Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 November 5

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

November 5

Sending a new theory around

I have a scientific theory with evidence that if it's true, will be an important finding. The problem is I have no clout, don't know anyone, and have no money. And if I send it to people, nearly all will ignore me. And those few that won't ignore me and think I'm right, might steal my idea and claim it for themselves. So how do I send my theory around while making sure I get credit for it and nobody can claim it was their idea? Eachroomfff (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What field are you talking about? If it's math, physics or anything fairly quantitative, you can try posting your work on the arXiv here: [1]. You will probably get feedback, and definitely receive full credit for your work, regardless of the reception. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You have to be sponsored by an established arXiv contributor before you can post preprints there. -- BenRG (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 29#Where to publish ideas regarding unsolved problems in Humanities and Science?. Note that if you publish your work in well known public websites or similar where the date can't be changed by you, it'll be difficult and risky for others to try to claim credit if their work came after yours, although don't take this as legal advice or something that will stand up if it comes to court. Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the link to the other thread, it mentioned a getting documents notarized. Is there a way to file things with the government that way so they have some proven copy kept somewhere? Eachroomfff (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is notarizing documents still relevant? I believe the U.S. just switched from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file patent system - which is prevalent in most other parts of the world as well. (Doh, never mind, it isn't implemented until March 2013) Wnt (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You could register your copyright, or just compute a SHA-1 hash of the document and put it the hash on your Wikipedia user page. However, it's extremely unlikely that anyone with a reputation would try to steal your idea. At most they would ask for co-author credit in exchange for helping prepare the paper for publication. That's assuming the idea has merit, which, I'm sorry to say, is also unlikely. -- BenRG (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, no - your Wikipedia user page is an entirely inappropriate place to put 'a new theory', or even a hash of a theory (which isn't actually 100% reliable anyway, as proof of authorship), and could well be removed. This isn't a free web-hosting service. Actually, putting it there would be useless anyway from the point of establishing authorship, since Wikipedia users aren't positively identified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant put the hash there, not the document. It's true that Wikipedia users aren't strongly authenticated, but in a priority dispute, being the only person who can produce a document with the hash in question would be convincing enough, I think. Someone had the document then, you can prove you have it now, and your rivals can't prove they ever had it. (Of course, this means the document you send to others can't be the same as the one you hashed, but even small changes would be enough.) -- BenRG (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting the hash would not comply with policy. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions related to improving the encyclopedia. They are not to be used as personal web pages for purposes unrelated to the project.--Srleffler (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Or just put it on a blog. My blogposting on Newcomb's paradox was cited here on page 12, footnote 2. Count Iblis (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As with BenRG, I don't believe there's any real risk of someone publishing Eachroomfff's work as their own, the reputation damage is simply too severe that anyone would try it even ignoring how people may feel about it ethically. However if this is a concern, putting it on a blog may not really help to allay any such concerns as they often allow the blog owner to edit the post and post date without it being that clear, so don't really establish a publication date. (There may be some internal info that could help, but this seems overly complicated). If the OP can get on something like arXiv, this should sufficiently establish a publication date which will make it even more risky (again I'm not talking from a legal POV) for someone to claim the OP's work as their own. If arXiv isn't an option, look for somewhere or multiple places where you can't change the date and is large enough that it's unlikely you can get people with greater level of control to modify it for you. (So random small forums are a bad idea.) Note that these don't have to be your main form of publication. Another though, whereever you post it, archiving it at Webcitation a few times and submitting the site to the Internet Archive (making sure the site allows robots and isn't blocking the internet archive since the long lead time means it'll take a while before you know if your site was archived) should also help. P.S. A greater risk is that their work won't be convincing enough and someone will publish independent verification with stronger evidence and perhaps a better writeup and be the one people remember. