Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 April 7

Science desk
< April 6	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 8 >

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.

April 7

Radio station reception

I'm not sure if this falls under technology or electronics, but if it is the latter, feel free to move this to the computing desk. One of my favorite radio stations is KFDI-FM out of Wichita, Kansas. Unfortunatly, I live in the vicinity of Salina, Kansas. This map shows the reception range of KFDI (at the range where Salina is, the reception could be classified as spotty at best). Here are the technical specifications of the station. What steps can I take to get better reception, perhaps by modifying a radio? Would a Broadcast relay station be a feasible step on the part of either the radio station or myself, considering that would allow this radio station to tap into an additional 55,000 people for it's market? In short, what ways (other than their online stream) could I attain reception of this station in Salina? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A bigger, better, higher, directional antenna is the obvious answer. What type of antenna do you have now ? StuRat (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the type found on a vehicle so that I can get reception while driving. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That isn't going to work, as you can't mount much of an antenna to a car. So, a rebroadcast relay station might be your only option. You could put a big antenna at your house, then rebroadcast from there, but you'd have to get the station and the FCC to agree, and good luck with that. StuRat (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, that range map is rather iffy. The range is not usually completely circular like that. The two primary reasons are local geography, such as hills, and the signal being somewhat direction, when broadcast. StuRat (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You say the range is not perfectly circular because of hills… Have you been to central Kansas? :-) —Bkell (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also back up and ask why this station is so important ? Is there a particular program you just love ? Maybe there's some other way to access it. StuRat (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The news and severe weather coverage is unparalleled, and for a severe weather fanatic like me, this makes the station very appealing. I like to monitor the station when there is severe weather to the South or southwest that may move towards Salina. Unfortunately, this is one of the times/situations it decides to offer its most spotty reception. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a weather radio would be in order ? StuRat (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For news, perhaps the local NPR station, KHCD-FM, 89.5, might do. They aren't 24-hour news, but have frequent news, including in-depth stories. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not a practical option. But they have an option to listen on their web-site. What's the G3 covereage like in your area? You could theoretically listen on a mobile internet device like an iPhone.

(Be very carefull about monthly bandwidth caps and overage fees before trying this!) APL (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A better antenna would be a good option. FM radio uses approximately the same frequency as VHF TV. So any good VHF (not UHF) TV antenna would also work for FM. In fact you may have a TV antenna on your roof already, and with a splitter you can get FM from it as well. There are a LOT of different kinds of antennas. I'm certain with a good antenna you could receive your station. A car would be tough, but even there you might be able to do something. For example a whip antenna tuned to exactly the frequency of your chosen station. After that any improvements (other than height) will also cause your antenna to become directional (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the antenna design). This may be tough in a car. The more directional the antenna the weaker a station you can receive, but also the harder it is to position it exactly right (plus it won't get other stations). Ariel. (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

acid rain/ fog

wouldn't fog contain more acid/impurities than rain? because its more concentrated/ has less water in it ?

Fog is not necessarily "more concentrated" than rain, it just contains smaller size droplets (which are therefore suspended in the air and don't fall to the ground). As for the amount of water, both of these form when humidity reaches saturation level, so the amount of water is the same. FWiW 24.23.197.43 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fog is basically a ground-level cloud. Since rain comes from clouds - it's hard to imagine how there would be any difference in the impurity level. I suppose it's possible that rain might pick up impurities as it falls - but then we'd have to ask what the past history of cloud was. If there is a general answer, I'd guess that they would be about the same. SteveBaker (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Acids in rain that cause acid rain usually forms dissolved compounds in the droplets such as nitric acid and carbonic acid. Impurities, or particulate matter, often forms condensation nuclei in the cloud. Since fog or cloud droplets are usually smaller than raindrops, as rain is the combination of many smaller droplets from condensation, it's possible that the minute amounts of acid or particulates in the droplets could combine and add up. However, according to acid rain, "Occasional pH readings in rain and fog water of well below 2.4 have been reported in industrialized areas" (acid fog is a red link). ~AH1^(TCU) 02:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Acid fog is usually referred to as a Pea soup fog and becomes so because the fog is trapped in an Inversion layer, hence giving it time to soak up combustion products. Rain can get very polluted when caused by such instances as the bombing of Hiroshima (black rain) or rain from the ash column of an erupting volcano. The volcanic rain may well contain hydrofluoric acid, which can dissolve glass. They both should have the same load carrying capacity as the other, all things being equal. --Aspro (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A Pea soup fog is a thick fog. Acid fog is acidic fog, it needn't be thick. Pea soupers may, however, have been acidic, but one is not necessarily the other. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The term pea soup fog refers specifically to a thick fog that contains a high concentration of sulfur dioxide, usually from coal smoke. Therefore, it would have a significant acidity. In other words, any pea soup fog is by definition acidic, but not all acidic fog can be referred to as pea soup fog. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Salt Level in water to corrode metal

Hi Friend,

can you help me with this?

i am constructing a recycling water system for washing vehicle.

i need to know the dissolved salt level in the water that will corrode metal.

example: maybe 2000ppm and above will corrode metal.

so i will discharge all water and replace them before reaching 2000 ppm.

please assist.

