Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 August 15

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

August 15

While I'm reminded of Moluccan Cockatoos

What adaptations does this species have to prevent brain injury and whiplash whilst doing this for extended periods of time? Yep, it's another strange bird video I found on YouTube... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't have any special knowledge about parrots, our article says they're prone to behavior disorders. And judging from the title of the video, the owner thinks this individual has a behavior disorder... so I'd say there's no reason to assume the species has any such adaptations, at least not based on this video. --Allen (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the title of the video is supposed to be a joke. The headbanging, fluffing and swaying is a normal part of an M2's displaying behaviour. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. So they do that in the wild too? I have no idea then. --Allen (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

None of those motions look all that extreme, there is some deceleration at the ends before the reverse. I'm guessing they're related to sexual displays. Dizziness could become a factor, but that's what claws are for, right? Any adaptations to protect the brain would probably be very mild versions of those developed by the woodpecker. Now that's brain-shuffling! Franamax (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Woodpeckers

Why don't they get a headache?--79.76.203.9 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of this article. It explains it all far better than I ever could. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KSB, I knew about a lot of those, but that's comprehensive. Duly squirelled away with the other treasures. I especially like the routing of the tongue - I'm now racking (the remnants of) my brain trying to think of other animals that store their tongue in weird places. Cone snail comes to mind but it's a "higher" life form I'm trying to think of. (Honest, no dirty jokes please) Anyone got ideas? Franamax (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Aardvark perhaps? 30cm is a lot to store. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunbar's number and the autism spectrum

Do people on the autism spectrum have a lower Dunbar's number than average? NeonMerlin 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Drawing on the articles' section Alternative numbers, the Dunbar number is actually a measure of sizes of community networks, more than a measure related to individuals. Since dunbar developed his theory, there's been notable advances in Network theory which casts doubt on his extrapolation from community to individual. For instance, a group of 150 people can be quite close-knit even if each person knows only 50 others. A few highly connected individuals may be all that it takes.

When it comes to autists, it's my impression that their sensory and cognitive difficulties present difficulties in making and maintaining social interaction with individuals, for instance in picking up non-verbal cues, but they do not generally have some memory deficiency that makes them loose track of what they've learned about individuals. So I'd say that if the Dunbar number had made sense ascribed to an individual, the answear to your question would be no. EverGreg (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of extreme Autism sufferers having bad memory - exactly the opposite in fact. They don't "loose track" of what they've learned about individuals, they simply don't recognise that there is consciousness in people other than themselves so the very idea of "individuals" beyond themselves is impossible for them. Autism is a fault in the part of the brain that lets you gain some insight into what other people are thinking. In order to (for example) follow a conversation, you have to be aware of what the other person is thinking. If you can't do that then you can't interact with people naturally. In the extreme, you perhaps can't even recognise that other people are conscious beings - so they don't interest you any more than some inanimate object. At that extreme, there is no interaction - you don't "forget" about other people - you simply don't care about them any more than you care about a wall or a door.

In the middle of the spectrum (where I happen to be), the ability to recognise that there are other people is clearly there (I have no problem with that!) - and I recognise that you guys are conscious, thinking beings - but I do find it very hard to know what you are thinking about - or what you might be feeling. Hence my conversational style is terrible - I'm always failing to notice when someone says something ironically - or sarcastically. I also tend to be thoughtless when it comes to other peoples feelings...I'll tell the truth as I see it and quite utterly fail to take into account the consequences for other people's feelings when I do that. (SORRY!) This is because I don't instinctively keep a 'mirror' of the other person's thoughts in my head. It gets worse than that...when someone is making fun of me - I have no clue that this is happening until some VERY BIG cue comes along - like someone tells me. (I wish they'd do that more often!) It also means that I tend to over-explain things (sometimes a benefit - but often something that makes people roll their eyes and lose interest) - that's because I tend to forget that their minds work like mine does and that they already know all of this. Add to that the almost total inability to recognise body language and the importance of eye contact at a subconscious level (A few years ago, when I was diagnosed, I took lessons on how to fake it - you normal guys are a VERY weird bunch!).

SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember the fun year I 'discovered' eye contact. Exciting to learn such a simple thing could have such a dramatic effect. I quickly learnt to control and limit it when I realised the assumed implications when a girl makes a lot of eye contact with a guy. 217.42.157.143 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be a little careful. The "autism spectrum" ranges from "normality" (whatever that is!), through Asperger's syndrome all the way through to profound Autism.

