Science desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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

February 13

Sleepiness

I had a bad encounter with sleepiness in math class today. =( So, I went to the Sleep article to answer a few questions that I have about it, but it wasn't there. Anyway, here goes:

Is sleep mostly affected by the external or internal environment?
Can sleepiness or drowsiness be affected by conditions such as hot weather or cold weather? (today, it was snowing) What about climate?
Can drowsiness be affected by the clothes you wear?
Is sleepiness also affected by the tone of voice of the person your listening to? Will a monotonous monologue affect one's drowsiness? (eg boring teacher)
Is the position of the sleepy person affecting that person's drowsiness? Will sitting up make someone more awake, as opposed to someone resting on top of their desk? Or what about leaning back on the chair? Does this have to do with blood circulation?
No matter how hard someone tries to resist, can a person still go to sleep anyway? Is it some sort of involuntary action?
FINAL QUESTION: How can one attempt to stay awake for the sake of learning and passing a very difficult class?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest predictor of sleepiness is the duration of time since your last sleep. 202.168.50.40 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other factors to sleepiness?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots. For women, the menstrual cycle can affect energy levels. Being dehydrated or low on oxygen can make one feel sleepy. Having a poor sleep the previous night can also do so. The frequency, quantity and components of diet can affect some people, i.e; some people get sleepy after a big meal, others when they go too long without eating. I personally find the weather a component, but snow does not personally affect me. Also personally, I find that my relationship to my own tiredness and environment makes a difference. For instance, if I don't want to be somewhere I get tired. If I tell myself what I'm experiencing is boring I get tired. If I tell myself that I'm sure to be tired because of some previous experience (lack of sleep, exertion, etc), I will be tired. Room temperature and lighting can make a difference. And finally and of course, health issues can make a difference; illness, nutrient deficiencies, etc. And BTW, I find that a) sitting up straight, b) taking deep breaths, c) doing eye rolls, d) drinking a big glass of icy water, and e) giving myself a pep talk and following 'energetic' thoughts helps keep me awake. A cup of coffee and a brisk walk help too. Good luck! Anchoress 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepiness and falling asleep are clearly a function of a number of variables. OF COURSE a boring teacher speaking in a monotone about something boring will put you to sleep! If you didn't get enough sleep the night before, all the more so! If you ate fried chicken and mashed potatos and gravy and apple pie with ice cream for lunch and washed it down with a couple of beers, all the more so! If the lights are turned down low and you slump down in your chair and rest your eyes by closing them and it is warm in the room and other people are snoring, all the more so! Remedies: Sit up straight. Concentrate on how important it all is. Take detailed notes. Maintain eye contact with the speaker. Pinch or slap yourself every little bit and play a radio very loud and sing along with it (sorry that is more from having to stay awake while driving). Edison 05:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that I am more tired when it is too hot, or when I am not doing anything, so it seems the obvious answer is to force yourself to do something, then you will be more awake and able to do whatever it is you want to be awake for:) I also find taking something to college to eat during or between lessons helps:)Hidden secret 7 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learn how to enjoy math and you'll stay awake during class. — Kieff | Talk 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found that heat makes me sleepy, so I sometimes remove layers or open a window to stay awake. If I really need to stay awake when I'm sleepy, I eat something pepperminty, or very strong like Altoids. By far the best way to avoid being sleepy in class is to get adequate rest at night. Don't forget that sleep debt is cumulative. -- Beland 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

What happens when an oil pocket near a subduction zone is driven down into the earths core and reaches the molten iron?Or molten rock? It can't burn but does it explode?

No - it can't burn or explode because there is no free oxygen down there. SteveBaker 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then what happens? Will the oil just stay there? Will anything that enters the core stay there untouched?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the huge temperatures and pressures down there, it's likely that there will be some kind of chemical reaction - but it's not going to be 'burning' in the normal sense of the term. There would certainly be nothing left that looked anything like 'oil' long before it got deep enough to reach the molten core. Think about the coal seams being crushed into diamonds - these are drastic chemical and physical changes. SteveBaker 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same with any carbon-rich rock that is digested in the subduction zone: the earth burps! [1] --Zeizmic 12:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oil is made of carbon and hydrogen atoms, and is likely to be chopped up into its constituent parts before getting too far down. Carbon and hydrogen are considerably lighter elements than iron, and are therefore unlikely to be able sink to the core. Imagine a swimming pool that is half-full of marbles. If a person fell into the pool, they wouldn't sink all the way to the bottom, they would more or less just land on top of the marbles, even if there were a downward current in the water. -- Beland 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid mechanics

