Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 November 11

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.

November 11

Shipping a private vehicle from the US to China

I would be very grateful if someone could help me locate information regarding shipping a private vehicle from the US to China. I haven't been able to turn up anything regarding rates, regulations, even approximate transit times. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have specifics - but I know it costs a couple of thousand dollars to ship a small car from Australia to the US - and maybe fifteen hundred to ship to the US from UK. The distances are kinda comparable. The saving grace might be that the US imports a VAST amount of bulky stuff from China - and exports a much smaller amount of more compact stuff back again. It follows that there are shiploads of mostly empty containers going from the US to China. The law of supply and demand says that it should be pretty cheap to ship your car. I know it takes about a month to ship a car from Australia - China ought to be similar. Regulations...sheesh...who knows?! It's a minefield. China may have easier regs than the US - but coming back in the opposite direction (from UK/Australia INTO the US), I wouldn't consider doing it unless the car was an 'antique' that would be exempt from emissions control & safety regulations, etc. SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's just shipping charges. I think Israel charges 100% tax on US-made cars. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this fact connect with the question? Or do they already have rights to tax shippings between arbitrary countries?--131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the estimates, Steve. Foreigners in China actually get one tax-free import each last I checked. As you can imagine, there are all sorts of shady businesses here constantly bombarding us with offers to "buy" that free entry so that they can import a {insert suitably ultraexpensive brand} car under your name. The going rate in my part of the country is $3000~$4000, (legality aside) not bad at all if you're only here for a year or two and wouldn't have taken advantage of that right to begin with. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here; Wikipedia does not, in any way, condone any illegal activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're indeed correct that bulk shipping from the US to China is usually significantly cheaper then the reverse, so going solely by distance is probably not a good way to work out the cost. The only potential issue is that if you want to ship a car, it's going to need a large container. As a large amount of the traffic going back is probably smaller containers this is likely to be where you get the best prices but I presume you'd also get a decent price on a car too. However I have no idea what this is, and doubt anyone here does either so your best bet may be to actually ask a few shipping companies how much it would be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

exercising in smog

What's better for your health: Living in a place with high air pollution (smog) and trying not to "move" much, or moderately exercising although that implies breathing in more polluted air more deeply? Which would more likely improve your life quality and life expectancy in the long run?

I'm interested both theoretically and pragmatically: What would you consider for such a comparison? Only the harm to the lung vs. "all" benefits of exercising, or what else? To what extent does the baseline matter--e.g., is walking a total of half a mile and some stairs enough to give up further exercise? And down to earth: What's the rule of thumb you'd use to decide?

I'm asking because my friend (lower 30s, without health or weight problems so far) lives in Cairo, a city with considerable smog, and without easy-enough access to less-polluted areas for exercising. What would be your advice? Any thoughts? --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Yes, I know you're not giving medical advice, yada-yada. But it's not exactly a question for which to see a doctor. :)

It's really impossible to generalize - and we don't know the nature of the pollution, the density of it, the need for the person to have additional exercise, what time is spent outdoors, what time indoors, whether filtered airconditioning is available, the age of the person, how long is spend exercising...there are WAY too many variables.

However, I'd ask you this: What is the proportion of the day you'd spend exercising? If you exercised for (let's say) 1 hour per day - which is arguably more than is really needed for normal health - and if you breathed (let's say) twice as fast and just as deeply during that time - then the amount of additional exposure you're getting by exercising is only around 5% more than you'd get if you didn't exercise. That seems rather little compared to the benefits of regular exercise. If you did your exercise in someplace with more filtered air (indoors - perhaps someplace with an airconditioner) - then you could easily control the amount of pollutants being cycled through the lungs during periods of high respiration. SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"if you breathed (let's say) twice as fast and just as deeply during that time"

— SteveBaker

During exertion, tidal volume increases before respiratory rate. During heavy exertion, minute volume can reach 60 litres per minute, compared to about six litres per minute at rest. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This study examined the effect of acidic fog (sulphuric acid). They found only mild, short-term irritation in the lungs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is only limited information about this matter. Here are a couple of interesting articles, although they don't directly answer your question. My opinion (original research): there are only a few adverse effects from exercising in the polluted environment. It's probably better to take exercise in this situation, than not to take exercise. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How did you find the articles, Axl? Any particular search tool? ... - Thanks to both of you for your hard facts and speculations! Very interesting! And not being an (active) AC user, I didn't even know that they can have filters. :) Although then we probably get into the additional problem if the ACs are well-maintained or if they may spread additional unhealthy stuff like bacteria...

