. If your average fish weighs 200 grams (given that whales aren't fish, there will be many more littluns than bigguns and humans are growing ever fatter) then the total biomass of all species of fish is the same as that of humans. That's frighteningly little if they are a major food source for us. DirkvdM 08:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which technique gives better resolution of proteins by molecular weight, SDS-PAGE or size exclusion (or gel filtration) chromatography? I realize this depends on many factors, but in general which would choose if you wanted good resolution by size? If it makes any difference, I am interested in peptides smaller than 3 kDa. ike9898 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no wonder you're confused: Do you want them by weight or by size? That distinction is quite relevant to which method you should choose. --BluePlatypus 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

i need to know the name of the law that states that the mass of what you end with is the same as what you started with in a chemical reaction —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.48.6 (talk • contribs) .

I think conservation of mass is what you are looking for. --TeaDrinker 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can anyone tell me what species of spider these are? It was in the bathroom. I live in New Haven, Connecticut and I don't often see spiders this big around here. Thanks. SandBoxer 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess some sort of nursery web spider (pisauridae), maybe dolomedes, but how did you expect someone who knows american spiders to figure scale from a queen's coin of no visible denomination? How about we try again with a dime, nickel, quarter, or half dollar? alteripse 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks to be a British 5p, so just gotta figure out how many nickels that's worth to get a USAian physical scale. DMacks 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on identifying spiders with some links that might be useful. Oddly, it doesn't mention bathroom spiders.--Shantavira 08:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - my gut insticnt is to say that it's a 10p coin, but I've measured both for you anyway: 5p - 18mm (diameter), 10p - 24mm. (and now I've found our articles on them - sizes roughly correct). Martinp23 12:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coin may be Canadian (in which case the measurements are 18 mm or 22 mm). Rmhermen 14:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly science, but it is technology. Please tell me if I'm querying the wrong section.

I recently "upgraded" to digital cable, but the diagrams provided by the cable company and box manufacturer don't specify "bypass" methods, so that I have the option of viewing and recording the analog channels as I used to, or to view and record one digital channel. The suggested configuration (from a long time ago, when cable-ready VCRs were new), involves splitting the input cable signal between one feed going directly to an A/B switch, and the other going to the switch through the cable box. Unfortunately, none of my local stores has a coax (cable TV) A/B switch. Since my VCR has an aux video input, I'm thinking of still using the splitter, but, instead of having the "cable" output of the cable box going to an A/B switch, having the video output of the cable box going to the video input of the VCR. Any other ideas? Both the TV and VCR are "cable-ready", but not digital.

Full proposed configuration:

Cable input (from wall) -> splitter -> VCR coax in, and cable box coax in

cable box video out -> VCR video in

cable box coax out (unused)

VCR coax out -> TV coax in

VCR video out -> TV video in

Hence, perhaps I can use the VCR (effectively) as an A/B switch. I don't have all the cabling yet, but, if I understand this correctly, I can

1. record any analog channel and watch any analog channel, by ignoring the feed entirely
2. record a digital channel and watch any analog channel, by seting the VCR to record from line, and using the TV's tuner to process the coax input
3. (optionally) record a digital channel and watch that digital channel, by setting both the TV and VCR to line input.

Have I missed something? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the locale. City is Brea, California, cable company is Adelphia changing to Time Warner Cable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are, you will get nothing but garbage on the VCR if you do what you suggest. Digital cable is a digital signal. It is possible (not probable) that the cable company sends the old analog signal as well as the digital signal. If that is the case, your digital box will give you digital channels and the VCR will give you the analog channels. However, it is more likely that the VCR will not have an analog input and provide nothing. So, the first issue is how the digital decoder is plugged into the TV. Obviously, the cable runs into the back. Then, do you run an analog cable out to the TV's cable/antenna in? Do you instead run a video line out and two audio lines out? If you are running an analog cable out, that can plug into the VCR like normal, looping out of the VCR to the TV. Since the digital box is doing the tuning, you cannot tune to different channels with the VCR - it must stay on channel 3 or 4 (whichever the digital box is set to). If you run video-audio lines out, those have to go into the VCR if it has input for them. Otherwise, you cannot record television. The benefit though is that you can run the antenna-out from the VCR to the TV and play tapes from it by switching the television from aux-in to antenna-in. All in all, your best bet is to pay the extra $10-15/month for a digital recorder addon from the cable company. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have the configuration above with all "cable box" input/output removed, and it works on the digital cable, but it (obviously) can't receive a high-numbered digital channel. (I haven't checked to see if the VCR's cable tuner can pick up the lower-numbered "digital" channels; the TV's cable "tuner" goes up to channel 125....) The "traditional" configuration for a cable box in the pre-cable-ready and pre-audio-video-cable days was:

