Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 19

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

August 19

Cocaine for numbing and other uses

I saw a picture online of a bottle of topical cocaine. Do they use it anymore for numbing (or any other purpose) or do they use other drugs now? Also, what other medical purpose would it be used for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Cocaine#Cocaine_as_a_local_anesthetic, it looks as though it still has some limited, approved medicinal uses, but its use is not widespread. --Jayron32 02:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Glass Graffiti

I was eating in a fast food restaurant today, and I noticed that one of the exterior windows had been graffitied by someone who had etched a name into the pane. The etch was done very smoothly, as if someone were writing on the pane in large cursive letters, but one could clearly see that the pane had been scratched and not merely written on. Now, three questions: 1) What are store windows generally made out of these days? (e.g. plate glass, laminated glass, plexiglass, etc.), 2) What implement(s) might the vandal have used to scratch such smooth cursive letters? (It seemed smoother and more fluid than I might expect from a knife or similar large object.), and 3) Given the other answers, is vandalism like this quick and easy or slow and hard? Dragons flight (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It might have been etched with acid. Vandalizing etchers do seem to exist, see here, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to read about this. Apparently the "glass etching acid" really is the nasty old hydrofluoric acid that has been around for centuries.[1] In academia, the stuff has acquired a nasty reputation for seeming to be harmless on the skin, but actually proceeding to kill nerves, tissue, and eat all the way down to the bone. The notion of vandals running around with it... well, one's reaction either has to be horror or mirth, or both. Unless the reputation has been exaggerated, anyway...

According to the reference I cited, they used a "Bingo dabber" (a swab of some sort, I assume). Since the acid does the work, there is no reason for it to take long at all.

It would seem to me that shopkeepers should have some method to prevent this - if an outer layer of plastic can somehow be applied to the glass, however thin, either as a laminate, coating or by some method of spraying, then the etcher could be left disappointed. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bingo dabbers, at least, I can speak of. They are generally a plastic tube filled with ink, ending in a broad flat sponge tip, such that you can press down and leave a solid circle of ink. Presumably they empty the ink out and fill them with acid. They also, of course, have a plastic cap to protect the sponge end, which would protect you slightly from acid when you weren't using it. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not hard to scratch standard window glass with a steel implement like a nail or a knife. Googlemeister (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

...or with a diamond ring. That is easier to conceal and less incriminating if detected. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Or with a rock or a pebble. Really, it's not that hard to scratch regular glass. It doesn't take special tools, it just takes the will to do it and the reasonable possibility of getting away with it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Abyss of time

I seek the definition of "abyss of time" Center39 (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See HERE. Dolphin (t) 04:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, what happened to Centre34 - 38? Richard Avery (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Human body fat vs. modern synthetic clothing

Past a certain amount, accumulation of additional body fat seems (to me) to benefit the owner (if at all) via better resistance to cold. So I'm now wondering if there is any hard data out there regarding the "performance" of a given thickness of human body fat versus modern synthetic clothing. Is there any equivalence at all? Will X cm of body fat provide the same level of comfort as Expensive Fleece Y ? Note - I have been trim and fit my whole life and have no personal experience to draw from. Note 2 - let's assume a windless environment to simplify things a bit. Thanks! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

you should assume a windless environment with a thin man who is covered in a thick paste of whale blubber. 92.230.66.177 (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought there were different kinds of body fat, brown fat and umm...something else, that perform differently and people have different amounts. Yes...Body_fat#Brown_fat has something, so it's probably even more complicated. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It won't provide the same comfort level in any case, because the skin is outside the fat. It may save you from hypothermia, but it won't protect you in the slightest from frostbite. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a search for "Thermal Conductivity of fat". The only one I could read for free[2] said 0.0004 cal/cm/s/°C maybe someone with more access could do some more searches. Ariel. (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't comfort commonly associated with sensations? I'm thinking since fat occurs beneath the skin wouldn't the sensation of temperature be the same? But then I know we have to factor in the individuals internal temperature etc so its not quite as simple right? PrinzPH (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is my brainwave re: Joining Interplanetary Federation genius or loony?

Please tell me if this is a goer. I dreamt it up last night, after I was thinking of Star Trek, and how sad it was that the vast distances of space mean that there never will be space ships visiting other forms of life. There is no such thing as “warp drive” and “hyper drive” and so on, and that means we are all alone, SETI will never find others out there. But we will still conquer space, and we may find very primitive life (there are possibly a million planets with life to every one with technological beings.) What a sad disenchantment! To come to a realization like that must be how a religious man feels when he finally accepts atheism and the finality of death. Then I had this strange idea. I am assuming you are an intelligent and resourceful person. Suppose you and another person like you (but not one you know personally) are dropped into a vast jungle at random spots. You both have the job of finding each other, and you are not permitted to make fire or noise. What would you do? The only thing that stands out is a single mountain. Now you reason thus: this mountain is the only thing both of us can see. So, I will go towards it, in the hope that the other person will reason similarly. And you end up finding each other through the use of logic and intelligence.

Now let us use an extension of this idea for our (Star Trek-like) Interplanetary Federation. We can’t ever meet any of the other members of this Federation, will never know much about them. Yet we can be a fully-fledged member of that august group. How? Simply by affirming and being committed to certain fundamental principles of logic, reason, ethics, science and compassion. On this basis, we can DEDUCE what the other members of the Federation are doing, and how they behave, regardless of what they look like. The Federation we belong to would never impose itself on or otherwise colonise other worlds if it found them. It exists to serve and help sentient life wherever it finds it, even if that is only on their own home planet and the space ship itself. It is a champion of scientific research and explores to find out how the Universe works. We can make crests and logos and uniforms and write logs and documents concerning this Group, and it matters not if members in other “sectors” have slightly different regulations, and the paraphernalia looks different to ours. We will never know that, but here is the beauty of the Federation. We don’t need to ever meet. That’s a primitive concept: we don’t need to hold hands for comfort. They know that they are not the only ones and they know, too, that there are logical, scientific and ethical beings somewhere out there and that they belong to the same Federation. We and they are just like those two persons who made their way to the same mountain, even though neither has ever communicated directly with the other.

Paradoxically, those two isolated people can work together for a common end. As a species becomes ever more advanced, the paths of logic, ethics and science become ever clearer. In consequence, we can work together with other members of the Universal Federation more closely and with greater empathy and respect as we learn more and more about each other. How can we learn ANYTHING about them, let alone MORE about them? you ask. Because as we advance historically and culturally, we learn more about ourselves, and this makes us knowledgeable about the other members of the Federation.

