Science desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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.

December 12

Why is it, when we need to cry, it just doesn't work?

Question deleted as possible copyvio [1] by Ram nareshji Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of the point of crying - it's a way for the other person to detect *real* emotions. If it was so easy to fake then no one would take crying seriously and even if you cried it would make no difference. Basically what you want is for you to be able to cheat, but no one else can, but of course it doesn't work that way. Ariel. (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on crying is fairly extensive. You might also like this book review on the topic [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you borrow a cup of crocodile tears ? :-) StuRat (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Just now I tried contorting my lips as if I were crying, and tears started to come. Maybe it's a learned trick. —Tamfang (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons actors get paid the big bucks - the ability to emote on cue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suffix "olol" in the three beta blockers: "Propranolol" "Atenolol" "Metoprolol "

I have no idea why these three beta blockers ends in the suffix "olol": "Propranolol" "Atenolol" "Metoprolol. What is the reason for that? 149.78.29.78 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "olol" suffix is a standard generic name detail beta blocker. Sometimes just "lol" with a different letter before it. And "alol" in particular also has alpha blocker activity. I don't know the technical origin though. It's a USAN and similar standard. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the archives there was a discussion of and list of medicinal suffixes and their meanings. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

because beta blockers are inherently funny lol —Tamfang (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What will be the influence of the place without gravity on the cardiovascular system?

What will be the influence of the place without gravity (or places with minimal gravity like the moon) on the cardiovascular system? 149.78.29.78 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body discusses several effects of microgravity (not, technically, without gravity or "zero gravity") on the human body. Specific to cardiovascular health, see this article [3] and this research [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you deeply! This page is so efficient, and you are as well. Thank you! 149.78.29.78 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I learned some interesting stuff from the links above too, so it's a win-win :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The moon doesn't have "minimal" gravity, although its gravity is approximately one-sixth of that of the Earth. There is probably much less research on the effect of reduced gravity as opposed to microgravity, since only the twelve Apollo astronauts ever had time in lunar gravity, and none of those missions were nearly as long as those of astronauts at the International Space Station. (Also, any data on the Apollo astronauts would have to take into account their time in microgravity.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, virtually nothing is known about the long term biological effects of partial gravity, such as 0.17 g on the Moon or 0.38 g on Mars. The Centrifuge Accommodations Module, originally destined for the International Space Station, was designed to provide artificial gravity ranging between 0.001 g to 2 g, and could have housed animals as large as rats. I've read it described as the most important of the planned ISS biological research facilities, but it was unfortunately canceled back in 2005. There has been some advocacy for a dedicated partial gravity research facility, such as Joe Carroll's Design Concepts for a Manned Artificial Gravity Research Facility. Many of these advocates believe that research like this is needed before any long stay (Mars Direct with 18 months on the surface) or permanent (Mars to Stay or Mars One) Mars mission, and most believe that such research would also yield new, fundamental insights into biological processes. Other people believe 0.38 g will almost certainly be enough to limit most of the ill effects of low g, and that muscle mass and bone density will decrease but stabilize at a reasonable level. (That's the official line from Mars One.) Others go further to suggest that there might be some partial gravity level which will yield better health, on average, than 1 g, at least for those not planning a return to Earth. For now, all this is speculation. -- ToE 08:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some studies on the biological effects of partial gravity on plants. 2013, 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021. It seems that lunar gravity is not only not enough for them, but might actually be worse than microgravity. 0.38g might be enough (at least four out of these five studies think so). But plants are still far from humans. Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

self-destruct capabilities of military craft

Historically, many ships have been scuttled to prevent their falling into enemy hands (as per the self-destruct article). As unlikely as it is, if an aircraft carrier (or other similarly large navel ship) were at risk of being secured by an enemy combatant, does it have the capacity to "self-destruct" (as seen in various science fiction storylines) and, if so, how would it be done? I can't imagine that a Captain would simply allow the nuclear reactor to explode given the environmental impact this would have. 99.250.118.116 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scuttling has some details as to how and why it's been done in the past - not sure if modern warfare will give present an opportunity to scuttle a ship or not. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some instructions that are perhaps as valid today as they where back then.Instructions for Scuttling Ship Self-destruct mechanisms are never a good idea on-board ship, as there will always be someone on-board who can't resist pressing any big red button that says Do Not Press This Big Red Button. --Aspro (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...probably because they are color blind and were trying to press the big green button. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

