Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 February 13

= February 13 =

how many delegates per state
how many delegates per state —Preceding unsigned comment added by Len70 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the population. That's why some get more than others.  However, this question is probably better suited for the humanities reference desk Zrs 12 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem a little off-topic here, but as long as it's come up, let me point out that it's entirely up to the political party. The parties are free to run their nomination process pretty much however they want, and you're free to vote for their nominee or not. Oh, I suppose there are some limits--say, the parties can't stipulate a test on who's allowed to vote in their primaries outside of the ones provided for by the state in question--but they are free to weight the votes from the various states however they want, up to and including completely ignoring the vote in some (or all) states.
 * I think the Democratic Party has a notoriously complicated formula that's based, not just on population, but also on the Democratic vote from the last general election. --Trovatore (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For current delegate counts, see the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 articles. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting question; is political science a science or an art? --hydnjo talk 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Who discovered the peanut allergy?
Who discovered the peanut allergy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byrnesix (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have online access to the expensive databases of articles listed, but Google Scholar shows few mentions of "peanut allergy" before the 1980's when it became a widely published about term. Google News search shows no "peanut allergy" usage in news papers and such before 1962, when there was one story in a medical column by Dr. Burton H. Fern, M.D. (the Newark Advocate, March 19, 1962, p.4 and other papers) The medical columnist referred to peanut allergy with pretty much the modern description, and spoke as if it were already a well known phenomenon. The next press coverage I could find was in the New York Times, March 22, 1986. Edison (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I searched medline and found references dating back to the '50's. That was as far back as that database goes. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick JSTOR search turns up nothing useful on the topic. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ammonia and copper sulphate
wat happen wen ammonia is added to copper sulphate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.29.35 (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two things happening. But this is an easy Homework question! But the Cuprammonium method

for the production of rayon starts with this! --Stone (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

lowenstein-jensen media...?
why we keep lowenstein-jensen media in a glass bottle and not in plastic container ? please mail me the answer at [ email removed ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.98.100 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Glass (q.v.) does not react with most chemicals, unlike most plastics.--Shantavira|feed me 11:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone fancy putting together an article on Löwenstein-Jensen media? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's over at Lowenstein-Jensen medium. I'll make some redirects.--Shantavira|feed me 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the malachite green will stain the plastics as it is a lipophilic dye (especially the leuco form). Сасусlе 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Human Spleen
How much blood can a spleen hold? Weasly (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In humans, not much. Our article gives a volume for the human spleen as 125 × 75 × 50 mm which would be 468 cubic centemetres. Assume that half of this is given over to spleen material, and you get something like 234cc, or 0.25 litres. Even that may be an over-estimate, as in humans the spleen is not a store for blood, but only for platelets. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. In blood donation, donors typically donate around 450 ml of blood with no ill effects - in particular, no significant drop in blood pressure. Our article on bleeding says that blood loss of up to 15% of total volume typically causes no ill effects - for a total blood volume of 5 litres, this is 750 ml. If the spleen can only replace up to 250 ml then what mechanism does the body use to maintain normal blood pressure for these higher volumes of blood loss ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The following would be of interest to you baroreceptors, Renin, Angiotensin II, Aldosterone, epinephrine, and norepinephrine.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The body mostly makes up the missing volume with water squeezed out of other tissues. (One of the reasons why the nurses give you fruit juice before and/or after whole blood donations.)  The circulating blood will be slightly more 'dilute', but still quite serviceable.  Pressure is also maintained through vasoconstriction&mdash;the muscles in arterial walls contract, reducing the volume that the available blood must fill.  At least, that's the short answer&mdash;our article on hypovolemia goes into quite a bit more detail. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the questioner may be referring to a function of some nonhuman spleens. The functions of the human spleen may not be entirely understood, but it is relatively well established that unlike some of its nonhuman counterparts, the human spleen does not serve as a storehouse of blood to be tapped in times of need. Some spleens (eg, those of horses) are supplied with smooth muscle that can squeeze the spleen to increase effective blood volume under times of physiologic stress. Human spleens have scant smooth muscle and are therefore unable to serve this function. --David Iberri (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Passenger Zeppelins LZ120 and LZ121
I'm searching for design and operational statistics on the two small post-war Zeppelins seized as War Reparations. Design Statistics (OAL, BEAM, Displacement, Installed power, cruising speed, range/endurance, payload, normal crew size, passenger accommodations), any photos would be helpful. Any citations or links regarding in-service operations would also be of interest.