Steve Baker, type and density of pollution in Cairo don't seem to be well-studied (anyone needs a research topic? :))... but 2004 World Bank data found that Cairo had the highest amount of particular matter per m³ worldwide, and other stats weren't much better. It scored 10th for sulfur dioxides 1995-2001 (though I doubt that's still up-to-date information), and no information was published on nitrogen dioxides, but that would likely be pretty elevated as well. No idea if pollution is relatively evenly spread throughout the city, but Wikipedia says that Cairo's pollution is in part caused by cars, so presumably it is. ... Hmhm, you learn something new every day. :) So if you should have further facts or thoughts, keep them coming. --Thanks for answering (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just in case someone else reads this and jumps to conclusions: Yes, the articles only found throat irritations, but that was because they were only looking for those. Smog has (for right or wrong) been compared to smoking cigarettes, and if you compare throat irritations of smokers and non-smokers, you'd find the same: only throat irritations. If you look at more severe long-term effects, however, you'll find more... Smog#Health_effects gives a little intro, but I'm not sure it covers all research there is about long-term effects... --Thanks for answering (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the 2006 research Smog and Smug there is negative correlation between smog and smugness levels. I afraid that your friend have no other choice but to continue practice under heavy smog conditions, it's much safer than becoming smug.--Gilisa (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"How did you find the articles, Axl?" I use PubMed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And no, Gilisa, I'll rather have friends who smugly protect the environment than some cool, but irresponsible people. The only problem is that in the US, people somehow believe that buying a huge hybrid car and then using it a lot somehow is environmentally responsible. Fortunately people abroad are a bit smarter about the environment or simply too poor to cause as many environmental problems as does the US... else the planet wouldn't be in noteworthy shape anymore anyways... --Thanks for answering (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Fields

A cat carrying a house mouse. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a mouse problem and have considered buying a 2-in-1 mouse repeller - that uses an electromagnetic signal and an ultrasonic one (I've heard that they may not work; but with a money back guarantee I figure I've got nothing to lose). My flatmate is paranoid of such devices (despite living around mobile phones etc.) - does anyone have a link to a reputable website or verifiable Wikipedia page with some information supporting the safety of such devices? Ideally not a manufacturer's website, if possible. Thanks

I know this does not answer your question, but why not use a good old-fashioned mousetrap? They have never let me down, and you can get humane ones very easily, at least in the UK (which are unfortunately not included in the article).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; one of the reasons I'm trying to use these deterrents (and avoiding traps and poison) is that I'm not convinced I can kill them faster than they can reproduce. I don't like the idea of clearing out loads of mouse corpses either, though I don't think that would be a problem as the damn things ignore the traps I have put down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia page is Electronic pest control, but that doesn't go into the safety. Electromagnetic radiation and health appears to be thoroughly referenced and might be of some use. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this was particularly useful, especially the WHO references on the Electromagnetic radiation and health page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried 3 methods of mouse control, with varying success:

1) Traditional "break their necks" mouse traps. I never caught a single mouse with those.

2) Poison. This killed some mice, which I later smelled decomposing somewhere (one in the ceiling), and just blinded others, which then stumbled around my house until I did them in personally. Very messy and very cruel. The poison also stinks, and the decomposing mice gave off the chemical smell as well as the usual dead mouse smell.

3) Glue boards (with some grain as bait in the center). This trapped all the mice. Note that they are exceedingly cruel in that one mouse ripped off half of his face trying to escape. You also have to finish them off yourself, which I do by drowning (they drown in about 12 seconds). However, they solved the mouse problem quickly. Glue boards also catch insects and spiders, which is a nice side benefit, but does mean you need to add fresh boards every once in a while, as those coated with dead insects no longer can catch a mouse.