• At the most extreme, most profound end of the spectrum, Dunbar's number is likely to be near zero - these poor people can't interact with others to any measurable extent - not even family members. They may not even be aware that there ARE other people...not as thinking beings like themselves. Other people must seem just like any other more or less inanimate object in the world. The parents of such a person might have a higher than expected Dunbar number because they seek help with support groups and such like - but the actual sufferer is getting a big far zero.
• In the middle of the spectrum there are those with Asperger's syndrome (I'm one of them - we call ourselves 'Aspies'). We mostly don't like to interact with strangers face-to-face much - it's quite stressful. Making close friends is extremely difficult - but not impossible. But aspies take to computers and computer networks like ducks to water. It's a great way to get human interaction (which we actually need as much as anyone else) but without the painful business of remembering to fake "realistic" eye contact and consciously use body language in a way that "normal" people do instinctively (How the heck do you guys do that?...and WHY?!). Interacting via a thin text-only interface eliminates all the things we 'aspies' are bad at and that levels the playing field. Aspies are also obsessive about things like computers and we like to delve very deeply into narrow areas of study. That makes us more able to get into things like mailing lists and forums where a bunch of people with very narrow interests gather. So since the advent of the Internet, I strongly suspect that people in the middle of the "autism spectrum" actually have a much higher Dunbar number than "normal" people who don't seem to find it so easy to get on in a world of email, text messaging, blogs, forums and IM as aspies do.
• Normal people...at the other extreme of the spectrum obviously have "normal" Dunbar numbers...around 150 people who they know well enough to comfortably interact with.

The idea that aspies have a higher Dunbar number than "normal" in the age of the Internet is pure supposition. I'm not aware of any solid evidence of this. Certainly before the advent of the Internet, (which, being 54 years old, I remember rather well) we were much more cut off from society - my Dunbar number as a teenager was probably around 20 - if I'm completely honest, maybe a lot less. Since the early days of BBS and UseNet newslists, the number of people I interact with regularly and "know" well has consistently been WAY more than 150.

Also, thinking of the "autism spectrum" as a straight line with everyone in the world sitting at a particular position along that line is a drastic over-simplification. Even amongst people with Asperger's, there is wide variation in how these symptoms exhibit themselves. You get the 'savants' who seem to have an almost magical unconscious way to do math or play music or whatever (I'm DEFINITELY not one of those!) - but you also have the ones who have to work to nestle into some comforting narrow field of study (that's me) - but who don't mind doing that. The range of social skills is pretty broad too (mine are terrible).

SteveBaker (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

about 20 dec 2012

i have come to known through some research that on 20 dec 2012 the sun ,moon earth &ablack hole would be exactly in a straight line , will this cause a huge damage to our earth by effecting its magnetic field ,, please tell me about it as i am very keen to known about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.18.51 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See 2012#Metaphysical_predictions. --Allen (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Always remember this: if you read about an imminent apocalypse but don't hear it mentioned every day in the news, don't believe what you're reading.

It's interesting that the crackpot whose "research" you read mentions magnetism. The Moon has a very weak magnetic field, so it wouldn't affect Earth much regardless of its position. Black holes emit Hawking radiation and their accretion discs emit high-frequency radiation, but these have a negligible effect on Earth at interstellar distances.

Magnetism from black holes is certainly even less of a factor; the magnetic field weakens with the square of the distance initially and with the cube of the distance later on. To give an idea of how distance affects magnetic strength, consider that Magnetars are the strongest known sources of magnetism; at their poles, their magnetic fields are as strong as 10 billion Tesla. According to magnetar, "It has even been said that at a distance halfway to the moon, a magnetar could strip information from a credit card on Earth." That requires about 0.1 Tesla (if you trust Mythbusters), so half the Moon-Earth distance manages to reduce a magnetic field from 10 billion Tesla to 0.1 Tesla. At 1 light year, the magnetic field is between 4 x 10^-17 T and 7 x 10^-25 T. By comparison, Earth's field is ~4 x 10^-5 T, and the closest black hole is 1600 light years away.

The Sun is quite a different story. Its magnetic field is much stronger than Earth's, and solar flares often disrupt radio communication on Earth. However, there's no reason to believe the Sun would become more deadly when it's in alignment with the Moon and a black hole; these bodies have little effect on it.