Does anyone think there is anything in my brain wave? Myles325a (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've derived religion. Congratulations! Let the Star Trek Wars commence! You have a lot of assumptions, such as that ethics become simpler and clearer as you advance scientifically and technologically, that a lot of what a society does is logically and consistently derived rather than being cultural, that an intelligent species arising in a completely different situation will have a great deal in common with us. Even in Star Trek, the Vulcans and the Humans do not have identical ethics.

But that's okay. I'm sure you can fiddle with it and redefine terms to make it work. Enjoy your religious peace! 86.164.66.83 (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's not really a science question here that I can see, but I should point out that Alcubierre drive and such are legitimate topics of speculation, and there's certainly no way to prove that a warp drive (or some other way to exceed speed of light) will never be invented. There are many other possible explanations for the lack of visible alien activity (painted stellar backdrop, sentients innately nuke themselves, universe is one of many short-term simulations of culture formation de novo etc.). Wnt (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you know SETI will never find others out there when by your own estimate there are technological extraterrestrial beings? Your idea of joining a philanthropic Federation of mutually unknowable alien beings sounds like a longing for imaginary friends, which is a need that a TV space drama can feed for a few minutes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your mountain example fails because you are using two humans. The other "alien" is not going to be a human, even if they are very clever. Imagine you and a very smart chimpanzee are dropped into the jungle. Does the chimp care about going to the mountain? Does he care about meeting up with you? Does he get distracted by a banana? If he does meet up with you, does he see this as a good thing or a bad thing? Once you throw out the "everybody wants to be like Star Trek" assumption as being universal — which it is not, even amongst human beings, it is just a catchy cultural product that happens to appeal to various wooly human notions about what a world without limitations would look like — the whole thing crashes down. You can't assume anything of that sort. Even the idea that uniforms and crests are a good idea — that's a very human notion, built up from centuries of human obsession with heraldry and particular notions of power and authority and so on. It's an utterly human-centric idea masquerading as something that has a universal basis. It does not. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - this suggestion isn't going to work. We drop you and an alien into a forest. You see the mountain and think that this is "obviously" the way to go. The alien, meanwhile, has no eyes but an acute sense of hearing. It can tell from the sound of lapping waves that there is a lake off in the opposite direction to the mountain and heads off that way and you never meet up. Using the exact same logic as you, it comes to the opposite conclusion. But suppose it doesn't use the same logic? You can easily imagine a very nervous alien might see the mountain and conclude that all of the violent predators would think like you do and head toward the mountain - so it concludes that walking AWAY from the mountain makes the most sense. A super-intelligent alien might both see the mountain AND hear the lake - and reason that either of these could equally well be the destination you'd choose - so its best bet is to walk to a point midway between the two and hope to meet you walking towards either one or the other. Another kind of alien just sits still and yells really loud using it's 1MHz radio-wave voice in the sure and certain knowledge that your 1MHz antenna ears will be able to pick up the sound of it's voice from up to about 100 miles away...There are just too many possibilities.

I'm also not so sure that mankind can never reach the stars. There seems to me to be at least a couple of possibilities:

• One is to build craft several miles across with onboard fusion reactors and ample supplies of helium-3 (or whatever) and the ability to sustain a comfortable life-style for around 1,000 people. Given the prospect of a life of leisure, wanting for nothing, you'd have no problem getting volunteers to spend their lives aboard the ship. It could head out at 1% of the speed of light and take ten human generations to get to the next star. People live their entire lives on board the ship - have children and grandchildren. This is the slow way - but it's certainly within the realms of possibility.
• Another is to develop computers powerful enough to accurately simulate all of the neural pathways in a human brain. When you get old and frail, you transfer your brain's neural network into the computer and let your body fail. Everything that make you be intellectually "you" is still there, your thoughts and feelings are all very much the same as they ever where...except that now you are immortal. When you wish to travel to another star, you sent out a small spacecraft containing a computer of sufficient power. When it arrives at the star you wish to visit, you transmit your brain "data" via radio waves to the spacecraft and "you" travel at the speed of light the whole way there...not getting bored or consuming valuable resources like fuel and power along the way. By use of robotic landers, you can explore and even colonize the new star system. When you get bored, you can transmit yourself back via the radio link to Earth and be back in a reasonable number of years after you left. Going back and forth to your new home is instantaneous as far as you are concerned.

Either of these approaches is technically feasible (nobody said "easy" though!) - and both have the capability to take humans out to the stars. If those approaches are possible for us - then they are possible for any alien cultures out there - and hence we may safely assume that the universe has a lot of aliens in it...unless there is something else that we've somehow misunderstood about the nature of the universe.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The first idea you've put there is called a generation ship. The main problem with this idea is that technological progress makes such a ship pointless. Let's take your 1% of the speed of light ship. It sets out for Alpha Centauri 4.24 light years away in 2100. At 1% of the speed of light it will take 424 years to get there, arriving in 2524 Meanwhile back on earth, after 100 years we develop a ship that can do 2% of the speed of light. This launches in 2200 but will only take 212 years to get there so will arrive in 2412, 112 years BEFORE the first ship! Given the accelerating rate of technological progress which is not a linear increase but an exponential one, it's very easy to see that launching ships with journey times of hundreds of years is pointless - a faster ship can be built using improved technology during the journey's lifetime that will easily overtake it. There will come a point when the travel time will become feasible - that will be when it's fast enough that there's not likely to be any major leap forward in starship speed within the timeframe. You only have to look at how far technology has advanced in the last 50 or 100 years to see how rapidly things change. Exxolon (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking the mountain idea a little more literally - how about we hang around near a prominent feature of the galaxy, such as Sagittarius A* in the hope that someone, or something else also takes an interest in prominent features of the galaxy? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Myles, you can go to the mountain, but I am going to find water, since I do not want to die of thirst on top of a mountain. Googlemeister (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OP Myles325a back to finish this up. Thanks 86.164,66.86 even if your comments do sound a just a WEE bit patronising. Yes, there is a good analogy between what I am proposing and a religion; an unseen sky pilot who theoretically determines how we should behave. Some might say that such notions are regulative fictions that allow society to flourish. In the case of my Interstellar Federation, it will guide us to being responsible intergalactic citizens, mentors and allies, even if there is nobody we can actually mentor or ally with. Btw, your number is a good serial number for one of the peace troopers on my vessel. Welcome aboard!!

Thanks, Wnt, but what is a “painted stellar backdrop”? Your criticism that “there’s certainly no way to prove that a warp drive...will never be invented”, puts the onus on the wrong party. There’s no way to prove that the world was not created by a gorilla wearing hot pants. It is the job of those putting forward notions to show why such are superior to what is currently known. Einstein’s theories are very well corroborated by experiment and observation, Alcubierre drive is little more than speculation.