When water flows out a faucet, the stream narrows on its way down. Why does this happen? Is it related to molecular bonding? pressure? density? - 72.81.251.193 04:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quote me on this, I'm just a high school biology student. My understanding is that water molecules bond to each other due to slight hydrogen bonding between the oxygen and the hydrogen molecules.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine what would happen if it didn't get thinner: the column of water would be coming out at of the tap with a radius of (say) 1 cm at a rate of (say) 10 cm of column per second, yielding 10πr² == 10π cm³ of water per second. But now the column of water accelerates due to gravity to 20 cm of column per second, yielding 20π cm³ of water per second. Where did that extra water come from as the column descended? The only way to resolve this missing water problem is for the stream to get thinner, or break up into droplets or something. It doesn't break up (right away) due to water's hydrophyllic nature, as alluded to earlier. --TotoBaggins 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(In other words, the water accelerates and is going faster at the bottom of the column, meaning there's less water per unit height, which makes the water thinner.) --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember occam's razor. Does the faucet in question have an aerator? Perhaps the copious air bubbles introduced are merely coming "out the sides" as it were. The water meets in the middle, because of it's surface tension. ToTo's explanation is completely correct, but may be less pronounced in the 40cm fall to the basin. ^tucker/_rekcut 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy Question?

Have used your web site to try to find a few Astronomy questions I have had in the past. I was trying to find out more information about the Hertzsprung-Russell Aurora, which Sankyparikh 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) is a chart that tells you the magnitude in brightness of stars in the sky, from the Sun to the North star. I was shocked to see that when I did a internet search on the Hertzsprung-Russell Aurora. All I found was a web site to buy a 2007 Astronomical Calendar, which I already have in my bedroom. Can you find out more information on the Hertzsprung-Russell Aurora for me and the many amateur Astronomers like me? Maybe you contact NASA to find out more information about this subject. I hope you can find out more information about the Hertzsprung-Russell Aurora, because I am curious about this subject.[reply]

Will —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.190.26.224 (talk • contribs).

It sounds like you're talking about the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram,though your calendar presents it in a somewhat artistic format. See that article for information on the diagram. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And an aurora is something completely different, which is why your internet search was not fruitful.--Shantavira 09:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...While a chart that shows you the brightness of the actual stars in the sky is called a star chart. There are some free ones linked from that page you might like to look at. You can quite see a lot with one of those and a pair of binoculars. Spiral Wave 09:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...a chart that tells you the magnitude in brightness of stars in the sky, from the Sun to the North star" Perhaps you mean a list of the brightest stars in the sky? Try list of brightest stars. --Bowlhover 03:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

movie with atmospheric phenomenon?

I was interested in looking up the phenomenon featured in a movie, but now I can't remember what movie it was. Two (male?) characters are talking at the bow of a ship, and they reach a point, probably not very well-traveled, when there's a high-pitched screeching noise. The shot goes to a view of the horizon, water and sky meeting, and the older and wiser of the characters has a name for it and describes it as the world being turned upside down. I feel like it's in some sort of period, maybe fantasy action-adventure movie, and that the thing is called Somebody's something, although that last part might be wrong... Anyone?

The only movie I can think of with "atmospheric phenomenon" is Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, where the Van Allen belt starts burning (a foreshadowing of global warming?). Clarityfiend 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was something pretty recent. But thank you.

It doesn't sound much like the description, but could it have been St. Elmo's Fire (the phenomenon, not the movie)? --TotoBaggins 14:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This scene is from the 2005 film The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. As the title character is untying his shipmates after a pirate attack, Pele, blindfolded, asks "What is that sound? Is that...," to which Zissou replies "The Arctic Night-lights. Yeah. 'As if the natural world's been turned upside down.' - Lord Mandrake. Vikram, get some cutaways of this miracle."

Yeah - but that was a (pretty terrible) comedy - events in that movie are therefore highly likely to be complete nonsense. SteveBaker 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a real thing, I was directing the asker of the question to the correct answer. Why you decided to add additional commentary is unnecessary to this thread. This thread was, as far as I'm concerned, an open and shut case. Your opinions have nothing to do with the question at hand, and should be directed to the film's forums.

yeah, it isn't a real thing. sorry for being interested. but that a terrible comedy means events are nonsense? your "logic" there isn't necessarily logical, and one thing definitely doesn't follow the other. oh, and you're a dumbass.

And you need to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) to make it easier for me to report you to an admin and get you a ban for making personal attacks (See WP:NPA)...but nevermind - I can use the edit history to do that. SteveBaker 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be this? JackofOz 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really was from the Life Aquatic and isn't an actual phenomenon. But thank you very much for trying to help.

Oh, and I was going to write out a big response, Steve Baker, but then I realized it's Wikipedia, and I have other things to do. Like not be "banned" from a website for a "personal attack." So... not be able to see the site from my specific computer for a day or so for calling someone something fairly PG because I disagree with his vague personal opinion on a facts-only science reference desk about a movie? Right.

Death potion...?