68.58.89.210 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Penicillin
Hi there, I am uncertain as to why penicillin inhibits the growth of prokaryotic gram positive bacteria which often cause infections in the body but has no effect against the human body's own eukaryotic cells. Is it something to do with organelles? If anyone could enlighten me on this subject I would much appreiciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.45.199 (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See penicillin. Penicillin acts by inhibiting an enzyme that builds the bacterial cell wall. Humans don't have this enzyme, or indeed cell walls, so are unaffected. Algebraist 12:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "or indeed cell walls"? Surely some mistake. In the absence of cell walls, what demarcates the boundary of a human cell? --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The plasmalemma, or cell membrane. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More generally, antibiotics are useful because they affect an enzyme in the pathogen more than they affect the corresponding enzyme (if any) in the host. (Ideally, they'd effect a metabolic pathway absent in the host, or one which can be bypassed in the host). As Ouro points out, one distinction between human cells and many bacteria is that human cells have no cell wall; penicillin and the cephalosporins work on this principle. Many antibiotics work because they are more effective at inhibiting bacterial mitochondria ribosomes (with 50S and 30S subunits) than they are on human mitochondria ribosomes (with 60S and 40S units). This may be what you are referring to about involvement of organelles, but that's not the mechanism for penicillin, details of which can be found here. - Nunh-huh 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you meant ribosomes, not mitochondria, as a slew of antibiotics sabotage bacterial protein synthesis.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

advantage of science
what is the advantage of science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.168.126 (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, mp3 players and insanely wonderful DSLRs. Have a go at Philosophy of science and related articles. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Knowledge. Have a look at Reliable Knowledge in that article too. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, how about everything that we have? We would still be living in forests, living as foragers if it weren't for science. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Civilisation is older than science as we know it. See History of Science. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If people live in buildings, then you need science, whether it is formal or not. If people use tools, then that's science. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, tool use is not science. (Even chimps can use tools.) And no, just living in buildings doesn't mean you need science. Please read science—it's not just the sheer presence of technology of some form, it's a systematized way of increasing knowledge, and not just any system either, it must have a combination of certain principles to be considered "science". The wheelbarrow required no science, no deep understanding of mechanics. By definition I would consider "informal science" to be oxymoronic—science is a system, it is not informal. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And even if we did live as foragers, we'd still need science, like the branch of Botany, because we'd need to know which plants to eat, right? Science explains our very lives, and the world we live in. Before people began to use science, they used their religions to explain things that they didn't understand. (for instance, the ancient Egyptians believed that Ra was the sun god, and he made the sun rise and set). But, the ancient Greeks were some of the first to use science to explain why things happen the way they do. So, science is very important.--Princess Janay (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There was actually a lot of discussion in the 1970s and 1980ss about whether or not "folk knowledge" and systems of folk knowledge constituted something approximating "science" (e.g. the work of anthropologist Robin Horton). Personally I lean against it, though it is unfashionable to do so—science is a particular form of knowledge production, and is not just a generic term for knowledge production. It is not the same thing as simple cataloging, or of simple unmethodological observation with willy-nilly confusion of correlation and causation. It is a methodology for producing, proving, and disproving knowledge. It works very well for questions concerning the natural world. It is above all disciplined. For the record, religion was not the only explanation available before science, and science did not get rid of religion. (And of course the early history of science is intimately tied with religious concerns.) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the advantage of science? This is a question that used to be asked a lot in the 1930s but is almost never asked today. Why not? In part because science was credited as having won World War II—that is, because science became seen as intractably linked to technology, and technology became linked with economics and power. So that is perhaps one advantage to science, though many scientists would find it a disgusting, utilitarian one. The more idealistic would say knowledge is an advantage for its own sake, though the pessimistic would point out that knowledge is a two-way street: it confers advantages and disadvantages. Not everybody appreciated such knowledge either: there are many who wish that Darwin had become a priest as he had planned to be, and left speculation as to the purpose of human life to the theologians. (Note that one reason this question was asked so much in the 1930s is because faith in science as an improver of life was at quite a low between the wars, as it was blamed for much of the horror of World War I.) But perhaps we can find another way to look at this: science can produce knowledge that is highly reliable, and with highly reliable knowledge you can do a lot of things, whether they are technological in nature or philosophical in nature. It is almost always an advantage to have reliable knowledge over unreliable knowledge, even if it sometimes makes one unhappy. Our civilization owes much to the increased amount and increased ability to have reliable knowledge—you can, as we did for thousands of years and many still do today, live in a world where you don't know why people get sick, where you don't know when it is going to rain, when you make things based on intuition and the feel in your hands rather than any knowledge of deeper principles. You can get along just fine not knowing what an atom is and the principles of the chemical bond. Many people, even in advanced societies, know nothing of any real scientific knowledge. However they indirectly benefit from the fact that others do have such knowledge, and have developed good systems for testing knowledge. They benefit without knowing it: it is behind their great wealth, it is behind their great varieties of foods, it is behind the fact that they are very likely to make it out of childhood unscarred by disfiguring disease. Science, taken as a whole, is responsible for much of what we call improvement in the style of living. It is also responsible for many negative things as well—pollution on an unprecedented scale, weapons which can kill to an unimaginable degree, and, many have argued, a disrespect for the dignity of the human, and perhaps worst of all, television—but on the whole I think our lives are longer and more fulfilling than they would be without scientific advancement. Civilization would be significantly hindered without scientific advances; we would have less time for education, leisure, and growth. We would have less effective tools and medicine would be almost crippled. We would not, in fact, be here asking such questions today, on our space-age computers, scrawling messages at the speed of light across a great distance, across the world. Science has brought us all these things. It has transformed us from a petty people who see no further than the boundaries of our tribe into a people who can, if we choose to (though it is not always the best choice), set foot on the heavens themselves. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Neural system viruses
I happened to catch a documentary on rabies, which stated it bypassed the immune system by travelling via the nervous system and CNS. As I understand it, herpes likewise avoids the immune system (in its dormant state) by hiding in the nervous system.