Thanks Cuddlyable3. (There are 3 of you cuddly ones? That’s cool!). Don’t underestimate imaginary friends – they can have a life of their own. I had a couple of them when I was a kid, but they used to leave me alone and go and play with each other....But you can come journey with us and be the resident “asteroid hugger”.

Thanks Mr.98. Sorry about that chief, but I think my mountain analogy holds up pretty well, speculative though it may be. Don’t forget that we start with 2 sophisticated, intelligent and rational beings, say, like us two. These are members of technologically capable societies, who have survived through millions of years of evolution. They did not do this, and build space ships and so on, by being “distracted by a banana” when there is a vital task to be accomplished. I am assuming, but I believe reasonably, that a being who belongs to a race than can reason well enough to attain such levels will be able to see that the mountain is the ONLY thing that can be known to be in common. Of course, if the two subjects are from different planets, (as for instance in our case, where I am from Earth) then they must be able to make some guesstimates of what the other one can do. I don’t think I’m being overly anthropocentric here. But for being a rational sceptic, you can be one of our resident scientists. Welcome aboard, Mr. 98!

Thanks, SteveBaker. You are always good value. I am drafting you to be the resident historian on the Ship, as you are so gifted in the production of many words. I would do the job myself, but being in charge is a massive workload. You are extending my analogy, which, as a formal logician you must know is not permitted in logical exegesis. The experiment deals with two subjects given a task to accomplish. My overriding conception is that logical rules are the same everywhere in the Universe, just like basic physical laws, in fact even more so. For example, I can imagine a time when the speed of light was different, but I CANNOT imagine a time when there was a number 2 and 4 but no 3. Or a time (or place) where the Aristotelian syllogisms we use here do not apply elsewhere. An advanced civilization may have very different ideas to us, they might regard mathematics or sexual sadism as the ultimate in poetry, but I cannot see how an advanced society could assume for instance that if A > B, and B > C, then A is not > C. So I am asserting that these beings DO use the same logic as we do, and that is why the IF can exist. As for your sci fi notions about interstellar travel, they might be the case, but on any impartial standard, what we know now strongly argues they are not the case. My own idea is that it may be the case that there is perhaps only 1 or 2 human-like species in each galaxy. That figure would explain the absence of Von Neumann machines.

Thank you Exxolon. The idea of generation ships is a necessary part of any notion of non- sci fi interstellar (or even interplanetary) travel. Even if a ship was just exploring the solar system on a thorough basis, the mission would take hundreds of years. I like your scenario about Earth inventing a new and faster space ship which gets to the target before the original one does. But you have neglected to mention that the 2nd ship would be overtaking the 1st one, and so would be able to give the passengers a lift, while sending the obsolete ship home. But you are now Exxelon the Mighty on our Ship, and you have the perfect name for a warrior ready to defend us from all invaders. Cushy job, as there will be none.

Kurt Shaped Box, Thanks, and yes, your idea has been well canvassed in SETI circles. I think that when 1986a supernova occurred, there were thinkers who advised us to train our radio telescopes in that direction for decades to come, as an advanced species trying to discover others would station transmitters beaming in all directions from the vicinity of that nova, knowing that any other species with telescopes etc would be training them on that patch of sky from millions of light years around. It is my landmark mountain all over again. It makes perfect sense to do just that, although if Steve Baker is right, there is no point in trying to second guess another species’ logic and they would be thinking completely differently. I don’t know what you will be doing on the ship, but with a name like that, you have earned your passage. Welcome aboard!

Thanks Googlemeister Yes, I will go to the mountain, and tell it there, like it is. You can be dressed in black, like the hypocrites turning back. I didn’t say you had to CLIMB the mountain. Circling around it would be just as expeditious (nice word that, haven’t used it for a long time, expeditious hmmm...) Welcome aboard, Googlemeister, you will be peeling potatoes in the scullery, and as a generation ship, you will be doing it for the next 90 years. And that’s just practice, because we won’t be taking off before then.

In relation to other comments, I DO realize that other advanced civilizations may be colonisers and sadistic exploiters. Look at what Rome did to so many of its colonies, and only a few decades ago, the culturally and technologically superior Japanese inflicted the most brutal atrocities on the peaceful and simple Pacific Islanders. But the IF would not allow a Japanese or Nazi culture to join the Federation. Even today, we are excluded from formal entry to this body on the grounds of the conflict that still stain our current affairs. But we will shortly be admitted, as I have made numerous recommendations to that effect, necessarily written to myself until the day (if that ever comes) when there will be another party to peruse them. Myles325a (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

chemistry

When an iron object rusts its mass increases. When a match burns its mass decreases. Do these observations violate the law of conversation of mass? Explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.151.82 (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When I fill a cup with water, its mass increases. Does this violate conservation of mass? Why or why not? There's your answer (though your teacher may want it in a more formal format -- consider showing the chemical equations for rusting and burning, since this is a chemistry class). — Lomn 12:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When I spit, my mass decreases. Does that violate the law of thermodynamics? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When an iron object rusts, it absorbs oxygen. When a match burns, it releases sulfur dioxide, phosphorus pentoxide, and several other chemicals. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Destroying an ailanthus

How do I do it? Would copper nails or copper sulphate work? Where do I get the latter in UK? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought a good old saw would work the best. Isn't copper sulfate for algae and scum on pools? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Copper salts are usually used as fungicides rather than herbicides, and their use in the open is strictly regulated in the UK because they are a potential pollution problem. If you want a chemical solution to the problem, I would gthe quoto for sodium chlorate, which is a cheap broad-spectrum herbicide that doesn't stick around in the environment: you should find it in your local garden centre in the UK, although you have to look at the small print on the labels to see which commercial herbicides are effectively sodium chlorate. Physchim62 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me that a lot of salt will be needed if the roots go everywhere. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just curious... did you always intend to kill the tree, or did Wikipedia convince you? Wnt (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not until I saw the links. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So, let's think about this. I assume you are referring to the large tree you sought info about recently. You are going to need unfeasibly large amounts of herbicides of which the best - sodium chlorate is not available in useful quantities in the UK. If you put whatever useful or useless chemicals on your tree and it dies you are then left with this great big dead tree in your garden. Hmm, very attractive. What then? wait for it to fall down slowly? Your only reasonable method is to get a competent person to get rid of it for you. Richard Avery (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I could drill holes in it and then pour in the chlorate? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no specific disclaimer that Wikipedia does not give horticultural advice, but maybe there ought to be. The tree grew this tall without causing you any bother; it's not known for being so invasive in the UK; whatever links you may have read here, you should reevaluate most skeptically. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't glyphosate be more effective? Sodium chlorate (not chloride) is an effective weedkiller, but it kills everything and remains for at least a year. I agree that it would be best to use a saw first. Dbfirs 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What about "Unfortunately for those trying to tackle the plant, Ailanthus is also fiercely resistant to human intervention and will respond to cutting by throwing out underground suckers which can damage pavements, drainage systems and building foundations."? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Avery. You should ask a professional. If you're worried about paying, the damage you might cause following random replies here might be costly too. I would first call the municipality, and ask them to refer you to somewhere competent. If Alianthus really is considered to be a plague where you live, perhaps you won't have to carry all the expenses. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends how near the tree is to drains and buildings. I agree that professional advice is advisable if there is a risk of damage. Some trees can be killed by painting a herbicide such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid and 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic_acid (possibly still available as "SBK Brushwood Killer" in the UK) mixed with oil on the bark, or in drilled holes, but I don't know how effective this would be with ailanthus. Dbfirs 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consult DEFRA as to whether they consider it invasive in the UK. They would also be able to advise on its destruction. An old farming friend of mine told me the only way to kill a laurel tree was to hammer copper piping into it, by the way. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Effect of Humidity on visibility

