Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2006 August 6

metals and armor
i was wondering that if i were to make plate mail armor what would be the best metal for the job, by best i mean strong yet light, but wont dent or hardly dent when hit, thank you.
 * I would actually use Kevlar. It would meet all your requirements except that it is not metal.  Titanium is a good metal candidate but I do not think you would find metal that is light and wont dent easily.  Skapur 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you probably don't want to mess with real armor. Those knights were crazy strong. If you actually want it to protect you, the article armor has some suggestions, one of which is apparently 15 times stronger than steel, and fairly comfortable. If you're going for a recreation, iron might be accurate, but something light like tin foil on cardboard is way more practical, especially if you live someplace hot. Black Carrot 06:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Titanium would be the best, but it's very expensive. Kevlar is a better armour, but you can't make plate mail out of it. The Guy From Ipanema


 * I would recommend avoiding titanium, or any other hard and truly dent-resistant metal. These properties will also make the metal extremely difficult to turn into armor, which is done by cutting the metal then bending and shaping it with a hammer.  Plain steel is strong and light enough for body armor.  Stainless steel is much harder to work, but looks nicer (and is still much softer than titanium).  I recommend starting with plain 16 gauge steel plate.  If you care enough to make your own armor, you can care enough to polish it and keep a fine coat of oil on it so it looks nice!--Kerry 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Electrical
What is the name of the electrical component that converts "noisy" electricity (e.g., that produced by a power plant) into electricity that is "clean", suitable for use in appliances (e.g., air conditioners etc)? I know this is a bit vague, but I figure someone might know what I am talking about. BenC7 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A power conditioner regulates voltage and reduces noise in a power signal so that it is suitable for sensitive computer or audio equipment. A series of transformers reduces the voltage from the power plant to the voltage which can be used in houses. Hope that answered your question. 48v 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually a large power plant produces clean electricty to begin with. Small electric generators tend to be quite noisy and a power conditioner helps. Skapur 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The power plant energy is fairly clean; however, by the time it is transmitted to end-users, there is noise and voltage variation which can be problematic to sensitive equipment. 48v 04:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Thanks. BenC7 10:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

trying to identify a mineral/rock
hi, i wanted to ask what this mineral is, it is a bit lighter than a cap eraser, and has a shiny silver-graphite look too it with maybe a hint of light blueish shade to it(barely visible), and has no other colors on it.


 * Well, it could be graphite, as you say, or mica, that's also shiny. It would help if you said where you found it, or uploaded a photo. —Keenan Pepper 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds a little like hematite, but hematite is pretty dense (I assume when you say it's lighter than a cap erasor, you mean it's less dense).  --Bmk 13:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

trying to identify a mineral/rock 2
this is for the question right above me, it was biotite mica, thanks


 * Just so you know, you can (and should) put anything relating to a single query in the same section - you do that by clicking the little link marked 'Edit' on the far right of the section header. Confusing Manifestation 07:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you should always sign your posts on pages such as this with four tildes: ~, which then becomes something like this: Confusing Manifestation 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When you say that it manifests itself as something that might be confusing to newbies. :) DirkvdM 11:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, I guessed it! Glad to have helped. —Keenan Pepper 08:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hair fall problem

 * Hi All, Im having a very serious problem : my hair is falling cont. and it has become too weak,dry and unhealthy. Could anybody please suggest me an appropriate site where I can get some help, or advise me.


 * Shave your head. You don't say if you're male or female, but you could shave it in either case. Don't forget to put sunscreen on your scalp. —Keenan Pepper 08:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Im a female in my early twenties, and there is no way im shaving my head.


