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.
Stated that the coal inside a firebox reaches a temperature of 3,500 degrees. This could not possibly be correct. Iron melts way below 3,500 degrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.180.238 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the source is for that 3,500F figure. But a couple of web pages ([1], [2]) mention firebox temps of 2,500F. Our page on iron gives a melting point of 2,800F. But even if the 3,500 temp is right, that second web page (which give a melting point of iron of 2000F), as well as our page on fireboxes, suggest that melting can be prevented by keeping the firebox covered with cooler water. Makes sense to me, because it reminds me of that camp trick of boiling water in a leaf over a fire. --Allen (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines "red hot" (in relation to heat) as follows: "The glowing color of a heated object between about 950 °F and 1500 °F (510 °C to 816 °C}". - GlowWorm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.44.60 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coal is a pretty poor conductor of heat, I believe, so it is entirely possible that the coal at the centre is that hot but the coal at the edge, where it is contact with the iron, is below the melting point of iron. Cooling the firebox with water would help maintain that. --Tango (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I remember seeing a bit on Modern Marvels or some similar show regarding locomotives that the coal inside a firebox was so hot that the entire thing had to be jacketed in water; this water of course turns to steam and drives the locomotive. However, the show claimed that if the water were allowed to run low, the burning coal could actually melt the iron of the firebox. So the numbers seem realistic. If the iron is constantly being cooled by water, it itself may never reach its melting point even if the coal inside it DOES. --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A locomotive firebox is usually surrounded by water. If the water level in the boiler falls below the top of the firebox, there is a serious danger that the top of the firebox will become too hot, weaken and fail under boiler pressure. A safety device called a fusible plug gives a loud audible warning if there is an insufficient height of water above the top of the firebox. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<following moved from separate post 71.236.26.74 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)>
Maximum firebox temperature is 2500 Fahrenheit degrees, according to this reference:
[3] 24.189.180.238 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, locomotives can always explode if something goes wrong: read the paragraph of 2-6-6-6 that begins with "One H-8". I don't know the interior workings of steam locomotives, so it might be that this wasn't a firebox issue, but it sounds vaguely familiar. I'd provide pictures if I could, but the only photos of this incident that I've seen were in a printed volume. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The steam locomotive engineer and fireman (U.S. terms) had a water gauge showing the water level in the boiler. They had to make sure the water level was high enough to prevent an explosion and low enough to allow sufficient room for steam and to prevent water being sent to the drive cylinders. It was manually maintained and not generally automatically regulated. The combustion chamber or firebox was surrounded on the sides and top by the bottom of the boiler, so that water kept the steel at a temperature where it did not soften or melt, and could withstand the steam pressure. This is on the same principle that Michael Faraday demonstrated in lectures that water could be boiled in a paper bag over open flame. The combustion temperature was probably selected to get the most energy transformed from coal to steam power, rather than just sending unburned fuel up the chimney in gas form. A high temperature was needed to get the gases which evolved from partial combustion to burn completely. The boiler also had "staybolts" running between top and bottom to withstand the pressure. If they neglected to inject water from the tank in the tender as water was lost in steam, or if scale clogged the ports on the gauge, or if the cock from the boiler to the gauge were closed and it lied, the water level could drop below the "crown sheet" above the firebox. Then "crown sheet failure" would cause the superheated water in the boiler to burst through the crownsheet, and through the firebox, into the locomotive cab. scalding the engine crew to a horrible death. The ends of the staybolts had holes drilled into the exposed part, so that if a staybolt broke, the steam would whistle through it and warn the crew. Staybolt failyrure could also cause boiler failure. If a tube which carried the hot gasses through the boiler broke, steam would leak out as well. The ends of the tube could be plugged in the shop and the boiler could continue to be used until a general overhaul was possible. A former engineer told me that one reason railroads preferred diesels was the manpower needed for constant inspection of the boiler interior. Edison (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know what is Doll's rule in Evolutionary Biology.