Also note that you need to figure out how mice are getting in and block that route. In my case we have an enclosed back porch which they apparently can enter, and from there they accessed the house through a door left open for ventilation. I now keep that door closed all the times. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Victor and RatZapper make electronic computerized mousetraps that are unbeatable. They operate on a few AA or C batteries. The Victor model sells for circa $17 at Amazon or in hardware stores. They have a microcomputer which uses the resistance between floor grids in an enclosed chamber to detect the presence of a rodent, then they apply a lethal jolt of electricity. The RatZapper allows a remote indicator to tell you when it has got one. The Victor has a blinking LED on top when it has got one. You dump out the carcass and push the reset button, then kill the next one. They do not steal the bait, nor do they spring the trap and get away as is common in spring traps. They do not get stuck and suffer like in glue traps. There is no fantasy of catching them in a live trap and releasing them outside (in which case they may be back inside before you are). Edison (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We have some mouse traps we bought in the UK - they are slightly angled square cross-section tubes - sealed at one end with some bait (peanut butter works well) and with a trap-door on the other end. As the mouse walks into the trap, the tube kinda tips over (it's hard to explain in words) and the trapdoor is sprung. The mouse is perfectly OK inside and even has to peanut butter to enjoy. You take the tube to someplace a few miles from your house, unlock the trap door and up-end it and the mouse scurries away, none-the-worse for the experience. The trap can then be re-baited and re-used as many times as you need. So long as there aren't long-distance "homing mice" in your area you'll do fine! We caught several mice that way...until we moved out into the countryside where the rattlesnakes take care of the mice and all you have to worry about is not stepping on the snakes! SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And for every mouse you release 5 miles from your house, someone will catch a mouse and release it by your house. This probably improves the genetics of the mice by reducing inbreeding, but it in no way reduces the number of mice entering homes. Edison (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would hope people don't release them near other people's houses... You go 5 miles away to the middle of a field or wood or, as a last resort, a park. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Or the exercise area of the local cat shelter. Googlemeister (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Living in a messy student house a few years ago, I tried the live mouse trap described by SteveBaker, with mixed results - two mice went straight in, but there were one or two more which never did. An ultrasonic deterrent had no effect at all; I saw one mouse about a foot away from it. Eventually, just cleaning everything thoroughly and ensuring that all food was sealed away seemed to persuade them to leave. Warofdreams talk 02:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you catch them faster than they reproduce? It depends, I imagine, but I once had a major mouse problem that got solved in literally two nights with some peanut butter and old-fashioned spring traps. They were, no joke, pretty much jumping onto the traps as far as I refilled them. (I had originally planned to not re-use the traps—just to dump them with the mice into the trash—but it became clear that there were way too many mice to do that without buying more traps.) I think over the course of two nights about a dozen mice wandered onto the traps we put out (sometimes while we were still in the room!!!). We never had any more mice trouble after that. We attribute it to the mice being not too bright and liking peanut butter a whole lot, and I know other people have had mixed results with such traps. But in our case, we were definitely able to get a handle on the mouse problem with traps alone. Horrifically, the mice we caught got smaller and smaller as things went on. "Mom, Dad, where are you? OH! Peanut butter!" --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mice don't like the smell of peppermint oil. Don't know why, they just don't. Apparently fabric softener sheets smell nasty to them too. Also, fine steel wool to block up the holes they use is a good deterrent. For a humane trap, rig up a tipping tube trap, like this. Fences&Windows 03:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This type of devices does not work for roaches, despite what promoters claim. I'd be very hesitant to buy into their use against mice. Always research dissenting opinions before buying! 98.14.223.150 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Honey sugar