coax in -> splitter -> cable box in, A/B switch

cable box coax out -> A/B switch

A/B switch -> VCR coax in

VCR coax out -> TV coax in

But no one makes coax A/B switches any more — at least the local stores don't keep them in stock. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your cable company. I'm also in SoCal with TimeWarner-formerly-Adelphia. We have a splitter that was installed by the Adelphia cable guy. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is it cp and not cv? why is pressure always assumed constant ?

Look up adiabatic process and isothermal process. I think they may mean something (to you not me)--Light current 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure is not "always" assumed constant, because there are important physical situations in which the pressure on a system is not constant. In these situations, the formula does not apply. If you consult your original source for that formula, you'll find that it is probably surrounded by text that describes what the formula means and the context in which it should be used. If you must memorize formulas in the physical sciences, make sure that you memorize these critical qualifications as well. Melchoir 15:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Basal metabolic rate

The original equations from Harris and Benedict are:

• for men, ${\displaystyle 66.4730+(13.7516*w)+(5.0033*s)-(6.7550*a)}$
• for women, ${\displaystyle 655.0955+(9.5634*w)+(1.8496*s)-(4.6756*a)>}$}"/>

where w = weight in kilograms, s = stature in centimeters, and a = age in years. (Harris J, Benedict F (1918). "A Biometric Study of Human Basal Metabolism". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 4 (12): 370–3. PMID 16576330.)

What unit is the result of the equation? Watts? Calories per day? Pound force Furlongs per fortnight?

202.168.50.40 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the footnote reference for those equations on that wiki page, you can read the primary-reference article in which those equations were originally published. DMacks 02:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this at the bottom of the article:

• The original 1918 Harris-Benedict article (free full text)

And it does not say. All it says is

An analysis of the data of actual experimentation
on subjects at changing levels of nutrition shows that the changes
in metabolism are not proportional to those in body surface. Surface area
may not be looked upon as a determining factor in basal metabolism.
The closest prediction of the daily heat production of a subject can be
made by the use of the multiple regression equations,
For men, h = 66.4730 + 13.7516 w + 5.0033 s - 6.7550 a
For women, h = 655.0955 + 9.5634 w + 1.8496 s - 4.6756 a
where h = total heat production per 24 hours, w = weight in kilograms,
s = stature in centimeters, and a = age in years. These equations have
been tabulated for values of weight from 25.0 to 124.9 kgm., for stature from
151 to 200 cm., and for age from 21 to 70 years, so that the most probable
basal metabolism of an unknown subject may be easily determined.
Such tables should render service in clinical and other fields of applied
calorimetry. Their usefulness has been demonstrated in testing the typical
or atypical nature of series of metabolism measurements, in investigating
the differentiation of the sexes with respect to metabolic activity, of the
metabolism of athletes as compared with non-athletic individuals, an'd of
individuals suffering from disease.
The detailed measurements and statistical constants, with full discussions
of pertinent literature, are about to appear in Publication No. 279 of the
Carnegie Institution of Washington.

202.168.50.40 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that does tell you it's [somethings] per day already. The first place the article uses the variable h is towards the bottom of page 371, and there it states: "h = total heat production in calories per 24 hours". DMacks 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What metals does Gallium not react with? Would these also not react with Gallinstan?

Gallium also attacks most other metals by diffusing into their metal lattice — another reason why it is important to keep gallium away from metal containers such as steel or aluminum. Gallium metal easily alloys with many metals, and was used in small quantities in the core of the first atomic bomb to help stabilize the plutonium crystal structure. --Light current 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the human race survives long enough, is it possible we could become like the Krell having (essentially) limitless energy and (highly ssuperior) knowledge (stored in WP of course)--Light current 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of related to the idea of transhumanism and the related technological singularity. It has fans but has also been described as "Rapture of the nerds." --Robert Merkel 04:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Krell didn't have "limitless" energy and knowledge, just immense amounts. Any finite amount, no matter how huge is not "limitless." And they appear to have had a major hole in their knowledge of psychology. B00P 05:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, most of that knowledge would be in the form of poor articles about book/movie/televison/game characters ;-) Xcomradex 07:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're attacked by the slimy, ten-tentacled Trivia monsters from the planet Boredom, we'll at least be well armed. Clarityfiend 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we haven't sterilized the planet with nukes yet. The next step in eliminating the Monsters from the Id ...is to convince people to stop electing them. --Wjbeaty 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all!