Suppose by accident or by anchient or recent medical or legal text you discovered a chemical or virus or toxin or disease that was totally untraceable and acted over time or in a relatively short period of time according to the amount or frequency given then made friends with someone who was rich, got put in there will or became the sole inheritor of their fortune somehow and then did the deadly deed? Sounds like a murder mystery I know but with all the wonderous things that have occurred even before the founding of ancient Egypt, in the present day and most likely into the future is such an untracible, unknown death potion possible? (BTW... this question has nothing to do with the events surrounding Howard K. Stern.) 71.100.10.48 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm… Gold digging the gold digger? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean cyanide? It can be traced. 71.100.10.48 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many poisons. As any reader of detective fiction will know, there are some that are said to be untraceable. There are many more that are undetectable unless you know exactly what to test for.--Shantavira 09:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about untraceable and undetectable with the knowledge thereof passed down from generation to generation and provided to only a very few special and secret elite? 71.100.10.48 10:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's secret knowledge, how would we know about it? -- nae'blis 13:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By being one of the elite and then ratting on your buddies? 71.100.10.48 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iocaine powder, perhaps? --TotoBaggins 14:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be a real poison (versus a stage or imaginary poison) with its characteristics? 71.100.10.48 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing substantial enough to kill a person is really "untracable", in the sense that it should be detectable with the right equipment. It would be rather difficult to determine that a novel compound was the cause of death of a particular person, given how many unknown compounds there are floating around in the human body - unless perhaps it was composed of an unusual chemical element. People might be more likely to assume a death from an unknown microorganism was natural, rather than intentional. It might be difficult (depending on the agent) but not impossible to isolate the microorganism in question.

Consider the social context of the plan, though. If a wealthy person suddenly dies, and it is discovered that someone they have met only recently has become their sole beneficiary, at least some suspicion would be immediately cast upon that person. It is very difficult for such an act to be "untracable", because there are many clues left by the process of discovering, manufacturing, and deploying the poison. It's also hard to be callous enough to actually kill another human being for their money, while being friendly enough to get put in their will, not to mention make someone into that good of a friend that quickly. A better use of such a discovery to gain fame and fortune might be to obtain a patent and investigate its medical and industrial uses. -- Beland 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fats and Cholesterol Levels

I know that taking in saturated fats will boost the level of both HDL and LDL levels (but more of the LDLs) and that'd raise our blood cholesterol levels. However, how do the saturated fats boost the lipoprotein levels?82.33.108.169 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a direct chemical transformation, but some biological mechanism. I'm not sure anyone knows what that is, exactly. -- Beland 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tongue

you know we sometimes (in fact most of the time) get some white stuff on our tongues, and according to Chinese medical theories, more white stuff, means that yu are more sick or something, but what on earth is that, and does it really correlate with one's health? 82.33.108.169 09:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know that white stuff is a bacterial film that builds up over time. Though it can be something worse even a fungal infection. But for the most of us it's just a sign that we should spend more time performing oral hygene. 62.194.90.107 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's plaque. See tongue scraper. (I just answered this relatively recently). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a tongue discoloration called geographic tongue, which is harmless. --TotoBaggins 14:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic tongue can sting and become quite painful. I cannot drink Sprite because it makes my whole tongue throb in pain. To my knowledge, there is nothing that can be done except stop eating and drinking when the geographic tongue pain flares up. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few biology related questions

I've been going to a bio paper where i don't have the answer key for most of the questions. There're a few questions where're i'm not too sure about the answer. They're all multiple choice questions, and i haven't included the answer options which i'm already sure is wrong. Much appreciated if anyone can help me out in any of these.

"Components of the cytoskeleton are: A) composed of subunits made of protein D) observed to coil and contract to cause cell movement." "A" looks like the more correct answer to me, but i'm not sure whether ALL components of the cytoskeleton are made from protein subunits. The cytoskeleton on a whole does cause cell movement, but i think saying the components of the cytoskeleton coil and contract to cause movement is wrong. Which is the correct answer?

The cytoskeleton is made of 3 filament types, actin, microtubules, and intermediate filaments. Actin is used in general locomotion, but only muscle cells have proper contractile units (though they are made partly of actin). The coil compressors are not found inside the cell, but in the ground substance. ^tucker/_rekcut 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The number of different enzymes in a generalized eukaryote cell, such as an Amoeba, may be as many as: A) 80 B) 400 C) 1000 D) 4000" I've got absolutely no clue about this one...
"Ethylene is released from: A) plant meristems B) flowers C) ripening fruit D) all of the above are correct" I know ripening fruit defintely makes ethylene, and plant meristems don't. But i don't know whether or not flowers release ethylene at all.
"In an experiment, auxin at a concentration of 1 part per million was applied to radish seedlings. Stem growth was found to be significantly stimulated. The roots likely showed B) stimulation, but greater than that of the stems C) inhibition D) apical dominance" The logical assumption would be that when the stems are stimulated, the roots would be inhibited. The thing is, I've always learnt the effects of Auxin in terms of when there's high or low concentration...and i really have no idea whether 1 part per million is considered "high concentration" or "low concentration" for auxin.
"The requirements of an animal for gas exchange increase as animals get larger because A) the ratio of its surface area to its volume gets larger C) they have more cells remote from the external environment. " Both should be correct reasons for why requirements of gas exchange are larger for big animals. But i'm not sure which would be considered the more 'significant' reason and therefore the 'most correct' answer. I'd go with C here, but i'd like to hear what anyone else has to say.