Alex Singapore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thocy (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Salt corrodes iron by promoting ion exchange and redox reactions between the iron and the air/water. Therefore, any amount of any salt in the water will tend to accelerate corrosion to some extent. That said, the rate of corrosion is directly related to the concentration of salt in the water -- sea water will corrode iron pretty quickly, while tap water will cause only a negligible amount of corrosion (in the short run anyway). In short, there's no hard and fast threshold above which salt will corrode iron; the main rule to remember is, the less salt the better. FWiW 24.23.197.43 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Water will corrode iron even without any salt. Make your pipes out of a different metal. Aluminum if you can, but it's probably hard to get pipes. Copper is probably your best bet, it resists corrosion even with seawater, and it's easy to buy. Copper pipes come (in the US) in three different thicknesses, K, L, M. K is thickest, and you way want to spend a little extra and use it instead of a thinner one. You can also use plastic, PEX is a good choice for high temperature applications, also CPVC (not regular PVC). Ariel. (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You can also protect your iron pipes via Cathodic protection, usually by using coated iron pipes; i.e. iron coated with aluminum, magnesium, or zinc, such that the more active metal is sacrificially corroded, protecting the iron. The lede of the Cathodic protection article specifically mentions protecting iron pipes as a common usage. --Jayron32 05:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

But this is a vehicle washing system - isn't the problem to protect the vehicles rather than the washing equipment?!? You can certainly have the washer use plastic pipes - but if someone brings their car to be washed, the last thing they want is salty water squirted up into places where water wouldn't ordinarily go! When the roads have been de-iced with salt, I take my car to the car wash to wash the salt off. If the car wash recycles its water then after a few dozen cars have been through it, they'll be worse off than if they hadn't been washed in the first place! SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

“But this is a vehicle washing system - isn't the problem to protect the vehicles rather than the washing equipment?!?”. Why would someone who purports to be from Singapore be interested in protecting YOUR auto-mobile? Does the company ‘you’ work for really put the preservation of customers assets before its own? So why should Alex? --Aspro (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The question was a very reasonable one, about a salinity limit for the makeup water system to be held to at a car wash, and I understood the limit to be for avoiding excess rust of the cars. Does anyone have referenced data to respond to it, as to industry practice? Edison (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interesting site describing how a system which washes salt trucks (good recipe for getting salty water in the drain) did not just dump the salty water into the wewer to harm the environment, but used filtration including reverse osmosis to get the salinity of the discharged water down to 1/20 that of the tap water. Clearly a less ambitious setup could get it down to the same as the starting level in tap water. [1] under "salinity" says it is not recommended to set some safe salinity level to prevent corrosion (for reason a chemist might understand). Edison (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a company which sells equipment to reclaim water used in carwashes, including removing salt. Their technical documents might be helpful. Edison (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

physics question

Alright I've been working on this one for such a long time, could someone please help me? Two steel balls are suspended on 1.50 meter long strings of negligible mass. The first mass is released from rest from an angle of 40.0o and collides perfectly elastically with the larger mass which was originally at rest. To what maximum angle will the larger ball rise after the collision? The answer is 26.4 degrees but im wondering what to use like conservation of energy, momentum or something else. Thanks for your help. 198.188.150.134 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would use conservation of momentum. But first you will also need to calculate the velocity of the first ball when it hits the second (acceleration due to gravity). The by using conservation of momentum you know the velocity of the second ball, and then you'll need to calculate how high it will rise due to that velocity (inverse of before), and then a little trig to see what angle that makes. I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any difference that it moves in a curve, rather than straight down, so use the angles to calculate height, but otherwise ignore it. Ariel. (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

why not use conservation of energy? m1*g*r*(1-cos(40deg))=m2*g*r*(1-cos( ? deg)) gravitational potential energy 157.193.175.207 (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

edit : this is the 'maximum' height in the sense that it is the height reached if the first ball transfers all of its energy to the second ball. You probably need 2 equations (energy and momentum conservation) to figure out how the energy gets redistributed over the balls. 157.193.175.207 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you need to use both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Unless the two balls have the same mass (which we can infer they do not) then the first ball is not stationary after the collision and so does not transfer all of its energy to the second ball. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want us to do numeric calcs, we'll need to know the relative masses of the two balls. StuRat (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

...or we can work backwards and infer that the first (swinging) ball has half the mass of the second (stationary) ball. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@157 and Gandalf: you do need to use both conservation of energy and momentum, but you don't necessarily need to do it with two equations. A helpful simplification is that in an elastic collision, from the center of mass reference frame, the balls appear to be each traveling at the same speed before and after the collision. Buddy431 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So let's see here: I get that the first ball drops 0.35 m, and so is traveling at a speed of 2.62 m/s before the collision. The second ball reaches a height of 0.16 m, and so was traveling at a speed of 1.75 m/s after the collision. The 2nd ball was initially at rest, so we see that the center of mass must be moving at half that speed, or 0.88 m/s, during the collision. An elementary center of mass calculation shows that the second ball has twice the mass of the first. Buddy431 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes in cooking oil

