Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 October 3

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.

October 3

Dark Matter as molecular hydrogren

Regarding the Dark Matter article:

Big Bang theoreticians have made the claim that 80% or so of gravitating matter in the universe must be some unknown kind of non-byronic matter that is as yet undetected and barely interacts with normal matter (or itself). This claim is apparently needed for agreement with Big Bang nuclear synthesis calculations.

I am looking for any firm confirmation that dark matter cannot be large quantities of cold dark H2, the most common molecule in the universe. I understand that at least someone believes that the FUSE satellite data has proved that no large amounts of H2 exist to account for the gravitating mass. However I have been unable so far to deduce such a claim from science reports from the FUSE project that I have seen.

Can anyone enlighten me on this subject?

Moreover in 1999 large amounts of neutral H2 were detected in the edge-on galaxy NGC 891. The reports suggested that enough was found to account for the missing dark matter. Does anyone know if this claim was refuted?

Finally around 1998 through about 2002 several articles appeared discussing Extreme Scattering Events which have been attributed to a large population of extraordinarily small and dense H2 clouds in our galaxy. Has any further progress been made in this research since? Will the Planck mission data be able to shed some light on the existence of such gas clouds?

Thanks for any input.

Carl Hitchon (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hydrogen and all other atoms and molecules have characteristic absorption and emission spectra including in the < 10 Kelvin blackbody emission region which would be evident if there were massive unmapped clouds of cold dust or gas. There are no such clouds because dark matter is primordial, intermediate mass black holes.[1] We know this because any massive but non-baryonic or weakly-interacting matter would have fallen into black holes billions of years ago.[2] Professor Paul Frampton has been saying this for decades,[3](free at [4]) but the hundreds of astrophysicists who search for WIMPs and axions refuse to listen, because even though there has never been a shred of empirical evidence for such exotic particles (they are merely the hypothetical postulations of supersymmetry, which is not doing so well at the Large Hadron Collider at the moment) there was until very recently no way that anyone had thought of to detect intermediate mass black holes[5][6] so you couldn't get a grant to look for them. Science meets economics and economics wins, sadly. Our Dark matter article is pathetically equivocal on this topic because it's been heavily edited by astrophysicists in favor of their own continued funding, and you can't blame them, really. However, this is not to say that there aren't large unmapped clouds of interstellar hydrogen emitting in the < 10 Kelvin blackbody range; there most certainly are, and they are being detected all the time by, e.g., the Spitzer telescope, but they are orders of magnitude less massive than dark matter. Do you have links for the NGC 891 and scattering observations? 69.171.160.45 (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought that "dark matter" (and "dark enery") is simply the "here be dragons" of modern astrophysics. Just a convenient label for "everything we can't specifically identify (yet)", thus it could basically be anything (that isn't "glowing" and thus broadcasting it's identity). Roger (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

69.171.160.45 is displaying a massive amount of point of view here (PoV). The case for Black holes isn't as strong as he puts it and the case for (WIMPs) isn't as weak as he puts it. There is some good evidence for WIMP's now. Read Dark matter#Direct detection experiments. Dauto (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

An event rate modulation which has been unconfirmed since 1986, and 69 detection events from unexplained sources which are therefore theorized as WIMPs? I'm glad you're not picking my investment portfolio. On the other hand, two intermediate mass black holes have been confirmed for years now. Is there anyone supporting WIMPs who isn't in the community depending on grants for looking for them? NASA doesn't. 69.171.160.119 (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Another shower of PoV from 69.171.160.119. The 69 events have no other known explanation while the Black holes might not be primordial. Dauto (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, By the way, the DAMA/LIBRA experiment has collected data as recently as 2009 published in 2010 showing modulation beyond 8.9 sigma confidence limit. Dauto (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a link for that? I seem to remember that wide binary star measurements are consistent with black holes but not WIMPs. Does anyone remember where that was discussed? 67.21.131.22 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The wide binary orbits were once said to be inconsistent with black holes but that has been overturned by [7](free at [8]) but this is not strictly evidence for black holes at present. 69.171.160.201 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The DAMA/lLIBRA results can be found here. Dauto (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Any idea if it's made it through peer review? Or how they deal with DM particle accretion in ordinary stellar mass or supermassive black holes? 69.171.160.201 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The peer reviewed reference is Eur. Phys. J. C (2010) 67: 39-49. Any claims to constraints coming from possible Black holes are not their concern since it is not related to their experiment. Dauto (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be their concern because it invalidates their premises. 69.171.160.201 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That just your opinion, not a fact. The observed modulation is quite solid, the explanation given in the paper is reasonable, and I haven't seen any alternate explanation being proposed. Dauto (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. The NASA page linked above is talking about micro black holes not intermediate black holes. Micro black holes are just another variety of WIMPs. Dauto (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