I was wondering where one might find darkly colored cliffs in Great Britain. Specifically, rough/jagged black cliffs. Also, are there any small ports near these places? I'm working on a story for National Novel Writing Month, and currently have no basis in reality for my setting!

Any help would be much appreciated!

Russia Moore 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about these forboding cliffs? [9] They can be found near the fishing town of Hillswick on Shetland, Scotland. Rockpocket 06:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanage area has several miles of spectacular black rocky cliffs, but they are very much inland.--Shantavira 08:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alum Bay in Isle of Wight. --Light current 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fingal's Cave on Staffa? G N Frykman 10:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I visited Thurso in north east Scotland, they had large dark rock cliffs. I was rather appalled that you could stray three or four or five feet off the footpath (especially to the east of the town) and fall hundeds of feet to the hard rock below, without any railings, fences, or warning signs. Elsewhere in the town they had sudden drops of many feet again without any fences or warnings. Thurso is a port and on the railway, has a lot of tourists, so I expect there is a lot about it on the internet.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stdidona/DCP_8386.jpg --Shanedidona 04:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is 1mm long by the way.

Sure looks like an unfed tick to me but chigger also come to mind. But then I'm not working the reference desk. Just trolling. Adaptron 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither a tick nor a chigger: both of these are arachnids. What you have is some kind of insect. I'm afraid it may be a bedbug nymph. Compare with this image of such a critter that has recently fed. – ClockworkSoul 06:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out aphids.--Tbeatty 07:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or termites. --Dementios

I vote for cereal psocid, or book louse...--Mark Bornfeld DDS 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might we simply settle on insect that ought to be rendered extinct straightaway? Joe 04:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any help investigating these two statistics would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, anon.

In humans? Rockpocket 06:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search comes up with this which investigated a species of compost worm's gut retention time. From the abstract, it seems that they found digestion time is dependant on temperature, and possible other factors. Another article (Jeschke and Tollrian, 2005, Ethology 111, pp187—206) listed migratory grasshopper (Melanoplus sanguinipes) digestion time as 42044 minutes per gram of dry mass, carolina grasshopper (Dissosteira carolina) as 12818 min/g(dry) and undulate winged grasshopper (Circotettix undulatus) as 16011 min/g(dry). I did not read the whole article, just skimmed it to find the result. The article also pulled these results from other sources, so there may be problems with different methodologies. --TeaDrinker 06:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the length of the worm. Depends how well you chew the grasshopper.--Shantavira 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible interpretations of this question:

• How long does it take earthworms and grasshoppers to digest their food ?

• How long does it take humans to digest earthworms and grasshoppers ?

Please clarify which question you meant to ask. StuRat 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how radiation could be reduced from nuclear style rockets such as the Salt Water Nuclear Rocket ? Thanks For Any Help 68.120.69.231 06:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nuclear salt-water rocket should be launched from orbit, such that the exhaust stream does not fall back into the Earth's atmosphere. Thus, the radiation released would be the same, but it would be released into space, not the atmosphere. Of course, even having that quantity of radioactive material in Earth orbit still poses a significant risk. StuRat 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys?need serious help.my chick got an abortion..shiz 18.two dayz after the abortion she was still feeling pain.took her bak to the doc n was told there was some blood in her uterus.she was cleaned again.now she hasnt yet had her periods.when are they suppose to resume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Go ask a doctor. --Tbeatty 08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why give an answer if you don't have one and it's already at the top of the page? DirkvdM 08:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, because it's an urgent question and he should go to the doctor? That's the answer. "Go ask a doctor now" might have been better. Tbeatty 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was the D&C done. Can you give the date. And did she have regular periods before this (this means not abortion, but the present pregnancy !!!)  Doctor Bruno  13:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that we have a real doctor on staff, we should change our boiler-plate at the top... --Zeizmic 15:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what's the conclusion if any? do they exist? or ...what...--Cosmic girl 12:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, anything paranormal is "an observed phenomenon for which there seems to be no agreeable scientific explanation". So you'll just have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself.--Shantavira 13:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they exist. Today's science is yesterday's magic and today's magic is tomorrow's science