I am preparing for an Anthropology exam conducted by public service commission of India. The Doll's rule is part of the syllabus for that exam. I did not get proper result when I searched in Google. Please refer the syllabus for the exam in the following link
http://www.threeauthors.com/upsc-exams/show.asp?xx=cse_m&x=9&yy=cse_m
I request you to give me information about Doll's rule
Are you sure you don't mean Dollo's law? Our article is short, but well referenced, and pretty self explanatory. I'll let you read it and decide if that is what you are looking for. It is certainly related to Evolutionary biology... --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know how the components of a bicycle puncture repair kit work. Is sand-papering the area really necessary? I notice the repair plaster things are mostly black (like the inner tube itself) but with an orange layer which is supposed to interface with the rubber solution. Does the rubber solution dissolve this orange layer? Does it dissolve anything else? What's in the orange layer? ----SeansPotato Business07:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The orange layer does not dissolve. I have often repaired cycle punctures since I was a child. I image that the orange part, which is more flexible than the ruibber part, is to help fix the stiffer rubber part to the inner tube, particularly around the edges. If you did not have the orange part, then the rubber part could more easily start coming away from the inner tube at its edge, but it is held in place by the more flexible orange part. You may notice that the orange part tapers down from the rubber part, so it avoids a step which would otherwise more easily start coming away from the tube. 78.149.198.158 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This question fall in the area of psychology: I'm trying to find a name for a theory I have heard. Acoording to the theory (or what I remember of it) we do not - in a way - remember a past event but the last time memorized that event. That is, when memorize something we don't only retrieve a memory, we also "rewrite" it. I'm not sure I found anything on the subject on Wikipedia although confabulation touches the idea. I'd be happy to have any pointers as to what terms I could use to search scientific databases. Samulili (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the exact hypothesis (which is the correct name of a scientific "theory", have a look at theory) you describe here, but it certainly touches long-term memory, long-term potentiation and therefore memory consolidation. And my impression is that this hypothesis is oversimplifying a lot, so it probably is no scientific explanation, rather a "layman's terms" explanation. Our memory is more complex than this explanation suggests (for example, there is more than one type of memory). --TheMaster17 (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're talking about - the idea is that every time we remember something, the act of remembering it "rewrites" it - possibly with small changes. This is supposed to account for phenomena like False memory syndrome where the act of being repeatedly quizzed about a non-existant event can cause that event to become a memory. Lost in the mall technique is a way to demonstrate that this happens. I think Interference theory comes close to what you're looking for. SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a Wikipedia article but there was a very interesting story about a study on memory (and similar to the original question,) which I heard on NPR: [here]. The summary is that tests on the effectiveness of Beta Blockers led to research into how well people remember things while taking the drugs and then after they stop taking the drugs. Apparently it was possible to coerce a pre-existing memory OUT of someone's mind while they were on the drug, by causing them to recall a memory and then fail to re-remember it. They would then have no recollection of that memory even after they stopped the drug treatment. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the "bankers" who took over General Motors from Durant were actually the E.I. deDuPont de Nemours Co. When the government ordered DuPont to divest itself of all General Motors stock they had to pass a special law to keep DuPont/General Motors stock owners from having to pay so much tax that they would flood the market of GM stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.149.145 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Is there any simple way to determine the valence of an atom just by looking at its position on the periodic table? If not, which is the simplest way to know the valence of an atom (I'm fed up with having to look up each atom on the Internet :()? Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.232.9 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the number of electrons in the last shell, then the group the element is in is the number of electrons in its valence shell, e.g. Oxygen is in the 6th group and has 6 valence electrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.51.138 (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That rule of thumb works for many small atoms, but larger more complex atoms have pathological valence behavior. The transition metals are the perfect example of this - almost all of them have two valence electrons, even though they span many columns of the table. Use caution when applying rules of thumb to valence electrons, as the physical behavior can be more subtle. Nimur (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For main-group elements (The tallest groups, AKA the s- and p- groups, AKA the "A" groups), the ones that start with H, Be, B, C, N, O, F, He; just number those groups (ignore the transition metals for now) from left to right; that is the number of valence electrons in those atoms. Thus, the first tall column from the left has 1 valence electron, the second tall column has 2, the third tall column has 3, and so forth. This only works for the main groups.
For the transition elements, it is a much more complicated situation. Basically, the "d" orbitals are so close in energy to the "s" and "p" orbitals that the atom can freely "borrow" from these d-electrons as needed to expand the number of availible valence electrons. All transition elements at first glance should have exactly 2 valence electrons (since they all have a full s orbital on the outermost energy level, and the "d" electrons are always added to an interior energy level). Take an element like Manganese for example. It has the basic electron configuration or [Ar]4s23d5. So one would say it has a valence of 2 electrons, since there are 2 electrons on energy level 4. However, since the 4s and 3d orbitals are very close in energy, one can find a wide range of valences, and thus oxidation states, for Manganese this is pretty much anything from +1 to +7 inclusive; though the main ones are +2, +4, and +7.
So basically, the system is ONLY reliable for the main group (tall columns) elements, the middle bit is pretty much memorize it or look it up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what would happen to an everyday object if it were propelled towards earth from outerspace. It would definitely burn up. Venus has a more dense atmosphere than Earth and a higher surface temperature too so would it not make an ideal place to dump? What would be the problems and disadvantages of doing so? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.51.138 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How were you going to get waste to Venus (or anywhere in outer space)? Using a three-thousand-ton rocket, you can loft about fifty tons away from the Earth — and building the rocket and refining its fuel generates more than fifty tons of waste, even if you could recycle all of the components. (For comparision, New York City generates more than ten thousand tons of waste every day.