They are not weakly interacting with normal matter like neutrinos. 69.171.160.201 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are. In fact their interactions is even weaker. They only interact through gravity. You need a large mas in order for gravity to become strong and those micro holes have sub-grams masses. Dauto (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's response. I was actually asking more specifically about the search for molecular hydrogen and how much has been found. Here is a link to the 1999 paper about H2 in NCG 891 Here is a link to one of the papers about Extreme Scattering Events probably due to dense H2 clouds: arXiv:astro-ph/9802111v2.

It would appear that very cold clouds of nearly pure H2 would be difficult to detect, so perhaps it still is an unknown, but I'm not sure. Maybe not as exciting as primordial black holes and WIMPs but seems to me scientist should be looking for horses as well as zebras.

The remark about POV is valid but it seems to be the case in this field that not enough is yet known to have a solid scientific theory that can be agreed upon and solidly supported by evidence. After all we don't even know what 95% of the Universe is made of. Carl Hitchon (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, hydrogen or any other gas or dust would emit blackbody radiation, and while that would not be detectable from the surface of the Earth because of atmospheric absorption and heat interference, the several cryostatic infrared space telescopes which have been operational since 1999 have not found any evidence of the necessary masses of interstellar media to explain more than a tiny fraction of dark matter. 69.171.160.201 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is only true if you assume that the ISM (or H2 gas as DM for that purpose) is actually dense enough to form a Maxwell-Boltzmannn style velocity distribution, which -while only being indirectly related to a Plack Black Body- is required to show this kind of radiation. However, the ISM is mostly regarded as being "too transparent" or in other words, not dense enough to have photon creation by collision on a global scale. This is also the reason why we can observe the rather "bright" 21cm hyperfine structure transition line of Neutral Hydrogen, which would otherwise drown in the pure thermal radiation of HI, considering it being created by a highly forbidden, low probability event.

Can you site a reference indicating that it would radiate as a black body? I thought awestonomers always looked for specific emission and absorption lines to detect the stuff. I've heard the claim that's it's been ruled out, however there do seem to some instances of detection (mentioned above) that could be large amounts. Carl Hitchon (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A recent proposal is that much hydrogen may be hidden from view in the form of Hydrogen ion clusters, although these too would have an absorption spectrum. Solid hydrogen snow is possible if the vapour pressure is lower than the gas density. However there is a problem with primordial nucleosynthesis if the density of baryonic matter is too great, it does not end up producing elements in the ratio that we see now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Extreme Scattering Events I referred to are thought to be caused by relatively small (<1AU) H2 gas clouds that are quite dense (10^3 or so times the usual ISM). Yes, I'm well aware of the conflict with the BBN theory and that's apparently why we are looking for harder for zebras than horses (so to speak). Thanks for the references. Carl Hitchon (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of worms are these?

They look like they may be pin worms, but I don't think they live in a person's face... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiHtUFuGgSA&NR=1 ScienceApe (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See Psychic surgery. It's a hoax. Introduced while swabbing and does not live on the face.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lower size limit on mammals

Are there physical or biological lower limits on the size of mammals? In particular, would it be possible for a cat or dog to evolve to an insect-like or microscopic size (full grown), while retaining its basic cat/dog body shape and characteristics? 69.111.16.7 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Most mammals (and most birds) are endothermic homeotherms (traditionally, but inaccurately - "warm-blooded"). The smaller the size, the harder it is to maintain acceptable body temperatures for their metabolisms to occur normally. The smallest homeothermic vertebrates (e.g. shrews and hummingbirds), as a consequence have very high metabolic rates. They have to keep eating all the time and require so much oxygen that their heartbeat rates are astonishing (600 to 1320 bpm for the masked shrew).

The other limit, is of course, morphological. This affects poikilotherms and ectothermic homeotherms ("cold-blooded" animals) as well as endothermic homeotherms. A microscopic dog or cat would not have enough space (or cells even) to possess the organ systems necessary to keep functioning. Unless of course, it devolves drastically and manages to find a way to remain alive even after jettisoning most of its organs. Examples of miniaturization achieved by basically giving up the necessities of having to remain alive include anglerfish males which can only survive by becoming embedded parasites of the much larger females (they are basically nothing more than living testes). The males of the fairyfly Dicopomorpha echmepterygis, the smallest insects, also do not have eyes and have no means to feed themselves as adults - they only live to fertilize the females immediately after emerging as adults, then die. Even down to the mm range, there are already constraints as to what can be fitted into a body. In the smallest vertebrate adults, fish of the genus Paedocypris, the skulls have become cartilaginous and roofless, leaving their brains exposed. In the tiny Thorius salamanders, the eyes and the brain have a larger "smallest operational sizes" than other elements of the skull and thus now take up much of the space.