Today's science is yesterday's siddhi and today's siddhi is tomorrow's science  Doctor Bruno  13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is science? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sweet...and dr. bruno, would you mind pointing the right direction for me to 'learn them' and test that for myself?.--Cosmic girl 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that any which are actually testable can be easily disproven with a scientific test. For example, being able to fast indefinitely without starving has been disproven. StuRat 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like 8 of the 9 main siddhis would be trivially easy to test (Raise the dead. Turn lead into gold.). The only one that would be hard is Kanakdhara Siddhi (acquiring immense wealth - maybe we should ask Bill Gates about that one). Clarityfiend 16:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahhaaha!....yeah, totally...but it would be neat if they existed. :P --Cosmic girl 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "paranormal", do you mean ghosts and UFOs and the like? There's been no solid evidence for them, so it's better to assume that they don't exist than to assume that they do. --Bowlhover 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To learn more of the siddhis, see the classic Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, section 3 (a quarter of the book). There are many English translations, such as How to Know God by Prabhavananda and C. Isherwood, or The Science of Yoga, Taimni. Or see many other works on yoga. Buddhagosa's Path of Purification, (early Buddhist work) I'm told has many exotic states listed. Then there are the "Six Yogas of Naropa", in the Indo-Tibetan tradition. There must be millions of yogis in India; how many have accomplished the siddhis? For a contemporary Western take on this, see The Future of the Body: Explorations Into the Further Evolution of Human Nature by Michael Murphy, follower of Sri Aurobindo, and co-founder of Esalen Institute --GangofOne 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why am I now getting more (and more severe) coughs, colds and chest infections than I did when I smoked 40 cigs a day? --Kurt Shaped Box 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read (mindful of the disclaimers lol), constituents of cigarette smoke anesthetise the lungs, preventing them from cleaning themselves. After you quit, they 'get bizzay' moving the junk up and out. Anchoress 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think of them as withdrawal symptoms, much like when an alcoholic stops drinking. StuRat 16:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly been coughing up some interesting shades of green, brown, grey and red. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on quitting! Some people have a really difficult time avoiding nicotine. Oh, and your dentist will love you for quitting. - Dozenist talk 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if you really are coughing up anything red you should see a doctor. You may have a lung infection or worse. --Cody.Pope 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It's because I've been hacking up so hard. As is life... --Kurt Shaped Box 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be coughing up tar for a few months, it is your lungs repairing themselves. Enjoy it, that's some disgusting stuff you are ejecting from your body :) --liquidGhoul 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have heard that your lungs take about 10 years to fully recover, but I doubt you'll be coughing for that long. I noticed a significant difference after a few weeks myself, but I wasn't that heavy of a smoker. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Months? Years? Awwww, nuts. How the hell am I supposed to stay quit for that long? I thought that the human body was this fantastic all singing, all dancing, self-healing machine? --Kurt Shaped Box 09:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia's entry for Bernoulli's principle, it says, "It is named after the Dutch/Swiss mathematician/scientist Daniel Bernoulli, though it was previously understood by Leonhard Euler and others." I'd like to know what was previously understood by Euler and others (and who the others were, if possible), and what Bernoulli added. (I asked on the talk page for that article long ago, but no one responded.) Thanks muchJudahH 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli developed the basic tenet of kinetic theory: molecules are in motion. He also knew that flowing fluids exerted less pressure, but didn't connect the ideas logically. Meanwhile, Leonard Euler generalized a rate-of-change dependence of pressure and density on speed of flow. Due in no small part to Euler's empirical findings, Bernoulli then formulated his principle for liquids in modern form. Rockpocket 08:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody advise how much electricity does an Electric Fence use (in Kilowatt Hours over time) - I am thinking of installing one but worried about my electricity bill ! I would guess that it is minimal - only really using electricity through resistance in the circuit ? --Dr snoobab 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fences on the farms I worked on did not have continuous flow. They were like capacitors. They charged up and then, like any capacitor, they didn't use much electricity at all. When you touched it, it discharged and then had to use electricity to charge up again. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound quite right -- more likely the fence was simply intermittently active. I'm pretty sure if you could 'scope the electric fence, you'd see a pretty high frequency ac waveform on the fence for those moments its active.