 * Oh, sorry. In that case I'd say either try a new shampoo, or talk to your doctor or hairdresser. —Keenan Pepper 09:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's normal for hair to be falling continuously, so if the ammount of falling hair has not increased, then there's no problem. (However, it's easier to notice fallen hair if your hair's long, as women's hair can be.) --Kjoonlee 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And men's hair, for that matter. No discrimination, please. :) DirkvdM 11:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I used to lose a lot of hair, in the sense that I had a receding hairline (so actual loss). When I was in my late twenties I stopped using shampoo. At first I started losing even more hair, but luckily I persisted and after about a month there was a noticeable improvement. At the moment I'm in my fourties and still have a fair amount of hair (check out the photo on my user page (click on my signature), although that doesn't show the bold spot at the back). My brother lost about as much hair as I did, but he kept on using shampoo and by the time he was in his fourties he was almost bold (although that doesn't really prove anything, but it's an indication). I should also mention that I had already switched to baby shampoo, so you might try that first. Maybe it's enough to stop the hair loss. Also, at first your hair will get greasier because it's used to compensating for the shampoo. But after a while it will adapt (back to normal, really). Showering with water really is enough to keep your hair (and your body) clean. Soap is only necessary when you've been to the toilet. DirkvdM 11:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While your answers are frequently "bold" (for their total lack of supporting evidence), the word to use here is "bald", meaning "devoid of hair". I will now revise the way I view you, from an ultra-liberal, pot smoking hippy...to a greasy haired, balding, ultra-liberal, pot smoking hippy. :-) StuRat 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not ultra. Never ultra. Pretty liberal yes (in the Dutch sense, which corresponds to what in the US is called libertarian, I believe), but with a sufficient amount of socialism thrown in for balance. And not greasy either. You haven't been paying attention again, have you? Read my post again. DirkvdM 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I read what you said about it not being greasy any more, I just don't believe it. You just got used to it being greasy, similar to how smokers can't tell they stink of smoke, after they get used to it.StuRat 10:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thyroid problems, vitamin & mineral deficiencies and hormone changes can cause hair loss. The dry, shedding hair is definitely a symptom of hypothyroidism. The internet is great, but I'd suggest seeing your doctor.--Anchoress 11:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't specify if it's falling down and becomes straight or if it's falling out. In either case talking to a doctor and a hair dresser would be your best option. - Mgm|(talk) 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Try a moisturizing conditioner after you shampoo. Also, avoid swimming in pools, as chlorine can have just the effect you described, and try not to use a blow dryer.  Question: Are you on a low fat diet ?  These can reduce the natural oils your hair follicles produce.  If so, I suggest a "healthy fat" diet instead, where you avoid trans fats and animal fats (except fish), but get lots of vegetable oils. StuRat 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks all, it really helped me.


 * Already? In my case it took a month. DirkvdM 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Answering StuRat, no im not on a low fat diet, and I thanked you guyz for your suggestions,it helped me understanding the problem more (for DirkvdM). Hoping to get more from you all, wondering if someone can suggest some health site where I can get help from experties.[who asked the question].
 * Soap is NEVER necessary (at least, not the kinds sold in stores). Sorbolene does a damn fine job, does not produce allergenic reactions, makes the shower a whole lot easier to clean, leaves no residue, and leaves the skin smelling naturally fresh and sexy in a way that soap cannot hope to emulate.  I thoroughly recommend you ditch your soap supplies and get some sorbolene.  It might cost a little more, but it's worth it.  JackofOz 12:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To put the conventional medical view for a moment, if you consult your doctor there are a number of more-or-less effective medical baldness treatments available. Your doctor may also investigate further to determine whether the thinning hair is related to some other medical condition.  --Robert Merkel 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

visual basic
Moved to Reference_desk/Computing.

Unchangeable Body Weight
In an average male person of 70kg, how much of that is not fat or muscle - i.e., mass that can't be "modified", so to speak. I know that erythrocytes comprise about 3% of one's body weight, how about all organs, bones and so forth? Jack Daw 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your bones usually make up about 20% of your body weight.

I don't know why you need this information, but for all purposes relating to fitness, you might use the BMI (body mass index). For men, 7% body fat is considered good, while anything over 20% is considered obese. For women, these thresholds are much higher due to the adipose tissue reserves found in a woman's breasts.