I have put this on the science desk because it seems to be a science based problem. I have been cooking in sunflower oil in a small electric fryer. The fryer and the basket is now soiled with a kind of adherent waxy/rubbery substance which is clearly altered oil. It is on the areas of the fryer which are open to the air, that is, it is not below the level of the oil, just the lid, basket and handle. What type of substance is this? How can I clean the fryer because it seems to be impervious to detergents and caustic dish-washing products. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the oil that has under gone Polymerization. Is the vessel stainless steel , aluminium or glass etc.,--Aspro (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The main part is Teflonned aluminium, others are plastic. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest steel wool, but it sounds rather delicate, and would be scratched by anything that would clean it, so I think you're just going to have to live with it. StuRat (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Try very hot water with laundry detergent and a stiff toothbrush. As the construction involves aluminium avoid caustic soda, which would otherwise have been my suggestion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Teflonned aluminium! Oh dear. Personally, I would never fry in Teflon cookware do to the toxic by products caused by heat -so throw it away.[http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon] Also, the cooking oil industry has spent billions persuading both the public and the medical industry that saturated fats are bad, despite the fact that the healthy liver produces them. For frying in future, and to avoid this rubbery gummy stuff, use hard fats like coconut, palm, or if your not kosher, ghee or lard. They are the best. These also have the advantage of being able to cook at higher temperatures without burning. Also, change fat frequently, to avoid a build up of acrylamide. If the teflon coating is in good condition then you could risk applying some soda crystals which is less caustic. The liquid version that comes in a squirt bottle is easiest to use as it is just the right consistency. Coat liberally and leave over-night. Next morning remove as much of the softened rubbery gum as possible. Apply some more soda and leave again. Main ingredient required is ‘patience.’ The Teflon coating should protect the aluminium beneath. --Aspro (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Toxic products due to high temperature teflon is not so true. By the time you reach a high enough temperature to release anything toxic, oil would have released massive amounts of smoke, or even caught fire. In other words, you never get the teflon that hot. Ariel. (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP seems to be talking about a deep fat frier. I don't think you can practically deep fat fry things in ghee or lard (I've never used coconut or palm oil). You would also be using enormous amounts of the stuff. I use a small amount of ghee when making curries, but I would never soak my food in the stuff, it would be a heart attack on a plate. While saturated fats are an acceptable part of your diet, they are only acceptable in small amounts. --Tango (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fish and chip shops across the North of England use beef dripping to fry their food. The taste is far better (in many people's opinion, including mine) than frying stuff in oil. The dripping heats to a higher temperature, which instantly seals the food, and reduces absorption of the fat by the food: in which case, it should even be healthier than frying in oil. [2] Don't whatever you do use palm oil: you will render orangutans homeless! [3] Olive oil is not really suited to deep frying, being too heavy. I think you need to clean your fryer much more often than you have been! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are genuinely concerned about orangutans it's surely better to use sustainable palm oil rather then try and halt development in SEA completely because you've already destroyed a significant part of your forests so wanna feel good by forcing people to preserve stuff for you at no cost. Particularly since if you don't encourage the growth of the industry, what's likely to happen is it will be sold to places like China where there's far less incentive to do anything properly and there being no similar prescription on say soyabean oil which is more inefficient to produce and could come from the Amazon (of course a big part of it goes for cattle so perhaps you don't have to worry about the oil) or say the plenty of inefficiently produced oils in the developed world (but as I said it's okay, we cut down the natural forest there a long time ago so no need to worry) P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't consider the environmental effects of your decisions but that I strongly dislike the simplistic thinking that goes into things like 'don't buy palm oil, you will render orangutans homeless'. Things are alot more complex then fit in a Greenpeace slogan unfortunately and it's all to convient to care about environmental problems in other countries where your decisions are not going to have a big effect on you or the people you know and your country and then not worry about the ones far closer to home which will affect such things. Sadly simplistic thinking leads to things like thinking of jatropha as a wonder crop, we all know how that's turned out so far [4]... Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses - very helpful. I think we are going to be finding an alternative to sunflower oil. We used to use olive oil which did not polymerise to such an extent but was more costly - ah well, you get what you pay for (usually). Thanks again. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Try corn oil. See Smoke point for a nice list. Note that Sunflower oil has two entries in the list, and also that the smoke point is not everything, the particular type of oil matters too. I don't know which type is better/worse for frying though. If you check the articles for the particular oils you'll see a wide variety in what specific kinds of oils they are made of. Ariel. (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the promotion of saturated fat usage by Aspro, and suggest you read Saturated fat as to the increased health risks associated with high consumption of these fats. Edison (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks chaps, I'm not as daft as I look. [5] Caesar's Daddy (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The questioner was not asking about a balanced diet of fats. So I can’t be accused of promoting saturated fats per se. Also, I stated clearly that the cooking oil industry has spent billions promoting their products. These sales and marketing factoids are based on theories without substantial scientific proof that diets high in saturated fats cause CVD (co-morbid smoking rates did much confuse the results and so call them into question still further). Nor have the pharmaceutical industry proven that lowing blood cholesterol reduces death in ‘real populations’, nor do they attempt to explain why population with diets very high saturated fats (like the Inuits) have enjoyed low levels of CVD (until they adopted western diets). These awkward facts are often mention in medical journals such as the BMJ. There is much nonsense written and repeated about fats and oils. Prof. Udo Erasmus has probably done the most thorough systematic review of fats and oils, if you would like to discover more. Here is his bit on frying. [6]. His book also has a complete bibliography of the papers referred to so you can download them and read them for yourself. Finally, the best fish (with omega 3) and chips are deep fried in lard and always have been. Once a week on a Friday, they can form part of a good balanced diet. --Aspro (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And why would the those promoting low saturated fat oils have more money to spend than those promoting their high saturated fat products ? StuRat (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would that answer along these lines: First: don’t think of it as low verses high; that’s a sales and marketing position. People used to consume a variety of different fatty acids.

Second: Lard, beef dripping, mutton tallow, coconut oil were all established fat rendering industries. So was lubricating oils from rape seed. When plant breeders found that they could produce vegetable oils that were cheaper than traditional fats and that they could be modified to be used as pseudo substitutes, the breeders and oil processors were able to convince their governments to trumpet their products (and to give them attractive tax incentives to spend money on sales and marketing, applied research etc.). This, their government were/are willing to do, as it increases growth in exports. Also, by possessing these oils so that they had longer self life their profits increased further. These companies (like others in a competitive market place) used these profits to increase their market share. People new the price of lard but did not realize they where paying over the odds for vegetable oil. That’s how.--Aspro (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Does "paying over the odds for vegetable oil" mean "getting subsidized discounts on vegetable oil" ? StuRat (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

?