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a similar problem, and one of the best things to do is just to work on it in your spare time, publish on the web somewhere, and try to be as professional as possible about the whole thing. An absolute must read is this website, that tells you what not to do. Scientists are quick to sniff out an amateur, regardless of how careful you are. Remember above all that no one goes into science in order to make someone else famous, so you will have to show them you are intelligent and informed, and above all, responsive to criticism, rather than touchy about it. I am hoping that my theory will at least be useful in giving students an exercise in refuting it - if it is wrong, after all, it can still be used as an undergraduate problem. If it is too hard for an undergraduate to refute, who knows, it might even be worth serious debate. You could try some variant of this approach - at least try to use it first as an exercise for others to engage with intellectually, so their curiosity might be piqued. It's been emotional (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If yo9u wish to patent it you should register patents before publication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the only way to get credited is to cough up $75 and file a provisonal patent and hope they keep records so I don't have to pay something like $400 for a real patent. I actually did design an invention based on my idea, but I don't have the money to make it. Heck, if I had money, I could actually test my theory instead of just parts of it from data others collected. Anyhow, is arxiv.org a good site to share research? It seems that every single tiny subcategory requires endorsements before I can post in it and getting past it is a huge pain and actually very likely for my idea to be stolen while I beg person after person to be endorsed. I'm not arrogant, just distrustful. For sounding professional when I post things there, do I have to write my papers in such a manner that is heavily technical, horribly unpleasant to read, and if shown to the average person, they couldn't make sense of the first sentence? I've worked all my life to write the opposite. I guess it's a college paper kind of thing where you write that way so the professor can't find locations to take points off. So is arxiv.org a good place for work to be seen for review? Eachroomfff (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer regarding most of those points, and my own theory is not related to an invention, so there's no risk of theft in my case. I'm not sure what the patent situation is, although you should check with a lawyer (or law student since that might be too expensive) about what the risks are there. I can quietly say that by "professional" I only mean in the manner described, responding meaningfully to criticism, such as by asking follow up questions for clarification if your audience is sympathetic (it has helped me to correct errors that would have consumed years of my life). Few people appreciate unclear writing, but academics are a diverse lot, and can easily get seduced by fancy new terminology (it is a sign of laziness, but many of the better writers are well aware of the problem). Some also have the research and analytical skill, but not the flair for writing, and don't even have the slightest clue what it is about - or perhaps they are too pressed for time to be clear. Show them your skill at written expression, but draft relentlessly, even enlisting helpful friends to check you haven't overlooked something that might confuse the reader (it's easily done). Spare no effort, because you will become a better writer through this process. And develop a tough exterior, since it is hard to make it out there, sometimes even for geniuses. If you reflect on everything, you have a fair chance of getting somewhere up the mountain, even if not all the way to the top. It's been emotional (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about why you now bring up a patent. If you want to protect some invention, then you probably should file a patent but we can't provide legal advice. If you simply want to get credit for your work, then as several people have said, it is unlikely any reputable scientist is going to claim your work as their own. You can reduce the chance further by making sure you have some evidence for when you first published your work, this doesn't have to be in the form of a patent and in fact this seems an unnecessarily limiting complication (patents are only for inventions and the patent application should concentrate on this only discussion your theory and the evidence for it when it relates to the invention). As I noted, this doesn't guarantee your name is going to be the name most associate with whatever discovery you believe you have made, but filing a patent isn't going to help there. As for writing professionally, helpful advice has already been provided, e.g. IBE and GB. You don't need to use unnecessarily complicated terminology, in fact it's likely to be a negative. However precision and clarity are important, if it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about or you make fundamental errors or inaccurate claims or say wacky things many people will just stop reading. One of the reasons why many papers are 'horribly technical' or difficulty for the average person to understand is because a lot of modern good research is often fairly technical and can be fairly difficult for the average person to understand except in a simplified form. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I brought in that patent idea, but it was if the idea could earn money. Another alternative is Wikiversity where you can post original contributions. It will time stamp your edits. But don't expect a fair hearing over there as it is a Wiki with people present. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