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Your waste disposal suggestion has a flaw in the "going up" part, rather than "coming down" portion. For rocketsgoing into orbit you'd have to budget $100 million per launch. Attempts to cut those costs by an order of magnitude ended in failure. Since you don't want to have your trash spread over a significant area of real estate or ocean, you'd have to go for a reliable system. NASA budgets about $250,000 per pound going to the Moon and I guess you'd have to multiply that by a significant factor if heading to Venus. You'd also have to transport your trash to suitable launch sites (not in my back yard). There'd also be significant additional waste from producing and discarding the rocket. Since the carbon footprint of moving the stuff into orbit or hauling it toward Venus is unlikely to be lower than that produced by Incineration the idea isn't going to fly :-)71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to keep in mind is that you're trying to solve a problem that really doesn't exist. The whole "we're running out of places to dump waste" meme is a misperception. As I understand it, it started because *some* landfills around heavily populated areas like New York were no longer accepting garbage, but there is more than enough room in rural areas for more landfills. It's a thousand times cheaper to ship garbage from New York to Nebraska than it is to shoot it into space, even when using state-of-the-art nonpolluting landfills. This also ignores the fact that most of the garbage can be re-used, either through recycling the metal/glass/plastic/paper, or by composting the organics, or even just by burning it for energy. (Again, getting rid of it with state-of-the-art low-polluting incinerators is still orders of magnitude less expensive than shooting it into space.) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus following generations might curse you for dumping precious resources in hard to get places. They might have to resort to sorting through our trash for things like copper, gold and titanium (there might be even better examples) because the mining resources are depleted. Even incinerator ashes would be better than going to Venus for resupply. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before the questioner makes a similar argument for supposed "we will never want it" waste, such as nuclear waste, keep in mind that just because we have no use for the waste at this time does not imply that we will never have a use for it in the future. Considering nuclear waste, it may turn out that nuclear waste will become a highly valued resource in the future. It may turn out that it is never used and future generations curse us for creating it. We do not know the future, but we do know that digging up waste on Earth is easier than travelling to another planet to get it. -- kainaw™17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The most common nuclear waste still contains over 95% of the fissionable atoms. (It becomes waste not because the fissionable atoms are used up, but because of the buildup of fission poisons.) Current nuclear reprocessing methods can bump that from ~5% to ~20% usage, but it is likely that future developments may allow us to increase that even further. Additionally, some of the fission byproducts may have other (non-fission) uses, like in radioisotope thermoelectric generators. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing that one has some waste to dump in outer space, what is the attraction of using a little planet like Venus when one can drop the waste in the Sun ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is easier to get to Venus than the Sun. To reach the Sun you have to get rid of all of the angular momentum an object on Earth has due to the Earth's orbital velocity. To get to Venus you only need to get rid of some of it. --Tango (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The volcano will readily return whatever it is to the surface, in far more diffuse and potentially hazardous form. If the waste can be incinerated, then use an incinerator. If it's something like nuclear waste, you'll irradiate much of the island. — Lomn18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The molten rock is moving. So, the uranium must sink faster than the upward flow of the rock. Add to that the fact that the uranium will become molten as well and it is obvious that some of the uranium will be pushed back to the surface - causing a huge radiation problem. -- kainaw™19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uranium melts at 1100 degC - Lava (according to our article) sits between 700 degC and 1200 degC. I would assume that it gets hotter the deeper in the volcano you go. Uranium is about 8 times denser than lava - so it would likely sink to the level where it melts - then mingle with the rock - and ultimately be shot back out of the volcano - perhaps as ash - spreading radioactive debris over a large area. Definitely not a good plan. If it were that easy - trust me - we'd already be doing that! SteveBaker (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that idea is even sillier. I mean, we can set light to the garbage and burn it without going anywhere near a volcano. The idea only has any merit whatever if you could somehow entomb the waste in the lava and have it somehow wind up never coming back. However, that has no merit either...so forget it! SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoreticly we could transport the waste to Venus;Mars;Moon...on a more cheaper scale, for instance the creation of a giant pipe to space to be loaded on transports made in space so negating the need for the 25 billion tonn rockets people are talking about; if we are talking the future this is feasable but highly improb as the earth moves matching rotation ECT...am sure people would say other reasons. in the future we may be able to process waste in ways where we can gleem all the usfull bits down to molecular level and only the most fundemental parts would be waste. However we could just store waste in space at absolute Zero in giant ice cubes so if the need arrises we can collect thaw and use seems sensible to me and space is so very very large214.13.64.7 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm assuming that there is some software that allows you to simulate flow of e and holes in a semiconductor piece whose doping is specified.
Is there a generic name for such softwares? I want to write one as my project. Should I post this in Physics, computer or maths ref desk. It involves all three.
Putting 'simulation' 'electron hole' etc into a search engine throws up many examples - as for specific software - don't know.
Also see [4] which gives transport physics in semiconductor devices as a possible name for the area - also try searching for "transport models semiconductor devices" - it looks like "hydrodynamic model" is an alternative method to a "monte carlo" based model.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at SPICE ? SPICE is the standard electrical engineering simulation software for semiconductors. The more advanced commercial SPICEs (like HSPICE) simulate device-physics quite thoroughly. You can program down to very specific minutia of the semiconductor geometry, physical properties, thermal effects, etc. Depending on who you ask, SPICE is either a software simulator, or a programming language, or an internal engine for another CAD tool. In its original incarnation, SPICE was 1-part circuit net simulator and 3-parts differential-equation-solver; it has since evolved into a full-fledged circuit design, layout, and simulation engine that is distributed in several free and commercial versions, and integrated into larger CAD packages. Nimur (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that, for a dog, a car is a natural object to urinate, is there a special reason why they always do it on the tyres? For us this choice is more or less OK, but what do they mean? Thanks --pma (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is because the tire is attached to the ground, much as a growing plant (a tree) might be. But I am not sure why a tree, except that marking territory may be involved. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) :Dogs signal who they are by marking with urine any prominent outcrop on the ground that other dogs may sniff. The tyres of a car are the only parts that touch the ground. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as no dog pheromones have been scientifically described or characterized, and no human pheromones have been scientifically described or characterized, I would suggest the previous answer be taken with a huge dose of skepticism. Rockpocket02:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's there. I walked a lot of male dogs and they pee/poo anywhere within reach. Tires just happen to be a convenient place. Since tires give off a lot of scents obtained from travel (roadkills, poo and other street smells) they become a magnet to curious dogs. My dogs also sniff my feet to check where I went when I come home from a journey. --Lenticel(talk)05:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"My guess is because the tire is attached to the ground, much as a growing plant (a tree) might be. But I am not sure why a tree, except that marking territory may be involved." -- Is this also the reason why dogs love to pee on fire hydrants?