Tissue energy demands
How much energy (in kcals) does the body use at rest? Or at mild to heavy work? Also, you always hear that muscle requires more energy than fat. How much more? Jack Daw 12:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See basal metabolic rate. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)


 * Right, that answers my first question. And the others? :) Jack Daw 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I read on a weight training website that every pound of muscle you gain burns an extra 60 calories, but I don't know if that's accurate.--Anchoress 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I only read the first sentence! Were the questions there before? Mild to heavy work: It depends on what work you do. It is different with every person too. Muscle requires more energy because it consumes a lot more. You do more work with muscle than fat. Fat is more so stored energy, while muscles is more used to release energy. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)
 * http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP_textbook/Chapter01.htm search for "Human power";. HIgh expenditure, about 1 horsepower = 746 watts for brief moments, or about a 100 watts sustained. If you are an Olympic athlete maybe you can do a horsepower sustained. "you always hear that muscle requires more energy than fat." Please rephrase your question. --GangofOne 06:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me quote Dieting: "Ideally, overweight people should seek to lose fat and preserve muscle, since muscle burns more calories than fat." It's the last part I'm wondering about; how many more calories? Jack Daw 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, my question too. I have never heard that and it sounds like complete nonsense. The body burns fat to operate the muscles. Or do you mean that making and storing fat requires energy? Probably. But then I still don't understand the statement. The two can't be compared (at least not without more info). DirkvdM 13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by 'nonsense'? There's no need for an attitude. Jack Daw 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no attitude (ahem...), I just care about the truth. DirkvdM 08:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't call people's questions "nonsense" then, that's completely uncalled for. Jack Daw 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have 2 pounds of muscle and 2 pounds of fat, the fat will provide energy as well as using some small amount to maintain the fat cells, the muscle will use up energy every time you move as well as using some for the maintenance of the cells. Your 2 pounds of muscle uses more calories than your 2 pounds of fat. If you weigh a set amount, if more of it is muscle you'll use up more calories. Not nonsense. But I'd like to know how many more too. Skittle 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so pretty much what I thought. It was just stated in an awkward fashion. DirkvdM 08:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bio-0 electricity volume and question
How much bio-electricty can be generated by the human body? I read from a work of a biochemist that works for the US government Dr Mayne R Coe that in theory one cubic inch of the human leg tissue can generate 400 000 volts at low amprage, but this is only at max output and if a high amprage reaction sparked it off. Is this true? What is the general amount present in the human body including neurochemical electricty?

Secondly Why is there no wikipedia page on "high voltage syndrome" the case where an individual generates more bio-electricity than normal with strange side effects? It is documented in medical journals such as "journal das debats" and in reports such as the ones from the ontario medical assosiation and mentioned in books such as "anomaloies and curiosities in medicine" and "abnormal hypnotic phenoemena"

Robin


 * Feel free to start the article yourself! It's your encylopedia too.  However, I have to say I don't think there's much truth to this idea.  Our somewhat dubious article bio-electricity could be of use.  There are small macroscopic voltages from body part to body part, but they are on the order of millivolts.  There is also a small but significant amount of energy in the electrical signals of neurons, but it also isn't much.  Mainly the body stores energy in chemical form (which, if you really get down to it, is electrical energy anyways).  You might be interested in the article voltage, also.  --Bmk 13:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that may be wrong, the brittanica encyclopedia claims http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9079250 that each cell membrane has an electrical potential of around 50 millivolts, and there are millions of cellmembranes in operation in your body at a time. Any comments? Robin


 * Sure, many/most neurons, for instance, have a resting potential of around -70 mV (really it varies widely). It's caused by a separation of ions across the membrane. But when you open up an ion channel to let the membrane reach equilibrium, you're talking a very tiny amount of current that flows (I don't know an actual value offhand, but my guess is it's down in the nanoamp range). You'd be hard pressed to find an efficient way to actually use such a tiny amount of electricity, especially as you'd probably have to "tap" each cell individually. digfarenough (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but can anyone tell me exactly how many millivolts/ volts are in the human body on average, combinding the cell membranes, neurons firing etc the brain, limbs, nerves etc. the whole thing. How much coltage wise? Robin