In any case, I think electric fences are pretty low consumers of electric power; some of them are run from rechargeable car-type (or at least deep-cycle marine-type) batteries.

Atlant 19:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the electric fences I've got, and I think this is typical of many, a pulse is sent through the fence "tape" and back to the generator thingummy (sorry...). Of course, there is a negligable loss of energy through this, affected by resistance, and this will, in part, determine some of the cost. Al of the energy in the pulse is only lost when someone/thing touches the tape (and so grounds the electricy, which travels to earth through the object). So, the number of shocks given is probably the most important part of the cost. As Atlant says above, most electric fences just run off a 12V car battery, which needs replacing every three to six months (or recharging). Really, after forking out for the tape and the generator (and battery), further cost is very low. Martinp23 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See electric fence. The older ones did use AC. The newer ones use a capacitor. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric fences designed to carry potentially lethal currents can be used for anti-personnel purposes. *During World War I, the German occupant of Belgium closed off the border with neutral Netherlands using an electric fence. When the Dutch wanted to escape the evil liberals at home and side with the Germans threw many nuns on the fences to bridge it and marched over to Belgium. What???? Huh???? --Kurt Shaped Box 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the apparent vandalism. Why didn't you, Kurt ? StuRat 20:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had. My browser timed out after I stepped away from my machine. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a thick form of bleach suitable for cleaning shower grout. What would be best to add to bleach to have this effect ? Some possibilities I have handy are wheat flour, powdered sugar, or saw dust. StuRat 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polystyrene chippings? Or is that if you're trying to make explosives? --Kurt Shaped Box 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just buy some thick bleach? Anchoress 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestos in UK is sold as the thickest bleach you can buy. I wont say how thick it is, but its thick!--Light current 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know which proteins were used to generate the original Dayhoff/PAM matrix? Thanks Aaadddaaammm 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dayhoff used reconstruction of ancestral states of 34 superfamilies, on 71 groups of closely related proteins for her PAM250 matrix (finding 1,572 changes). I expect the exact proteins are available in the primary reference (M.O. Dayhoff, ed., 1978, Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, Vol5), but one grouping was of the Immunoglobulin C-region domains. Rockpocket 07:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were swimming around in the middle of the ocean and a waterspout came by... 1) Would it suck you up or pull you under 2) Would you be able to breathe in the mist of the waterspout or would it be so thick that you'd drown? Would you survive?--froth^{T C} 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They vary considerably in strength, but the typical water spout only pulls a water "mist" off the surface and into the funnel. I wouldn't think it would lift a person, but it might be hard to breathe while it was on top of you. If you were lifted up, I would think you would survive until dropped in the water, where the impact would likely kill you. StuRat 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Jurassic Park, the kid gets shocked, but "not bad because he wasn't touching the ground" ... why is dry dusty dirt such a seemingly effective ground.. it's hardly electrically conductive. Is it possible to have electric potential with a non conductive object like the dirt? Or is low conductivity 0 volts by definition? I thought that was a special state, like what a tri-state buffer enters when it's not enabled --froth^{T C} 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ground is usually quite moist just below the surface, so highly conductive. Even ground that appears to be dry still contains a surprising amount of water. StuRat 22:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a ground referenced source of voltage, you can (generally) avoid shock if you yourself are not grounded.--Light current 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever wondered why something that takes electricity is called a ground? Vitriol 23:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No why?--Light current 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called ground (or earth, in Britspeak), because it's literally connected to the ground/earth. StuRat 23:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a reference point. An infinite source or sink for electrons or positive charges but only when the system is connected to it!--Light current 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question correctly, he is asking why the ground is such a good, err, ground. If I remember my physics courses correctly, it is because the earth has such a huge capacity for charge. (Like) charges like to spread out as far as possible. Touching the ground will allow the charges to spread out throughout the earth below you. And since the earth is MUCH larger than you, you will have negligible amounts of charge left (practically infinite sink). But moving the charges creates the voltage and stuff that hurts. --Bennybp 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My son, who is three years of age has a sore on his tongue that is about 3/4 in. long by about 1/4 in. wide. He has not eaten anything out of the ordinary and , to my knowledge has not bitten his tongue, or eaten anything hot in the past few days. It is not too sore to touch, but he seems to have a problem with some foods. (spicy or with too much acid, which seems reasonable)My question is...is there a a cold or virus that would cause this to happen on the tongue? Jennifer Grandy