76.21.37.87 (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What supplies would be best for walking across the USA from Atlantic to Pacific (say Baltimore to Portland Oregon)? Weight should be 50lbs or less, and you would start in April. Assume you do not have shops at which you can resupply. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry should have clarified better. This is a survival scenario. So for food, a rifle say is acceptable as there are animals to eat. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(before Edit conflict with OP) How do you propose to feed yourself on less than 50 pounds? It is probably going to take 8-9 months to make the trek by foot; it takes people about 3 months to hike the Appalachian trail, and that is probably 1/3rd the distance you are trying to cross. If you are not going to be buying any food along the way, then the best thing I can think to do is to arrange for someone to mail you food and other supplies and pre-designated depots. Packages mailed to a post-office or UPS store in your name can be designated to be held for pick-up. If you carefully plan your route, and have your friends mail you packages to the right places to arrive at the right times, you can keep yourself stocked. Alternately, you can have someone go ahead of you in a car and bury caches containing the supplies which you can dig up; that's often how early explorers did it. But considering that you probably need to eat at least 1-2 pounds or so of food each day, you will probably only be able to carry a month or less of food (considering also that part of your 50 pounds is going to be non-food supplies as well). (after Edit conflict) OH!!! You want to be able to hunt and forage for your own food? That will be significantly harder; probably impossible to do so legally, given the laws in many places about poaching or the like. --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also guaranteed to a) reduce any other provisions and your clothing to shreds, since goats will eat/chew anything and everything. b) extend your trip by a couple of years because most goats aren't that cooperative, don't like hiking all day and spend most of their time awake either eating or ruminating during which time only an act of god will move them. Also the US is no longer the Wild West. If you want to go hunting you need a hunting license for each county you are passing through. Fishing licenses are separate in most jurisdictions. Regulations on carrying weapons and ammunition vary widely. The bigger issue than food is going to be water. There are quite a few places where there's absolutely no water to be found for miles around. Then there are places where the water that is there will kill you. Either fast or slowly. Then there's the weather. People who wander away from civilization do get killed due to exposure. In summer you get toasted [5], in winter frozen to an icicle [6]. ...and all that without meeting any of the even less desirable elements (of society). [[7]] 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't possible. You have close to a thousand miles of desert and mountain to get across, and you won't make it. There's hardly anywhere where you can legally hunt out of a special season. If you carry a gun, you'll be arrested 20 times, and even if not, hunting would slow you down so much that you'd be caught by winter halfway. This just isn't a feasible scenario. Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in most of the United States, it is technically perfectly legal to carry a firearm unconcealed (legislation varies by state and local jurisdiction - Wikipedia has a great set of articles, Gun law in the United States and Gun laws in the United States (by state) - but these are guides only, and you should check with the local sheriff or consult a lawyer regarding specifics). Rifles and shotguns are less regulated than handguns in most states. However, even if it is legal to walk along the road carrying a hunting rifle, it will almost certainly draw attention from law enforcement, who may question you (and may have the option to arrest you, depending on local laws). (They will probably also inform the law enforcement in the next district you plan to walk towards that an "armed transient" is en-route). Hunting out-of-season, however, can be difficult (this is called poaching and will be probably be noticed); but it's possible that with effective planning, certain legal game could be found in reasonable proximity to much of the walking route. Nimur (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't possible, then it is possible. Bring lightweight fishing gear, and a slingshot. I don't know what other advice to offer, but I too have wanted to walk across the United States. Bus stop (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd also be trekking across large rivers (like the Mississippi), tall mountains (perhaps some with glaciers), major highways, and perhaps fences and private or restricted property (like Area 51). Bring a map, and some, erm, gear. Lightning is also a danger, as are flash floods, tornadoes, blizzards, and other elements of extreme weather. You might encounter bears or rattlesnakes in forests and semi-deserts. Also, where are you going to sleep and use toiletries? You can't possibly walk for 9 months straight, so there have to be suitable places you can stop every day and night. Also, if on the off-chance you happen to be walking in Nebraska when global warming hits, or close to Wyoming when the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts...you might be in a little trouble. And that's not to mention the 2009 flu pandemic (assuming you start your hypothetical journey in the near future), and if you're travelling through a large city, you'd have to use roads and maybe you'll get stuck in traffic and then you'd want to book a hotel. ~AH1(TCU)00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walking across the U.S. without restriction, such as the ability to buy food and water in town as needed, and simply choosing to walk rather than drive, and camp rather than get a hotel, would be entirely possible in about a year or so. One could easily choose a path that would stick to major highways and you should be able to hit at least a rest area with a snack machine and clean running water every day or two. However, crossing the continent as though it were wild; living off of the land and avoiding all civilization would be nearly impossible. Lewis and Clark did it, but it was a well-funded government expedition with the cooperation of native peoples. It took them over a year to reach the Pacific from St. Louis. They left in May 1804, arrived at the Pacific in December 1805, and did not get back to St. Louis until September 1806. Add another 1000 miles to cover the trip from Baltimore, and if you assumed you had to travel under the same conditions they did, the trip the OP proposes would likely take 3-4 years, if you survived at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the shortest journey would seem to be a straight line, but that would run you through Lake Michigan! Under that straight line, it's about 2,370 miles. You might as well stop in Chicago along the way, but it can be done—Terry Fox ran from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Thunder Bay, Ontario (3,339 miles in 143 days), but of course taking breaks every day at cities and towns, all the while with cancer and wearing a prosthesis! ~AH1(TCU)01:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to believe that noone has mentioned the American Discovery Trail which crosses the U.S. and has been thru-hiked. Apparently there aren't many hikers, campers or hunters among the answerers here. It isn't all that dangerous or impossible. Also hunting licenses are state issued (with extra stamps for migratory birds issued