I have forgotten the name of the logical fallacy that you're introducing but I get the drift of you question.

A landowner once waxed lyrical to me once about how much European Union subsidy he was getting per hectare of rape. So yes, I suppose he was able to sell it for less, than he would, if he did not receive the subsidy. However, a few years ago when I was doing some cost analysis for a friend who was about to open a restaurant, the traditional fats cost a lot more. Pig farmers in Europe/coconut farmers etc., work to very tight margins. They don’t get the same sort of preferential treatment as other fatty acid producers. So, I would ‘say’ (and I emphasis this because I don't have hard figures to hand ) that the public has paid the full cost of traditional fats AND at the same time, paid over the odds for vegetable oils for which the producer has also received government subsidies. So whilst Joe Public has been able to buy ‘cheaper’ units of food, the industry that produced it, and the retail trade that sold it, was able to extract more of a percent profit per unit.--Aspro (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading way too much into my Q. I just don't know what the expression "paying over the odds" means. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case: pay over the odds--Aspro (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So it just means to overpay ? StuRat (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what I just said?--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you gave me a link that said "Phrase not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia", but which did contain other links that eventually led me to that conclusion. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into cooking oils for deep frying and there are many factors to consider. For example, how often do you deep fry? How do you keep the oil? Unless you're Bill Gates, cost is an important factor. For example you may think it worth spending say double for oil which lasts longer. But would it be better to use the cheaper oil but change twice as often? Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, enough already. I was asking about cleaning the fryer. Please step outside my question if you have other issues ;-)) Caesar's Daddy (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Renal agenesis

Are there any simple symptoms to tell if you were born with one kidney (unilateral renal agenesis)? My father was born with one kidney, but he didn't find out until he was 31.--十八 09:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is something you'd need to see a medical practitioner for, as the easiest way to diagnose such a problem is by a scan. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this article. In particular, "URA [unilateral renal agenesis] is an asymptomatic condition usually discovered during routine prenatal ultrasono­graphy. Before the advent of prenatal ultra­sound, the diagnosis of URA was usually made incidentally when radiographic studies were performed for other reasons." The short answer is: no. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Advanced search engine for sound

Do you think there will be a possibility to search media by their envelope? Instrumental and vocal music can share similar envelop for example regardless their frequency spectrum and sampling rate, and so if a sample of music were submitted to the search engine such that I will search and compare other similar music.--Email4mobile (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly sounds possible. I don't think it exists yet (at least, I've never heard of it). Ways of searching for similar images are just starting to be invented (you can find them online, but they aren't very good yet). I expect finding similar sounds would be a similar problem. Come back in a few years. --Tango (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago there was a service where you could call a phone number and (sorry the details are fuzzy) either hum a piece or hold the phone up to a radio and it would tell you what piece of music it was. No idea how limited a pool of choices ("stuff played on the radio" is a pretty small set!) or how well it worked. DMacks (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall having seen (and more or less successfully tested!) an internet search engine where you could enter a rhythm pattern in plain text. The engine produced a list of popular songs matching the pattern. It was pretty nifty. This was about 10 years ago. DVdm (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember one where you entered symbols to indicate whether the next note was higher or lower in pitch than the one before, and it worked out the tune from just that information. 86.21.204.137 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes! That's the one I had in mind. My memory got a bit rusty. Do you know whether it's still around? DVdm (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Google is my friend:

• Songtapper for rhythmic patterns does good job.
• Click and sing or hum not tested - no mike.

DVdm (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, we have a Multimedia search page on the topic, and a list of articles about specific sites too. DMacks (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The ear is something of a frequency analyzer, and responds to the frequencies present or the sound spectrogram rsther than to the shape of the envelope, which is more sensitive to phase than is the ear. Certainly it should be possible to search for a matching sound sample with a given envelope. But the envelope shape is not that critical to how we perceive a sound. Two performances of the same vocal or instrumental passage might sound the same to us, but look quite different on an oscilloscope. Edison (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think Edison is right. I've just recorded a vocal song on one channel and its instrumental music on the other. I realized that envelops were almost different. I wonder how then our ear can recognize it? Is it just a frequency response or is their other kind of processing? --Email4mobile (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Shazam can, when given an obscure cover of a well-known song, tell what the song is, but not who's covering it. CS Miller (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

germinating

In this image of a conker germinating, is the one on the right the root part or the leaf part? Thank you for your help 82.44.54.207 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a conker sprouting. The white visible part is the root, or radicle which you can see is trying to go downwards as it is positively geotropic. The leaf shoot will appear in a day or so and start to grow upwards. You need to get it into the ground or a pot if you intend to grow it. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

But how do you know it hasn't been turned over for the pic ? StuRat (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I am 60+ years, I have seen more sprouting conkers than I care to count and this is a perfectly normal, regular-looking photo of a sprouting conker. If the conker had been placed with the sprout going upwards I would have concluded that it was either a badly posed conker or possibly a mutant conker with reverse tropism attraction - it happens. The main fault in my answer was not noticing it was a stock photo and then suggesting the OP plant it, doh! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't conclude it's the root because "you can see is trying to go downwards", but for other reasons. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but then I didn't claim that was the main ID feature, I just noted it as an aside. My main conclision was based on the fact that the first white pointy thing that comes out of the conker is the root!! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The shoot that goes sky ward is not pointy but is a leaf bud that almost immediately divides into two (I seem to remember) as soon as the root hairs appear. --Aspro (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Experiment at Geneva