This question is, in my opinion, flawed. The classic answer is A, that as height increases by h, surface area increases by h squared and volume by h cubed, but this is why the circulatory and respiratory system evolved. In animals, the surface area of the lung alveoli can be calculated as having a (nearly) linear relationship to the lung displacement. As long as the cardiac output is great enough, adding more volume (of flesh to be perfused) is a matter of adding more parallel units (thus the number but not size of vessels, except perhaps for the few great vessels, is unchanged.) Of course, in very very large animals, this model breaks down, but it is because of the PRESSURES involved, and has little to do with surface area. The heart has to create such a high pressure in the aorta to have a reasonable differential across the capillaries that something gives. Of these two answers, though, C seems more wrong. All animals have circulatory systems capable of bringing nutrients to the deepest of tissues. ^tucker/_rekcut 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C is right; A merely affects how hard it is for sufficient gas exchange to occur. The actual reason is the increased number of cells; I suppose they include the "remote" clause because they're counting only deliberate gas exchange and not that performed "automatically" at an interface. --Tardis 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Haemoglobin is an efficient respiratory pigment in vertebrates because it A) is contained within red blood cells C) is able to form oxyhaemoglobin at high [O₂] " Is haemoblogin contained within RBCs or just on RBCs? I had thought it was the latter, but if that's the case, the answer would be C (option B and option D were defintely wrong options) Option C doesn't sound right either - since it makes it sound like oxyhaemoglobin is only formed at high [O₂2], or is it?

The article says that it makes up 35% of the weight of a RBC, so it can't very well just be on the outside: remember that oxygen has no trouble going through cell membranes. So I think I'd go with A, although it's not clear that such containment is the reason it is efficient. I guess C is wrong with that reasoning too, though, since just oxidizing at high [O₂] isn't going to make anything efficient. --Tardis 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both (A) and (C) are correct statements, but only (C) is the reason that hemoglobin is an efficient respiratory pigment. A respiratory pigment should require a high O₂ for oxidation, because that means at low O₂ the oxygen will dissociate (making it available to low-oxygen-pressure tissues). See hemoglobin for a discussion of the hemoglobin saturation curve and cooperative binding. - Nunh-huh 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Branching of cardiac muscle fibres in the wall of the heart enables A) differences in the speed of the spread of muscle excitation B) a stronger contaction C) a spread of excitation to all heart striated muscle D) a delay between atrial and ventricular contractions" IIRC, the purpose of the branching is so the heart (as a whole) contracts uniformally. Which isn't one of the options. I think the answer may be C, but i'm not sure whether or not the branching does enable a stronger contraction.

The heart does not contract as a unit, but in parts. The signal passes from SA to AV node, then (after the BoH) to the right and left bundle branches. These branches occur in the stream after the atria have contracted, so it can't be D, the action potential is all or nothing, and it's quality does not change the strength of contractions, so it's not B. C is true, the branches do help to propogate the signal, but they do not enable it, as they would contract even if the bundle branches were blocked (RBBB). These branches are most important because their configuration controls the timing of action potentials hitting the apices of the ventricles. ^tucker/_rekcut 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The three main functions of the circulatory system in animals are D) mass transport, transport of heat, and transmission of force" "D" was the correct answer based on the answer key. i'm not sure what the questions means when it says that a function of the circulatory system is to transmit force? what force?

This is kinda weak, but maybe blood pressure? I don't know of any use of the circulatory system for hydraulics... --Tardis 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not weak at all, blood pressure regulation is very important. See preload afterload frank starling. ^tucker/_rekcut 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Consider the factors which affect the movement of water up a 50meter tall tree. The factors may be ranked from most important to least important as follows C) leaf transpiration, cohesion of water molecules, air pressure, capillarity". "C" is the correct answer per the answer key. Why would leaf transpiration a more important factor than cohesion of water molecules? And why is capillarity the least important? And on a side note, where do you guys think root pressure would rank?

Cohesion merely helps to transmit the force; it's transpiration that actually generates the osmotic pressures that pull the water. (Consider what would happen without transpiration at all.) Capillarity merely reduces the effective height of a tube. I'm not sure what you mean by "root pressure". --Tardis 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if anyone is *sure* of the answers to any of these questions, tell me. Otherwise, any ideas are welcome. --`/aksha 09:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AARUN S BAGH >>>>DNA QUES

why we use dash mark in DNA eg. 5'and 3'?

