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.
I read this on a website named Hindu-blog: "Guns and Cannons in Ancient India during the Vedic and Mahabharata Period Details about guns used in ancient India are found in Shukra Niti. About weapons used in Vedic age are found in Atharva Veda. Information regarding cannons are found in Vana Parva of Mahabharata and also in Naishadham text of Sriharsha. The name given by ancient Indians to cannon was Shatagni. Shatagni had the capacity to kill nearly 100 soldiers of the enemies. Puranas also give information about Shatagni. Shatagni was a large gun which used to fire iron balls fitted with spikes. Shatagni gun was mounted on a vehicle which had eight wheels. This was far more superior to the first versions of modern cannons. Guns were known as Bhushundi in ancient India. Small guns were known as Lagu Naliyam and those with bigger holes were known as Briha Naliyam. There are archeological evidences that bullets were made using various metals in ancient India. Treatise dealing with various weapons used in ancient India is found in Dhanur Veda. It mentions about machine operated weapons." But in an article (here on Wikipedia) about gunpowder, it says that gunpowder and gunpowder weapons transmitted to India through the Mongol invasions of India. Was that the TRUE first time when India seen and used guns in warfare?--Mjfantom (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Mjfantom[reply]
I have an idea for a hobby science project for a middle-schooler. The idea is to build an ultrasound probe to detect what's inside a solid, e.g. a block of wood. It will work like a one-dimensional radar, except that it uses ultrasound instead of electromagnetic wave. The device transmits a coded ultrasound pulse using a transducer. After transmission, it will switch to a listening mode to record echos. The recorded signal will be processed using a matched filter to detect echos from discontinuities within the solid. The detected echos will be plot on a line graph.
I would like to get some advice on the feasibility/difficulty of the project idea. I'm thinking of using an Arduino or Raspberry Pi to drive an ultrasound transducer, and to do the signal processing. Are there difficult hurdles? How much will be the parts cost?
This seems to abstract, "technical" and not interesting enough for children imho. For your theme is "waves and sound" compare your Idea with the impression a classic experiment with "sound patterns" caused by interference(like for example here) will make on the class or group you seek to interest for technology and science. From that you can "spin off" and even demonstrate very easy how local errors in such patterns can be caused (for example by "dampening" a spot with a rubber ereaser touching the plate from underneath) and thus why/how this can be used to detect "errors" or differences inside solid matter. --Kharon (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should think it is well with in their capabilities. Apart from the cost of the probe itself, one only needs a few extra components to deliver enough power to drive the transducer as the Pi won’t be able to. The external driver only needs to be a cheap power-amp chip. The only problem I see is that if you are examining solids, then the transducer will still be ‘ringing’ on receive mode. So, I would favour a dual element transducer. See: Transducer Types. China manufactures some very cheap probes now, otherwise expect to pay around $70-$80. Kids love anything to do with muddy water and peoples insides. So if one was to pick a waterproof probe with a fundamental frequency suitable for both - they will have much fun. Next stage of the project could be, to add solid state motion sensors and turn it into a scanner to create ultrasonic images. This will demonstrate to them several practical applications of science. Who knows, some may have internal fixations (no -not those types – these internal fixations). As a teacher you will be aware how important it is to elicit audience participation and I think this type of endeavor will do more to seed their young minds with the desire to study technology. Perhaps someone at this Uni can give you a few tips. They have developed one that costs £30-£40. --Aspro (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this project is not just its complexity: you need to do a little back-of-the-envelope math first. The speed of sound in a common household material, like a block of wood, is going to be close to 2 kilometers per second. According to your brief description, you're planning to perform time domain reflectometry (using a coded digital signal to improve the signal-to-noise ratio). Well... suppose you build a really nifty Arduino firmware that can switch the device from Transmit to Receive each millisecond. Even if your implementation is flawless, physics tells us that the sound-waves will have traveled several meters in that time! You won't be able to resolve very much that is interesting. The speed of sound dictates the relationship between your resolving power in distance, and your accuracy requirement in time. Can your middle-schooler realistically build a machine that is accurate to within a few microseconds?
In the real world, even university-level students probably can't make an ultrasound device and program firmware to execute time-domain transmit-receive switching on millisecond scales. Why? Because it's hard to write complex digital signal processing software that is both reliable and fast! It's unlikely (although not impossible) that a novice programmer can do it. In practice, the implementation will probably not be flawless - in other words, engineering limitations will pop up, and you'll have trouble reaching the best resolution that physics allows. Even if you didn't have those engineering problems, physics tells us that you're unlikely to resolve interesting features.