And lastly, smaller sizes means different niches. They have to adapt to different ways of acquiring food, different methods of locomotion, etc. And that means necessarily changing body shape. So no, a microscopic vertebrate is impossible. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's just about everything I needed to know. 15:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)69.111.16.7 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It sure would have made Noah's boat building task a lot easier. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark] mentions miniaturized creatures as a possibility for Noah, tongue-in-cheek. (by the way my captcha is "goatspoke")69.111.16.7 (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He only took two sheep with him for... er... company. Once the flood subsided, evolution did the rest. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone read their Bible? He took seven sheep (Genesis 7:2), or fourteen if you believe Wikipedia. Sigh.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Or"? Most currently-used English Bibles are pretty clear about it being seven pairs (or seven and their mates) in Genesis 7:2. Direct translation of the Hebrew agrees ("you shall take seven seven man and woman of him") So WP:V wins again. DMacks (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the scribe stuttered? Oh well... at least we got a rainbow out of it. Antediluvian Earth must have been completely monochromatic.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are shrews smaller than marmosets, or are these just young? I guess they are young, since Shrew says, "several are very small, notably the Etruscan Shrew (Suncus etruscus) which at about 3.5 cm and 2 grams is the smallest living terrestrial mammal." Terrestrial? Is there a tiny dolphin or something? 69.171.160.45 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Must be juveniles, because the text says they're 8 inches long. Unless that's a giant's hand. 69.111.16.7 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The larger marmosets in those pictures are (assuming the hand is of an average adult human) at least 10cm long excluding their tails, and by comparison even the smaller younger ones are considerably larger than a typical adult shrew. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.215 (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a picture of a Eurasian Pygmy Shrew (Sorex minutus), with another International Standard Sized hand. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that might actually be an Imperial hand, although in the current context its difference from the Metric hand is not great enough to be significant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.215 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrestrial, because a flying mammal - the bumblebee bat - is sometimes regarded as smaller in other criteria. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Great answer there, Obs.!

Greame Bartlett

I left a note on your user page, but I do not recall how I got there. Please let me know if you received it! Best,91.2.202.173 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, obviously I had not logged in before. Khnassmacher 91.2.202.173 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You want User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett#Political_party_funding. SmartSE (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And if you log in, you should see that he replied on your talk page. SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have only found this message a day later! How you find who edited an article is by looking at the history. A talk link will be listed against the editor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Losing weight

In terms of attempting to lose weight ... why do they say that when you have more muscle, it helps you to burn more fat? What exactly is the relationship between the two? What are the basics of the underlying concepts involved? What is the basic physiology or biology involved with that concept? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

Perhaps it's very simple and just means that when you have more muscle you can exercise more strenuously and for longer. And when you exercise you burn calories. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that's right Judith. More muscle increases the Basal metabolic rate which makes you burn more energy along the day. The energy that you lose through exercise it not very high (despite popular believe that exercise can make you thin). That's why you always have to combine exercise ((muscle building and aerobic) with a diet to lose weight. Trustinchaos (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You lose 100-150 kcal for every mile you walk or run. That translates into 20-30 miles per lb of fat. Most people in reasonable condition could walk/run 3-4 miles a day, which is around 500 kcal. Many people might find it easier to just eat 500kcal less, but doing both is how to lose weight the fastest obviously. Googlemeister (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That implies losing about 3-4 pounds/month, which is not much, but only if you indeed walk 3-4 miles every day, which is more than most people do. Provided that you don't eat more (or more energetic food/drinks), it could work for losing a little bit of weight, but it's highly improbable. Wikiweek (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Most doctors don't recommend people try to lose more then 1-2 lbs per week in normal circumstances. And if losing weight was easy, there wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry for it. Googlemeister (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's double of what I said, but you are right, losing weight is not as easy as it sounds, specially not gaining it again can be a tough thing. Wikiweek (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just keeping tissue alive (even if you're not moving about or visibly 'exercising') burns a certain number of calories (as noted by others, see basal metabolic rate). This page suggests a burn rate of 7-10 calories per day for every pound of muscle tissue, versus approximately 2-3 calories per day per pound of body fat. So keeping a pound of muscle alive for a year burns about 3000 calories—the amount of energy, coincidentally, stored in a pound of fat.