But the green button's signage reads: This is the fail-safe backup to the big red button for people who are color blind, so what-ever-you-do Don't Press This One Either!--Aspro (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional (but rather slow) method was to open the seacocks; alternatively, you could get another friendly ship to torpedo you once all the crew were safely away. Alansplodge (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most likely way for a US ship to fall into enemy hands is if it appeared to be sinking and was abandoned, but then didn't sink. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got to disagree there - I'd say the most likely scenario would be ground troops capturing a naval base before the ships had time to get out. If (for instance) Saudi Arabia launched a surprise attack into Bahrain, they could seize a sizeable chunk of the US and British navies before the inevitable counterattack. Look at how much equipment was seized by ISIS because the Iraqis couldn't get it out of their path in time. Mogism (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got to disagree to your disagreement. It was due the the crew of das boot U-110 thinking it was sinking, that the British captured a Enigma Machine and all the code books. Allies capture German Enigma machine, May 9, 1941--Aspro (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they probably did it again on Aug. 27, 1941 The Capture of U-570 and its Enigma Cipher Machine--Aspro (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia invading Bahrain and capturing the naval base there is not going to happen, because SA needs US support to continue to exist. That's about the silliest scenario I've ever heard. And there's no comparison between the Iraqi troops that fell to ISIS and US troops. The Iraqi military had been purged of all their competent commanders, who were then replaced by Maliki's useless lackeys, who were there to extract all the money they could, not provide a working military. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's not going to happen, it was just the first major US naval base near an international border that sprang to mind. Substitute Guantanamo Bay, Camp Patriot Kuwait or Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti if you prefer - there are quite a number of US facilities that are theoretically open to capture should a neighbouring country turn hostile and for whatever reason not worry about the consequence of the US counterattack. Mogism (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly would you think they wouldn't care about the consequences ? StuRat (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than focusing on sinking, the main focus would likely be on destroying any classified materials or equipment. US Navy regulations (at least the most recent ones I can find online) require a plan for top secret material to be destroyed within 30 minutes. In a nuclear-powered ship, the reactor could be disabled by injecting neutron poisons into the coolant. Given that an aircraft carrier costs something like $10 billion (plus a couple billion dollars worth of aircraft) and takes 3-4 years to build, sending Marines or Navy SEALs to recapture it would probably be preferred over intentionally sinking it. Mr.Z-man 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are other methods for destroying the classified materials or equipment also, as well as destroying the ship. In the past, incendiary materials to destroy classified equipment have been proposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hainan Island incident may be of interest. To quote from our article on the subject: For the next 26 minutes the crew of the EP-3 carried out an emergency plan which included destroying sensitive items on board the aircraft, such as electronic equipment related to intelligence gathering, documents and data. Part of this plan involved pouring freshly brewed hot coffee into disk drives and motherboards. I would like a data recovery expert to tell me how reliably this technique would actually work? I remain unconvinced. A strong magnet would better irrevocably screw the drive's data, IMHO. 121.219.43.121 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A strong magnet would do absolutely nothing to a hard disk - the coercivity is much too high. You would have to take it apart and rub the magnet directly on the platter, and if you do that you might as well just smash the platter. (Coffee will do nothing to a hard disk, but it might fry electronics - if they are on, but it's iffy.) Ariel. (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato sauce as detergent

A) I boil salmon and get a slimy pot coated with fish grease.

B) I boil salmon with tomato sauce and there's very little grease on the pot.

So:

1) Why did the tomato sauce have this effect ?

2) Is it related to how it removes tarnish ?