---

it means 5 prime or 3 prime.

without getting too techy, DNA is made up of lots of nucleotides joined together. nucleotides are made of ribose sugar joined to a base and a phosphate group.

the carbons in the ribose sugar are numbered carbon-1 to carbon-5 (nucleotide has a nice picture. in the picture, 3' means carbon-3)

basically, when nucleotides join together, the phosphate group that's joined to carbon-5 of one nucleotide joins to carbon-3 of another nucleotide, making a chain of nuclotides that are joined together by phosphate links between their carbon-3 and carbon-5 atoms.

this means that one end of the DNA chain will have a nucleotide with it's carbon-3 not joined to another nucleotide (3' end), and the other end will have a nuclotide with the phosphate on it's carbon-5 not joined to another nuclotide (5' end) (see the second picture in DNA). --Dak 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AARUN S BAGH >>>> QUES about sex

can a woman be pregnant if a man inject his urine into her vagina?

does this include if she was pregnant before this:]Hidden secret 7 13:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

urine is acidic, so it can damage sperm cells. And there aren't usually any in urine to start with, so probably not:)HS7

Fertilization occurs when the sperm meets the egg. Urine plays no role in this process. If there's sperm in the urine (e.g., if the man has recently ejaculated), a woman might get pregnant, but this is not the recommended procedure. --TotoBaggins 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you phrase your numerous questions carefully, and that you want an answer to the question you actually ask, so, yes, a woman CAN be pregnant under the specified condition. Especially if she were already pregnant. But it is not recommended to do this to a pregnant woman. Edison 15:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it recommended if she is not pregnant. Corvus cornix 00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt you could make a woman pregnant like that, or get another chance to in the normal way afterward:)

Nature has reduced the likelihood of such an event by a valve which tends to shut off urine flow when the male member is erect. You may yourself discover the truth of this some day. Edison 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sink

(I have copied this question here from Miscellaneous) --Lph 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could Bleach satisfactorily clear a blocked sink? 136.206.1.17 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Blockage is almost always caused by either hair or grease. Bleach is ineffective against these. Use a chemical drain cleaner, and be extremely careful to exactly follow the instructions, as these chemicals are very dangerous. If you have a plunger or plumber's snake, try that first. -Arch dude 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do NOT use drain cleaner if you have already poured bleach into the drain. That combination can generate large amounts of toxic chlorine or chloramine gas (depending on the type of drain cleaner), and poison you and your household. --mglg_(talk) 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one type of drain cleaner is indeed strong bleach. One common household alternative is machine washing powder - specifically the biological type is best. You might need to wait a bit though.87.102.66.142 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should only use chemicals as a last resort, since (besides being generally unpleasant) they will cause damage/buildup in your drain that will lead to future blockages. The easiest and quickest way to clear a drain is to fill the sink with water, take a toilet plunger, give it three "pumping" plunges on the drain, and on the fourth stroke, pull the plunger all the way off the drain. Repeat as necessary. It may be helpful to stuff wet rags into any nearby drains so that the plunger pressure can't escape through them. --TotoBaggins 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it much easier to unblock a sink by removing the elbow in the p trap below the sink (it is very rare that a sink doesn't have one). That is where most of the clog is normally located and you can easily clean it out with nothing more than your fingers. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there "virginfilia"?

There are many paraphilias explained in English wikipedia, but not one. What is called a person who has virgin fetish, or wants to have sex only with virgins, or who can not touch women that have been fucked by someone else? What causes this condition? Can you heal it? Thanks for your help! 193.167.45.242 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might check Madonna-whore complex. It probably has something to do with your mother. --TotoBaggins 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless it does exist, however Wikipedia is unable to give medical advice. If you are concerened about anything relating to medical or psycological health then the person to speak to is a doctor. --Neo 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unrelated at this point to a medical issue, don't jump on it. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does ask 'can you heal it', which to me implies a medical request. N'est pas? --Neo 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is a "condition" unless it causes harm to others. Try Paraphilia#Drug_treatment_of_paraphilias. Causes of fetishes are unknown! Freud had something to say about it: "In 1927, Freud stated that fetishism was the result of a psychological trauma. A boy, longing to see his mother's penis, averts his eyes in horror when he discovers that she has none. To overcome the resulting castration anxiety he clings to the fetish as a substitute for the missing genital. Freud never commented on the idea of female fetishists." Although plenty of what he wrote is interesting, plenty of what he has written is a disgrace to science in my opinion. Read more at sexual fetishism on origins and treatments. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there could be a biological basis for such a condition. —Pengo 09:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured fire

How could I make a fire that is not normal-coloured, but blue or green, for example? That would look very nice on the backyard party. 193.167.45.242 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barium salts color flames green. They are used in fireworks, but are quite toxic, so I don't recommend this for backyard parties. --mglg_(talk) 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See flame test for a bunch of different color options (in principle; obviously toxicity and cost might be at least as important as "pretty color"). DMacks 17:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boric acid is also good for green - it's also available from pharmacists - but please note - not for a barbeque - adding odd chemicals to a fire used for cooking not a good idea. (Don't recommend borax as the sodium in it gives a yellow colour.)