Of course, you're likely to burn far more calories than that in the activities used to build and maintain that pound of muscle than you ever will relying on its contribution to your basal metabolic rate. (If you start with a pound of muscle and don't use it for a year, it won't still be there at the end of the year, and your body will have used up the material in that muscle (catabolism) as a source of energy.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Potato fruits

How toxic exactly are the fruits of the potato? Can a person die from eating them? JIP | Talk 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Potato#Toxicity has numbers and data. --Jayron32 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that article says "no reported cases of potato-source solanine poisoning have occurred in the U.S. in the last 50 years" so I guess it's safe to eat them.  :-) – b_jonas 20:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One reason for that would of course be that no one in the U.S. has been daft enough to eat potato fruits in the last 50 years... =) JIP | Talk 18:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Petroleum value and chemical uses

I was very surprised to read a statement in Nature News, "Eighty-five percent of the volume of a barrel of oil is used to make fuel, but the chemicals that come from the remaining 15% account for 85% of the barrel's monetary value." I'm skeptical... is there truth to this?[9]

For example, if a barrel of oil cost $100, and this is true, then with petroleum at $100, 55*0.85 = 47 gallons of petroleum destined for fuel should cost $15 - the base cost of the fuel, before refining, should be about $0.33.

More to the point, if this claim were true, then if the technologies discussed in the article, such as biotech isoprene for tires, come to fruition, the base cost of the fuel should be increased. This is because the chemical part of the oil becomes less and less valuable due to competition, whereas the expense of producing it doesn't decrease. (If capitalism even applies to the oil market, which I'm also a bit skeptical about). If that 47 gallons has to produce most of the $100 cost of the petroleum, the base price of the fuel rises $1.66 per gallon to around $2.00.

I suspect what they really mean is that, after the chemicals are worked on, adding value, they become more valuable than bulk fuel, not that those fractions of the oil are more valuable to start? Wnt (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

At face value it sounds very fishy to me too. Another possible reading that I could imagine is if "value" were understood as "profit" for refiners. I could easily believe that there isn't much profit margin in gasoline for refiners, and that the profit margins on the less common refined products might be much higher. Dragons flight (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the longer chain hydrocarbons in petroleum are used to synthesize ridiculously expensive pharmaceuticals, and less expensive pesticides which are still often much more valuable than fuel by weight. 69.171.160.201 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mean swell wavelength in the open ocean

What is the mean wavelength of swells in the open ocean? E.g. if I placed a large number buoys in the open ocean at random and collected wave data for several years, then looked at just the wavelengths, and averaged them, what length would I get? Standard deviation would be great too! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.115 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The wavelength depends on the speed of the waves and the speed becomes roughly equal to the speed of the wind.[10] Wind wave says

$c={\sqrt {{\frac {g\lambda }{2\pi }}\tanh \left({\frac {2\pi d}{\lambda }}\right)}}$

using the notation in the article. For deep water

$c\approx {\sqrt {\frac {g\lambda }{2\pi }}}$

so λ is approximately (0.8c)² where λ is in metres and c in m/s. Swell tends to continue in this way even after the wind has stopped (all this in Wind wave). I expect you were hoping the weather wouldn't come into things! Thincat (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I understand that wavelength is a function of wave period and speed; I guess what I'm really asking is what is the actual value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.95 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no actual value for the average wave length. Waves come in ripples and tsunamis, so the mean you'd want is completely dependent on the accuracy of the buoys used. An extremely precise buoy might come up with millimeters. A very nice read about waves (how they work, how they're measured, and a lot more) is in Oceanography and Seamanship by William G. Van Dorn. Joepnl (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Joepnl, I hadn't considered that a buoy could register a 1 mm change in water height as a wave (which I suppose it is; it sounds like now we're getting in to defining what a wave is) or that a buoy would be unable to differentiate the peak of one wave from that over another passing at a different speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.94 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The buoys can differentiate between different waves coming from different directions at different speeds. One cool thing I learned from the book I mentioned is that Fourier transformations are used to calculate where all the waves came from. Joepnl (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm disappointed that I'm not getting a quick answer to what I thought was a simple problem, but I am beyond stoked to find out that something I thought was simple (because I wasn't really thinking about it) opens the door to what looks like a super interesting subject. I can't wait to dig into this book.