You would be wise to visit the doctor as we cannot answer medical questions here. Sorry!--Light current 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary herpetic gingivostomatitis, caused by herpes simplex virus, could well cause tongue ulcers, but this would almost certainly be accompanied by other ulcers throughout the mouth as well as constitutional symptoms. Your best bet is to have the condition diagnosed by a dentist or physician.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be an aphthous ulcer (canker sore). howcheng {chat} 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would advice you to consult a paediatrician.  Doctor Bruno  13:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your favourite quantum mechanics interpretation. Will we ever be able to figure out whats really going on ? 82.9.123.200 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely interseting question. Wait a mo.....--Light current 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says in my book in bullet points that GE has increased yields of food. the first two bullet points said it has made plants resistant to diseases and ability to withstand damage. i thought those two bullet points tell how GE helps improve the production of our food. so when it says increase food yields does it mean in another kinda way? or that is just stupid why would it put increase food yields when it already tells you how in the first two bullet points.

It could be telling you that genetic engineering makes plants more resilient, so they don't die as often which increases yield.. not sure what you're asking --froth^{T C} 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Increases food yield" could mean larger heads of grain, fruits, etc., are produced. But that's only one way to increase yield. Another is to reduce the amount of food lost to diseases, storm damage, etc. Thus, the total per acre/hectare is increased, either way. StuRat 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the velocity of a photon from its own frame of refrence the speed of light or zero?

Speed of light, or the question is meaningless. You are asking what speed does the photon think its travelling at? Time stands still for the photon.--Light current 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current's second statement is the technically correct one: the question doesn't really work. The problem is that the photon doesn't have an "own frame of reference." That's because relativity postulates that light moves at c in every frame, but what we mean by a particle's "own frame of reference" is that it's stationary in that frame. Logically, then, there's no such frame. -- SCZenz 00:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

I'm sure I read somewhere that the reason why we can't breathe and swallow at the same time is because we gave up that ability for the ability to talk. Is that so? And is there a Wikipedia article on it? Vitriol 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by "gave up that ability" I meant it was more advantageous to be able to make more complicated vocalisations than to be able to breathe and swallow, so all the breathe-and-swallowers died out yadda yadda yadda you know this by now. Vitriol 00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure I saw somewhere (on TV?) that the human larynx had descended, making it poossible to talk and breathe, swallow etc but not necessarily at the same time

Quote from our page:

Some linguists have suggested that the descended larynx, by extending the length of the vocal tract and thereby increasing the variety of sounds humans could produce, was a critical element in the development of speech and language. Others cite the presence of descended larynges in non-linguistic animals, as well as the ubiquity of nonverbal communication and language among humans, as counterevidence against this claim.

8-)--Light current 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to have backup :D Vitriol 00:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit doesn't answer my question though. Vitriol 01:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt you look up larynx?--Light current 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it would ever have been possible to breathe and drink at the same time, if it all comes down the same esophagus. How would you separate out the air to be sent to the lungs and the water to be sent to the stomach ? StuRat 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some vents do it!--Light current 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. That's why I'm asking you people. Vitriol 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've got all I care about from the larynx article. I figure it would be mentioned in articles about speech and things, but I was wrong, I guess. Vitriol 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you think so, why not add some links to those articles? 8-)

1) Is genetic engineering able to cure cystic fibrosis and types of cancer now?

We're working on it. Possibly. And not us specifically. Vitriol 00:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) What are the risks through eating genetically engineered food.

I wouldn't think there would be any, considering the DNA in our food is obliterated before it enters us and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't do anything. I can only think of allergic reactions and such. Vitriol 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly minimal, but there are some:

• The genetically modified plants could "escape", and outcompete natural plants to extinction. This could leave us with a monocultural plant, with the same inherent susceptibility to disease, much like what has happened, without genetic engineering, for the Cavendish banana.

• If those doing the genetic engineering only focus on attributes which make the food sell, like apples being bright red, at the expense of their nutritional value, this could have a negative effect on nutrition.

• Disease and insect resistant plants will put pressure on those organisms to overcome that resistance, which could then wipe out plants which lack this protection.

StuRat 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) Then is there any risks for genetic engineering itself?