What effect, if any, does humidity have on visibility?Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Humidity often decreases atmospheric transparency, which can have an effect on visibility. High humidity is also often associated with fog or with high levels of particulate matter and smog. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This falls into the realms of Mie theory and Rayleigh scattering depending on the size of any droplets that might form (the 'Mie' bit) or on the size of the molecules present if they aren't formed into droplets (the 'Rayleigh' part). So, yes, the humidity affects how light is scattered - and therefore the visibility. SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How large/nominal is the effect? Let's say the humidity is 80%...by how much would visibility be reduced on an otherwise clear day?Smallman12q (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

List of operational spacecraft in lunar orbit

Where can I find a list of spacecraft which are still receiving and capable of transmitting in lunar orbit? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

nowhere: the military satellites of most countries will be classified. 92.229.13.215 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, the military satellites defending the moon, which has no people and no strategic value to anyone at this time. TastyCakes (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well I think Wikipedia could probably use an article like this one but for the moon. Looking at thisit seems that only 1 is currently active, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The rest have either been crashed into the surface or are broken. TastyCakes (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, this page led me to the THEMIS article, another active orbiter. TastyCakes (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

THEMIS is not in lunar orbit, it's in Earth polar orbit! Berkeley has a THEMIS Orbit page and NASA has a standard Mission Page. They are quite large orbits (12 Earth radii), but nowhere near the Moon, let alone orbiting it. Nimur (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah so it is, don't know how I misread that one so badly ;) It looks like the plan is to put Themis B and C into lunar orbit though, but they are not there yet, as stated in this section. TastyCakes (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I was hoping that the answer was three or more, and very glad to see that it will be. Frank Drake and his colleagues have grown frustrated with radio interference from Earth, and it is good to know that there will soon be the opportunity to perform space radio VLBI from the far side of the moon. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're in Mountain View, the SETI institute is seeking privately-funded researchers... Nimur (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

quantum mechanics

when light will behave like a wave and when light will behave like particle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.184.204 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article on Wave–particle duality. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

the answer is "always". For example, when it is a particle, it interferes with itself like a wave. (and the particle might never hit a spot that is dark in its wave's interference pattern). 92.229.13.215 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Try this on for an example. Consider a lemon. If I look at a lemon, it is yellow. If I taste a lemon, it is sour. We don't say that the lemon sometimes behaves yellow, and sometimes behaves sour. It is always sour and it is always yellow. The difference in whether or not a lemon is sour or yellow depends not on the lemon, but on whether I look at the lemon or whether I taste the lemon. Light is like a lemon here. Just as we can organize an experiment which highlights the "yellowness" or the "sourness" of a lemon, we can organize an experiment which highlights the "particleness" or the "waveness" of light. The deal is, just like the lemon isn't less sour just because I am looking at it rather than tasting it, light isn't any less of wave just because I am doing an experiment which highlights its particle properties. --Jayron32 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The genius of your analogy is that you can't both look at and taste a lemon at the same time (without some device, at least). --Sean 17:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't see your tongue then? I can so could probably semi taste a lemon and semi see it at the same time. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mystery ship mutilates seals

According to [3], a seal team at St. Andrews' is appealing to members of the public to submit ideas as to how a seal could be sliced in a helical pattern from head to toe.

It's obviously not the usual propeller injury - it's as if it passed through some kind of tube with a slicing point rotating, or spiraled through the tube past a fixed sharp object.

I wonder if some fancy submarine propulsion system like a magnetohydrodynamic drive could do it, or maybe even some colossal sort of ballast system? But I have no idea. Any guesses? It's for a good cause! ;) Wnt (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I too have been waiting for further news about these curious injuries (in part because I used to live in St Andrews, and in part through general interest in marine biology.) A couple of notions sprang to mind:

(i) harpooned whales are or were sometimes manipulated and cut in such a fashion as a prelude to further processing, so perhaps someone with a grudge against seals is employing similar handling techniques;

(ii) perhaps such injuries would result from the seals passing through a tube-enclosed turbine of some sort - perhaps one associated with a conventional water-cooled nuclear power station (would Torness be the nearest?), or a new/experimental tide- or current-utilising setup, such as a Gorlov helical turbine. Your suggestion of a submarine propulsion system, Wnt, is also a good one. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's bizarre. I wonder what would happen if a seal twisted itself up in a semi taut cable (maybe attached to a fishing net) while trying to escape and that cable was subsequently pulled tight by a trawler or something. Would that produce a cut like that ? Very odd. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Once, maybe, but apparently several seals have been found with these injuries over a period. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The seals have gone Emo! Googlemeister (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Did it look like Spiral sliced meat? Edison (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I could imagine this being some ghastly propellor accident - if the propellor were rotating clockwise and hit the flank of the seal - the force of the impact would apply an anticlockwise rotation to the seal - and the angle of the propellor blade would drive the seal's body towards the back of the boat. So we have the body spinning and moving backwards - so a spiral cut doesn't seem impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Megaflow Heating Systems

There is no entry under this title. Google searches do not list readily accessible or 'layman's' information. Plumbing forums have many questions as to what a Megaflow system is. Thus there is a need for a straightforward article.

Please could you find a plumbing contributor to define precisely what the system is, how it relates to other Hot water/Central Heating systems, and how it works!