Waves are just a small part of it but it seems that every (non-scientific) article about waves refers to this quite old (and pretty expensive) book which is about seamanship, really. Waves are really interesting. I thought an object on a wave was just going up and down. But the water needs to go somewhere. So here are some more fun facts: a floating object on a wave moves in circles, the circles go on below the surface, and they go on way further down than you'd expect. I think that smart kids learning about where canon balls should land after being shot at X degrees at speed Y should also be learning how waves work. Btw, thank you for making me look up the word "stoked", I'm learning here as well :) Joepnl (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fourier transforms guys. The buoys can pick up many different wavelengths which you can then separate. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My cat pees on a power socket. Why? How can I stop it?

He's done it three times now! After each incident I've removed the power socket (known as a power point where I am in Australia) and left the wires there (with the live ends suitably covered with insulating tape) while I unstressed myself, cleaned everything up, and figured out how to stop it happening again.

Most recently, some badly stained carpet was completely removed, and the timber flooring and wall panelling thoroughly washed and sealed with two layers of a quality timber finish. The cat stopped showing any interest in the area. The power socket was finally replaced two days ago after a couple of months. First, the cat peed on the floor close by, then peed on the power socket itself, shorting out the power for the house, again!

Why? Any cat psychologists in the house?

How do I stop it? Sensible repellent suggestions welcome, but please don't recommend citronella. That repels me as well. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutering is often successful at stopping male cats from spraying. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. However, he was neutered as a kitten and is now twelve years old. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should take care and not pee near Tango's house. Otherwise horrible things could happen to him. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My father once solved that problem. But it fried the cat. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Should have put four more of them with that one and they could have been content with a network jack. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are passive infrared sensor devices that emit ultrasonic sound and spray gasses or liquids or whatever concoction you enjoy. Some cats are deterred by whatever puts them on alert to possible danger. Even a wind blown CD outdoors will keep them searching for the places they feel safe. --DeeperQA (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The approach is twofold: make the area he's peeing in less attractive, and make the area you want him to pee in (presumably the litter box) more attractive. So, you want to make sure that he likes the litter you're using (no scent might be better than scented), that you change it often, that the box is in a quiet, safe, and convenient place. He may prefer one with a "privacy" lid, or may prefer an open-topped type. To make the socket area less appealing, you want to be sure that previous urine mistakes are thoroughly cleaned up (may need enzyme-type products to do so). Purportedly, some cats don't like walking on aluminum foil, so spreading it out on the floor might also make the area less appealing. - Nunh-huh 00:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps put his bedding, such as a nest bed, there or nearby, because if he is still a healthy cat he should be keeping his den area clean and not marking it... or perhaps a small bowl of dry food down on a mat in the area for him to graze, because you wouldn't think he would want to ruin his appetite. I can't say for sure if those ideas would work though, and, in any case, since this is also a question of safety; yours, your home and the cats from both electric shock and fire due to the high current from an electrical short, you should block his access to the outlet. Thus, I'd put some plastic and a throw rug over the area to protect the floor and a bookcase or chest against the wall so that there is absolutely no chance of a repeat episode. --Modocc (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. There's some creative ideas there. The food bowl idea could work. I'm aware of the safety issues. We do have what's called a safety switch here in Australia which automatically and very quickly turns off the current when it detects high leakage. I still think the dumb cat is rapidly working through his nine lives though. I'll put the idea of something blocking access into my subconscious to see if it can come up with something appropriate for the location. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Here in the UK we have Feliway pheromone diffusers, which you plug into the socket and which emits a "happy cat" odour. I wonder if putting one of these in the socket would confuse the cat enough to send him away happy? --TammyMoet (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that looks highly relevant. The vet has said before that this cat is very susceptible to stress. (There is actually very little stress in its life. It's just crazy.) And your web link even took me to the company's local counterpart in Australia. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are smart meters evil?

At least, evil regarding the protection (or lack) of private data. Wikiweek (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems very difficult to apply a subjective ethical determination like "evil" to a power meter with any real meaning or significance. Issues of data protection certainly exist, but I'm not sure what you're wanting beyond that. — Lomn 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