You might also be interested in reading the answers to these questions about 2012: [1] [2][3]. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of a black hole there. Anyway, be assured that these (and all the other) predictions are complete nonsense.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, let me be the first to note that you are talking about a Syzygia. (From "Syzygy" - yes, that really is a real word!) Since it's a cool word, I'll be using it at every opportunity in my reply!  :-)

I agree - these syzygia apocalypse stories pop up all the time. They always share three things in common:

1. There is no such syzygy - someone dreamed it up and for some unaccountable reason decided to inflict the resulting bullshit on innocent people on the Internet.
2. The fact of a syzygy would have such an utterly negligable effect on the Earth that it would be impossible to measure the consequences - let alone have anyone suffer from them.
3. The predictions never come true.

Take for example the book John Gribbin wrote in 1974: "The Jupiter Effect". It predicted the end of the world in 1983 due an eight planet syzygy. Let's see how that stacked up against my three criteria:

1. The planets were not aligned in anything even close to a straight line on that date - they were within a 90 degree arc as seen from the sun. A slight coincidence - but not even close to being a true syzygy.
2. The effect could easily be calculated as utterly negligable - but that didn't stop him from writing an entire book containing wild guesses and utterly incorrect calculations of the presumed effects - and making a pile of cash from selling it to scientifically naive people.
3. Hmmm - I don't recall the world ending in 1983...maybe I slept through it?

Gribbin has a degree in physics, an MSc in astronomy and a PhD in astrophysics - how could he be so wrong? This isn't a matter of "Ooops! I slipped up a little in my calculations." - this is outright fraud. Any scientist could jot down the forces exerted by other planets on the earth from any given alignment and come to the conclusion that the result would be...nothing whatever. Gribbin repudiated his claims in 1980 with some kind of lame apology. So what we have here is someone who CLEARLY knew better - who decided to cash in by writing this pile of steaming BS - he waited 5 years until he'd sold a decent number of books - then denied everything he said in plenty of time that people would not berate him when the predicted apocalypse didn't come to pass.

Read this for more information.

Please, tell us where this nonsense originated so we can go there and berate the idiots who started it!

SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a short article on Jupiter Effect. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall something about 2012 being the end of the world (The Mayan calendar may have something to do with this) from Terence McKenna, who while an entertaining sort of chap does not strike me as being particularly reliable for anything to do with hard science. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, ther is something about this at the McKenna article, and some more at Novelty theory. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing about "the world is ending" theories is that have always been wrong. Thousands of them. ALWAYS wrong. --mboverload@ 00:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought one of them was right a while ago - I remember reading about it somewhere... SamuelRiv (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

pH correction

How do we correct the pH of Reverse Osmosis permeate without increasing the TDS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitcon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Choose an acid or base whose ions are not considered "dissolved solids", or do some sort of exchange of ions, perhaps using a resin, that changes the amount of H+ but not the overall amount of ionic stuff. See total dissolved solids to figure out exactly what it means, and what different measurement methods will detect what types of alterations and what you can get away with doing. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this help? --Bowlhover (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Air force

Can anyone tell what is the fifth largest air force in the world? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By what measure of size? Algebraist 10:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of total combat aircraft. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See List of countries by size of armed forces and decide whether its factual accuracy, or lack thereof, is an issue. --Bowlhover (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Solutions

Hi, can anyone please tell me a site where i can find the answers to the Questions from the halliay resnick physics book, especially the reasoning questions of the chapters on electricity... i urgently need them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.115.200 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you don't urgently need them: if you don't enjoy learning the material well enough to attempt an answer on your own, you obviously have no interest in a future in physics, so what does it matter if you make a poor grade in this class? Just relax and concentrate on things that do interest you. We can't all be intellectually curious and interested in how the world around us works. --Sean 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's so much more eloquent than "We're not going to do your homework for you." - thanks Sean! SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sean's answer is a bit harsh. Sure he absolutely shouldn't be asking WP to do his homework, but are you honestly suggesting that if he doesn't like Physics he should drop all hopes of getting any degree that requires Physics 101? Where I went to school I'm pretty sure the entire science and engineering departments had to take Physics 101. That covers a lot of ground. Consider also that 117.197.. could also be the parent of a student. APL (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make it too harsh, but was trying to point out that getting a poor grade (but still passing) a physics class isn't too big a deal for someone who dislikes it so much that they'd rather cheat than learn the material. I will admit my final sentence was a bit snarky, since I find it baffling when I meet people who have no interest in how the universe works; I mean, that's *EVERYTHING*! :) --Sean 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All that said, Answers to selected problems are available at the book's web site, here. There are also hints for a few more of the problems. (Assuming I've correctly guessed the book you're asking about.) APL (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully 117.197.. is intending to use the answers to verify his/her own work, and not to replace it. Nimur (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I've almost always found that homework questions (except mine of course!) should be exempt from WP:AGF, it's usually just trying to cheat. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 00:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I don't I'd like an engineer who failed or cheated through Physics 101 building bridges for me. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Flexibility and gender