This is a fascinating project, but it calls for a better approach. A younger student might be able to do a report on the theory and practice of SONAR and RADAR by studying real systems that have actually been built (without trying to implement one at home). If they really want to build something, they might instead use a model. They could write a purely-software version of a SONAR or RADAR, and simulate the propagation of sound in one dimension (without trying to connect to a real sensor). However, a lot of grade-school science-fair judges won't really appreciate the merit (and the complexity) of that software accomplishment - even if you do a great job and make a lot of neat visualizations!
Alternately, the student could build a model of a "SONAR" that doesn't exactly use sound waves. They could build a model - a "Tennis Ball Reflectometer" - to determine the distance to a wall by rolling a ball at a fixed velocity and listening for the sound of impact. A tennis ball can be rolled down a ramp to reach a controlled, "fixed" velocity, and then launched toward a target an unknown distance downrange. Start the stop-watch (or build a machine to do so automatically) as the tennis-ball crosses the "starting line" and stop the stopwatch when the ball makes a sound by clomping into the target. This takes advantage of the fact that tennis-balls roll much slower than sound-waves; they're easy to work with and build into simple machines; and it assumes that sound travels "nearly instantaneously" when we're considering objects only a few meters away. For extra work, the student can analyze the sources of error in that approach: which is a bigger unknown, the variance of the speed of the ball, or the imperfect assumption that sound travels instantaneously? Do the math and work out which assumption is bigger! Extra extra points for a discussion about how engineers need to pick the appropriate simplifications to models of reality by using math to determine the magnitudes of different sources of error!
(This, partially prompted by previous thread "Crying")
Our dog, a pedigree yellow lab - 8 months old - never barks, yelps, growls, or makes vocalizations of any kind whatever.
He's not deaf (you can call his name from some far distant part of the house and he comes running).
He doesn't have any physical impairment because he makes growls and barks with the usual feet twitching when he's dreaming.
He's well house-trained, and he'll go and sit at the back door when he wants to be let out - and get visibly frustrated and 'jumpy' if you don't let him out - but no bark. Similarly, when he wants to be let back in again. It would actually be really useful if he barked under such circumstances...so we're getting a bit puzzled and frustrated by this!
I'd heard that with many young mammals, they have evolved to be very quiet when alone in their den/nest/burrow without an adult present - so as not to attract predators...but is this common in dogs?
Is this a common thing? Is it indeed an evolutionary trait?
Uhm. If these turns out as a inheritable traits he could be worth a fortune at stud. However, if your unhappy, I'm sure you'll have no trouble swapping him with another dog that doesn't show the same well mannered reserve.--Aspro (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we thought that at first too. But it's all too easy for him to get shut up someplace (like if he follows me into the garage - I don't notice - then I leave, turn out the light and lock the door. An hour or more later, it's "Where's Drake?...I haven't seen him for ages."...so you yell out his name - which usually brings him to you at the run...but nothing. So now you have to scour the house from to to bottom to figure out where the heck he is *this* time. Also, when we were house-training him - he would have the hardest time communicating that he needed to go out for a pee. I truly hate noisy, barking dogs...but a totally silent one isn't so great as you might think. SteveBaker (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This breed is known to almost never bark. The thing to remember is that almost all current dog breeds (and certainly all pedigreed dogs) are heavily artificially selected, sometimes through thousands of years of selective breeding. So natural selection isn't always a good lens to view dog behavior through.
I inherited a Japanese Chin, and like yours, the main time he barks is in his sleep. I'm not sure about the labs, but my dog was bred in part for that trait (to not be a bother while still being companionable and entertaining to royalty). I suppose that if it is a heritable behavior trait in one breed, it could pop up in others. I don't know if labs are generally though to be quieter than other dogs, but one possible advantage to quietness in that type of hunting dog would be to not scare off the hunter's intended prey. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a male yellow lab and he barks when the doorbell rings and then, being a lab, jumps all over the person at the door and wants to be fussed. He also barks at other dogs if they get over playful and he needs to put them in their place. He's very vocal. whimpering, when he sees someone he knows and he wants a fuss. My daughter had a female black lab who was very quiet but after she had stayed with us for a while she learned from our dog to bark at the sound of the doorbell, so I suspect vocalisation is partly learned behaviour. He doesn't usually bark to come in from the garden though - we've sometimes forgotten to let him back inside in winter and he'll just sit on the step patiently waiting. There are some reasons given here for dogs being reluctant to bark. Dogs do get some odd ideas in their heads. Mine started drinking rainwater from a bucket outside a couple of years ago and now he refuses point blank to drink any water inside the house. If it's offered outside he'll drink it - rainwater or tap water - but not before I've taken him for a walk. Richerman(talk)20:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm - I did wonder if it was a deliberate thing. The breeder we bought him from does specialize in producing hunting dogs - so I suppose the not-barking-much trait would be something she might be selecting for. We've noticed that he has no fear whatever of loud noises - so it's very possible that he's inherited genes for being OK around guns. SteveBaker (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They don't appear in the list of 15 quietest dogs, which you would expect if they were bred for that trait and, actually, the parents of mine were both gun dogs. Funnily enough when fireworks are going off (as they do for weeks around Guy Fawkes night) it's really difficult to stop him barking at them. The one thing I've found with labradors is that they are desperate to please their "pack leader", so it might be he's somehow got the idea that he's not supposed to bark. Richerman(talk)18:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I could find examples, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, of famous scientists/engineers/etc. with 'unexpected' (that is, very different from the field they are known in) interests or expertise, or who started out in a field very different from the one they become famous in. Many famous scientists are also accomplished musicians, for example, though this is not the only thing I am interested in.