Many thanksChallca (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a plumber or an expert on heating systems, so I originally thought it just referred to a large bore diameter (as opposed to microbore), but it appears that the term refers to a system that supplies hot water from an unvented tank at mains pressure (or at least three atmospheres), without using a header tank. A good reliable high-pressure mains supply is required. I think it is the same as our brief description at Central_heating#Sealed_water-circulating_system, but perhaps an expert can check this. Dbfirs 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mixture of energy and matter

To me entropy means that matter and energy (like the salt and pepper analogy) can never be completely separated. Is this a postulation upheld by the law of entropy or am I missing the point? By completely I mean all the energy in the universe and all the matter in the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point, you are. Entropy characterizes the number of states in which the system can be at the given energy. What do you mean by separating energy from matter? Energy can be transferred between systems, but it cannot exist as a non-matter. Particles -- elementary or composite -- that mediate the energy transfer by carrying the forces of the fundamental interactions are matter. Entropy has nothing to do with this inseparability; it is just a number to begin with, and is not even well defined in many cases. --Dr Dima (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the OP is completely off WRT entropy. Entropy is a tricky idea. Let me try to explain it how I teach it to my students. Picture you have a house that is completely insulated: nothing gets in and nothing gets out. Inside the house, you have two rooms at different air temperatures: One room is at say 30 C and the other is at say 20 C. Now, imagine there is a window between these rooms. If you open the window, what happens? Well, air begins to move between the two rooms, making a breeze. As that air moves, you could, say, place a wind turbine in the window to do work. How long will the turbine be able to do work? Until the two rooms equilibrate; eventually both rooms will be at 25 C, and thus air will stop moving, and thus your turbine will stop. OK. Do you have the entire scenario in your head now? OK. So here's the deal, call the house BEFORE opening the window "State A" and the house AFTER the two rooms are the same temperature "State B". Since the house lets nothing in or out, the total energy in the house in State A is identical to the energy at State B. And yet, House A does work, and House B does not do any work, even though they have the same amount of energy inside of them. How do we explain the difference between the two houses? Well, there are several ways, and the related concepts of Entropy and Free energy are both numerical answers (and rather esoteric numerical answers) to the question of "What is the difference between the two houses" We can say that House A has less entropy than House B. or we can say that House A has more free energy than House B. Now, the actual, mathematical definitions of Entropy or Free Energy are actually several degrees removed from the house example, but roughly speaking they mean the same thing: The ability of a system to do work based on the organization of that system. --Jayron32 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dima, do heat and sound energies have matter? If all energy is matter then why do we have E=MC^2? OK So let me rephrase my question: Lets say matter and energy are like two states of the same thing like ice and water. Is it possible for all the energy and matter in the universe to be all matter or all energy at the same time? Does this have to do with entropy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Lets say matter and energy are like two states of the same thing like ice and water" - but they are not. Matter has mass, and mass is energy - see our article on mass-energy equivalence. So you can't have matter without energy. But you can have energy without matter - a light wave has energy and mass, but its constituent photons are not (in most definitions) classified as matter. So if all the mass/energy in the universe were in the form of electromagnetic radiation then you would have a universe with mass/energy but without matter. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that possible or is there something preventing that absolute from occurring in actuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC) What about the mixture of matter&energy with dark matter&dark energy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly envisage a model universe filled with a low density of photons and no matter, and I don't think this breaks any physical laws. In fact, one of the unsolved problems of physics is to work out why our universe is not like this - this is known as the baryogenesis problem. If the initial hot dense conditions of the Big Bang produced equal numbers of matter and antimatter particles, and if there is an exact symmetry between matter and antimatter, then all these particles should have eventually annihilated each other as the universe cooled, leaving only photons. But the universe we see is not like that at all, and the most likely explanation is that the interaction between matter and antimatter is not exactly symmetric. What we don't know is exactly where this asymmetry is found. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that where entropy would come in? Energy forever caught up in matter and dark energy forever caught up in dark matter? Or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not entropy at all. And if dark energy exists it has nothing to do with dark matter. Ariel. (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That bold statement discredits everything I would ever see you write! Don't you know by now that in this universe everything has to do with everything?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Ariel is correct, it seems you have an incorrect understanding of dark matter and dark energy, because even though they have similar names they are completely different ideas. Dark matter isn't the opposite of matter and dark energy isn't the opposite of energy, dark matter is matter that isn't visible or doesn't interact with light (hence the name dark) but contributes to the motions and arangments of stars and galaxies by it's gravitational effects. Dark energy is a proposed explanation to why the universe's rate of expansion is increasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.89.61 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, that means that they do not interact with each other, whatsoever!?!? All I want to know is if everything in the universe can be in one form: all energy or all matter or all dark matter or all dark energy, yes or no?

You still seem to not understand what dark energ and dark matter are, they are a form of energy and matter not the opposite of energy and matter, so asking if everything can be dark matter vs. matter or dark energy vs. energy is completely pointless and doesn't even really make sense. As for energy vs. matter, it has already been answered above by Gandalf61, the big bang should of produced equal amounts of antimatter and matter which should have annihilated to leave just photons, or in other words just energy, no matter. This would have occured if there was an exact symmetry between matter and antimatter, but it is believed that there isn't an exact symmetry which would lead to the production of more matter than antimatter and the formation of the universe we observe today from the left over matter. And no to the entropy part, entropy has nothing to do with the left over matter which is known as baryogenesis. There is no need to get snappy, exspecially when the question has already been answered and we are simply correcting a misunderstanding on your part.--74.67.89.61 (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Its funny instead of just giving an answer that you know will shut me up you give answers that cause me to reply ( you must like conflict). So Ariel says that dark matter and dark energy do not interact with each other. If they are both proved to exist in the SAME universe how can they not interact??? I'm through asking you people who just want to keep all the knowledge to yourselves. Wikipedia doesn't really care to enlighten all people just select people. I didn't ask whether everything can be dark matter vs matter or energy vs dark energy I asked whether everything could be 100% of one of the four. Can't you read english!? Regardless if its pointless or not can't you just answer the question or am I not worthy?

-Actually its questionable if you can read english. This is becasue you are taking what Ariel and I said and changing it into something it is not, we never said that dark energy and dark matter do not interact at all, we said they have nothing to do with each other, meaning they are different ideas, different theories, not related to one another, they are completely different like for example the electromagnetic force compared to quark qluon plasma. The second reason is because your question has been answered atleast twice above. Ohh and aslo dark energy hasn't been proved to exist, it is a proposed solution to a problem in cosmology.