Think of a completely isolated country that has plenty of honey and very little if any sugar cane. Can they use their honey, of any type/flower source, to make something akin to granulated sugar, perhaps by leaving it in the sun spread flat for a few days? Could you use whatever they get through that to make toffee and that lot, or to put in a mix to make solid chocolate, and what might the difference in taste be? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Honey, honey derives its sweetness from glucose and fructose monosaccharide. Since table sugar is sucrose; a disaccharide, (composed of fructose and glucose) it is theoretically possible to produce table sugar from honey, probably through polymerisation, ultimately likely to be through an industrial process. It's unlikely that honey would have a 50:50 split of glucose:fructose and therefore there would likely be waste of one of the monomers. Polymerisation generally requires the removal of water through enzymatic interation with the monomers, but I doubt this would occur were honey to be left out in the sun. With the prevelence of sugar cane and sugar beet derived sugars, I have doubts about whether this would even be an economically viable process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so actual chemically-identical proper granulated sugar is impossible. That's fine. This country (which is a setting I am building upon) is renaissance-medieval with no industrial revolution in sight nor any external trade. Basically what I'm asking is can honey or dried/solid honey (or whatever-happens-to-sun-dried-honey) be used like cane sugar to make toffee, to put in tea, to make icing with, to sweeten eating chocolate with, etc, and how would it impact the taste? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you simply dried it you would just have dehydrated honey, and it would still taste like honey when you rehydrated it. So it would affect the taste of whatever you added it to. For many things, that would be OK, but some foods with a rather subtle taste might be overwhelmed by the taste of honey. It is certainly possible to extract glucose and fructose from honey, and these would be much more like table sugar, in that they would add sweetness with hardly any other flavor. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Would extracting the -oses be possible in the society's technology level I have described, though? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. However, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of reasonability to suggest that dehydrated honey would make a substitute for what you've suggested. Honey would likely crystallise before supporting the growth of micro organisms (due to a low water activity) and could be expected to make reasonably good baked goods, perhaps with slightly different properties (cookies might be a lot more gooey, for instance). Don't forget that if this is a fictional universe, your characters would (presumably) have no appreciation of the qualities of table sugar and therefore be unaccustomed to anything else. Overpoweringly honey-tasting baked goods would be the norm if that were the only sweetener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The transition from refined sugar from sugar cane to high fructose corn syrup in much of the sweetened food in the United States has shown that the population at large either adapts or does not notice some changes to the sweetening agent. Nimur (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In a hypothetical world, you'd imagine that people would adjust their entire cuisine to the idea that sweet things have that honey flavor - so perhaps they'd never think to inject sweetness into subtly flavored foods - just as we don't put chili peppers into subtly flavored dishes. They would not even be aware that it was an issue. SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, refined sugar is a relative newcomer in some cuisines. For millennia, people around the Mediterranean have used honey, as well as dates, grapes, carob, figs and such (and Lead(II) acetate in ancient Rome) to sweeten their respective cuisine. Sugarcane was only introduced in the Mediterranean by Arabs after the advent of Islam, see Sugarcane. For example, the Seven Species of staple foods of the Land of Israel include grapes, figs, pomegranates, and dates, but not sugarcane; milk and honey are also mentioned explicitly. --Dr Dima (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of ironic that the question refers to a "hypothetical" medieval country, but really applies quite genuinely to actual medieval Europe, where honey was relatively common but granular sugar was very rare and expensive. The main differences are that honey has a distinctive taste with a strong element of bitterness, and honey has different cooking properties -- it gives baked goods a stickier texture, and it isn't usable to make hard candy. Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that even cane sugar back then was refined in the same manner as our standard white sugar today and would most likely have been closer to brown sugar then white. Googlemeister (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Speed of gravitons in a black hole?