Noam Chomsky was a well-respected linguist, but now he's often known for his political commentary. Richard Feynman was a very skilled player of the bongos and and expert lock picker. Tom Lehrer started as a mathematician but gets much more recognition a musician. Vernor Vinge was also a mathematician/computer scientist who was later famous as a novelist. Lewis Carrol was a logician before he got famous as a writer. Donald Knuth is a very good organist. Kary Mullis is famous for developing PCR, but was also a good surfer who took a lot of LSD. Galois didn't get much recognition for his pioneering math while alive, but he was known as a duelist and political agitator. (Of course math isn't really science but I think the distinction can safely be ignored for the purposes of this question.) Going the other way, Brian May is mostly known from the band Queen, but he has a Ph.D. in astrophysics and wrote a few papers. Similar for Danica McKellar, who has authored a few math papers but is famous for playing Winnie Cooper. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a silly thread. Many normal humans of many kinds are interested in and excel at more than one thing. The presumption behind the thread seems to be that scientists aren't normal. Ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly valid question that we can provide references to answer. If you don't want to read or participate you are very welcome not to. I personally think it's silly that you would take your valuable time just to tell others that you think this question is silly :) Also please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ SemanticMantis (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did sign, apparently not with four, but perhaps with three tildes. That should have been obvious to an experienced editor. Sorry about the typo. And please explain why we should single out scientists for having other interests. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should single out scientists who have unexpected interests or skills because that is the topic of the question. That is what the ref desk is for, providing answers/references that are relevant the question. I would hat this whole sub-thread for being off-topic but DMacks' link is relevant. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the OP asked for famous scientists/engineers/etc. with.... or who started out in a field very different from the one they become famous in rather than simply "scientists who have unexpected interests or skills". I think there's a key distinction here that is perhaps being missed. It may be that the OP would be fine with people who were famous both as a scientist and as something else. But from my reading of the OPs comment I have doubts that the OP is interested in a famous person who also happens to be a "scientist/engineers/etc". Or to put it in wikipedia terms, it's probably best to avoid any cases where though the person could be quite legitimate called a scientist, engineer or whatever, but is likely to be a red link based solely on their accomplishments in that field. I appreciate this still leaves a large grey area (and is also very difficult to consider), but we should try and keep things on topic. To avoid controversy, I won't use any of the above examples (although while some of them seem fine, some of them I do question) but from my reading of the Mayim Bialik, I don't we're likely to have an article on her solely based on her work in neuroscience to now (which isn't meant in disrespectful way, simply that the info I'm seeing tells me she's not that different from plenty of other non notable scientist and of course she's still resonably young so it could easily be a case of yet). Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the purpose of that spin-able thingy found at the bottom of some bird feeders[3]? Is it supposed to deter squirrels? What's the principle behind it? WinterWall (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is intended to deter squirrels. Squirrels can empty a bird feeder in minutes. Many songbirds will also avoid a feeder that has a squirrel at it. So there are several products and devices people use to (attempt to) keep squirrels out of their bird feeders. A little more info at Bird_feeder#Squirrels. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mother's birdfeeder has a platform on a week spring that will support the weight of a bird, but will drop and close a gate over the seed if a squirrel lands on it. At least one squirrel has overcome this by jumping on the feeder, causing it to swing from side to side, dropping seed, which it then eats off the ground. The device cost $90, but it doe seem that birds get most of the seed. It's ITEM #BD1024 here, and the photo is accurate, since she gets goldfinches and now has a resident pair of cardinals. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you like squirrels but just don't want them eating out of the bird feeder, you could consider setting up a separate feeding spot for them. If you don't like squirrels, maybe you could invest in a hawk or an owl. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the most popular work written on Paleolithic life expectancy:
Angel, Lawrence J. (1984) "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the eastern Mediterranean"?
Hi, one of my lecturers told us that there is kind of sicks, which when measuring their blood pressure by cuff and stethoscope, it's possible to hear the sounds of the beats till o mm (Torr)/ in the time of Diastole. What is this condition? 213.57.99.239 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
