Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 August 15

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.

August 15

Shetlands and cobs

This is a copy-paste from a question posted on another forum. Please do not do this again. --Jayron32 12:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.192.207.236 (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Are you asking us to promise that the Cob (horse) won't hurt the smaller Shetland pony? No reference desk worth its salt could make such an assertion. Your best bet would be to consult a veterinarian, or similar equine expert. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Young colts are difficult to handle and are probably better gelded, unless there is a specific reason for not doing so.[2]. If the latter, i.e. you want them to breed, taking care of a pregnant horse until the mare gives birth is crucial, and will span eleven months. This link gives information about horse mating, insemination, pregnancy and birth. Wikipedia has articles about the cob and Shetland breeds. AllBestFaith (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC) As per my comment in Miscellaneous, this is a question that was originally posted at Horse and Hound online forum and answered there. The H&H posts were posted by different people so I imagine the OP here is not any of the original H&H people. Search for Horse and Hound plus first words of the question to get to the H&H thread. (What a bizarre thing to do.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.15.246 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Question removed and replaced with like as likely WP:COPYVIO Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Does This Angle Have A Name ?

Does this angle have a name ? (Such as the Lovibond angle or Cobb angle, for instance). — 79.118.173.2 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an acute angle to me. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tammy, I think the OP likely means the anatomical context, as with their two linked examples. Or did you forget to smallify a quip? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No sorry I thought it was a straight question that required a straight answer. See Bugs' response too. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Googling "angle formed by human hand" turns up nothing obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at my own hand I can't see any straight bits like in the picture, but I suppose that sort of thing has never stopped people measuring hands. The closest I can think of anything like that would be for measuring the size for a knife handle. Dmcq (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow I did not believe it would - Cybergloves are making something of it Modeling the Constraints of Human Hand Motion. --Askedonty (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The illustrated hand shape is appropriate for initiating the intimate sexual action called Fisting (see article). Calling the indicated angle $alpha$, the circumference $C$ of the fisted body orifice is distended to:

$C(d)=2d$ $tan$ $alpha$

where d is the depth of insertion.

This linear relation holds during the 4-finger phase clarified by a NSFW link here. If intending to increase $C$ into the 5-finger phase, it is conventional to modify the thumb angle to bring the fingers into a conical formation known as "silent duck". An Informed consentng partner relationship such as RACK, good Hygiene, lube and clipped fingernails are all essential for this activity. AllBestFaith (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A difference is that in your NSFW the Medium finger is slightly raised. In the proposed model the same finger is very slighly dropping. --Askedonty (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:AllBestFaith, if you're going to go off-topic into the mathematical modeling sexual practices involving hands, at least take the time to typeset the math properly. In this case, that can be done by adding two backslashes: $tan$ $alpha$ -> $\tan \alpha$. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does the antibiotic which called Amphenicols - is called in this name?

What is the etymology of this word (Amphenicols)? 141.226.162.172 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The etymology of generic names for drugs is complex, with few "rules". Many are derived partly from the chemical structure. In this case, the parent compound of the class, amphenicol, is composed of functional groups including amine, phenyl, and alcohol groups. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The International nonproprietary name is one way that generic names can follow some rules. Amphenicol is our article on the substance, for those wanting to see the structure. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually that article is about the class, and doesn't trace it back further than chloramphenicol in 1949. The Stem Book mentioned in the nonproprietary name article doesn't contain anything about "icol" except chance hits and amphenicol/amfenicol derivatives, so this seems to predate the regular schemes. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the structure itself, there's an obvious similarity to amphetamine (a phenylethylamine backbone). But there's nothing in PubChem about an "amphenicol" without substitution, and I'm not even sure what that would look like. Everything I'm looking at seems to pull me back to chloramphenicol, and I think the "amphenicol" is just a backronym, because chloramphenicol was simply discovered as a compound produced by Streptomyces venezuelae. But via [3] I found the original article reference here, which calls it chloromycetin, so David Gottlieb didn't make up the name. Searching PubMed for chloramphenicol pulls up papers back to 1947, but searching for chloramphenicol[title/Abstract] pulls out papers from 1949 on, so the term seems to have emerged about two years after Gottlieb's proposed name. This is a clue, but the first paper I found that I could access readily [4] doesn't explain where the new name came from, though it treats it as quite official. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)