-To try to answer your question another time, the reason we can't give you a yes or no answer is because your question has errors in it that are misleading if we gave you a yes or no answer. Let me give you an example, imagine I have a basket and I ask you if it is possible to have just oranges, carrots, fruit, or vegetables in it, which corresponds to your question can you have a universe filled with just dark energy, dark matter, matter, or energy. The answer to that exact question is no, because even though the basket can be filled with just fruit vs. just vegetables or just carrots vs. just oranges, it is impossible to have a basket filled with just oranges and no fruit because oranges are a type of fruit so if you have oranges, you have fruit, the same applies to carrots vs. vegetables. Likewise dark matter is a type of matter, so it is impossible to have just dark matter and no matter because dark matter is matter. The same applies to dark energy and energy, dark energy is energy so you can't have dark energy but no energy, just like you can't have a basket filled with oranges but no fruit because oranges are a type of fruit. However just saying no to your question is misleading, lets clear it up by getting rid of the part about dark energy and dark matter and just talking about energy vs. matter becasue dark enrgy and dark matter are a type of energy and matter respectively (corresponding to our basket example, get rid of the part about oranges and carrots and talk about only fruit and vegetables because oranges and carrots are a type of fruit and vegetables). Now because of E=MC^2, mass is energy, and and matter has mass so matter has energy, which means no, you can not have matter but no energy. But, you can have energy but no matter, if you take equal parts matter and antimatter and mix them for example, they will completely destroy each other into pure energy. In fact why this didn't happen and why all of the universe isn't simply composed of photons (energy) and no matter was actually a problem in cosmology, baryogenesis is the beleived reason of why this didn't happen.

-And finally NO THE REASON THERE IS ENERGY AND MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE (BARYOGENESIS) IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ENTROPY,YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF ENTROPY IS WAY OFF.--74.67.89.61 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Puberty and menopause throughout history question

Do puberty (and menopause if female) occur at different times in people's lives than they did, say, in the 1200s? I.e., is puberty earlier/later, and is menopause earlier/later? Also, does the onset of puberty and menpause differ between developed and third world countries? Does it even differ between sub-cultures of a developed country (for example, will a middle class girl destined for university hit puberty and menopause at a different age than a lower class girl from a sub-culture that looks down on education and success?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.179.48 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that some female athletes hit puberty at a much later age than most teenage girls due to the endorphins and hormones produced by increased strenuous exercise. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To the general question, yes, it varies. Here's a writeup on a recent study regarding the increasingly early onset of puberty in the US. Many factors with correlation are noted, but bear in mind that correlation is not causation. — Lomn 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the other perspective, here's a refutation. — Lomn 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell, because we don't have historical records for a good sample of the population: that is, we can guess when certain historical figures went through puberty, but we don't know if that sample is representative of humans in general. My guess would be that ten-year old mothers and fathers have always been very rare, because there's little or no reliable mention of them: beyond that, there is also the fact that puberty occurs at different ages in different individuals, and always has done. Physchim62 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this article, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Roman authors agreed that most women entered menopause in their early 40s. Medieval authors gave 50s as the age. The article points out some of the difficulties in determining this even today (people "round up" their recollections), and discusses rates in different societies. Probably a pretty useful article for your question all around. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And what's the age today? 50 something?--92.251.179.48 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about menopause, we should probably also mention menarche (which is not the same thing as puberty). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Signs > and < with tilde below

Where I can copy-paste math signs "<" and ">" with tilde below them? 213.154.18.72 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Those probably aren't in most character sets, so copying and pasting may be difficult (but poke through the character map program in Windows if you've got a suitable font). On Wikipedia, it can be done with the TeX-based math markup as follows (documented at WP:MATH):

$\lesssim \lessapprox \gtrsim \gtrapprox$ — Lomn 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Right here: Unicode mathematical operators and symbols. Ariel. (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

setting up of a SOLAR POWER PLANT to meet the requirements of a college campus

hii...

I am Gaurav Sharma, a final year student of B.Tech-Civil. I got a project of setting up of a Solar Power Plant for my college campus.

I don't have any idea about where to start from. Can anyone please help me by providing me with some info about what types of plants can be installed under which conditions, their advantges & disadvantages, costing etc. & also the steps to be followed or factors to be kept in mind while installing a plant.

Any type of info will be helpful.

Gaurav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmagaurav89 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the best place to get started would be to determine how many hours of sunshine you get in an average year, and also, what the peak power consumption and average power consumptions of the college are so that you can have a basic idea of how much power you need to generate. Then you can say something like, what kind of power plants would make sense given that I have 220 sunny days per year and I need 50 MW average and 220MW peak. Googlemeister (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously your project would have to provide power at night and when the sun goes behind a cloud - so you need to consider whether you need a gigantic stack of batteries to store the energy when there is sunlight in order to provide power when there isn't. Perhaps, as in many countries, you can sell your excess daytime power to the local electricity company and use that money to buy conventionally generated electricity at night (that's a very common approach in the US and UK) - I have no idea whether the power companies where you live are open to that way of doing business. You can think of it as driving your electricity meter backwards during the day and then forwards at night - hopefully not using more than the excess that you generated during the day. All of this requires that you understand the day lengths in summer and winter and the pattern of energy usage on a 24 hour basis during summer and winter. Are there any times when the usage is likely to 'spike'...maybe at lunchtimes when the campus food outlets do more cooking...maybe there are peaks on the first day of school or when there is a local sports event on TV or something? SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with your geographic surroundings, but would solar air conditioning methods be within your purview? I would hope that they might be more efficient, quieter, and cheaper than expanding a fully photovoltaic system to cover the load, for example. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You also need to consider how much space you got available. A solar plant for the campus doesn't have to be on campus; you can always buy the land elsewhere, build a bigger and more efficient plant, and sell the excess power to offset the capital investment and transportation costs assuming the economics add up. Physchim62 (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that there are other ways to use solar energy than to generate electricity. For example, you can use roof-mounted panels with water flowing through them to heat water and use that for room heating or to replace hot water heaters in bathrooms and such. You still have the problem of keeping things warm at night - but having a large reservoir of water that gets heated during the day may suffice for nighttime use. SteveBaker (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see also Concentrated solar power. Why Other (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

abyss of time

This follows-up my very recent queery "Please define "abyss of time". I realize the question as put was not as focused as I wished. Please let me indicate the full context of my inquiry.

A recent play written by me uses “the abyss of space”. Its use is important. However I want to emphasize time as also being contained in an abyss. Therein my problem; confusion between early and recent understandings. Although I think I have resolved the matter I seek expert opinion to eliminate any uncertaintly. (An important disclaimer here. I am not a professional scientist. My life's work was in the commercial and performing arts world. )

I’ve recently seen written, “the abyss of Time”, “Time abyss”. This accords with my lifelong understanding of space as all alone in a boundless abyss, with time an add-on, a separate construct (so many ways of representing times). So: if one said “Time abyss”, or the “abyss of Time” it would mean an abyss within an abyss.

More recently, from readings, lectures, discussions with astronomers and other experts, I understand and accept the concept that it is not space and time but a single entity, space-time. That means I can consider time as an equal component of space, one of its four dimensions

If this is so, and I strongly believe it is, then there is only one abyss which same is occupied by three space components and a time component.