I have noticed in our sports team that women generally have much more flexible joints and muscles than men. Does the reason lie in biology or is it just that young girls often have such hobbies as ballet or gymnastics, and hence will be more flexible as adults? ›mysid (☎∆✎) 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Women need flexibility for the birthing process. Also, men are built for strength, while the role of women (determined by evolution) is to be something other than a "strong man". I won't attempt to put in words a woman's role as set by evolution - anyone want to try to describe it? Andme2 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In many ways strength is the opposite of flexibility. If you've noticed, contortionists, the ultimate in flexibility, always have a slight build. So, muscular men aren't likely to be very flexible. It's possible for a man with a slight build to be quite flexible, however. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... but I know many guys who have a slight build yet are very stiff, even though they've been stretching for long. But perhaps it can be related to muscular mass, since women tend to have less of it, even less than the slight-builded guys. I'd love to find some research. ›mysid (☎∆✎) 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Women lack upper-body strength, which is something the U.S. military have noticed in their female troops. Lower-body strength is good for running away from wild animals, which is an evolutionary development aiding survival. A man is more likely to stay and fight a wild animal and get rid of it, hence the evolutionary need for upper-body strength as well as lower-body strength. Andme2 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, your "off the cuff" "evolution made it so" is pretty inadequate. Most modern evolutionary psychology/physiology has gotten quite far from the "Man—always big tough hunter! Women—stay at home, cook!" approach. Instead of just being an evolutionary just-so storyteller, why not actualy take the time to look up the differences, or just keep your mouth shut? All you've basically said so far is "well, men are less flexible than women on the whole [or at least, in the extremes of physique represented by sport], and [I imagine] evolution might have something to do with that", which isn't much of an answer (I included, in parens, some of the qualifiers you might have put in there if you were really being scientifically-minded about it). You've asserted an evolutionary basis which you haven't substantiated, and that's about as much as you've advanced the discussion here. I don't want to pick on you in particular, but loose attribution to evolution is about as useful on a science desk as loose attribution to God would be on a theology desk. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Many contributors post information that they have seen before without sourcing it, and as long as the information itself is accurate, I don't find this unacceptable. As for this post in particular, Andme2's assertions can be verified by a Google search along the lines of "female evolution upper body strength". See p.157 of Gender Gap: The Biology of Male-Female Differences, which claims:

"It is easy to imagine how evolution favored upper-body strength among males: men who had strong arms and chests probably would have been better at spear throwing and other forms of hunting, as well as hand-to-hand combat"

I've never before seen the claim that hunterer-and-gatherer conventions didn't affect human evolution. Can you provide a source that shows scientific consensus? --Bowlhover (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A prior and very short and discussion on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_May_3#Flexibility --Bowlhover (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Very informative and just what I was looking for. I should have searched better of course. ›mysid (☎∆✎) 12:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot attribute some of the things I say because they are my own thoughts. Others may have had the same ideas, but I do not blindly accept the opinion of others, regardless of how widespread an opinion may be or how "scientific" an opinion is supposed to be. The anonymous poster who mentioned "Women - stay at home, cook!" is, perhaps, influenced by the present rather widespread notion that men and women are mentally just alike. When common sense says the opinion of others is wrong, a person has a right, even a duty, to courteously say so. Andme2 (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider

I find it remarkable that the boffins need something so large to study the something that is so very small. Would it be fair to say that the LHC is the largest machine ever built? The ultimate big boys toy? I wish I was clever enough to understand why they need such a huge scientific instrument... --TrogWoolley (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One purpose of the project is to study high-energy particles. Without actually having them to study, it would all be a bunch of mental games and incomplete or unproveable theories, etc. So you need high energy, which means accelerating some particles to very high speeds. You start with low-energy particles, and gradually accelerate them along a race-track until they're going fast enough. Sure, the particles are small, but it still takes a long distance to get them going. Seems therefore you could do it all on a table-top device since it's all so small, except every time you bend or otherwise deflect the particle beam, it loses energy due to the change in direction. Instead you build a really gentle curve so that there's less loss from the curve itself and so you can keep the beam from dispersing. DMacks (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And as for it being "the largest machine ever built" - it depends on how you define "machine". A transpacific telephone cable (for example) could be considered "a machine" - or perhaps the entire Internet is a machine or perhaps the national electricity grid. It's tough to impose a definition of the word "machine" that doesn't include such very large structures. Even if you somehow exclude machines that are only electrical in nature, you could consider (for example) the transsiberian railway a "machine" comprised of a very long track and locomotives that shuttle up and down it. In essence, that's not much different from the circular track of the LHC with particles rushing around it. What about a hydroelectric plant comprising a very large artificial lake, a dam and some turbines - is that not a "machine"? The LHC is huge - but it's a tough claim to make. SteveBaker (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