by the federal gov't.) - not by county. Rmhermen (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50 pounds would be a punishing load to carry on the back. A bicycle would allow you to carry the load and to move at 15 miles per hour or faster on highways (if it did not count as part of the 50 pounds.) If you were afoot, the 50 pounds of load might support you for a month, and you would only be a small fraction of the distance from start to finish. You could carry 10 pounds of food, clothing and supplies on a 40 pound bike, and live off the kindness of strangers. If you carried a laptop, you could probably find hosts every 50 miles or so who would house and feed you free, allowing a 2800 mile trip (per Google maps) in 56 days. If you are a member of some religious denominations, and told them it was a pilgrimage or some such they would likely host you. Edison (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A strong male hiker can easily carry 50 pounds 20 miles per day up and down mountains -- I've done it. But it takes 2 pounds of food per day to maintain weight if you're hiking long distances, and that's if the food is chosen very carefully, so 50 pounds won't get you through a month even if the bulk of it is food. (An ultralight hiker may get along with less than 10 pounds of non food/water weight.) Also, if you think you can find hosts every 50 miles, you haven't driven across Nevada. In any case, walking across the US is definitely doable if you can resupply with food -- however you'll be carrying well over 50 pounds for some stretches, most of it water.) Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Easily??!!!" I say bullshit as to carrying a 50 pound pack up and down mountains 20 miles, except for Marines, Commandos or other Rambos. Wheeled transport would be more feasible. Why carry such a load if you can ride or pull it on wheels? There is a good highway system. I agree that a month would be an outside estimate for how long the initial 50 pound pack would support your food needs. As for water, there are lightweight devices for water purification which would suffice except in desert. Edison (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, 50 lb is heavy, yes -- a couch potato would certainly have trouble with it but for a well-prepared backpacker it is really not out of the ordinary. You have to assume that the person proposing to "walk across the country" is going to do the requisite pre-trek preparation (cardio, weights, endurance) so that they'll be in near-peak physical condition. If that person isn't capable of some pretty serious physical activity then the expedition is doomed from the start. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Jayron32 above, "living off the land" isn't quite right for Lewis and Clark, as they acquired a great deal of food from Native Americans. And, differing from the OP's idea of walking (solo I assume), Lewis and Clark did not walk except when they had to but rather used boats with rowing crews and tow ropes to pull. And they had a party of (mostly) experienced wilderness travelers, some of whom were regularly assigned "hunting duty" in hopes of bagging some food for everyone else. In those days one was able to wander into the woods or prairie with a gun, hoping to shoot some animal (that was not the property of ranchers, etc, as mostly the case today) to feed your party. In any case, I'm hard pressed to imagine how one would "live off the land", without trespassing and stealing, while walking across Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska, which have been almost completed converted to farms, not to mention Wyoming, southern Idaho or northern Utah, and eastern Oregon or Washington, as these regions semi-desert at best. Finally, if resupplying at stores is not allowed, and you are planning to hunt for food carrying a pack of less than 50 pounds, wouldn't you rapidly run out of ammo? Perhaps a shorter version would be feasible--say one state rather than the whole country. Pfly (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no longer "an abundance of elk and deer" in most places. (OR Even in the past 40 years or so the area where we live has changed from being out in the boonies with farms, woods and a couple of houses to being almost "downtown" Atlanta.) Apart from all the caveats on hunting cited above there's the fact that carrying 50lb you'd need a diet high in calories. Meat is high in protein. I sincerely doubt you'd have that easy a time finding passerbies in downtown Oakland willing to trade you a rabbit fur for a bag of flour, but you're welcome to try. Hiking the American Discovery Trail[8] has nothing to do with "living off the land". Hikers usually carry freeze dry food and bottled water. (I don't think your portable water purifier could handle the alkaline and Arsenic puddles you'll find in some places on the way [9]). There are stops on the way where you can buy or pick up provisions. Many parks it passes through are wildlife preserves and the rangers would probably toss you out pronto if you tried to hunt there [10]. It also passes over some private property and through towns and villages. As said above you can't hunt and hike at the same time. The trail has certain stages that depend on things like opening hours for parks. You can't do whatever you want where ever you want to do it, either. There are regulations in parks that limit where you can camp, what you can use the surface water for, where you can light fires etc. In some places you can't swim or bathe in the lake or river in the park, but have to use the official campsite facilities. You might be able to do what you are planning in some local places in the US, but finding enough of them in close enough proximity to hike across the US without picking up provisions is highly unlikely these days. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are actually more deer now then when they colonized the US. Don't know about elk though. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(further tangent) Deer populations plummeted in early colonial times due to the Deerskin trade, though there were probably other factors keeping numbers down (wolves etc). Pfly (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original question needs further clarification. What is "a survival scenario"? Is everyone dead from a super-virus, but the infrastructure is intact? Are you transported into an alternate reality where the continent is in pristine condition untouched by humans? Have you slept through the singularity and the land has lain fallow for a thousand years? "Survival scenario" may suggest that you don't need to bother with human regulations and local game laws... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As many as 100,000 Americans are chronically homeless. Their health is poor, their morbidity and mortality is way above average, and they rarely have the energy to trek across the continent. But, many do live for a very long time. If the original poster is willing to adopt this sort of lifestyle, it seems plausible to self-sustain. But even a homeless person will use modern infrastructure (like buying food at stores and accepting charity every now and then). Few can survive a totally isolated existence. As has been pointed out, America is not the same place as it was when pioneers and explorers set out - even the undeveloped parts of the country are usually privately owned. Taking what you need for survival "from the land" relies on public-domain land (or murder and theft of other people's stuff). Both options are generally unacceptable in industrial society.Nimur (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nimur -- could you please keep politics and revisionist history out of this? Your comment about "murder and theft of other people's stuff" was really uncalled for. Thanks!