Is this common? Is there general medical research into the treatment of virii that share this trait? Is there a generic medical issue around "how to target virii in the nervous system" and how might such things be targetted? What are the relevant WP articles?

Not so much interested in specific illnesses. More the medical issues (knowledge, treatments, research, approaches, etc) related to infections that make use of the nervous system to bypass the usual immune functions.

Thanks. FT2 (Talk 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You've actually named the two major viruses that are disseminated by neural spread; others, like polio, can spread neurally, but primarily spread by hematogenous dissemination. There is indeed medical inquiry into the pathogenesis of such viruses. Some terms that may help you find pertinent articles: a neurotropic virus is one which can infect neural cells. A neuroinvasive virus is one that can spread to infect the central nervous system from a peripheral site (these are the viruses you're asking about). A neurovirulent virus is one which not only infects neural cells, but causes disease in those cells. Herpes simplex virus is a virus with low neuroinvasiveness and high neurovirulence. Mumps is caused by a virus with high neuroinvasiveness but low neurovirulence; rabies has both high neuroinvasiveness and high neurovirulence. Viral tropism tends to be multifactorial, so looking for general principles is less rewarding than looking at more specific issues. We seem to have articles on tropism and virulence, but I don't think they're of much use. - Nunh-huh 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now added: Neurotropic virus.


 * Can you check and see if it can be improved? Thanks :) FT2 (Talk 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ROCKET ENGINE
Hello