Sure, genetic engineering on humans carries huge risks as well as benefits. Genetic engineering on bacteria and viruses could create deadly bioweapons, potentially racially targeted. StuRat 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that gene therapy has been used to cure cystic fybrosis, but it has to be done in the womb, as you have to affect the cells a few layer below the lung surface, and that is impossible, with current technology, in adults as there are too many cells, and it would severely damage the lung (what a long sentence!). Quite a few of those patients treated, ended up having leukaemia as well, so it is obviously in very early stages. --liquidGhoul 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My science teacher was telling me that in theory you could make chains of as many carbon and hydrogen atoms combined as you want as long as they're all stable. Unfortunately he could only remember the first, methane (CH₄). The wiki article on hydrocarbon lists up to four carbons, butane (C₄H₁₀). What is currently the longest named Hydrocarbon chain? --The Dark Side 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple hydrocarbon chains (single carbon bonds like C₄H₁₀) are called alkanes. I'm not sure what the longest one created is. The article should have some information on what happens as the chain lengthens such as changes from gas to liquid to solid at room temperature.--Tbeatty 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOh. List of alkanes goes up to 100. --Tbeatty 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100? pffft. what you want is ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). it is a straight alkane chain, between 200,000 and 500,000 carbons in length. while methane is good for cooker fuel, UHMWPE makes a great bulletproof vest (aka Spectra in this application). shows you what a few orders of magnitude can do. Xcomradex 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides within the event horizon itself where I might find actual values (to avoid any such response) where can I find a list of the values for temperature, heat (either latent or sensible) volume, pressure, speed of light, distance (diameter) and other such physic characteristics that are presumed to exist within the event horizon of a Black Hole? Adaptron 03:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black holes don't have any of those characteristics. See No hair theorem. —Keenan Pepper 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for diameter and volume. Those are infinitely small; black holes are gravitational singularities. Of course, since no information can escape from black holes, this doesn't matter for anybody outside the black hole's event horizon. --Bowlhover 06:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the event horizon is basically the point beyond which no information can escape. However, things passing through the event horizon won't notice, so gas falling in towards the black hole will still possess whatever characteristics it had when it passed through the horizon (for some time, until all sorts of interesting QM effects start happening when it falls in far enough). Virogtheconq 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)What is your name? 2)What is your title on bacteria scientology? 3)What is bacteria in your opinion? 4)How does bacteria develop? 5)How should people with bacteria growing in their household take care of it? 6)What are the effects of ultra-violet light on bacteria growth?

Thank You.

Hmm, the Reference Desk isn't really a place to conduct internet interviews, I'm afraid. Try the article on bacteria. BenC7 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) My name Jose Jimanez.

2) My favorite title on bacteria scientology is Tom Cruise: Coliform Pathogen or Vapid Proselytizer?.

3) What is bacteria in your opinion? In my opinion, bacteria is God's way of recycling really old men.

4) How does bacteria develop? Bacteria works out in Gold's Gym three times a week and eats very healthy food.

5) How should people with bacteria growing in their household take care of it? Bacteria will thrive on table scraps and a few affectionate words. It's easy to care for and will reward your attention with years of companionship.

6)What are the effects of ultra-violet light on bacteria growth? Bacteria should try to avoid discotechs and other places they might encounter ultra-violet light. Bacteria should also avoid second-hand smoke, which might also stunt their growth. - TraumaMama 03:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's Jose Jimenez. Clarityfiend 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two quesitons. 1) What is the significance, in the scheme of things, that water has a relatively high melting and boiling temperature? I thought that perhaps if the melting point was lower (colder), there would be less polar ice and therefore less land. But life would still be around. Any other ideas?

2) I currently have written, "Most life on earth is in the oceans", but I suppose that would depend on how it is measured (I seem to remember reading it somewhere...) So, how can I rephrase this statement to make it more accurate? (e.g., "If measured by amount of biomass, most life on earth is in the oceans", or "If measured by number of species...") If it is not true by any measure, I can always say "A large portion of life on earth is aquatic..." but then I would probably want to say approximately how big that portion is. BenC7 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have an effect on beings that are made up of water, like humans. Certainly if the boiling point was lower, like 100F, we'd be in deep trouble if we get a fever that high. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if the boiling point of water was lower, life would have evolved to adapt to that lower boiling point. I agree with StuRat's answer (below)--the water cycle must keep going at a fast pace in order to deliver water to most of the world's land. Earth, of course, has the perfect temperature for that to happen.--Bowlhover 06:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wide range of temps at which liquid water can exist is important to life on Earth. And, of course, that range must correspond with the actual surface temps on Earth. StuRat 04:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once told me that if the freeze/boil points of water were any different life would have never evolved on a planet of this temperature. Evaporation and precipitation rates are extremely important to how the ecosystem works and are tied in with the boiling/freeze points. A slightly related fictional work is called Ice 9. ---J.S (t|c) 05:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the significance of having both solid and liquid water available, but I do know that one of the unique characteristics of water is that it expands when it freezes, so frozen water will float to the top of the liquid, which cycles it around and prevents the formation of a large solid mass at the bottom of the ocean. Virogtheconq 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not actually unique; there are quite a few substances that expand on freezing. Water is just the only one that occurs commonly and where this property is so important to us. Others include bismuth (where this property was taken advantage of in hot metal typography) and antimony. --Anon, 11:38 UTC, November 4.