Copper compounds as I recall also give green

Potassium (eg potassium chloride) will give a lilac flame - quite near to blue.87.102.66.142 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low sodium salt is a good choice - it will have sodium/potassium in.

For a red flame try a calcium compound - these are easy to get - calcium chloride is available as a road deicer (harware store), or calcium sulphate (plaster of paris).

Instructions - just throw small amounts (teaspoon) of the dry salt into the fire.87.102.66.142 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And be careful about washing your hands if you touch the salts - wash them - better safe than sorry.87.102.66.142 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burning different gasses can make flames of different colours too. Hydrogen burns with an almost invisible flame, Butane burns with a blue flame, SteveBaker 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you put these substances, like boric acid, to pile of burning wood, or to buring oil, will the color of fire really change? I have tried copper wires, salts and iron dust with no effect to color of fire. 193.65.112.51 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It worked for me - on a solid fire - it would work on say charcoal bricketts etc.83.100.158.13 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! people! are we forgetting a safe, cheep gas called PROPANE that makes blue flames! i have it in my backyard BBQ, and in my kitchen! and if you sprinkle water on the flame it turns from blue to orange ;)

To make blue and green, just use barium and copper salts, respectively. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a How to. Rmhermen 20:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts Pills Part Deux

This is a re-visit from my question earlier. I read somewhere that there was a pill in which the Astronauts would have "sex" on their dreams while they are sleeping. And then some drug dealers in Cali got a hold of this drugs and were selling them on the streets. Has anyone heard of this story?

This is only my opinion, but I'm going to say that it's extremely unlikely. The reason being economics. No drug company (in my opinion) would create a potential goldmine like that and purposely restrict its use to 15 people a year. Anchoress 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body part removal - least possible giblets left for survival

(good - i thought i lost this. thanks, whoever spared it - and outstanding title.)Wolfgangus 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone familiar with the many daily facts and quotes supplied to various sites may recognize this: Even if the stomach, the spleen, 75% of the liver, 80% of the intestines, one kidney, one lung, and virtually every organ from the pelvic and groin area are removed, the human body can still survive.

I've been tasked with justifying this. To some small degree I can, organ by organ, understand it. But collectively? That's a lot to worry about; it would at least be very compromising. Any help out there? Wolfgangus 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organs tend to be fairly independant in their functioning. I'd be concerned about the combination of stomach and intestines: at the very least, you'd need to be careful in what you eat: some sections of the intestines rely on food being pre-processed by the stomach or by other parts of the intestines. You might also have trouble keeping hydrated, without enough digestive tract to absorb water. --Carnildo 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I recall seeing a story about a guy who'd tried to kill himself by drinking Drano. He survived, but as a result of the damage, doctors removed his stomach and much of his intestines. They ran his large intestine through his thoracis and attached it to his esophagus. He would be in the bathroom no more than a few minutes after eating. At any rate, thanks for the help. Wolfgangus 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a lot of those, a person would have a hard time living at all, alone. People can sometimes live with up to 75% of the liver removed. In addition, you can remove the gallbladder, the number of sexual organs, and appendix (although it doesn't count as an organ exactly). [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

people can live without arms and legs, if they count as organs:) And they could 'live' without eyes, ears, hair, &c:)

Method of removal of each organ is relevant as well. If they were to be rapidly and violently severed, blood loss could induce shock. Hypothetically, even controlled, surgical removal might create a similar problem. But seriously, this is a pretty hypothetical condition... Nimur 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not overly hypothetical after all. --David Iberri (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogates

Do sex surrogates really exist? If so, are they considered part of the AMA?

Perhaps the sex surrogate article would have some information? --TotoBaggins 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they carry malpractice insurance? Clarityfiend 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA is a professional physician's organization for public advocacy. It does not include other health professionals (licenced, licentious, or not). alteripse 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning's Best Drink?

What's the best beverage to drink in the morning? and overall?

Water, orange juice, or skim milk? PitchBlack 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best with regards to what purpose? Frankg 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "best" beverage to drink. It really doesn't matter as long as you do not drink too much or too little. Whatever your taste is, is probably fine. Juice, or any of a number of sodas, or water, any of a number of lactations, or you could just not drink anything at all! [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

muscle contraction

Hi Hope you can help me? I have been trying to answer this question for a biology scenario and after a fruitless search I can't seem to word it in a way that makes sense. Thankyou for your time and any help will be appreciated.