Why a same rocket engine have a greater Isp in vacuum than at sea level

Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.159.88 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At sea level, there's 14.7 psi of atmospheric pressure resisting the rocket's exhaust. In vacuum, no such resistance exists. &mdash; Lomn 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cryo-insulation gel?
I'm writing a book, and i need help. Say you wanted to keep an entire room frozen on the level of Cryonics. Is there a substance that would parallel a fictional cryo-insulation gel? Here7ic (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd probably use vacuum and possibly some fairly esoteric kinds of heat pumps. Preserving a room at very cold temperatures would be difficult on earth without some active means of cooling, because of the tendency of heat to pass between bodies. You may need to specify what kind of temperature you're considering and what kind of room or environemnt, or other plot requirements -- liquid nitrogen is readily transported in bulk already, whereas temperatures close to absolute zero are more demanding. FT2 (Talk 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's use the Cryonics article's temperature of -196° C. It's in an underground facility beneath the Von Tobel community center in Las Vegas. The President and pertinent staff are being kept there after a nuclear holocaust, and a recovery team is on it's way down. However, as they make their way to the sub-level, they notice a leak of the "cryo-insulation gel", and eventually find that the preservation method failed and the president is dead, blah blah blah sci-fi horror masterpiece of mine. Here7ic (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for an insulating gel aerogel might be helpful. (Although it wouldn't leak, but it's sci-fi so you can take some liberties. Mad031683 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe giant atomic rats found aerogel to be good for nest-building? --Sean 19:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For liquid nitrogen etc good old expanded polystyrene is useful in the non-scifi world.. (think you want foam not gel)87.102.114.215 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bomb
Hi, I'm looking for an account of a university/college student who decided to work out how to build an atomic bomb, using only commonly-available knowledge as a foundation. Some things that comes to mind is that the author got disheveled as his work progressed and got to resemble a hobo, and that he couldn't figure out how the implosion mechanism should work. In the end he phoned DuPont (the manufacturer of the relevant part) and tried asking about their products: "I heard my professor say that your so-and-so product will work like this-and-this in such-and-such circumstances." The person who answered the phone (unknowingly, I guess) replied with hints. The author handed in his report on how to build an atomic bomb and there was talk at campus on whether his report should be classified or not.

I know this isn't exactly a scientific question, but who was that guy and where can I read his account again? Any hints will be much appreciated. :) --Kjoonlee 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could this be David Hahn, the radioactive Boy Scout? He was trying to build a nuclear reactor, though, not a bomb. David Dobson (nuclear physicist) and Bob Selden were nuclear physicists who decided to see if it were possible to build a bomb (but were content merely to describe the plans, rather than actually build the thing). They obtained crucial information about their implosion mechanism from papers published by President Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. - Nunh-huh 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, they did this as part of a Pentagon project rather then something they decided to do out of the blue Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The author had decided to do it because he was taking a lecture on nuclear physics, and did it for his final report. The professor agreed to be an adviser, but treated the author's mistakes the same way he treated his accomplishments, without comment. --Kjoonlee 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I might recall reading the same article as you have. Republished in Reader's Digest, mid-eighties or thereabouts. I'll look around.&mdash;eric 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No luck, but i'm fairly certain that this was a hydrogen bomb design, and might have been related to the misclassification of .&mdash;eric 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You might find United States v. The Progressive relevant/interesting. --Sean 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that Howard Morland, the guy who caused that whole case, is now a contributor on Wikipedia: User:HowardMorland. --98.217.18.109 (talk)

I can also recollect reading this article a long long time ago and think it was in the Reader's Digest and that it was the building of an atomic bomb. (It is possible that the title was "The Atomic Bomb Kid" but I am certainly not sure if this is the correct title.) The University student worked at his paper day and night and only just managed to hand it in at the last moment. After having not heard from his Professor, he thought that he had failed on this paper, but his Professor then informed him that it had been classified. Simonschaim (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Manhattan Project is an interesting fictionalization of such an attempt. But it presumes access to plutonium.