If ice is denser than water, having a giant slab of ice at the bottom of the ocean wouldn't be the main problem. The main problem is that, with nothing to protect the water after the ice above it sinks, the water would freeze, sink, expose the water below it..and the whole ocean would freeze. --Bowlhover 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I meant. It's been a long day =O). From my limited recollection of the last time I studied bio, I think there are several other liquids that have the same properties as water (such as ammonia) but for the expanding as a solid - so conceivably life could exist in environments with little water, but they'd have to be in a very unique environment that has mechanics for cycling frozen material to warmer locations.

Or, the planet's temperature could always stay above the material's freezing point. Liquid ammonia...tasty... --Bowlhover 10:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, just wondering if my ears were normal. Every time I put ear plugs in my ears, I hear them ringing. Even with the silicon ones that just cover your ear-hole, is this normal? Is anyone else like this? Thanks

Doesnt sound normal to me. Maybe you have some hearing damage. See doctor.--Light current 09:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many loud concerts? Tinnitus comes in all degrees; if worsening, see an ENT doc. alteripse 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

howcome one side of six pack is recognisable and the other is fatter and i can't see anything except a big lump. is there anyway to solve this problem?

Have any studies been done on what actually causes the intensity dependent dye effect which causes the curve in MA plots from microarray data? Aaadddaaammm 08:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of being wealthy enough to own a house and garden large enough to keep peacocks. Does anyone know how much land I would need please? Land is expensive in the UK. I suppose part of the problem may be being far enough from neighbours so that they are not disturbed by the noise.

There look to be some useful links at the end of our peafowl article. I think food supply would be more critical than the amount of land, as you will need to feed them anyway. And it would need to be in a sheltered area.--Shantavira 10:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cock peacock's yell is rather quieter than the yell of a hoodie, so if you can't hear the neighbours or the street from the house, they probably won't hear the peacocks - but that does mean a proper country house with grounds; there's really no urban setting where they aren't going to rile the neighbours. And beware the peacocks' bad habits and objectionable personalities - those that live at Dunfermline Abbey habitually march around on the street outside, causing traffic jams when they stop in the middle of the road to yell at motorists. And I'd worry about keeping (rather expensive) peacocks in the countryside too - country folk still have that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall philosophy, so your noisy bad-tempered avian geegaws are likely to end up in someone's pie. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live on the coast and I often see turkey-sized seagulls walking about. Its going to be Christmas in one or two months time so my thoughts turn to wondering to what roast seagull would taste like?

As they often feed at rubbish dumps, they will probably be infected with salmonella, but so are some chickens. Also, killing a free living bird many be no more unethical than putting a battery-chicken or unlit-barn turkey out of its misery.

As I understand it, gull meat is dark, tough and greasy. There's not as much meat on them as it would appear either - they have very thick feathers and puff themselves up. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were edible, people would be eating them. Why not try a nut roast this Christmas?--Shantavira 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, they do eat gull in parts of Scandinavia. In the really cold, desolate parts. Where it's really isolated. Where there's little else to eat meat-wise before they have to resort to the gulls. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks, alligators and crocodiles on most of the nature shows seem to like them uncooked. Adaptron 11:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can a Balck Hole spin fast enough to change the location (radius) of its event horizon? Adaptron 11:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello i was hoping you could tell me about this thermometer thingy my friend got it seems to have simler qualites to the gallilao thermometer it is glass and has a bulb at each end and a curly whirly tube that connects them a blue or green (cant remmber exactly) liquid in one bulb when you put your hand arround the bulb the coloured liquid quickly shootst round the curly whirly glass tube up to the top or down to the bottom its rely cool. i would be well chuffed if you could find out for me thanks