Is the mistreatment of natives not something that nearly everybody agrees has happened? If it isn't, I'm shocked. I know all about the extent of creationism, global warming denialism, and even HIV denial, but this? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not denying that it happened, just disputing the allegation that it was the white race (my race) that started the whole conflict. As far as I've been able to decipher, it was the natives who first attacked Jamestown, in the same year that it was founded. As for "global warming denialism", please keep in mind that this whole "global warming" thing has not been conclusively proven yet, and in fact this year has so far been the coldest on record since 1989 -- so one could actually make the case that what is taking place is not global warming but global colding. So call me a denialist or even a racist, but that doesn't automatically mean that my views are wrong and yours are right.
"The white race"? "The natives"? So the Emperor of all Natives said to the King of the White People "I take this marble, and sell you the continent", and when the the harmless White settlers arrive, the Natives suddenly attack them? Such an understanding of history calls for a quote from Forrest Gump indeed.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How could the natives "sell" to the white settlers land that they didn't even own?! With all due respect, I think it's your understanding of history that calls for a quote from Forrest Gump. Besides, you're putting words in my mouth that I never said, and distorting the statements I made in my posts.
Well, what did you mean when you talked about "the white race" and "the natives" as if those where entities that are remotely useful in a historical debate? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant exactly what I meant, the white settlers from Europe and the native Indian tribes. What do you mean by saying that these entities are not useful in a historical debate about what is essentially a racial and territorial conflict? Or are you trying to assert that the concepts of race and nationality in general are nonexistent and/or irrelevant? If the latter is what you're trying to say, then your statement flies completely in the face of all common sense and holds no water.
I alleged nothing. I merely stated the obvious - either the land resources must be in the public domain, or they must belong to somebody. If the OP intends to take things from the land (by hunting, etc), and does not want to exchange money, then the options are either to find public domain land (which does not exist in the present time), or to steal things from privately owned property (by force). It is up to you to interpret how that corresponds to historical precedent. 76.21.37.87's commentary suggests a limited perspective on history, though, as Jamestown is a very small part of a continent (which had been inhabited for thousands of years, and explored/colonized/traded/attacked/etc. by Europeans for at least a hundred years). Nimur (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as your statements about the ownership of land resources are concerned, these are obviously correct and I do not dispute them. However, I don't think that your statement "It's up to you to interpret how that corresponds to historical precedent" is consistent with your putting in a link to "Population history of American indigenous peoples" and labeling it "murder and theft of other people's stuff" -- that sounds to me exactly like an allegation that the settlers had started an unjust war (which, I repeat, is not what is believed to have really happened back then). And as far as history is concerned, may I remind you that the Indians had no concept of land ownership and did not technically own the land -- and therefore, the whole continent was technically in the public domain at that time?
Someone more or less did walk across the US in modern times - probably the 70s. They wrote a book about it, which I read. Cannot remember his name. I think he did not, as far as I recall, complete the whole journey. Since lots of people cycle around the world, then lots of people must cycle across the US, which must be easier to do. 78.147.135.194 (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Forrest Gump who walked across the US -- and yes, he did complete the whole journey.
Yeah, it was Peter Jenkins; I stand corrected. The reason I thought it was Forrest Gump is because that movie had an episode where he walks across America just because he feels like it and doesn't even realize the historic implications of his journey. That scene was no doubt inspired by Jenkins' journey, though.
In most towns, food could be obtained quite regularly by [Dumpster diving], if the restriction on resupplying from shops means not purchasing, rather than shops not existing. In between, all those regular sessions of getting arrested would also lead to free meals (and showers) in various local jails. But the price of getting out of them may exceed the planned budget. Doing odd jobs in exchange for food may also be feasible, unless the survival scenario excludes the existence of other humans (which would also put paid to the eating in jail idea, but make poaching easier). So, spare socks and shoes, lightweight rain cape/ground cover, several sets of clothing to layer for various temperatures, a rifle,fishing gear, digging tools (for vegetable foods found on the way), a light cooking pot and a LOT of matches. Notebook, pencils and camera to leave an explanation for those finding your remains.- KoolerStill (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved your comment to the main section "Walking across the USA" -- it must have been split into the "GW tangent" section by mistake.
As for "global warming denialism", please keep in mind that this whole "global warming" thing has not been conclusively proven yet, and in fact this year has so far been the coldest on record since 1989 -- so one could actually make the case that what is taking place is not global warming but global colding.