'Briefly explain how the nerve supply to a skeletal muscle fibre causes it to contract? You may use a labelled diagram if necessary.

with best regardsHelsbas 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at muscle contraction? Let us know if that article doesn't help. - Nunh-huh 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does wearing a watch for almost 4 years non-stop restrict the growth of my wrists?

Okay, this is bizarre, but I just took my watch off for the first time in about 4 years - I wore it when I slept, during showers, everything. I seriously never took it off once. I put it on when I was 12 and I am 16 now. A lot of growing takes place in that time. People have noticed my wrists are pretty skinny for my size (6'5", 190 lbs). Is it possible that the watch restricted the growth of one of my wrists which also somehow restricted the growth of the other? Thanks! NIRVANA2764 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that watch have a stretch band? 71.100.10.48 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a really bizarre confession, but at about your age, I was worried about exactly the same thing. If this were true, then you would expect that wearing small shoes would stop the growth of your feet, and so on. People have tried to stop parts of their bodies from growing, but they find it to be impossible, except by going through pain (eg. foot binding). Even if you could affect the growth of one wrist, there is no way it could be copied for the other one. I have skinny wrists, much smaller than either of my parents', but it is just genetic (probably from recessive genes or something). The Mad Echidna 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal for bone structures to respond to stress. I have very small wrists until I was 19. That's when I started boxing. In a year, my hands and wrists widened. I haven't boxed in a good 10 years and my hands/wrists are smaller than they were when I boxed, but not as small as they were before. This is not unique to the wrists. For example, if you remove a tooth completely, the jawbone below the missing tooth will shrink. Like other and joints throughout the body, they weaken if not stressed in any way and strengthen if they are stressed (not to the point of fracture, of course). --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this something like what you are thinking? Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation. 71.100.10.48 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the name come from? [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, "...They were called the Flathead Indians by the first white men who came to the Columbia River. " 71.100.10.48 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having the watch on one wrist could not affect the growth the other, so if your wrists are the same size, I guess you have nothing to worry about. However, the skin does need to breathe and be kept clean to prevent infection, so it's probably not a good idea to keep a watch on continuously.--Shantavira 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis...?

Is it possible to hypnotize someone and then suggest to them that later after being exposed to a certain que that they fall into a deep sleep resembling a coma and to take such shallow breath they do not breath in enough air to stay alive or that their heart stops, etc.? (BTW... this question has nothing to do with the recent events surrounding Howard K. Stern.) 71.100.10.48 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - definitely not. There is a great deal of debate over what Hypnotism is and how it works - but one thing is clear, you are only affecting what the person wishes to do. However, no matter how much you wish it, you cannot hold your breath long enough to cause harm because the autonomic systems take over breathing control once CO2 levels in the lungs get high enough. SteveBaker 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading somewhere that some tribe in South America could put people into a trace for medical proceedures without the uses of drugs and that sometimes these people could not be woken up and eventually they died. 71.100.10.48 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more likely that the cause would be side-effects from these "medical procedures" - or perhaps a consequence of the reason they needed the medical procedures in the first place. But those stories can be very poorly told and written down - it's very likely that something completely different was going on. Maybe the guy doing the hypnosis sneaks in during the night and suffocates them in order to cover up the fact that his medical intervention failed. Really - it's impossible to know for sure. SteveBaker 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then all that stuff on stage where the hypnotist stickes a needle through someones hand while they are hypnotized and makes then crow like a rooster when they hear the word "jump" is just a bunch of baloney? 71.100.10.48 09:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty well understood that stage hypnotism is faked. For a kick off - could you imagine the lawsuites that would result from sticking needles through people's hands without their prior permission? Would you trust some random performer to have correctly sterilized the needle? You could get AIDS from some sloppy performer failing to clean his needles properly! But even if it were not nonsense, they are supposedly forcing people to change their willful behavior. You can decide (because someone is telling you) that you want to crow when you hear "jump" - you can even decide to ignore the pain for a needle stuck through your hand - but you absolutely can't decide to stop breathing. You can stop for a while but after a short time - certainly long before you pass out - your body will take over from your mind and force you to breathe again - no matter what. Note that when people drown, they eventually inhale water and die - if they could prevent themselves from trying to take a breath, they would die of CO2 poisoning or something. I can't imagine them breathing water if they had conscious control at that point. SteveBaker 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humm... great point! What about hypnosis coupled with a (secret?) drug that reduces or eliminates autonomic response? 71.100.10.48 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formal common English plant names

Is there any convention about the capitalization of common English names for plants, used alongside the scientific binary names? For instance, which one is (most) correct: Smooth Rupturewort, Smooth rupturewort, smooth rupturewort? Thanks, — Kpalion^(talk) 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There're no scientific conventions about how to captialize common names. The scientific convention is to use binary names (and there're conventions about how to write them). For a common name, the grammatically correct way depends on whether the word "smooth" here is considered to be just an adjective, or actually a part of the name. If it's a part of the name, then it should be "Smooth Rupturewort" (with both words caped because it's a proper noun). If smooth is just an adjective, then it should be "smooth Rupturewort" since Rupturewort is the proper noun.