If you will, we now have a mixture. Before, it was a compound.

This presents no problem for me. Wherever I now use abyss I will use “space time abyss”. What I have to be satisfied with is the accuracy of the idea that time always existed with the other three space dimensions; nameless at first then identified with names and so considered an equal member of the abyss called “space-time”, not occupying its separate abyss.

In my play I emphasize "Time past". I may still use the idea of Time past located in an Abyss waiting to be found, ergo contrary to what I indicate above. If I do, its use will be poetic

Would appreciate your thinking.

PS: A lingering thought. It seems that most people still think of Space as three dimensional with time not usually considered an integral part. I suppose 50 to a hundred years from now common usage will usually reflect four dimensional thinking.

In advance, many thanks.

Center 39Center39 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Time and space are not the same thing. They have different properties. The are used together in certain situations because it can make the math or the physics elegant, but they will always be separate. One obvious difference is you can not go backward in time. Time is not a place, you can not go there, time is a way of defining how "fast" things happen. Space is a place, and you can travel freely to all points in it. One example of how time and space are used together is a particle traveling in a straight line: As you move in time, you also move in space. If you move in space, you also moved in time. But this is just a mathematical construct, it does not mean that space and time are the same thing. I don't see how "Time Abyss" means an abyss within an abyss. Ariel. (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) "Abyss of ..." is inherently poetical. The word literally means 'bottomless pit', and so when you say "abyss of ..." you are merely referring to something that extends on and on and on, usually in darkness. When applied to space the 'darkness' is usually literal; if applied to time the 'darkness' bit would translate as 'unknown' or 'historyless'. 'spacetime' does not carry the same connotations as 'time' (it's a physical property - one does not talk about the passage of spacetime, and that phrase would in fact be fairly meaningless). --Ludwigs2 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an entirely valid poetic/literary phrase - but to try to seek some kind of scientific meaning is kinda pointless. We can talk about how big space is, whether it's truly "empty" or not - how long time extends and what it's properties are - but the word "abyss" isn't likely to pop up in that discussion other than as a poetic/literary matter. Wiktionary defines "abyss" as:

1. A bottomless or unfathomed depth, gulf, or chasm; hence, any deep, immeasurable, and, specifically, hell, or the bottomless pit.
2. Infinite time; a vast intellectual or moral depth.

So, yeah - you can use the word for either space or time. A depth, gulf or chasm that's deep, immeasurable, hellish or bottomless - could be the chasm between stars and galaxies - it's also bottomless (as well as endless, topless and side-less!) - it's unfathomed because "fathoming" means measuring the depth of - and we can't measure the 'depth' of space. The second Wiktionary definition has time covered - and time certainly seems to modern science to be infinite. I don't quite see where "a vast intellectual or moral depth" might come from - scientifically speaking - but I don't have a problem with that as words spoken in a book or play.

I'm sorry but I don't think we can illuminate your search in any useful manner - but I don't see why you shouldn't use those terms if you wish. SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an aesthetic question, but consider Cronus, who devours his children. Time can be viewed as an abyss in the sense that all things sink into it and pass away, and there is always room for more. While the conception of spacetime might seem beyond ancient authors, the metaphor of time as a river (and I suppose a waterfall, falling into an abyss) has been around for a long time. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cronus is not the same god/character as Chronos. Cronus was the one who ate his kids; Chronos was the personification of time. Matt Deres (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

car key gets hot

I have noticed that after driving, even over relatively short distances, my ignition key gets quite warm. The other keys are quite a bit cooler. Why would this be happening? Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a bunch of fairly chunky wires going from inside the engine bay up to the ignition switch - those wires are made of copper - which conducts heat very well indeed. The inside of the engine bay is really hot (especially on a hot summer day)...so heat from the engine warms up your ignition switch - and hence that key gets a little warmer too. I'm surprised it's enough to be noticable - but this is a perfectly valid explanation. It's not entirely unreasonable that for some make of car with some kind of ignition switch and some kind of key that this might happen. SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article on immobilisers says that some cars induce a current in the ignition key to check that it matches the car's ECU. This would cause the key to heat up. Brammers (talk/c) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No way. That's a very tiny signal indeed - and it's only done once, briefly when you stick the key into the lock. There is nowhere near enough energy to make a noticable difference to the temperature of the key. Plus if the key became hotter than the ignition switch, the heat would just flow into the lock and pretty soon the key would have cooled down again. This cannot possibly be the correct answer. SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Steve's original explanation is more likely, but I think even more probable is that there is a bad connection (i.e. a spade terminal with a significant resistance) that is generating heat at the ignition switch. (I'll check my key next time I drive!) Dbfirs 23:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't said what kind of car, but in many of them there is a lot of electrical current that flows through there. I don't think it's engine heat flowing through the wires, but rather the wires heating from all the electricity passing through them. In mine for example the full current of the headlights passes through the turn signal switch. The key cylinder is a central switch for the entire car - I wouldn't be surprised if lots of current flowed through it. If this is a new issue (or getting worse, or it's an older car) I would open it up and clean the switch, it's probably making a faulty contact. You might not need to fully disassemble it, you should be able to to clean it by soaking it in alcohol (unless it's greased). Ariel. (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This forum suggests that heating effects could be down to a solenoid that unlocks the steering wheel being energised, although they don't provide any corroboration for that. It seems to have affected a few people with 2003 CR-Vs. Brammers (talk/c) 07:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda horrified that they'd send the entire headlamp current through the stalk switches - headlamps pull a lot of juice and need fairly chunky wires - which wouldn't fit well when threaded through those skinny switches. Are you 100% sure about that? Every car I've worked on has had a relay or something like that so that a low current signal from the switch trips the relay and that switches the high current to the headlamps. If high current through skinny wires is enough to make things heat up than that's a really nasty piece of design work! I'm similarly horrified about the steering lock theory. Are they saying that the steering lock mechanism is reliant on power going to that solenoid? So if the fuse blows or the solenoid fails then your steering could lock while you're hurtling down the freeway at 80mph?! I don't think they work like that - I believe these are usually dual solenoids - activate one coil to lock the steering and another one to unlock it - rather than having one solenoid that pulls the pin out against a spring or something. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure about the headlights because it failed, and I had to fix it. It started getting VERY hot, and the lights would flicker and dim, and eventually would not turn on unless you jiggled it a lot. I removed it, opened and cleaned it, and now it works just fine. I suppose there could be a relay, but I'm pretty sure there isn't. The stalk has a "press to pass" button on it that flashes the high beams (and turns off the low). 1998 Mercury Sable. The solenoid failed does sound horrible though. And actually doesn't totally make sense - can't you unlock the steering without turning on the car? Ariel. (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Canards

The article on canards says that they are not very stealthy "because they present large moving surfaces forward of the wing". Could a stealth aircraft use a non-moving canard, such as on the Rockwell B-1 Lancer? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your objective is unclear because your question is ambiguous. Any canard aircraft, even a stealth aircraft, can be designed with a non-moving canard. The laws of physics apply just as much to a stealth aircraft as a non-stealth aircraft.