EMP protection

Is it possible to use a large thyratron to send EMP to ground before it can burn up any other electronics? Or would the gizmo just explode before it can trigger the ground circuit? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

When you design such a circuit you will have to make it withstand several thousand volts of RF, and if you do it wrong you will destroy your source. This is an engineering problem in power electronics and high power RF, how to stop the destruction of the output stages when it is presented with the wrong load. I suspect the answer to your question is yes if the thyratron is making the pulse itself. If the EMP comes from somewhere else then the thyratron may survive, but other more delicate stuff may be ruined. But what is your real question? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My real question, which I ask for the second time, is whether it is possible to protect high-voltage electrical components from an external, non-nuclear EMP that is transmitted through a power line by using a thyratron to momentarily ground or short-circuit the line when the EMP arrives, giving the main circuit breakers time to open while protecting them from being welded in place by the EMP. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the past I have used lightning arrestors for this sort of thing. They have some sort of gas discharge that shorts out during an over voltage. But these were on antenna cable, not power cables. But there are spike and surge protectors for power lines. The thyratron needs to be triggered by a high enough voltage (say a thousand volts) and can dump tens to hundreds of amps. Usually the grid will be in control of initiating the discharge, and this would be a problem for your application as you will not know when to trigger. It will take a fraction of a microsecond to turn on, and this may let in enough of a pulse to destroy your sensitive equipment. You would need some sensor on the power line, plus a delay in the power of say 150 meters of cable, then you could delay the EMP enough to trigger this device in time. Usually it needs a hot cathode and so will consume power all the time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK then, so I take it that your answer means this arrangement is workable in principle (with extra components installed), but won't give complete protection. (In other words, it can keep the main transformers from blowing up, but the telemetry equipment could still get fried.) Thank you very much for the info. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair enough summary, If what you are protecting is valuable then spend the money to get a modern MOS protector. And replace it when it has received a spike. And if you are an engineer do not reply on what you get from random people on the internet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this is for a sci-fi detective novel, not for a real-world engineering project. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

charge

what is the meaning of quantization of charge.and what is the meaning of conservation of charge and explain its application with examples and it is also said that mass is quantized what does it mean plz provid the accurate and right information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarandpm (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Quantization means something comes in discrete units, it means the opposite of "continuous". The smallest unit of a measurement is called the quantum and lots of things are "quantized". Electric charge is quantized; the smallest unit of charge was originally thought to be the "fundamental charge" of electrons and protons (by convention assigned charges of value -1 and +1); but the discovery of quarks indicates that the smallest quantum of charge may be 1/3 of a fundemental charge.
• Conservation of charge refers to a conservation law as it applies to electric charge. What this means is that any interaction or charge must maintain a constant electric charge; if anything gains electric charge there must be something else which loses the same amount of electric charge. You can never have any process which creates (or destroys) electric charge.
• Mass is quantized because mass is energy (see mass-energy equivalence) and energy is quantized; indeed it was one of the first physical quantities to be quantized; quantization of energy is the basis of Planck's law, which is sort of the foundational law behind what became quantum mechanics.

I hope these summaries make sense, and if you want more details, please feel free to read the blue links I have provided. --Jayron32 03:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does charge exist? Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does anything exist? If you are looking for a sense of purpose, I'm not sure science will give that to you. --Jayron32 15:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he is asking what is the actual process of creating charge? For example, a moving electron creates a negatively charged electric field. Why? Can an electron move without creating an electric field? Can it move in such a way that it creates a positively charged field? Can it ever stop moving all together? I don't think he is asking for the electron's personal opinion about charged fields. -- kainaw™ 15:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Charge exists outside of motion. Moving electric charges create magnetic fields, but even a stationary charge creates an electric field. Charge was "created" in the Big bang along with a whole lot of other properties of matter; the fact that it is both invariant and conserved in the world today means that it is never created or destroyed; every interaction and change in the universe basically shuffles charge from one location to another, but charge doesn't get "created", it merely transfers. As far as the other implied question, which is why the electron has a negative charge, I'm not sure that's at all answerable on the level you want it to. Charge is merely defined as that property of matter that causes protons and electrons to be attracted and electrons to repel other electtrons. By convention, we call the electron "negative" and the proton "positive", but that's purely arbitrary, the signs could be swapped and have the same meaning. But there is no "why" a particle has a charge. Its a statement of being, not a statement of process. --Jayron32 16:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Davies equation, ionic strength and molality

Is the Davies equation still valid if ionic strength is in the form of molality and not molarity (and isn't ionic strength supposed to be dimensionless)? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first question, but the unit of electric charge is the negative charge of the electron. Dualus (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There aren't any Coulombs in the davies equation, so I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be the case....elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Simple optics/meteorology question?