Can any body explain in a simple language about the experiment going at Geneva ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.251.56 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you talk about the Large Hadron Collider or LHC? Simply said, they accelerate charged Hadrons, i.e. protons or other atomic nuclei around a large vacuum tunnel to very high speeds, and then let them collide with each other. In the collision, a part of the kinetic energy of the particles is converted into new and sometimes interesting particles, according to E=mc² (E in this case is the kinetic energy of the particles, m the mass of the newly created particles - all somewhat simplified). Physicists have certain models about which particles should be created, and they check if these can be observed after a collision, confirming our current theories of matter. More interesting is the case that they cannot be observed, in which case they try to figure out what happened instead and how to explain it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Are you referring to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? Basically, they are taking subatomic particles (protons, in this case) and smashing them together at very high speeds. When particles collide with so much energy, lots of weird stuff happens (you create types of particles that normally aren't seen), and scientists try to examine the weird stuff that happens to figure out more about how the universe works. Experiments like this have been going on a long time (about 50 years), but the Large Hadron Collider is a lot bigger than anything else used before, and so can get particles moving at much higher speeds than any other particle accelerators. Because the LHC is bigger, and the collisions have more energy, scientists are hoping to see new types of weird stuff that they haven't ever observed (the most interesting thing would be the Higgs boson). Buddy431 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A Simple English article is at simple:Large Hadron Collider. The collider smashes protons together at very high speeds. The protons are destroyed and other things are made. Scientists measure what is made. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article is not simple English, but written at Kindergarten level and "simply wrong"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Simple" does seem to mean "kindergarten-level" over there (technically, that's closer to a third to fifth grade reading level, but I get your meaning). It doesn't seem entirely wrong though. Technically, a proton *is* a hydrogen atom with its electrons "stolen". I'm sure physicists would slap their heads if someone tried to speak with them using the terminology in the article, but for children in early grade school or those with a weak grasp of English, it's close enough. What do you think is wrong with it? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See the edit history - I already fixed two whoopers. The black hole story is at least suspicious - how do we know that cosmic rays do not create black holes all the time? I thought the idea of Simple is to explain concepts using simple language, not to oversimplify the concepts. That seems to be very hard to separate, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that paragraph at the end was a joke. I'm actually okay with the original wording for your other edit though; "break" is pretty close to what they're trying to accomplish. The wording on black holes could use improvement, but given that we're talking about what are, from the point of view of the simple Wikipedia, two different things ("real" black holes vs. "transient" or "fake" black holes), it's understandable. Maybe something like: "The LHC is doing the same thing that cosmic rays do when they hit the Earth. Either no black holes are being created by the cosmic rays, or the black holes created are very tiny and would go away on their own. In either case, the LHC would be safe." ?—ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Side-note: It's really damn hard to write a description of particle physics without using any complex words. I'm amazed I managed to do it without going to three syllables. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this why there is (as yet) no Particle Physics for Dummies book available, I wonder? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You joke, but there are Dummies books for absurdly complex subjects in Physics, including Quantum Physics for Dummies and String Theory for Dummies (which includes a section on particle physics). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I was joking before - but yes, I might actually have to take a look at those... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(Re. SRRIT): No, the "breaking" is a definitive no-no. If they "broke" the original particles, how could they ever make bigger (well, heavier) products from them? You need to get the energy into this somehow. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Electric drill rating

I am confused by the fact that wired drills are rated in volts. Battery drills in watts. (Or the other way round.) What rating battery drill do I need to get solid power? I have had a 14w for some time, and it just does not have enough power, nor battery life. Help, please.Froggie34 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Watts describe the power the drill will consume/deliver (for electric motors, the difference is not very large). A wired drill should have a power rating of 500W or more - good ones often have more than one kW. Volts denote the voltage of the drill. In principle, voltage and power are independent (you can get more power by increasing either voltage or current, i.e. amps). In practice, wired drills will almost always have more power than battery drills, because it is not economically feasible to build very compact batteries that can deliver 500 W for any amount of time (and having them deliver this for a long time is not even technically feasible). But if you look carefully, both wired and battery-driven drills should have ratings of power (W). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The way you said “solid power” makes me wonder if you mean Torque as well. I can read power tool spec. sheets but I still seek out a competent trades person, to see what he uses for the sort of use I am intending to do. You can’t really suss that out from a spec. sheet. Professionals will sometimes welcome a genuine request for their expertise in their choice in power tools. I have found it cheaper in the long run to accept what they say as being right. They use them day in day out and know all the cons and pros, and which offer the best value for money.--Aspro (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wired ones are rated in watts, and cordless ones in volts - and it's totally a gimmick. The volts makes no difference at all, they could make the same power drill with half the volts and double the current (amps). Do you need the drill for drilling or for driving screws? If for screws what you actually care about is torque. Or actually torque plus speed under load. There is no one good way for rating a drill. For wired, watts is a reasonable measure, but you will also want to check the toque - which is often hard to find. The unloaded speed is usually printed on it. And more or less, the higher the watts for the same speed means more torque. When you say "not enough power" what do you mean? Doesn't last long enough (watt hours)? Can't turn tight screws (torque)? Doesn't spin fast enough? Ariel. (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I used to repair professional and consumer power tools at a tool shop for a few years and I would definitely recommend not to choose a tool based on what it claims its watts or volts are, those numbers are usually more misleading then useful. A cheap less efficient tool will usually actually have a higher wattage rating then a better and more efficient one. It's a very similar story with speakers, you can get nasty cheap 150w speakers for a few bucks but they will be total rubbish compared to some good quality 80w speakers. If you are looking for a good tool don't expect to pay peanuts for it, if you buy the cheapest one you'll get the crappiest one. I agree with the poster above to try to find a trades person and see what they use on the job, even if you spend a bit more to start with, you're much more likely to get a tool that will serve you for a long time. Also, you CAN get very good wireless tools these days but you will pay a lot more for it. Unless you actually have a specific need for a wireless tool, more then just pure "convenience", I still recommend wired tools. More reliable, last longer (batteries and even chargers typically go obsolete every few years), and much better price / performance ratio. Vespine (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. I need a drill to deliver effective power, so I suppose I mean torque. Anyway I am greatly helped.Froggie34 (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