On the other hand, if you are asking if an aircraft can have a non-moving canard and still be stealthy the answer is no. The difficulty in making a canard aircraft stealthy applies just as much, perhaps more, to an aircraft with a non-moving canard as with a moving canard. (A moving canard can be swept backwards in cruising flight and the sweep provides reduced radar reflection.) Dolphin (t) 22:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time, "stealth" aircraft are designed to have small RADAR cross-sections. Sharp angular surfaces, like tail-fins, wings, and so on, are undesirable because they usually act as radio-frequency corner reflectors (to some extent). The trouble is, everything acts as a radio-reflector, (to some extent) - so the engineers need to make a design-tradeoff: to what extent do they need to minimize RADAR reflectivity? (They've already tried removing everything from the plane except the wings!) In the case of the B-1, the forward canards probably stick out like a bright shiny scintillating beacon, (exactly like these, but in the radio spectrum instead of in visible light). Stealth aircraft try to avoid being "bright and shiny" at all frequencies, especially in the range of radio-wavelengths that anti-aircraft systems are likely to operate in. But, the engineers decided that it needed those canards (probably for flight stability), and that it was worth the impact to stealthiness. Nimur (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article specifically says that Control Canards are not very stealthy. It doesn't say anything about fixed Canards. Nimur's probably right that a Canard can act as a corner reflector to some extent, but I would imagine that if they didn't move around, the problems would be largely alleviated. I'm not sure why Dolphin asserts so assuredly that an aircraft could not have a fixed canard and still remain stealthy; I see nothing in any of the related articles that would lead me to believe this. All else being equal, maybe a canard-ed aircraft is less stealthy than a canard-free one, but I would be quite surprised if canards made stealth flight impossible. And to be clear, the B-1 was not designed as a stealth aircraft. My impression is that it's (relatively) small radar cross section was achieved with only modest modifications in the B-1B (mostly a change in the engine intake shape to shield the moving parts in the engine from radar), and that most of it was designed with other priorities (mostly being fast and carrying a lot of bombs). Buddy431 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment that a stealth aircraft can [not] have a non-moving canard and still be stealthy is based on the following thought process. The HFSWhale began by quoting the article and stating that canards are not very stealthy. Next, he asked if a stealth aircraft could use a non-moving canard. One of the interpretations of this ambiguous question is that he is asking whether a stealth aircraft could be made more stealthy by use of a non-moving canard instead of a moving canard. There is no reason to expect a non-moving canard to be any more stealthy than an equivalent moving canard so my answer was no.

I see your observation that the quotation applies to control canards and therefore not necessarily to lifting canards. Whether a canard is a control canard or a lifting canard is dependent primarily on the location of the aircraft’s CG and how much of the aircraft’s weight is supported by the canard. A lifting canard must generate significantly more lift than a control canard so it will have a greater angle of attack. For this reason, perhaps a lifting canard is less stealthy than a control canard, rather than more.

I still think the problem of canards on stealth aircraft cannot be alleviated by changing the moving canard for a non-moving canard. Intuitively, I assume the radar-reflective properties of the canard depend on its leading edge radius, thickness and sweep angle. In the cruise, a moving canard will actually move very little so, from the radar perspective, it will be almost indistinguishable from a non-moving canard. Dolphin (t) 06:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "moving" or "non-moving" is the issue - it's whether to have a canard at all. The difference between a moving- and non-moving one might mean more mechanical parts exposed, or other constraints on the design; and it would be more effort to characterize and test the RADAR-properties for all possible configurations; but overall, fewer things sticking out of the airframe mean fewer things to reflect radio. The original question specifically asked about a line in the article: checking the cited source for that line resolves the issue: the original paper says, very bluntly, "Canards have poor stealth characteristics." That section does not actually mention anything about moving- or non-moving canards. I have fixed our article. Nimur (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is another source. The Eurofighter article notes how they use software to make their canards more stealthy. Hcobb (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Calculating Rising and Setting Times of Stars

If you know your latitude and longitude and the declination and right ascension of a star, is there a formula that can be entered into Microsoft Excel that will calculate the rising and setting of that star on a given day of the year? Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleanorradbeast (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it is called an ephimerides calculation. You can also find our List of observatory software useful - such software already has the formulae, plus corrections for minor details like Earth wobble, and usually have large built-in databases of stars, planets, and deep-sky objects. Nimur (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are several source-codes, mostly in the C language (but you can easily translate the calculations to Excel, if you prefer that tool). The equations can get fairly messy if you want to be very accurate, and the result is complicated mathematical software. If you don't much care about accuracy, you can make dramatically simplifying assumptions; the relevant article is Equatorial coordinate system. Nimur (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cats and dogs

You always here about cats' good eyesight and dogs' good hearing and sense of smell. How are a cat's hearing and sense of smell? 76.230.224.114 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We actually have an article on this: Cat senses. It's of note that it's not really fair to compare any other senses of smell to a dog's. Dogs have an amazingly good sense of smell — it's really what they bring to the table, in terms of animal specialties, sort of like what cognition is for human beings. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As humans, perhaps we single out the dog's sense of smell rather than other animals because early man's attempts to domesticate the bear were fraught with difficulties on account of them eating all of the food, some of the children and the dogs. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Canine sense of smell isn't really all that remarkable in the animal kingdom. If you consider the molecular genetics, most rodents—certainly mice and rats—can probably smell better (in that that have a greater olfactory receptor repertoire). Plenty of other terresterial, non-primate mammals can probably smell just as well as dogs. However, what dogs "bring to the table" is their obedience and ability to be trained for olfactory tasks. A mouse can discriminate between odors at a incredibly small concentrations, a threshold of between 0.001 ppm and 0.0001 ppm, but you're are not going to have much luck using it to search for people trapped in a collapsed building. Rockpocket 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That and vultures were too heavy to nicely sit on ones shoulder. Googlemeister (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The male silkworm moth is even better, being able to detect single molecules of bombykol - [4]. Smartse (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow i guess wikipedia does have an article on everything ;) Does this change between domestic cats and wild felidae (ie pumas lions tigers leopards etc) 76.230.224.114 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a little bit interesting — about dogs sniffing out bedbugs. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)