 * Well the root of your confusion may be a units problem! A volt can be transformed around quite a bit via electronics and  chemistry.  For example, see Ohm's law relating voltage and electric current What is really relevant is the electric power.  Realistically, there is not much electrical power floating around (probably in the neighborhood of microwatts to milliwatts; i.e. hundreds of times smaller than the chemical or mechanical energy inside a biological organism).  The form that this electrical energy takes may be ionizing a cell-membrane, which could be very small (maybe millivolts), or synaptic junctions, which could reach volts for very short time intervals.  It's not very common to talk about the "total number of volts in the body" because you can't just add them all up as if they were grams.  Voltage must always be measured between two points - you can conceptually think of it a bit like "distance" - you can't really have the "total number of distance" either.  But the end result is that not much electrical energy is floating around at any given time, no matter how you slice it. Nimur 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Household Appliances
I am trying to find information about when household appliances such as hot water heaters and refrigerators were first manufactured and sold in the US. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

joc_trebor


 * According to our article about refrigeration, Alexander Twining was the first to introduced a commercial refrigeration device to the US in 1856. --Bmk 14:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As for hot water heaters, they were preceded by cold water heaters. --DLL 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A google search on "technology timeline" gives a very good list of resources. You could also look at articles for specific appliances in wikipedia, or google. Please "search first". 48v 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll skip the 'hot water heater' (DLL already covered that) and move on to the next question. Do you mean 'electrical'? Heating water over a fire has been done since prehistoric times. And refrigeration was done in the middle ages (and possibly before that, but the US didn't exist then) by storing ice in deep pits, where it stayed frozen all summer long. Simpler cooling methods use evaporation, just like electrical refrigerators, except that evaporating water is a lot simpler - just wet a towel and put it on whatever needs refrigerating. DirkvdM 14:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

dual core processor
If apple or dell mentions a dual core processor to be 2 GHz in speed, then will its speed be equal to a 2 GHz single core processor or will its speed be equal to 2 x 2 = 4 GHz? ie. twice a 2 GHz single core processor?

ThankZ


 * Generally, they are talking about the clockspeed of each chip, so you will have two 2GHz chips (actually, half-chips) but it is an oversimplification to say that thats actually 4GHz in total as they are speeds, and not completely additive. 48v 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The processing speed of the cores will each be 2GHz, but this does not mean that together they achieve 4GHz. The Dual core will do things quicker only because more tasks can be performed simultaineously at that speed. The Guy From Ipanema


 * If the clock speed is 2 GHz, then that's what it is. If you have two watches, that doesn't mean they go twice as fast. In case you meant performance-equivalent, I can't give you a figure, but it'll probably be under the performance of a 3 GHz single-core. Getting two processors to work on the same thing is very difficult. They would spend a lot of time waiting for the other's results before they can proceed. This is one of the most difficult programming tasks one can face. So it depends much on the programs that run on them, too, unless there is some very clever operating system that has a general solution to this. DirkvdM 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "speed" is indeed 4 GHz total since each chip is operating at 2 Ghz. That doesn't mean much though, since the speed of applications and such is what you are probably concerned with. It wouldn't be equivalent to a 4 Ghz processor though. Plus it also depends on the model of the dual core processor, as many cycles are wasted or not used efficiently. --Proficient 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hep C and organic sulfur
The question is what is the correlation between organic sulfur, bio available sulfur and Hep C.

The reason I ask the question is Dr. Burton M Berkson reported on MedPlus in 1999 three cases of liver regeneration with IV sulfur based amino acids and selenium in about a year of treatment. Currently Hep C is addressed in the medical community with either liver transplants which often are infected after the transplant and Interferon chemo therapy which has limited applications. Being that Dr Berkson article dates from 1999 I was curious about the sulfur link being that a Member of the Live Blood Study had the same results ingesting 12 grams of organic sulfur which he obtained from the Study in 15 months. His viral count drooped 7 million and his biopsy demonstrated healthy new liver cells. We in the Study believe that considering the nature of Hep C the availability of bio available organic sulfur could be a factor in this deadly viral infection. Viruses hate oxygen and sulfur as well as selenium enable the transport of oxygen across the cell membrane as described in David Gregg's Ph.D article “MSM and DMSO the oxygen transport pair.” It is also the belief of the Study that this lack of sulfur in our diets can be tied to two things: First the use of chemical fertilizers in the US, 1954, and the use of chlorine to purify our water systems, chlorine is an effective block for the uptake of sulfur. The results of the Live Blood Study have yet to be published to date but this information regarding Hep C and other viral infections appears to be too important not to address and we in the Study would welcome any input regarding a possible treatment of all viral disease which has no side effects.