gravitation

If gravitation is like accelerated frame of reference(as stated in general relativity) why don't the accelerated mass move away from the body creating the gravitational field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.137.150 (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the acceleration is in the oposite direction of what you are thinking, towards the body generating the field. Dauto (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Organ donation

I'm trying to remember the term given to organ donations (such as kidneys) where you donate to a random person whom you don't know? I'm not considering it, just haven't a mind blank. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's typically called "nondirected donation" [7], but our organ donation article calls it "undirected donation". Paul (Stansifer) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Searching "nondirected donation" gave me the term I was looking for: altruistic donation :) thanks Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Time Travel

In a recent TV interview (available on youtube [here]), the physicist Brian Cox stated that "you can travel into the future at any speed you want relitive to other people". Can anyone help to explain what he means by this? This statement got me a bit confused! thanks! 80.43.182.69 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well he's on Twitter at @ProfBrianCox. Why don't you tweet him and see what he says? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your "[here]" link seems to be missing. I suspect he's talking about time dilation, where time slows down for people going close to the speed of light, but continues at the same rate for everyone else. So, by adjusting your speed, you could also adjust how fast you go forward in time relative to others. However, you can't go back in time this way. See Time dilation and space flight. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have been less sensationalist to say that "in principle you can make time pass more quickly for yourself by building a spaceship that can fly close to the speed of light". However, there is no way to build such a thing with any technology we have. Also, this idea of "speeding up time" is not what most people think of when they think of time travel to the future - they imagine that you climb into this box the size of a telephone booth - type in some date in the future and press the Big Red Button and SHAZAAM!!! there you are in The World of Tomorrow! But that's not what Brian Cox is talking about. This would be more like: you climb into a gigantic rocketship - fire up the engines and S-L-O-W-L-Y (over a period of a year or two, get up somewhere close to light speed. Then, as you zoom along, you see events in the rest of the universe start to speed up. Everything inside your spaceship seems normal enough - but outside, there is some seriously weird stuff happening. When you are close to the time you want to be, you turn the spaceship around and start slowing down again (which takes another year or two) - and NOW you are "in the future". Not exactly "SHAZAAM!". But it's theoretically possible thanks to Einsteins' relativity. For the "SHAZAAM!" kind of time travel, you'd need to get into your spaceship and go into 'suspended animation' while the spaceship speeds up and slows down again...but we don't know how to do suspended animation either - so it's still not going to happen anytime soon. Of course all of this only works in the forwards direction. Once you're in the future, you are very definitely stuck there - and there is no similar way to travel into the past. SteveBaker (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we're far closer to suspended animation than near light-speed travel. We can freeze and revive some simple animals, now we just need to figure how to stop ice crystal formation in our cells, and we could do the same. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. There are prospects of taking genes from various fish and amphibians that can survive being frozen solid by having natural antifreeze in their cells. However, that kind of genetic engineering of humans has enough ethical concerns to push it quite a way out into the future. SteveBaker (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For less drastic time dilation, you could always try living your whole life on top of the highest mountain you could find (ideally close to the equator). Granted, it wouldn't even add a second to your life (I don't care to do the math, but I've seen figures online that claim you'd "gain" a second every four millenia or so). Since the Earth bulges at the equator, and the mountain adds more height, your speed (relative to anyone else on the planet at a lower altitude) would be greater. Like I said, not practical, but an amusing concept. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, that's not how it works. Moving away from Earth you would see Earth events redshifted, i.e., going slower. Moving towards Earth you would see them blueshifted, i.e., going faster. It does add up, overall, to more elapsed time on Earth, but not obviously. The right way to think about time dilation is in terms of the overall length of the paths through spacetime. If you have two curves, one of which is a straight line and the other of which wiggles around but starts and ends at the same place, the wiggly curve is longer (because a straight line is the shortest distance between two points). You can say that the wiggly line is longer "because of the wiggling" (i.e., the acceleration). But it doesn't really make sense to say that the wiggly line is "longer per unit length", whatever that would mean, in the places where it's at a large angle to the straight line—and that's basically what people are saying when they say that "time goes slower when you're moving quickly". -- BenRG (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I know - I was over-simplifying for the sake of making a comprehensible explanation. At least I didn't simplify to the degree Cox did! SteveBaker (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the link i meant to post [8], he makes the aforementioned statement about 2 minutes in, but fails to expand on it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.182.69 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, just have to pull you up on your cryogenic stuff. ONE animal (an antarctic nematode) has been shown to survive INTRAcellular freezing. Fish don't freeze, they avoid freezing, which is pretty easy when you're in water - you just have to hope it doesn't freeze all the way to the bottom. I've only heard of freeze tolerant insects - no higher animals I can think off, and they avoid intracellular freezing, only coping with extracellular ice formation. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Harrison Ford count as a "higher animal"? 24.23.197.43 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

by INTRAcellular freezing do you mean freezing in all areas but inside the cell? maybe you meant intercelluar freezing? anyways, there are plenty of animals that freeze solid and live normally after thawing out. There are several insects that do and usually whenever an insect does anything you can bet there'll be several more that do and we just haven't discovered them yet. I don't know if you count animal eggs to be animals (I do) and there are many that survive freezing.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 03:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