They're certainly not popular. Your question is very topical in my neighbourhood. Our local major spreadsheet newspaper (not the more popular Murdoch tabloid) has just published this article with the headline "Smart meters given a fail". HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how highly you value the confidentiality of your electricity usage. Can you think of any way that the number of kilowatt-hours or whatever could be used against you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you use your electricity for. High electricity use seems to be a common way that hydroponic marijuana growing is detected around my part of the world. (Not suggesting that our OP is an indoor gardener.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they could know when I am at home/at the office, and therefore call me offering some junk product or service. And a hacker could break into the system and know exactly when I am at home and more or less what I am doing - they could discover how many appliances I have. A potential employer could discover that I rarely stand up early, but come home late at night many days during the week. The question is not how they could use my private data, the question is that they are my private data. Wikiweek (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the meters are individually hackable and regulatable, yes, their mandatory installation is yet another statist evil.μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless they can be hacked in such a way as to penetrate your bank account, you have much greater cause to worry about the internet than about electricity meters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not for the first time, you win this weeks most stupid answer competition. Congratulations. That there are risks associated with access to banking facilities from the internet has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not smart meters are evil. So. Did you have a point to make or were you just a bit pissed off that your previous stupid comment had been proven to be, err, stupid? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I just figured I shouldn't let you monopolize that award. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, does this fall under WP:NPA or WP:UNCIVIL? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What is a "statist evil"? Wikiweek (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

statism μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the fact that you are not allowed or provided access to the data that makes them evil. --DeeperQA (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but my power company gives me access to my smart meter data with 15 minute resolution. Dragons flight (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In NZ there is no regulation or legal requirement for power companies to install smart meters. (Most major power companies here are state owned enterprises which in NZ means they operate more or less as private companies albeit with the government as share holder.) Howevering probably figuring it will be cheaper in the long run, they're doing it anyway but not bothering to make sure their meters have support a home area network to provide any info to the consumer or are compatible with each other [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. If you want those you'll usually have to install a device yourself whicn connects to the power line since there doesn't seem to be any easy way to get it from the smart meters. Without your seperate power meter you paid for directly, any info on usage needs to come from the power company (if they want to provide it) and at best tends have a day granularity [16] [17]. Some installers have even admitted said there is basically no real benefit to the consumer for the smart meters that are being installed, it's all to the power company. Of course if you don't want an ordinary smart meter, a prepaid one is an easy option, just don't pay your bill on time once [18] Nil Einne (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As an anthropologist I can say that the idea of evil varies greatly from culture to culture and doesn't really have a concrete definition; it's also a matter of opinion. If you define evil from a US perspective though, evil would mean Communist. As I don't like electric metres given that they are depressing (that's money they're measuring); then I, as an American, must define it as most likely Communist and therefore evil. Question answered. As for a serious answer, it's hard from them to really pin down the make and model of appliances you are using. Even if a hacker did care enough to look at your smart meter thingy, it wouldn't tell him the type of computer you use, the OS, programs, passwords, or any other thing of remote interest to him (or her). I don't think that your employer would access your meter without your permission either.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically a potential employer could demand to see your meter info before they offer you a job, or make it a part of your contract you need to give them access when employed. You could reject such a condition, but if you're fairly low-skilled with a lot of people competing for the same job you may have limited choice if you want to make a living. Now, why they would want to do this, I'm not sure, unless you live alone the fact there's high power usage late in to the night won't necessarily tell them you sleep late, nor will a sudden drop at say 9pm tell them you sleep early (perhaps someone else does and you don't bother with lights when using your computer). Also in evil statist countries, it may be illegal for employers to make such demands and even if it isn't it may become so if they start doing it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worth considering whether one's electricity usage counts as private information that ought to be concealed. I'm not sure it does. Does one really generally expect that such information is kept confidentially? The meters usually are accessible from the street, their numbers displayed. The power company gives you no assurance that your usage is considered private information. The possibility of misuse seems ridiculously low, even with the idea that "hackers" are somehow getting all of the data at once. The potential threats to any individual seem nil — your named threats are that you are afraid of some so far totally ridiculous schemes by which telemarketers or employers, none of which sound very plausible to me, and all of such ills could be cured through separate policy (if employer actually did start discriminating on the basis of electrical meters, the easier option is to just ban that sort of discrimination). Anyway it all seems rather silly to me. I don't see any "evil". I'm not sure I see anything that actually even ought to legitimately harm or irritate the consumer, other than the apparent fact that they may not work correctly or may be expensive. (Which I consider a separate question from the privacy issue. Smart meters may not be a good idea, but I don't see how privacy has anything to do with that. There are far bigger fish to fry in the privacy arena.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does not count as private information. BTW, it doesn't matter if people expect that it will be kept confidential and it doesn't matter if you expect it to be misused or not. If it's your private information no company should be using it for purposes other than agreed upon. And it doesn't matter if I cannot imagine any real harm that could be done. Wikiweek (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep stating that you think it is private information, yet you offer up no criteria for deciding what you should be private and what should not. My analysis is based in the concept of privacy in US law; what are you offering up as yours? --Mr.98 (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Information on the energy leaving their network and entering your house would seem to be as much their information as it is yours. Of course, you always have the freedom not to buy electricity from the power company. Dragons flight (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.electricalpollution.com/. This is beyond what you (“at least”) requested in your original post.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This article from the economist http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/09/reliability-grid explains my objections. It has nothing to do with access to the info per se, although that can be abused, but other problems with the plan.