Patrick McGean Director Live Blood Study of the Body Human Project

search google for the Live Blood Study under “Patrick McGean.”
 * Please state the citations to the Berkson and Gregg papers. Also, please give a url, do not ask us to search google. I tried and all I got back was a big pile of medical pseudoscience and I couldn't see the good information you are referring to. --GangofOne 01:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * seems there might be something in it, but the treatment is in early days (phase 1 published in 2005). i guess that doesn't stop snake oil peddlers from making a few dollars at the expense of an increasingly scientifically illiterate public.


 * phase 1 trial: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16082287
 * Xcomradex 08:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * fyi, patric mcgean sounds like little more than another conspiracy theorist who had one too many glaucoma treatments.


 * http://oneutah.org/2006/01/22/more-about-oneutahorg/
 * Xcomradex 08:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * and interferon+sulfur/selenium compounds are no more effective than interferon alone in treating HepC
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10517313&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
 * that about does it i'd say. Xcomradex 08:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

the white living things on lobsters
I was in a store the other day and saw a lobster tank. I went over to take a closer look and there were white things all over this lobster on its head and one of its claws. The white things were in a mound and had some kind of living thing in the center of it that would go in and out of the mound. It was small and looked like a fan. I have looked everywhere and cant find out what they are. So what are those white things living on the lobsters?


 * Try Barnacles. 48v 18:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much

>> Whales have something similar the are refered to as whale lice, but are accutually crustations, they live on the whale and reproduce.--Aaron hart 09:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Death by Dreaming
According to popular beliefs, if a person dies in his or her dream, that person would die in real life. This this belief true? If it is true, why is that, and if it is not true, what ths the rationale behind the belief? --72.57.219.186 18:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't true. I die in my dreams all the time (usually by falling off of tall things, I always seem to lose my balance in my dreams; though the other day I was shot in the gut! A bit more violent than usual, and my sides actually clenched when I woke up immediately after). The rationale behind the belief is probably just that people of all cultures have regarded the reality-state of dreaming to be a mysterious area, one ripe for mystical speculation and myth-making, and have believed that it can enter into one's waking life as well. Though it would seem snarky to postulate that Freud's theories on dreams were just a modern extension of this, he himself acknowledged as much in his The Interpretation of Dreams at many point, placing himself in the tradition of those who in the past believed that the life of the dreamer and the waker were intimately connected. My personal favorite approach to this is Borges' The Circular Ruins. --Fastfission 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's perfectly true. If you die in your dreams, you're guaranteed to die within the next 200 years. Until medical science makes a major breakthrough, at least. Confusing Manifestation 00:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 200??--Light current 01:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm giving a cautious overestimate. Just because the actual value is, at the moment, around 120 (assuming that the world's oldest people dreamed of dying in their first few years of life) doesn't mean that there won't be someone who dreamt of dying 100 years ago, and in 100 years time (thanks to aforementioned medical breakthroughs) says "That's funny, that guy on Wikipedia said I'd be dead by now." Assuming they've managed to cure Alzheimer's as well as everything else. Confusing Manifestation 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you...serious? This isn't the Matrix, maybe you forgot... ? --mboverload @ 10:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If soneone is already weak, the shock of a nightmare might do them in, I imagine. DirkvdM 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

evolution of white skin
hi, given that black skin burns less and is less suceptible to skin cancer (this may not be true, its just something i've always assumed), what is the evolutionary advantage of white skin? is there one? given that we're all supposed to have come from afica originally, it seems bizarre that people in colder climes have different pigmentation when it doesnt serve an (obvious) purpose. any enlightenment would be much appreciated- thanks 200.166.84.18 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Does skin pigmentation help at all? digfarenough (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The short, simple, general reason given is that pale skin is able to produce more vitamin D from less sunlight. Skittle 20:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is quite useful in less than tropic localities. - Mgm|(talk) 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except the evidence, at least with regards to MC1R, suggests that is not the case. However the exciting discovery of SLC24A5 and its association with human skin colour, may provide evidence for positive selection for vitamin D production. Time will tell.  Rockpock e  t  06:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

evolution of snoring
Given that snoring makes it easier for lions to eat you when you are asleep. Is it true that Africans do not snore? Ohanian 22:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * that is the smartest thing I've seen all week