What is the speed of the hypothetical particle which carries gravitational force, the graviton? If the graviton is limited by the speed of light, how can a black hole exist? The gravitons would need to move faster then light to escape the black hole, and if they didn't there would be no black hole in the first place? Are they superluminal particles? Could they be used to violate causality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.204.230 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they "would need to move faster than light to escape the black hole"—presumably the graviton itself would not be affected by gravitational force, per se, but be the carrier of gravitational force. But perhaps someone else with a deeper knowledge can explain further. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any theory of gravitons would require that they travel at the speed of light and be influenced by the topology of space-time. In other words, they would pretty much have to be affected by gravity in addition to being the cause of gravitational force. Making that self-consistent with our large scale understanding of the universe is one of the reasons that a quantum theory of gravity has remained elusive. Dragons flight (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Building off the above, the speed of gravity is well understood to be the speed of light. Regardless of the existence or properties of the graviton, it's empirically clear that (1) black holes exist despite the speed limit of gravity (or, if you prefer, the propagation of gravity is not restricted by a gravity field) and (2) gravity is subject to the same cosmic speed limit as everything else. Causality remains quite safe. Note also that causality may aggressively defend itself if you start getting too close to violating it. — Lomn 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a similar question asked very recently. As I said there, the gravitational field of a black hole doesn't come from inside; it's actually left over from before the black hole formed. The answer to "how is this explained with virtual gravitons?" is that the virtual particle approach to forces isn't always useful and this is probably one of the times when it's not useful. -- BenRG (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The structure of Einstein's general theory of relativity requires that everything is affected by gravity. (Specifically, the presence and strength of a gravitational field in a particular location depends on how you choose coordinates, so it is arbitrary. It therefore makes no sense to say 'not affected by gravity,' since how such a particle would move would depend on which coordinates were used by the physicist to describe spacetime.) 70.26.152.160 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The fossil gravity explains the black holes gravitational effect outside the event horizon. But is there still gravity at all inside the event horizon, bearing in mind the >c escape velocity within?80.0.100.27 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is curved spacetime, i.e. gravity, inside a black hole. There's no sudden change in the field when you cross the event horizon; you feel what you felt before, namely, increasingly strong tidal forces. The field inside comes from the collapsing matter after it crosses the event horizon. The idea of "escape velocity" probably isn't useful here either. Escape velocity is the minimum outward velocity a free-falling object must be given such that it will never fall back down. A powered object (like a rocket ship) can escape at a much slower speed if it wants to. You can't explain the one-way nature of the event horizon by saying that the escape velocity is c there. -- BenRG (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

heptane, 3-methylene-

Is there any chemical information available about heptane, 3-methylene- ?? I am looking for a CAS# and/or a MSDS if possible. Timetraveler 013 (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same compound than 2-Ethyl-1-hexene (CAS 1632-16-29 ?--Stone (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Iron ore question

Hello. I left a post here a bit ago (and linked to it at Talk:Iron) yet it hasn't received any response, so I thought someone here may have some information that could help answer the question. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats a good question, but I've no good answer. All I can tell is that iron made tools from 2000BC were found in what was once Mesopotamia and that iron carburizing was known process in the Middle East at about 1200BC (this could be a byproduct discovery of iron production process). I guess that they just identified minerals rich with iron ore by sight. But I will look for additional information on the web to answer this.--Gilisa (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I found this book[1]. Seems like it should include an answer.--Gilisa (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way would be "look for rust". Seriously, iron ore readily oxidizes to form iron oxide (rust), so there will be the characteristic reddish color of rust wherever you have iron ore. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually most iron ores are oxides or oxyhydroxides and are pretty distinctive - haematite and goethite are rust-coloured, limonite is yellow-brown and magnetite is distinctly metallic. Mikenorton (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I was curious but noticed the relevant articles lacking in any indication of how iron ore was identified before modern geological techniques. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do crocodiles care for their young? (Schnappi)

Do real-life crocodiles care for their young? Schnappi's parents do, but Schnappi is make-believe. Mike R (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To certain extent. The mommy corcodile carry her offsprings in her mouth untill they are mautre enough, before that, when they are still in the lair, she come immediately when they sound stress signals. However, when they are mature she send them away, and they better keep it this way for their own safty.--Gilisa (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a short passage about it in a book on crocodiles here. They guard the nest, etc. It's mainly the female, but the male chips in occasionally. Fences&Windows 03:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Diet of crocodile hatchlings (also Schnappi related)

Do real-life baby crocodiles eat flies, like Schnappi does? Flies are Schnappi's favorite thing to eat. Mike R (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nile_crocodile#Diet_and_eating_behavior mentions hatchlings do eat insects among other things. I don't know if that includes flies specifically, but I doubt they are very picky. Rckrone (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Nile crocodile. I had just looked at Crocodile and found it lacking. And Nile crocodile is Schnappi's species (Ich bin Schnappi, das kleine Krokodil / Komm aus Ägypten, das liegt direkt am Nil)

I've added Nile crocodile to Crocodile#See_also Mitch Ames (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, see the article talk page Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you have more than one closely related question (in this case all your Schnappi related questions), it's better to post them together. If, on the other hand, you have totally unrelated Q's, then post them separately. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will remember that for next time. I did have some Schnappi questions for the Entertainment desk, and others for the Science desk -- I assume those should remain separate, correct? I love Schnappi. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you have both entertainment questions and science questions. StuRat (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)