To answer questions above, note that tools are not evil but foolishly installing tools open to abuse by hackers and the police state is a bad thing and when mandated by the government (you know, the ones who put you in jail, seize your property, and shoot you if you resist) it is evil. And Mr. Petrie, what it the world are you talking about saying evil in the US is defined as Communism? Evil is simply willful harm of any sort. Malice or (reckless disregard) which violates another. That's not a difficult definition. Doesn't require, but does include Marxist dictatorships. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that is a joke I use sometimes, making fun of my country's tendency to refer to certain things as Socialist or Communist (though I am a socialist myself and have no real dislike of the communist idea itself, just the results of its practice thus far). Willful harm as defined by our values, but in anthropology, you learn to grey the hell out of everything you consider as many things we view are viewed very differently in other cultures. And I'm afraid that Prof. Petrie is no longer with us. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 01:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the real evil guys from a US perspective, are Islamic extremists... Wikiweek (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Both really; if you'd paid attention to some of the rhetoric from the last presidential election, you'd have heard many of Obama's things referred to as socialism. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be that once a "technical upgrade" is envisioned, there seems to be no discretion in deciding what features to add. You could make a smart meter that tots up the electrical usage during each hour of the day and can be interrogated for a monthly report for billing purposes, to encourage conservation - yet not give it the ability to shut down the home's access to current, nor give it any real-time monitoring ability so that someone can try to figure out exactly what kind of grow light is being used in the house, nor allow it to spy on RF signals leaking down the line from a computer monitor nor receive sound recordings from bugs concealed in the house. (I'm not sure they do every last one of those things, though nowadays, one expects it until proven otherwise - and is usually right) Wnt (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Puh-leeze. These thing are not that smart. And the fallout from violating various wiretapping laws (yes, there are laws about this sort of thing!) would be huge and prohibitive. These things almost surely just measure the electrical output and send it home when they ask for it. If there's no reason to suspect otherwise, it's ridiculous to assume they have all sorts of nefarious capabilities that are well outside their technical specifications. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that I agree with Wnt but I disagree with your idea the only thing they can do is to measure the output. Some do in fact have the ability to do remote disconnects (meaning the power company can send a signal to your meter to cut off your power completely) and some do have a home area network meaning they could cut the power to certain devices when receiving a signal from the power company, but only if the device supports it. This is mention in our article on smart meters. However these features aren't hidden, in fact the HAN feature is generally an advertised one (remote disconnects perhaps less so but I see no sign it's usually hidden). The rest of the stuff is largely nonsense. (Well the real time monitoring of power usage is obviously real, any ability to figure out what devices you are using and when would depend entirely on their remote computer systems. I do agree they're unlikely to be able to figure out that much.) Of course, cutting off the power to certain devices isn't new, we've had it in NZ for hot water heaters for years and see Load management. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to insist it is private, you should give some argument as to why. So far the argument has been based on the potential of misuse. This would be a valid reason, if the potential was really there. I'm not sure it is, more than a lot of other information that is not considered private. I still don't understand what hackers are supposed to be doing with this information, or what the police state is supposed to be doing with it, or whatever. This seems like a lot of to-do about nothing. I wonder if you put as much thought into your choice of ISP or phone carriers, who almost surely are doing things that you would definite as violations of privacy or police state-ish. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A smart meter could tell the police right away if I am at home. A normal meter gets read only once in a while, and only if I allow it. You seem to believe that it doesn't matter, since the police just persecute criminals. However, keep in mind that some people around the globe want (yes, that's true) to have a weak police force, which cannot control the whole of the population. It's certainly not a sensitive private data issue (like race, health, sexual preferences), but I still believe citizens have a right not to be the object of surveillance. Regarding the ISP or phone company, the problem is even more acute. Wikiweek (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal information in general is information that can be tied to you. So, 1,80 m is not personal, but Wikiweek: 1,80 m is. But, not all personal information is worth protecting. Applied to the case of energy consumption, 50kw/h for client number x is not private, but 50kw/h for wikiweek is. There are ways of anonymizing information and still being able to process it to provide a service, which is perfectly legit.