When scattered or patchy clouds obscure the sun, it often happens (of course) that sunlight will pour through a gap in the cloud cover. My question is, why does the sunbeam seem to diverge conically? I mean, since the sun is—as we say—at infinity, all of the photons should be traveling more or less parallel, so intuition suggests that the beam ought to be more or less a shaft and not so much conical. What's confounding my intuition? Is it merely atmospheric scattering and a bit of diffraction?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The sun may be kind of large, but it's neither a point source nor a plane source. The light rays from the bottom of the sun approach a location on Earth at a different angle from the "top of the sun" (except at the equator at noon). The stars can be assumed to be at infinity, but not the sun. A point source filtered through a lens focused at infinity acts like a plane source... elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing special about the equator at noon... the sun is still a disc. --Tango (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference between angle of incidences would be more symmetric though. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Symmetric about the vertical, yes, but why is the vertical significant? --Tango (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Crepuscular rays has some text and references that may help answer this. Textorus (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The beam *is* a shaft of substantially constant cross-section. It appears as a cone due to perspective. The shaft is actually angled towards you, and is nearer to you (and therefore appears wider) the nearer it gets to the ground. It's like looking at a road which disappears into the distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callerman (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quantifying splashing; changing the property of the splashing solvent

Suppose I have a concentrated solution of salt water; will it splash more than pure water? The Reynolds number should decrease, but the water is also much denser (and the density seems to increase much faster than the viscosity). Would a greater density increase inertial forces and therefore the Reynolds number, or would the greater viscosity decrease it?

It seems to be there are two types of solutes: a low-concentration solute that increases viscosity greatly but not density (agar?), and increasing density without increasing viscosity (using heavy water?)

Also does splashing commute? All other conditions constant, will there be more splashing if I drop concentrated salt water into pure water, or pure water into concentrated salt water?

elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 16:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would expect that you would get smaller droplets if you could reduce the surface tension. Thus, adding detergent should make for a finer spray (but, of course, also produces suds). StuRat (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...I am curious -- I have heard of non-suds detergents but I never really got the principle. Most phospholipids (the biological kind) wouldn't create visible micelles, right? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is a splash at the boundary of aerosolization? How many Daltons in the minimum size droplets you want to include in your percent mass loss over time concerning liquid connection to the bulk of the water mass. Dualus (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to mess with percent mass loss. To measure the splashing, just get a panel of diving judges to score it. – b_jonas 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Physiological details of figure skaters' increased tolerance of dizziness

When a figure skater develops or increases the ability to not be as dizzy after some very rapid spinning, is the change a change in the cells in their inner ears that translate the physical spinning into nerve signals, a change in the brain of the processing of nerve signals from the ears, both, or something else? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is primarily mental. If you ignore a stimulus (such as the dizzy feeling) long enough, your brain is trained to ignore it. Skaters do get dizzy when they are learning. They slowing get better at simply ignoring it. -- kainaw™ 20:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw, are you just giving a personal opinion, or is there some other basis for your statement? Our article Motion sickness has a very short section Dizziness due to spinning. The article links to Acclimatization in its "See also" sections, but does not discuss acclimatization within its body. Likewise with our seasickness article, though it does state that some people become "immune through exposure". I've both witness and experienced acclimatization against seasickness, but I do not know how to determine if it is a psychological or a physiological change. -- 49.228.87.218 (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