electrocution by toasters

Hi, is it true that you will electrocute yourself if you put a knife into a toaster and touch the element? I would have thought there would be some insulation there, because of the obvious dangers. thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, at least it is with mine and it's fairly modern. I decided to test the hypothesis with a knife with a metal end but a very, very insulated handle and it sparks. So I presume if I hadn't had the nice insulation, I'd have recieved a rather hefty shock. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More OR: Cyclonenim's experiment can knock out your house's electricity. Algebraist 22:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I should probably clarify that it wasn't really on purpose. I got something a little stuck in the toaster (I think it was a bagel) and tried to get it out with a knife. I'm quite glad it was an insulated knife. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what my twin was doing when he knocked out the power way back when. Since then, I've always favoured a wooden skewer for the purpose. Algebraist 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The elements can't be very insulated because they have to be able to heat the toast. They won't heat up much if they are not exposed to the air. Air creates electrical resistance, which causes friction, which makes heat. See the article Heating element. SunDragon34 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the elements would heat up just as well if they were in a vacuum. Although it is awkward to get the bread into and out of the vacuum, it prevents deranged Wikipedia editors sticking knives into the toaster. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that wasn't a stab at me! —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 22:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the elements would heat up fine in a vacuum, but there would be no conduction or convection so they'd be less effective at heating the bread. Radiation would still work though. OTOH, with less heat-loss, I wonder if the elements themselves would overheat. DMacks (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the heat transfer from the elements to the bread is by radiation. So it would work fine in a vacuum, although your toast might get a bit dry. --Heron (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Do people's toasters not switch off? DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not automatically, alas. And if there was any intelligent human input the problem would never have arisen. Algebraist 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never encountered a toaster which didn't switch off automatically. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? On mine the heat goes off, but the elements are still, for some reason, live. Algebraist 00:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you have the live and the neutral wires exchanged (though for safety's sake the switch should break both). DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A little harsh. I'm a physics PhD student and I use an all-metal knife to get stuff out of the toaster all the time. I got As and Bs in three semesters of E+M, too. Thanks for the OR, so that I use wood skewers from now on - you may yet have saved my life (I just bought two bags of bagels today). SamuelRiv (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you just unplug the toaster before sticking a knife in it? — DanielLC 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh no FAR too simple for a PhD student ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.158.77 (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be worse. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I always use a fork; it works better. Mac Davis (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Toaster heating elements are generally just high resistance wire attached to an insulating substrate, formerly asbestos, but recently less toxic materials. Calrod heating elements such as electric oven and range heating elements have the resistance wire inside and insulated from a metallic tubular covering. They were introduced in 1913 [4]. A mineral insulates the resistance wire from the surrounding metal tube. They also heat up, but with less chance of electrocuting you. So it should be possible to build a safer toaster, but it would be bigger and more expensive, and take longer to heat up and cool off. Edison (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this has been discussed before. Gwinva (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for the reference to the previous question. This illustrates why we don't recommend original research :) It's been emotional (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

firefox and IE............eye adjustment........

OK , This one sounds initially silly...but:

when I switch from IE to 'fox , my eyes take a MAJOR hit to adjust when reading the text.

SO............. what's going on , I bet there is a wiki on it somewhere :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.40.101 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just the change in default font between the two. I had a quick go and I see what you mean with a slight refocusing of the eyes, but I wouldn't call it a "MAJOR hit".. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of problem with cleartype? This only applies for an LCD monitor, of course. APL (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's not that much of a major adjustment, just that IE's font is just thicker than Firefox's. The sidebar has larger bolder text than Firefox. bibliomaniac15 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to the Computing reference desk. It has to do with font rendering, not science. (Or, at least, any real science aspects to it probably fall under medical advice. We don't diagnose your vision problems, but we might be able to tell you why IE and Firefox render text differently.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have an LCD monitor so it must be the "cleartype" deal. Why must you get idiots wanting to delete or move posts all the time? It has everything to do with the science of vision.., try using 'fox on an LCD monitor for a few month and then switch back, big difference.