-
- ::Setting aside the fact that "colding" is not a word, did you know that there's no debate amongst climate experts that significant anthropogenic global warming is happening? A distinguishing feature of cranks is that they claim something has "not been conclusively proven yet", when it fact it has. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the idea that there's "no debate" at all among climate experts about "global warming"? I've been to a conference on alternative energy a few weeks ago, and I've heard one of the experts there (a distinguished physicist, by the way) question the assertion that global warming is happening at all. Are you saying that he's a "crank", as you put it? And if, as you assert, it has been conclusively proven that "global warming" is happening and is manmade, then where's the proof?! What about the alternative (and very credible) explanation that "global warming" is caused by an increase in solar activity?! There's also a warming trend on Mars, are you saying that this is manmade as well?! Also, keep in mind that many of those who say that global warming has been "conclusively proven" have a vested interest in having people believe that: Al Gore, for example, so that he could make more money off his movie "The Day After Tomorrow"; environmentalist organizations looking for new recruits; developing countries, who would just love to have us here in America limit our economic output so that they could force us out of first place in GDP; and so on, and so forth. In fact, there's reason to believe that this whole "global warming" thing is a myth created by developing nations for the express purpose of harming the developed nations' economy. And last but not least, you haven't answered my question: HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE COOLING TREND OBSERVED DURING THIS CALENDAR YEAR?
The "cooling trend" during this calender year is called "the weather", or possible "the seasons", depending on your location and scope of observation ;-). Please see our article scientific opinion on global warming for the support the mainstream opinion enjoys, and Talk:Global warming/FAQ for several of your misconceptions. I think the "developing nation conspiracy" is a new one, though...how exactly do they get all the first-world scientists and National Academies on board? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my question regarding the warming trend on Mars, which can only be explained by solar activity, and therefore supports the theory that the global warming seen on Earth is likewise at least partly caused by the aforementioned solar activity as well. As for "how exactly do they get all the first-world scientists and National Academies on board?", remember -- not all of them are on board, as I previously mentioned. Besides, in science it's all about the proof, not about the consensus; at one time or another, the mainstream opinion in science had embraced a whole bunch of theories that were later disproved, such as the geocentric universe, the phlogiston theory, the Lamarckist model of evolution (as opposed to the Darwinian model), Gobineaux's racial theories, the "general theory of relativity"... the list goes on and on. So just because (almost) all of the scientists say that it's so doesn't mean it's necessarily so.
No you haven't neither -- I've seen the section you refer to, and it doesn't give any explanation whatsoever for the warming trend on Mars, nor does it offer any meaningful evidence to refute the solar activity hypothesis, it just says that the other scientists don't agree with it, which by itself is not enough evidence to refute it. After all, when Copernicus said that the Earth goes around the Sun, nobody believed him either, but later on they found that his theory was the right one. As for 97% of active climatologists being in favor of global warming, remember that there are still the 3% who question it, and they might still be proven right. Remember, scientific theories are evaluated solely on their own merits, not on their popularity (even among specialists in the field).
Sigh. There is no reliable data for a global warming trend on Mars. We need about 30 years of data on Earth to get a reliable trend. Mars' year is twice as long. We have no global climate data on Mars even now. Do the math (and the logic). What we do have is an indication that some regions have less ice than two years before. Do you have a source for the claim that Copernicus heliocentric system was rejected by scientists at the time? Yes, scientific theories are evaluated on their merits. But isn't it interesting that 97% of those best equipped to do so come to the same core conclusions? And, BTW, those 3% are not contrarians - they include the undecided. And even among the contrarians, there is no agreement for any reasonable theory - after all, we have Singer's "unstoppable 1500 year natural warming" vs. Abdussamatov's "the next ice age is coming". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. Let me point out that arguments of the form "You don't know how it works, therefore the sun-god did it" went out of style with the pyramids. That said, if you look at Climate_of_Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_change, you can see that there are reasons to believe that this is likely a local phenomenon, that it possibly is connected with the behavior and distribution of dust, and that it possibly is an effect of unstable climate shifting between different modes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out that there are also "reasons to believe" the same about the warming trend seen here on Earth, based on some of the climatological evidence? There is still not enough evidence to say for sure if global warming is indeed manmade as you assert, or if it's also an effect of "unstable climate shifting" caused by changes in ocean currents or cloud cover or the like -- there just isn't. Only the future will tell which of these theories is right. And BTW, when did you see me mention "the sun god" in any of my posts?
You might want to ask yourself why you give so much weight to a tentative 3 (Martian) year trend in certain local features on Mars, and so little to 150 years of instrumental records, millennia of fine-grained reconstructions, a well-understood radiation model (that predicted warming of the right order of magnitude long before we could begin to measure it) and heaps of other data. You're welcome to your opinion. I'll stick with all the National Academies of Science, thanks. Sun, Sun-god, it's all the same to me ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really recommend that you check out the article "Global warming controversy" -- it features both the "mainstream" view and the various dissenting views, for which there's much more support in the scientific community than you think (Pielke, McEntire, Armstrong, among numerous others). Then you'll see that there is indeed continuing debate about the validity of global warming, and maybe you might even begin to form an informed opinion of your own, as opposed to merely repeating what the mainstream scientists say.
Pielke supports the main IPCC conclusions - he just thinks we overemphasize global and underemphasize local effects. Armstrong is a Professor of Marketing, for all that's worth. McEntire is a musician - do you mean Stephen McIntyre? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant Stephen McIntyre -- I must have subconsciously confused him with Reba McEntire. As for Pielke, if you go to the Global warming controversy article and read it carefully, you will see that he actually questions several of the IPCC findings. Plus, there are quite a few other scientists that the article mentions by name who question the global warming theory, whose names I omitted from the list to avoid making it too very long.