 * Why does snoring make it easier for lions? 8-?--Light current 01:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lions have big ears to find you when you make noise. This does not help them to eat you, though. There are lions in less than 20% of Africa. Now we are looking for a testimony about real africans really snoring like you and me. --DLL 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Having lived in Africa for a number of years, where i attended a boarding school. I can confirm Africans do snore. Loudly.  Rockpock e  t  05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Northern Europeans would freeze to death if they had no protection against the cold, such as houses. Africans don't need houses against the cold (well, not as much anyway), but they do help against lions. So they can snore for the same reason we can survive without fur. We have different means - our ability to change our environment (ie build houses). DirkvdM 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Porosity vs. Heat Capacity
How does the porosity of an object relate to its thermal capacity? For example, does a material with more pores allow more heat to pass through it than an object with fewer pores?


 * Depends probably on the comparative thermal conductivities of the pores (air) and the material of the object. BTW did you read your own question? 1st part makes no sense.--Light current 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops...

Persykology
What's the deal with that strong desire some people have, on encountering an extremely cute and appealing organism, to kill it? I know that sometimes when I see a cute animal I want to squeeze it to death. What's with that? Also, why do people find baby animals appealing anyway? I suppose it would have been an evolutionary advantage to our ancestors as part of the domestication process, as anyone finding an abandoned wolf cub, finding it cute and raising it would have an obvious advantage when the bugger grows up, eh? Try and answer my first question first because you may have forgotten about it, I know many people who would have :P Vitriol 23:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have never heard of a desire to kill cute, appealing things as a common response. As for why baby animals are appealing, see cuteness. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some people would know what I'm talking about. Or maybe I'm just nuts. Vitriol 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that when people remark that they want to hug/squeeze something 'to death', they're not actually serious. It's more of an indication of how cute something is. --Con 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * O RLY? I am nuts! Vitriol 23:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club! (Although my nutness lies in other areas (and why doesn't my spellchecker protest against the word 'nutness'?))
 * Btw, I love baby crocs. They have this unique combination of cuteness and a vicious appearance. DirkvdM 08:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're nuts, Vitriol - I've felt it too, and know several people who have - I reckon it manifests in such phrases as 'I could just eat her up', and 'I love her to pieces' - it's like cuddling the object of your affections isn't enough - you want to squeeze! There's a scene in Punch Drunk Love where the lovers tell each other they want to smash each other's faces in with mallets etc - but it's extremely tender; they're saying kissing each other just won't suffice to express the fierceness of their love. Well, that's what I think anywayAdambrowne666 01:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

natural hydrogyn production
Is the Earth's atmosphere filling up whith hydrogyn? If so at what rate?
 * ...should it be? Vitriol 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would you think that? I can't think of anything that naturally releases hydrogen gas. —Keenan Pepper 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * YOUR MUM! Hahahahahahaha Vitriol 00:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Humans do not release hydrogen.(at least not in large quantities). Also, this page is not for stupidly childish comments like that above.8-(--Light current 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the bacteria in the gut release methane (and hydrogen sulfide and thiols, which are responsible for the smell), and according to Anaerobic digestion, there's some hydrogen in the mixture too (although there's no reference, so I can't follow it up). —Keenan Pepper 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah but when you set fire to farts, its the methane that ignites- is it not?--Light current 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, hydrogen in the atmosphere is excited by ultraviolet light to react with oxygen and form water. Hence it is not accumulating.  In addition, like helium, hydorgen is so light in its pure form that the portion that manages to rises to the top of the atmosphere without reacting with oxygen is slowly blown into space by the solar wind.  Even without an oxygen atmosphere, a planet with the mass of Earth at our distance from the sun would not be able to accumulate much free hydrogen because the solar wind would blow it all away.  Dragons flight 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some bacteria that live in the GI tract do produce hydrogen. That's the basis of an easy test for lactose intolerance. DMacks 09:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)