I take bad pictures. I know people that take very good pictures. Is there any technology in the foreseeable future that can render subjects more accurately? Imagine Reason (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, autofocusing DSLRs already exist and can take very good pictures. True DSLRs cost a lot of money, but they're the best choice for advanced amateurs and many (if not most) professionals. Autofocus is a crutch (you can usually get better pictures if you learn to tweak your focus manually), but it's a good crutch for beginners. Combined with photo editing software like Adobe Lightroom, which can fix up flaws in lighting/exposure levels as well as tuning contrast and hue, a sufficiently determined amateur can produce effectively professional quality photos. Doesn't mean their pictures will be "art", but they can at least not look like cheap Polaroids. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird. I posted after Sperm Whale, but it didn't give me an edit conflict or anything, just shoved it in above your post. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What sort of camera do you have? A point-and-shoot or a bridge digital is less likely to take good quality photos than a DSLR. Also, what is wrong with the photos? If the composition is boring, then you have to learn to take better photos. If the images are noisy and poor quality, then it is the camera's fault. Hope this helps, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A trend toward faster ISO settings (more sensitive sensors) will allow faster shutter speeds in low light than now, and greater depth of field in low light situations without needing a large lens opening. Automatically deployed electronic flash reduces subjects being in a shadow or under exposed in general. More powerful flash in future cameras might allow more use of bounce flash (bouncing it off the ceiling rather than direct flash) for a more natural appearance, and for subjects farther away. Some new cameras purport to be able to detect and focus on faces, and to take the picture when the person is smiling. Some cameras purport to automatically reduce motion blur. These features should spread to cheaper cameras and work better in the future. The display on the back of the camera lets you easily see how you have composed the photo (and make sure your thumb is not in front of the lens. Automatic rapid sequence of exposures reduces the need to precisely time the photo to catch the action. Larger memories in future cameras will allow more bracketing of exposure and more rapid fire sequencing, without filling memory. A camera klutz will not automatically get better pictures with a fancier DSLR than with an automatic point and shoot. I hope that future cameras are more rugged (not destroyed when dropped or splashed). If the future camera has what amounts to a self-stored tripod to keep it from moving around, (like a means of securely sticking it to a wall or table) picture sharpness would be improved due to less motion blur, and it would be easy to automatically take pictures of the same subject at high and low exposures, to combine correctly exposed parts of the scene in the shadow, and parts outside in sunlight, with exposures near enough the same time that subjects moving around is not a problem. It would also make it easier for the photographer to be in the picture, especially if a remote trigger and remote viewing screen were included. Motion-triggered photography would make surveillance or photos of animals visiting the back yard easier. Avoiding a loud-clacking mirror in the typical DSLR would make it easier to photograph things without calling attention. Edison (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edson, what software is there around to combine images taken at different exposures to get a good result? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Read High dynamic range imaging and HDR tonemapping & exposure for some suggestions. There are LOTS of software packages out there that relate to High Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging and photography. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that I don't come out as nice-looking as I do in real life, while some other people look better than they are in person. Imagine Reason (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, some hints then:

1) Learn which is your "best side" (it may be straight on, rather than either profile).

2) Before picture taking, sneak off to the bathroom to comb your hair, wipe off any sweat, tuck in the shirt, etc.

3) If you are overweight, hide the fat parts behind others, and wear dark colors and vertical stripes. Make sure pics are taken from above to hide double chins. If seated, put something on your lap you hide your belly, like a pet, kid, or pillow. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to note the 'vertical stripes' thing was on QI the other night stating that research has shown that vertical stripes don't make people appear more thin. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

... and be aware that most people perceive that they themselves look worse in photographs than others perceive them and worse than they perceive others. In this case, perception may not be reality. Is it because we seldom see ourselves in "real life"? Dbfirs 05:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We usually see ourselves in mirrors, i.e. side-reversed. Humans are not quite symmetric, and the difference is significant. So on photos you don't look like you would expect to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is true - and it's sometimes recommended that you judge photos and portraits of yourself by looking at them in a mirror. SteveBaker (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Photogenic is the word that you are looking for, as in "I am not photogenic". At the end of that article is a link to How To Be Photogenic, which might answer your question. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also...good photographers don't necessarily accurately represent reality as it was (well maybe good forensic photographers) - but artistically they make use of tools and techniques to get the image to look how they want. Photographing people is no different. Taking photos of groups for instance regularly means that people have to bunch-up a lot closer than they would comfortable feel. By being much closer together the image looks better, more composed, perhaps even more 'natural' - yet the situation that created it is (for many) a bit worrying. The other factor that is huuuugely important is lighting - good lighting and bad lighting make for huge variance in whether something (or someone) looks good in an image or bad. Remember our eyes perceive the world somewhat differently to how a camera does (since it just captures anything from 1/50th of a second to 1/40,000 of a second typically). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Camera-wise, the best thing you can do, is use a suitable focal length for the shot. This article by Ken Rockwell explains things clearly. [9]--Aspro (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(I moved the following answer by Edison to the correct section - it didn't seem to say much about Time Travel!) SteveBaker (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you clarified that your concern is how you look in photos rather than how to take photos, many celebrities on magazine covers have had their images extensively retouched, by Photoshop or otherwise. It is practically universal. Skintone is evened, nose hairs removed, wrinkles smoothed, broken veins in the nose removed, blemishes removed, banjo eyes fixed, suntan added, teeth whitened, extra chin removed, bald spot covered. This is one way technology can make your photo look better. Some people freeze when a camera is aimed at them and someone says "SMILE!" or squint, or fix their mouth in a phony rictus of a "smile which does not go all the way to the eyes." If a camera is aimed at you and takes a photo silently every little bit you might forget you were being photographed and then, at some point the instant might come where you have a pleasant and natural expression, and bingo, you have a better picture than usual. The key here would be good natural light and a memory which can capture a whole bunch of automatically taken photos. Edison (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The benefits of this "natural pose" may be somewhat reduced, if it includes a finger placed up the nose. StuRat (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is something called "blind deconvolution" which can look at a photo, measure the blur due to it being out of focus or due to camera shake, and then automatically undo the blur to produce sharper images. There is some free software somewhere on the internet that does this. I've never got around to trying it out yet. See for example http://www.quarktet.com/BlindDecon.html

