Science desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

Kinect and Kinect for Xbox One power consumption

What is the rate of power consumptions for the Kinect and the Kinect for Xbox One respectively? Google got me nothing useful; most sources only talk about the power consumptions of Xbox 360 and Xbox One consoles, and not the Kinects. My other car is a cadr (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original Kinect evidently used a 1.6A 12V power supply [1]. It's probable that the Kinect doesn't actually use that much and the power supply is at least mildly overrated. It's also possible that the power consumption varies even when in use and recording video at maximum resolution and frame rate depending on precisely what it's recording. And there is a chance it may use some power from the USB, but I doubt it will be much. Still you can probably think of 19W as the upper limit, or 21.7W if you really want to be sure. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinect for Xbox One also needs a external power supply when used with USB3 [2] [3]. I don't know what the rating is, but I think we can say in both cases they need more than 2.5W. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sound

Is there any explanation for this sound? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assume hoax until proven otherwise, and the Daily Mail aren't exactly known for their quality investigative journalism. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I managed to find is this article from the National Post saying that the noise in Terrace, B.C. was probably a grader. I don't know how reliable the National Post is, but the article doesn't exude the air of crazy that the Daily Mail's does. -- BenRG (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard an explanation somewhere that it was icebergs or ice sheets grinding together, with certain atmospheric conditions transmitting the sound hundreds of miles. I don't know whether this explanation is any better than others. Dbfirs 09:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My personal observation is that the source of loud industrial noise can be surprisingly hard to track down in an urban setting - it reflects off buildings to lead you in the wrong direction and often becomes inaudible when you come anywhere near the source because it's emitted from a high rooftop. If a noise source is actually nice enough to stop after a few seconds, tracking it down would seem next to impossible. And when people all over the world have a chance to compare mystery noises, I shouldn't be surprised if they can find similarities, regardless of whether they have the same cause or not. Wnt (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me it sounded too much like horns and stringed instruments to be industrial. But you are right about sound reflecting off buildings. When I was in college, there was a building that you could stand by the side and if the high school marching band was playing (some distance away), it was as loud as if you were right there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the Rapture. μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "basilic" vein called in this name?

149.78.38.232 (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Arabic and means "inner".[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

early girl tomato

Do you think it worth mentioning that the patent on Early Girl tomato is now owned by Monsanto?

I just learned this and have chosen to through out my Early Girl seed starts as I do not wish to eat anything associated with Monsanto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.0.135 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source, you can add the information to Early Girl. But only if you cite a reliable source. Otherwise, no. --Jayron 32 16:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence to Early_Girl#History, explaining that since 2005, Monsanto Company is the holder of the patent, after acquiring Seminis. This [5] is my ref for that claim, perhaps better can be found. Early Girl seeds don't show up in Monsanto product lists, in part because they don't sell them retail, only to distributors such as Burpee Seeds. Also perhaps worth pointing out that Early girl is a traditional F1 hybrid, not a GMO (I mean, it is a genetically modified organism, but GMO has been defined in a weird way to rule out hybrids... Hybrid research programs are not generally considered genetic engineering even though they should be if we respect compositional semantics, but that's a topic for a different day :). SemanticMantis (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of plant breeding involves "genetic engineering" in a broad sense, but GMO's have genes of other organisms added. Conventional breeding only uses what is already there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. Under most definitions, cisgenic (as well as transgenic) organisms are consider GMO. Similarly gene silencing using an antisense gene, which you can either say doesn't really come from any organism, or comes from the original organism, also counts as GMO, such as with the famous Flavr Savr. In future, it's plausible more complicated genes may be added using artificial gene synthesis where the "inspiration" for the gene may be a complicated mix of different stuff so which may be said to have not really come from any organism but you can bet these will still said to be GMOs. Admitedly many GM techniques may leave stuff in the genome which you can say came from another organism, but that isn't the reason why they are called GMOs. Meanwhile mutation breeding which can include atomic gardening such as sticking plants in a field like this [6] and seeing what comes out of it are not considered GMOs. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing. As noted in the article, cisgenesis is distinct from conventional breeding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You specifically said conventional breeding uses what is already there whereas GM has "genes of other organisms added". This is incorrect for all the reasons I've pointed out. Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, and that's why I think GMO is a bad name. No sense fighting it, though I did think it might be helpful to some to point out some of the confusing and inconsistent terminology. It goes both ways - on the one hand "GMO" inspires fear in some consumers that isn't always warranted, and on the other hand, blasting plants with radiation and eating what comes out may be cause for concern in some cases, though these plants would not be referred to as GMO. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Also as SemanticMantis already mentioned, hybrid research involved combining the genomes of two what can be considered different types of organisms, even if these are fairly related. Admitedly it does sound like if you push it to extremes such as using somatic fusion, this is considered GMO under some definitions. Our article mentions GM as does [7].

While the later ref does refer to stuff ocurring "naturally", I think most biologists (or really scientists) would agree defining what's "natural" is basically impossible and often a bad idea. (In case it isn't obvious, I'm basically in concurrence with SemanticMantis.) Definitely some of the techniques used and accepted in plant tissue culture aren't really natural even if you argue they aren't really needed per se, but instead just make things easier or are useful for certain reasons.

BTW, I presume you intended to refer to different types of organisms. As I'm sure you know, anything arising from sexual reproduction where self fertilisation (including within a Clonal colony like Pando (tree)) isn't involved, produces something with genes from two different organisms. (And I expect except perhaps in jest, you don't consider yourself, your family or your pets (if any) as GMOs. Well except if you have GloFish or something.)

Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are hybrids and then there are "hybrids". So-called "hybrid" corn is not really a hybrid, it's just a cross of two different inbred lines within the same species. True hybridization in general has been around a lone time, e.g. the mule. The question (as I don't know the answer) is what types of GMO's are banned by the EU, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What regulators do is, of course, solely determined by power and pull, for private benefit, without a need for logic; as for the actual risks, well... you can picture a potato could mutate to accumulate high levels of solanine in the tuber rather than the leaf, no matter whether it is a natural, radiation-induced, or cisgenesis-induced mutation. The upside with that sort of "natural" mutation is that because it is natural, many farmers and regulators are already checking for solanine level, and the same may be true for many characteristic toxins of plants that might be rearranged; still, nothing is ever sure in biology. I think though that it is possible to draw some subjective distinction between "mutations of large effect" and natural variation. A mutation of large effect is preferred in artificial selection, and may get an organism to some desired endpoint quickly, but at a cost in fitness. For example, a cat with a certain popular appearance might have six toes, be missing its tail or something - this pretty much never happens in the evolution of natural cats, because whatever goal the cat evolves toward, it can be reached with smaller changes that lack the pleiotropic side effects. A natural variation, such as a single nucleotide polymorphism, can be documented to preexist in the population; when they are combined, you can say, such a fruit was always possible by random chance. But of course when you combine them with a purpose, you may pick a very uncommon outcome, and in doing so you might pick very uncommon trouble. To give an example, when you keep breeding corn to be sweeter and sweeter until it tastes like candy, eventually it can be more dangerous to diabetics and people with tooth decay. So there is some subjective difference but also some overlap between these options. The potential for mischief in true transgenics is more obvious: if you take the genes for peanut allergens, opium production, rattlesnake venom or whatever and start putting them in crops, it doesn't take a genius to see the problem. In real transgenics with seemingly innocuous and helpful borrowings, it might though. Wnt (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]