From personal experience in ballroom dancing (a) you are taught some tricks that help minimise the dizziness (b) a good dancer will be dancing long enough to do some anti clockwise turns as well as clockwise in their routine, while you fall over (c) yes I think you do acclimatise a fair bit. FWIW I get somewhat dizzy after 8 spins in succession. Incidentally I have not been seasick while racing ocean going yachts for several years. On the other hand I could make myself seasick pretty quickly, I'm just very careful about what I do and I don't seem as suceptible as most people anyway.Greglocock (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Fiber optic cable damage

Is it true that once a fiber optic cable has been damaged, it can not be repaired? ScienceApe (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine it could be, but the question is whether that's more economical than replacing it. Since repairing it likely involves some delicate work (I imagine you'd cut it, polish the ends, then use a connector) and still it would never be quite as good as it was, it might often make sense to replace it. Similar logic as with a chipped windshield. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Repairing a FO cable is even harder than StuRat says it is -- the optical fibers are made of super-thin filaments of optical glass, so in order to repair any break in the cable, you must (1) cut the cable, (2) polish the ends of each fiber, (3) fuse each fiber together thermally, making sure not to mismatch them and maintaining perfect alignment between the pieces, and (4) grind down the joint between the pieces of each fiber to a perfectly smooth cylindrical section of precisely the same diameter as the rest of the fiber (this is absolutely essential, because any roughness or change in cross-section will allow the light to leak out). Needless to say, the amount of effort involved would be absolutely prohibitive compared to replacing the cable with a new one. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of a better solution (at least for very long cables which would be too expensive to replace): Instead of matching up the fibers, attach the fibers to a chip on each side, then use the chip to map the fibers from cable A to cable B. I believe they've used a similar fix for severed nerve bundles. StuRat (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The anon above is half-right about the process, but overestimates the difficulty. The fiber needs to be cut and stripped, and then the end is cleaved (not polished). It is not necessary to grind down the diameter after splicing. A good fusion splicer automatically aligns and fuses the fiber ends without distorting them or altering their diameter. Once the fiber is spliced, the joint has to be protected since the fiber's protective coating and jacket have to be removed to splice it. For indoor patchcords and pigtails, a rigid sleeve is slid over the joint and then heated which causes it to shrink, forming a stiff protective cover for the fragile splice. There are also coatings that can be applied as a liquid and then cured to provide a protective covering. I'm not sure what is used to protect cables that require more durability such as outdoor cables or even indoor plenum cable.

The time consuming part is not the actual splice, but the work to strip the fiber and then re-protect it after splicing. Fusion splicers are also not cheap. It may well be cheaper to just replace the cable in many cases.--Srleffler (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's entirely possible.

Technicians that work for me have been doing FO repairs for at least the 15 years that I've been in the commas infrastructure game.

ALR (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Commas ? StuRat (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean commerce, don't you? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comms, as in communications. Wide Area Networks using fibre backbones as well as satellite shots, microwave transmissions and in some cases HF radio legs.

Also building and vehicle infrastructure. The main thing for a vehicle is that it can be maintained in the field so fibre repair ki is carried onboard.

ALR (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How about comms as in communications. There are special splicing machines that do the cutting and fusing job so it is not as hard as doing it all by hand. Usually there will be excess fibre coiled in a pit nearby, so that it can be shortened at a splice point without having to insert a piece. This will certainly be done for cables laid underground, and probably between points in a building, as the cost to repull cable will be high. If the damage also damages the conduit, or is at an inaccessible point, eg by crushing it may not be possible to splice it back together and it is an expensive replacement job. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys—try to remember that we're the Reference Desk, and we should strive to provide references with our responses. Thermally fusing the cut ends together is called fusion splicing, and we have an article on that. There's also an article covering optical fiber connectors. Remarkably, there's an eHow article on "How to Repair A Cut Underground Fiber-Optic Cable", but you'll need to copy and paste the URL to get past our spam filter (http://www.ehow.com/how_5025648_repair-cut-underground-fiberoptic-cable.html). Here's a short, accessible summary of undersea fiber repair from Slate: How Do You Fix An Undersea Cable? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)