3) What other foods would have this detergent effect ? Just anything acidic ? StuRat (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that by altering the pH you're destabising the colloidal matter suspended in the water.--Aspro (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way you describe it, it sounds like the tomato sauce could be acting like (or contain) an emulsifier. Emulsifiers actually are pretty common in cooking, and our article lists several examples. I looked at a jar on my shelf and didn't see any obvious candidate for one in it, yet the ingredients include canola oil, and despite it having been left to sit for a very long time, the jar did not have a separated oil layer, which is pretty compelling evidence that some ingredient does have that property. I think that because biological organisms all contain hydrophobic lipid and hydrophilic sugar, any stable homogeneous puree of a living organism would be expected to have some emulsifier property to keep it that way...? Wnt (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm thinking it's the tomato itself that acts as an emulsifier. Perhaps it's not thought of as an emulsifier because it's a rather weak one, but this is made up for by the fact that tomato sauce is often added in large quantity to many dishes.

Also note that salmon isn't all that fatty to begin with. If I used the same amount of high fat hamburger, that much grease might easily overwhelm the emulsifier effect of the same amount of tomato. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking for emulsifier effects in tomatoes. While the don't contain any lecithin (probably the most important natural emulsifier), the are very high in choline, which is an important precursor for lecithin. Lecithin is chemically a fat bonded to a phosphate and a quaternary ammonium salt. Choline is your quaternary ammonium salt, and you've already said you have fat. My guess is that the emulsifier is created in situ by some chemical reaction between things like the choline in the tomatoes and the fats themselves. It would also explain the detergent properties because lecithin is chemically closely related to, and behaves like, many soaps and detergents--Jayron32 05:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I've already modified my recipe for salmon soup to add tomato sauce, in order to take advantage of this effect and make my clean-up easier (no dish detergent required). Lucky for me it's much tastier than lecithin. StuRat (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lecithin comes in some quite tasty forms. --Jayron32 19:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles on chocolate milk

My daughter wants to know why (hot) chocolate milk has bubbles. (My hunch is it's something to do with proteins?) If you can answer in language I don't have to translate for a five-year old, that'd be great! :) Drmies (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Proteins reduce the surface tension, meaning bubbles form more easily and don't break up as quickly once formed, while the viscosity of the milk makes the bubbles last long enough to see" simple enough for her? The milk doesn't need to be hot, just agitated, you can get the same effect by stirring cold milk or blowing into it through a straw. Mogism (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke, right! :) :) A five year old literally can't understand more than half of the words in your post. :) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my simplified version for 5-year-olds: "Bubbles last longer in thick fluids, like chocolate milk." You can then demonstrate by having her use a straw to blow bubbles in thin fluids, like water and rubbing alcohol, and in thick fluids like chocolate milk, corn syrup, and detergent. Expect a mess, so maybe she could do this outside or in the tub. The object at her age is mainly to encourage in interest in science, not so much to get into the details. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on--I'm getting her and we'll put this to the test. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the winner is StuRat! Thanks to both of you, BTW. Also, there's plenty of bubbling in the tub and on the bathroom floor, so I'm not going to encourage any of that, haha. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks. And if you do the alcohol test, give her a pair of safety goggles, since popping alcohol bubbles could splash in her eyes. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we did do the experiment side by side and I had the milk and GUESS WHAT I WON THE BIGGEST BUBBLES!!! Drmies (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear the conversation between the two EMTs, one of whom said he was told, "she wasn't supposed to drink the rubbing alcohol, she was supposed to blow bubbles in it." μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately rubbing alcohol tastes so nasty that anybody but a desperate alcoholic would spit it out immediately. And if she can't tell the difference between exhaling and inhaling, she definitely should avoid a career as a glass blower. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

See if you can get your hands on some Super Elastic Bubble Plastic, another victim of the nanvironmentalists. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not taunt Super Elastic Bubble Plastic...--Jayron 32 05:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Happy Fun Ball. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here, see someone dare taunt Happy Fun Ball! But the article has been improved. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]