A second point: just knowing how much energy you are consuming does not give much clues about what you are doing. Modern devices are as smart as the smart meters: they stop and start autonomously. Refrigerators do that since ages, a computer downloading a file will also change it's consumption of energy without user's input, you cell-phone will stop charging after the battery is full.

Third: the easier way to track you down is through your cell-phone. This would be, if hacked illegally or tapped by the police, one of the best sources of private information from you too, together with your computer. However, most people rarely care about the security of their computer, and even less about the cell-phone. They equally join unknown wifi nets, choose weak passwords and do much more things that are potential insecure. Some evil private data gathered have much better sources to hack than a smart meter. Quest09 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget about NFC. Makes stealing someone's money much easier. "Oh my, he's stolen my e-wallet! Well, I'll just use my cellphone to call the bank and... wait, that was my e-wallet". Even having a BB won't help you with that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to Mr98's question above, police have been using electrical profiles of houses to look for grow lights (i.e. for marijuana) for decades - I think they were doing it even in the 70s in some crude way.

But beyond this, there's a separate risk that emerges when collective data becomes too available, that goes beyond the risk to one individual. If the electric company knows when one person turns on his air conditioning, there is little they can do with that. But if they know they know when every single person turns it on, then they might decide to charge a higher rate for turning it on during peak times, for example. Now such programs in real life are generally voluntary and perceived as a discount good for the environment; nonetheless, it would be possible for the information to be used in a way customers wouldn't like. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to imply that there is a right to grow marijuana, and that the evil smart meters are taking it away from you. Quest09 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are collaborating in an unjust campaign to deny basic civil liberties for the sole and deliberate purpose of enriching and expanding the Zeta and Sinaloa cartels. Wnt (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, peaking power really does cost the power company more to produce than baseload power. For large industrial and commercial users, charging more for power during peak times has actually been pretty standard in many jurisdictions for quite a while. That kind of detailed, time-resolved monitoring had been expensive though so it wasn't economical to apply at a residential level, but the wide distribution of smart meters is changing that. I wouldn't be surprised to see the actual costs of peak power passed on to all consumers in the not-too-distant future. Dragons flight (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, charging more or less under market conditions wouldn't be much different than what happens with other services and products. Quest09 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's all perfectly good logic, and yet, it's a reason why customers might legitimately object to the meters. Maybe they don't want to think about when they're using electricity. There are other industries where intelligence and flexibility create huge disadvantages - for example, consider how preferable it is in a city to use a train rather than a bus for public transit. It's not really that the train is all that much faster - the point is, it's locked to a track and there's no way to move it. You can't have one schedule for weekdays, one for Saturdays, one for Sundays, one for holidays and Labor Day, all with different routes here and there (as is literally the case for the Madison, Wisconsin bus system). Another example would be the supermarket's quaint simplicity of ordinary cash and fixed prices versus the glitzy game of shopper cards, credit cards, "cash back", etc., all played out in daily bottlenecks at the card reader. Stupidity can be liberating ... it has a hidden sensibility to it. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is likely to force you to think about when you use electricity. If you don't want to think that's your choice, you'll just potentially have to pay higher prices then if you thought a little about it. Note that long term, depending precisely on how people react and how the companies choose to adjust their rates, those who choose not to think about it could still end up paying less then if that info had not been available. Similarly I don't know where you live but in most countries you can still use cash, no one is forcing you to use anything else. On a personal level, I find credit cards and debit cards much simpler then cash a lot of the time. No need to look for change or anything like that and although this does depend on your financial system and bank set up, often no need to worry about whether you have enough money (without carrying a lot of cash around). Your comment on buses vs trains isn't that accurate either. It depends significantly where you live.Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really disagreeing with you much - I'm not actually an activist against smart meters. I just wanted to point out that opposition to them can be rational, and hope that a vigorous discussion about such issues will help to ensure a better outcome. From your "depending precisely..." statement it sounds like you actually agree with me that the meters could be problematic for some people. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm simply saying if they actually cause people to significantly modify their behaviour, by their own choice, then this could lead to a significant reduction in the peak demand which could lead to a lower price for everyone. On the other hand, if most people, again by their own choice, don't adjust their behaviour then it may not. In such a case, the majority may end up paying a slightly higher price, with some (those who do adjust their behavior) paying less. However it doesn't automatically follow these people will feel hard done by. They may recognise that it was their choice not to adjust their behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Recently, a smart meter exploded in Pickering, Ontario, causing a fire. Hydro services have refused to comment. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 23:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)