 * Atlant (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some relevant articles: John Aristotle Phillips (who is probably who you are referring to—"The A-Bomb Kid", though there are actually at least half a dozen of the "some college kid make a bomb design based on public information" stories out there, most are not that interesting, because the all the basic concepts were declassified by the early 1950s, and it's just a matter of knowing a few nuclear constants to come up with a very, very rough idea of how to make a very, very crude weapon). Note that "designing" something like that is about as close to making it as an encyclopedia's drawing of an airplane is to being able to construct a 747. Also, the Nth Country Experiment established pretty well by the mid-1960s that it was not hard to "design" a bomb based on public domain information. --140.247.11.3 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have another Physics Magazine,Question For You and It`s not a Homework Question
If the mass of an empty balloon the same as the mass of that same balloon when It is filled with air. Why is the balloon attached to the string.What effect does that have on the Force. Does the balloon change from one trial to the next.Does this affect your results. What is making the balloon move.Describe what is happening and how this affects the motion of the balloon. Calculate the Force the balloon applies to move across the room.Is the force the same for all three trials. How are the motion and Forces acting on the vertical balloon rocket different from the string guided balloon in this activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeats30 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What physics magazine is this from? I can answer one of your homework physics magazine questions for you. "What effect does that have on the Force." It causes a great disturbance in it. Mad031683 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How long is the piece of string? Boomshanka (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before more people ask, this is the same user who claims to be getting questions out of a physics magazine when he should be learning basic grammar and typing skills.
 * Answering the start of the question - adding air to a balloon adds mass. It is impossible to add air and not add mass.  So, you appear to stating that the mass of the balloon is the same, discounting anything contained inside the balloon.  That is a very strange way to refer to it since normal people call the balloon and the contents inside of the balloon the "balloon".
 * Why is it attached to a string? Because whoever owns it likes strings.  You could let it roll across the floor without a string if you like.  You could tie a ribbon to it.  You could shove it down your underpants.  Whatever makes you happy while you read your imaginary magazines.
 * What is the affect on the string force? There's not enough room here to get into string theory.
 * Balloons change all the time - especially when going through trials. They get stretched out when you blow them up.  Sometimes they get marked on.  Sometimes they pop and become rather useless balloons.  When they pop, the results of using it another test become rather speculative.  You can only imagine what the balloon would do if it could still hold air in nice containment.
 * What makes balloons move? A bad housing market plagued by foreclosures has caused many an experimenter and his balloons to move.  Hopefully the government will help out soon.  Won't somebody think of the poor balloons?
 * Vertical balloon rocket? Is that part of the new Mars Mission?  I remember reading that it has to be a vertical balloon rocket because those horizontal balloon rockets did a terrible job of making it into orbit.  Hopefully that helps. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, you sure seem to be giving us lots of questions from 'physics magazines' and 'algebra magazines'. The rest of us at the Desk are awfully curious about how you're finding all of these&mdash;could you start providing references (journal title, volume, page number, date) for your sources?  Seems a shame that the original question creators aren't getting their fair credit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but this sounds like a homework question to me... What do you all think? Zrs 12 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't just sound like homework, it sounds like the homework is to write up an experiment which was performed in class. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have all the answers you need below: I guarantee you that these answers are 100% correct and you will get an A+ for them. I suggest you copy them out exactly, don't worry too much if you don't understand anything. Your teacher will and if he or she doesn't he or she will surely ask a Physics Professor who will be able to explain them. They are beyond what is normal in secondary school physics level but there's no harm in being advanced for your age Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The balloon is attached to the string because otherwise the quantum flux will expand, causing the balloon to explode
 * The effect on the force is and overall increase in the number of midi-chlorians
 * Whether or not the balloon changes is irrelevant because all the balloons are free balloons.
 * The Rial Krowemoh effect is making the balloons move
 * The Rial Krowemoh effect means the quantum flux on the balloon results in a level of midi-chlorians less then the atmosphere. Therefore the balloon moves in a 97.298 degree angle on the vertical.
 * Using the Resol Enizagam Scisyhp equation we find that the force on the balloon is 59 midi-chlorians for all three trials. (97.298 x 0.495^0.56 + lg 5.93)
 * The force acting on the vertical balloon tends towards the Idej whereas the force on the string tends towards the Htis.


 * Sorry to rain on your parade Nil Einne, but it's the Rail Krowemoh effect, not Rial. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Rail Krowemoh was a very notable physicist, and it's important to get his name right. The Rail gun (and not Rial gun) was named after him because he discovered how electricity and magnetic fields interact. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? In Russian it's always called a Krowemoh Gun (Нонсенс Пу́шка) after Rail Krowemoh (Рельсы Нонсенс).  So it's a popular misconception, one not shared by Russian speakers, that it has anything to do with "rails". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're completely right. Luckily you saved our friend from nearly losing his/her A+! Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the old Siamese National Anthem. The first line was "Oh Wattana Siam". You need to say it out loud to get the full impact. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Homework? I always thought he was asking us to solve physics magazine problems so he can win a prize of some sort (a beer can sleeve with a logo, no doubt). But now it seems that he has been playing some of us for fools. He probably doesn't even drink beer! 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Length/Width measurement
What is the name of something that can be used to measure the width of something, such as a ball. It has two plates which the thing you want to measure is put in between, and they can be pushed together or spread apart until both plates touch the object that is beaing measured, and the width of the object can be read off it based on where a pointer is. What is the name is the measurement device? I think it is a 'something calorimeter', but on wikipedia any calorimeters or colorimiters are to do with colour or light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.217.188 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * vernier caliper.&mdash;eric 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since the questioner mentioned a "pointer", probably a "dial caliper" rather than a vernier caliper, but okay ;-). Micrometer is another possibility.


 * Atlant (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ok thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.217.32 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * and calorimeters are to do with heat --ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)