Given the abundant thorns, and a lack of anything else identifiable, this could be a variety of thistle, or perhaps a member of the rose family, perhaps some variety of wild blackberry. The leaf shape does remind me of blackberry; but that leaf shape is fairly common and not a good identifier. Do you have any other pictures which show flowers or fruit or other distinguishing characteristics? --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the UK, so your foliage may differ, but that looks identical to the wild blackberry ("a widespread, and well known group of several hundred species, many of which are closely related apomictic microspecies native throughout the temperate Northern hemisphere") or bramble that has latterly taken over my back garden (gardening is not my favourite occupation). Since blackberry picking was historically a popular pastime, it does not seem unlikely that this plant - if not already present - would have been deliberately introduced to a New York park. I trust the park staff will be able to keep on top of its vigorously spreading habits. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fuzziness was making me think more dogrose than bramble, but it would be easier to tell with more pictures of more developed bits. Any fruit or flowers would help. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more pictures, but it didn't have any flowers or fruit. [11][12] I don't think I've ever seen fruit on it. I may have seen this plant with small white flowers a while ago but I'm not sure. Doodle77 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your other pictures, I am not sure we can get any closer than something in the Rosoideae (rose) family. Dog rose or blackberry or raspberry or any of a number of similar plants will produce similar thorny bramble. If we could see the fruit, we could tell if it had berrys or hips and that would help narrow it down. Likewise, the flowers could be helpful. But given that the plant is not currently flowering or fruiting, it is hard to narrow it down more than that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those pictures hardens my gut feeling that it isn't bramble (blackberry-type) but a wild rose. The stems look too thin and smooth, and the thorns too 'fuzzy', for bramble. Small white flowers support bramble, though. Hmmm. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smooth stem doesn't rule out bramble. If the plant developed from an offshoot or fruit of a bramble bush in s.o.'s garden that e.g. got dropped in the park by a bird, then it is possible that it is in the process of reverting from a "thornless" cultivar back to the original thorniness. Lots of cultivated varieties of the Rosoideae do that if left to their own devices. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that all the penis enlargment pills currently avaialble are just scams but is there any promising and genuine scientific research going on to develop a pill that really does work to enlarge the penis?
No. If anything were remotely promising, it would already have been headline news in every media outlet just as Viagra was the top of the news everywhere when it just began the first round of trials. -- kainaw™19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i have seen penile enlargements; but was always shy to ask its owner the cause.
still don't believe in those wierdos who advertise on enlargements; as they are only out to plunder your bank!!Seacucumber06 (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every day in my email, I get people trying to sell me Acari Berries. What the hell are these things? They claim that they're some sort of new fruit that was found in the Amazon that if eaten regularly can cause weight loss, increase lifespan, prevent cancer, cure various diseases and even enlarge the penis and increase sperm count. I know that it's all quack rubbish but seriously, what is the Acari Berry?
See Açaí Palm. You can blame Oprah for this. Her show claimed that it is a wonder-drug and now the scammers are using it to lure idiots people into handing over their credit/bank info. -- kainaw™19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[[13]] This might be something akin to what your asking but doesnt increase size of the penis; however if you eat a whole bag of these it does have a sort of natural vigra effect; i found this out while eating a large bag :) 214.13.64.7 (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! A pre-flight baby bird has been grounded in my back yard. Luckily, the mother—who appears to be a robin—is still taking care of (i.e. feeding) the thing. Now, I know nature is cruel and everything—but, I mean, c'mon, the little guy is right out there with the whole open mouth routine and everything, and evolution has been sloppy about making sympathy a human-exclusive. I fear that if I leave the robin on the ground it might fall prey to—well—a predator. Is there any simply way to elevate it or something to keep it relatively safe for the night? (I live in a NE US suburb—maybe predation is not much of a threat?)
Do you have something against the cute furry little predators? They have to make a living too. Those fox puppies are just SO cute...and soooo hungry - and you're denying them lunch - what a heartless brute! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could contact a Licensed Official Wildlife Rehabilitator, who might take the wee bird away and care for it, or who might take it away and kill it (I have read of such results), or you could try putting it back in the nest (having observed which nest Mom and Dad bird are rearing the siblings in). Do not attempt any hazardous tree climbing. Edison (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usual advice is not to add it back to the nest, as handling the chick can result in scaring the parents away and disturbing the nest can lead to it being abandoned (at least, when I've been in this situation, this is what we were told). You might get away with putting the chick on top of something tall and difficult to climb (like a wheelie bin or bird table), but generally if the parents don't manage to take care of the fellow and get it flying, its only hope of survival is probably you hand-rearing it (so, taking it inside, in a lined box, and feeding it and providing it with water). 89.168.106.72 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The advice you cite, about not handling the chick, is contradicted by the RSPB link above; but the RSPB link talks about "UK birds" having a poor sense of smell...which begs the question, is it OK to handle birds in other countries to get them back in the nest? Tempshill (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife experts routinely remove young peregrine falcons from nest to weigh them, take blood samples, and band them before returning them to the nest. The parents watch and complain somewhat, but do not reject the young when they are returned to the nest. Edison (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an ornithologist or a wildlife expert in general, but from what little that I do know about birds, you could try to put the chick back in the nest, just be VERY, VERY careful not to damage or disturb the nest in any way.
76.21.37.87 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Placing the bird on an elavation is just as good - Garage roof - but not neccesery the reason the bird has left the nest is it is learning to fly (can cover very small distances). Most young chicks will stay close to the nest when fledging; this is usualy on the ground not at the top of a tree and will stay in the surrounding area for a week or more near the nest site. The parent birds will still feed the chick for this period. in the case of some birds (Doves) the parents will lay twice or even three times in a season depending on the country, only when they have layed another brood of eggs will they stop feeding the first brood.214.13.64.7 (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[11]](http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5980/plant2.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4182/plant3.jpg){kind=link}