However, if we're talking about the name of the article, Smooth Rupturewort is defintely the right way to do it. Smooth is defintely captilized because it's the first word. And Rupturewort is captilized because it's defintely a proper noun. --`/aksha 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a name of a species is a proper noun. If I have a dog called Bob, than "dog" (name of the whole species) is a common noun and "Bob" (name of a specific specimen) is proper noun. If I grew a Smooth Rupturewort and called is Johnny, then "Smooth Rupturewort" (species) should be a common noun and "Johnny" (specimen) would be a proper noun, woudn't it? — Kpalion^(talk) 08:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xrays

okay i now this is homework but if some1 could point to the right topic then i can do the rest. I've done an experiment with x ray diffraction which were told the x-rays are at 2 frequency's and was wondering what an appropriate error in the wavelength would be. i can think to sources of error in the wavelength but i don't now how to quantify it. the two i thought of where the sources not quite emitting at the wavelength said, and the wave spreading between source and the crystal (ie wavelength L ends up being several waves over L-delta L and L+delta L, i assume we used soft xrays though not sure if that helps or is true wavelengths given where around 0.1-0.2nm--137.205.79.218 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wavelength is roughly 3*10⁸ divided by the wavelength. So if you have an error in the frequency you can calculate the lowest and highest wavelength and thereby get an error there. If you don't have that You may just ahve to look at how many significant figures there are and assume ±5 on the last digit. The wavelength will not change between the emmitter and diffractor and detector. Other things that might affect the wavelength to miniscule amounts could be doppler shift caused by motion, or heat, gravitational redshift caused by differnt height of emmitter and detector. I would expect that not emmitting at the wavelength said is quite possible, since this will be given to some limited accuracy, but aren't the X-ray line spectra lines very sharp? In the X-ray article the wavelength has 5 significant figures. GB 10:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story help

If someone's hands were bleeding from playing the guitar too much, but they ignored it, what is a plausible way for them to die? It doesn't have to actually be possible, it's for a story i'm writing. 63.231.243.111 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be boring - such as an infection. However, it could be interesting, such as a pool of blood collecting at his feet and connecting with a bare wire in the power cord, electrocuting him (with some cool feedback squeel in the background, of course). A person can lose 2-3 pints of blood before becoming so faint that they cannot play anymore. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they had hemophelia or were on anticoagulant drugs they could bleed to death. Or if there was a sudden fire and the blood on their hands kept them from opening the door. Or if the sight of blood made them faint and they hit their head. Anchoress 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for something that would probably be at least slightly difficult for a third party to notice. Any other thoughts? You have some good ideas.63.231.243.111 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mean until the person actually dies, of course.63.231.243.111 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of infection from guitar strings? Tetanus? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze is often used in guitar strings, and arsenic is sometimes added to bronze to make it stronger. Incidentally, arsenic is often naturally occurring in copper ore. Perhaps arsenic poisoning would do the trick? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional way to die from playing the guitar is to meet the devil at a crossroads at midnight and trade your immortal soul for excellent playing ability. Then play your way to fortune and fame, trying to ignore the hellhound on your trail. But that won't last. --TotoBaggins 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A passing wilderbeast smells the blood and makes a quick lunch of the hapless troubadour? Perhaps a peaceful moonlight swim in the ocean, cue shark attack. 88.114.124.42 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you want something dramatic - and ironic. Your wish is our command! Quite a few famous rock musicians have died when playing electric guitar - grabbing an incorrectly grounded microphone and getting electrocuted - that's a very well known thing. But we need something a bit more obscure than that. Blood is mostly just salty water - it should conduct electricity pretty well - so maybe if your incorrectly wired microphone had a plastic body so that nobody else who touches it gets electrocuted, but as the blood dribbles from our victims' fingers into the switch mechanism of the mike, it completes the circuit and KABLOOIE! SteveBaker 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He goes swimming after the playing, and the bleeding fingers attract a shark. Or he lives near the undead and the blood atracts a vampire. Otherwise, since you don't want to wait for an infection, I like the shreded fingers encountering a speck of cyanide or other quick acting poison which is absorbed into the blodstream. Edison 05:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is playing the guitar so much that his/her hands start to bleed, they'd probably die due to overexhausition, lack of food or water or something of that sort. You might want to look into those people that have died from playing MMOs (or even just normal computer games) too much, it would seem someone playing the guitar so much that their hands bleed would fall into a similar category Nil Einne 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]