There is also High dynamic range imaging which produces more satisfying images. In practical terms I suggest when using a camera, try to reduce camera shake by using a fast shutter speed (if you have a choice), putting your elbows against your chest for extra stability, and holding your breath while gently pressing the 'trigger'. Best to have the sun behind you, and do not be afraid to get up close to people. Think about the shapes the image will make. There is also some software available that automatically improves people's skin. Professional photo portraits are usually done from a distance with a telephoto lens - I suppose getting up close makes your nose look bigger etc - and in modern times with lots of diffuse lighting, particularly fill-in lighting from below to remove wrinkles eyebags and the toothbrush-moustache shadow from your nose. Lighting is very important. 78.147.131.74 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Titan arum

Just wondering, but the article on the Titan arum (Amorphophallus titanum) says it is a flowering plant. Does anyone have a picture of it flowering? Also, is this a picture of the titan right after it blooms? Thanks in advance, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the inflorescence. It's not technically the flower, as the actual flowers are at the bottom of the central column (spadix), hidden by the spathe. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here [10] is a diagram that indicates, with labels, the component parts of the inflorescence. Richard Avery (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Destruction of chlorate explosives

Can chlorate explosives be destroyed, e.g. by a bomb squad, by reacting them with hydrochloric acid?

KClO₃ + 6 HCl → KCl + 3 H₂O + 3 Cl₂ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheminterest (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a reaction would surely release a lot of heat, which is bad around bombs. Additionally, Cl₂ is itself a pretty strong oxidizing agent, and would likely react with whatever the fuel in the bomb was. So yes, I suppose they could be "destroyed" that way, but the destruction might take place as a detonation, which sort of defeats the purpose. Buddy431 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bomb squads sometimes detonate the bomb in place (after evacuating all civilians from the danger zone, of course) if there's no other way to get rid of it without endangering themselves and others. FWiW 24.23.197.43 (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you're trying to blow up a bomb, there's got to be better ways than pouring a nasty chemical on it, creating an even nastier chemical, and seeing what happens. I admit that I have no idea how bomb squads do dispose of bombs, but at first read, this doesn't seem to be a very good way of doing it. Buddy431 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They use a small satchel charge made of C4 explosive, just like in The Hurt Locker. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

population control

Communist China limited families to one child as national policy. Why now then does Communist China object to pornography which is proven to reduce the number of incidences of copulation both within a marriage and without thus automatically reducing the the number of children a male will produce? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the government should hand out blow-up dolls ? :-) StuRat (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"proven"? Can you cite sources for any of these very doubtful claims of yours? Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because if you are using porn then I do not want to interrupt that because it leaves more unattended ladies for me. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's because population control isn't the only thing that their government is concerned about. They would probably argue that any marginal benefits of porn in terms of limiting population growth was outweighed by the moral decline of society that it brings. I don't think I agree with either of those conclusions - but this is about their ideas, not mine! SteveBaker (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does the Catholic Church insist on dictating other people's sex lives while turning away advice for their own? It's about power and fidelity to the organization. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that was uninformed. By writing "other people's" you imply the Catholic Church is a person. I doubt you can cite reference to when the Catholic Church insisted to it. "It's" in your second sentence is referring to the Catholic Church's sex life. I doubt you meant that ,and regardless if you did, it makes your statement quite funny. In taking your probable meaning, the Catholic Church and the government of The People's Republic of China don't make commandments and laws (respectively) just to illicit loyalty and gain more power. The commandments and laws are a means to an end. That end (I believe) being the modification of the masses' behavior. In the Catholic Church's case I assume it's to better the lives of mankind, and in China's government it may be less selfless. You may not actually care, but did you know the rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is no higher than other churches? Check this out.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese government is very concerned with what it considers to be moral decay. It also gets a lot of political mileage from regulating pornography—it is (if I recall) something like the top reason they cite for needing to regulate their internet communications, and resonates very well as a justification within China. (Even outside of China, there are a lot of people who think regulating internet pornography would be a good idea, not realizing that the kinds of regulations you put in place for that are easily transferred to other realms of communication.) Communists of the Soviet/Chinese variety were always pretty uptight about sexual and social things despite their association with the "left" in the rest of the world. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pornography is seen as a social vice in China. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)