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

=March 13=

Recent rise in oil prices?
Hi. I'm pretty sure most of you have noticed recent sharp increases in oil prices. In fact, just a few years ago, there were occasional times where some gas stations would give prices of less than 50¢ a litre. At that time, gas prices per litre seldom reached above 90¢ per litre. Prices above $1/l were almost unheard of. Nowadays, prices above $1 are the norm. Prices below 90¢ are now almost unheard of. The news has said that, this spring, prices could reach $1.30. Oil is also constantly above $100 a barrel, if you're American. What's going on? This all started after hurricane Katrina, it seems. Are we reaching global peak oil already? Yes, I know the US and non-OPEC countries have already peaked. Are oil companies doing this on purpose? Or is this permanent and a sign of what's to come? What's next? $2.00 a litre within the next decade? $200 a barrel? Would peak oil cause a spike in prices? Yes I know it will probably run out completely in like, 40 years, so hopefully we switch to non-fossil fuels by then. As oil dwindles but not completely, what will we see? Maybe $10 a litre, $900 a barrel? Thanks. ~ A   H   1  (T C U) 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question is asking people to foretell the future. This is a reference desk, not a magic crystal you can rub and hope for a good answer. However, it isn't hard to figure out. Oil supplies are drying up. Oil demand is increasing faster than ever before. What do you think the price should do? -- k a i n a w  &trade; 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The present run-up (that is, above US$95 or so) is mostly related to the weak dollar - people want to hedge their investments by moving them to commodities. Daily fluctuations ($2-$3 or thereabouts) usually reflect particular news items, from weather to stocks reports to saber rattling. The basic price (say something like US$85 to $95) is a reflection of supply (near or at capacity right now) and demand (increasing despite the price). Best get used to it. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Any of your scenarios are possible, if not likely, but who can tell the future. For example I've heard serious predictions of $2 - $3 per litre within the next few years in Australia (current average price is about $1.40). And many sensible commentators also suggest that we've already passed worldwide peak oil and are now on the decline. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it entertaining seeing Americans complaining about fuel prices when we pay £1 per litre (which is about $8 per gallon) in the UK TheGreatZorko (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of that is tax though. But I will say, complaining is fun, and it allows us british to feel superior knowing that we have much more right to complain than they do. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an American who is not complaining (mostly I'm amazed that our prices are not a lot higher), I really shudder to think what the US will be like when reality actually sets in. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't complain either because I don't drive an SUV the size of Kansas around. One time I pulled up to the pump after the previous person (who was an owner of a huge SUV) left and almost laughed to death when I saw he had paid almost $100 for gasoline. I haven't been to Europe in about 5 years, but from what I remember they aren't as stupid as we are, and they buy smaller cars unless they need to tow something. Do get me started on driving habits either - everyone I see with a superfluous SUV wastes gas by flooring the pedal the moment the light turns green. And yet they complain, and then they wonder why the world hates America so much. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

climate modelling simulation map-based continental land-influenced scenario?
Hi. I have a method you might be able to use for calculating the climate of a specific time period. Look at it and tell me what you think and what adjustments might need to be made if it plausibly works. Here are the steps: Well, what do you think? I once tried this method myself (but much, much more simplicified) on the current climate and the near future, and got similar results to the real climate. Does this work, and what are some of the potential modifications tha tmay need to be made? No this is not homework. What would one discover if they tried to base it on global warming of the future? Would northern Europe cool down? Amazonia turn to grassland? Acatama and Namib deserts turn to mediterranean climate? Central North America become desert? Sahel become desert? Lower Tibet become desert? Monsoonal India become drier? North America west coast become drier? California become hotter? Increased El Ninos? SAL across the Atlantic? Little change in Atlantic hurricane activity? Is this similar to some of the climate modeling simulations? Can this be used to predict past and future climates based on continental drift? Or do we have to implement what we already know for the Holocene for it to be accurate? Thanks. ~ A   H   1  (T C U) 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * map
 * first you need to draw on a piece of paper the shape of your Earth. Make sure you include the whole world in your map shape. You may want to get a huge piece of paper, and maybe several pieces. Now draw a grid for your map. Next, draw the continents. Take note of the elevation. If it is a map far into the past or future by millions of years, make sure you examine all the evidence. Make four maps, one for mid-winter, mid-spring, mid-summer, and mid-autumn. The seasons may not be at the months they are today because of precession, or the days might be longer or shorter, so don't write the month. If this is a period without seas, water, water vapour, sunshine, oxygen, vegetation, volcanoes, or plates, or if it is during a great bombardment, the map will be useless for that era.
 * Examine the plates at the time of the era of your map. If the fossil record shows proof of high mountainous habitats or undersea environments, include it in your map. Do not base the continents on what they look like today. Take note of the sea level. If the sea level was 300 metres below today's, then treat a piece of land that would be at sea level today as if it was 300 metres above sea level, and same if the sea level was or will be higher. If you're doing to future, include as many factors as possible in your simulation of placement of the continents. Draw in any plausible islands. If the mountain ranges that are here today did not exist back then, do not draw them. If it is likely that where there are mountains today were part of the sea floor back then, treat it as the sea floor. Make note of what type of climate it was. If there is evidense of a gulf or bay or inland sea or lake, draw it in. If there are landmasses near the poles there will likely be large glacial sheets.
 * make notice of the rivers and glaciers. If the mountains were high and cold enough, draw in glaciers at that reigon. If it is likely that there were pack ice or large sheet of ice like on Antarctica or Greenland today, draw it in. Make sure you draw these at the correct portion of the grid. If there was a seamount or undersea volcano or likely there was a coral reef or will be and the sea level is low enough to hold them above sea level, draw that in. Calculate sea level carefully, take in the factors. Look for likely positions of rivers and wetlands. If you know that there were deserts or forests in a particular location or will be, make not of that.
 * jet stream
 * draw 6 seasonal jet streams for both the northern and southern hemispheres, 2 polar, 2 temperate, and 2 tropical. Do this for each season. If the season in the hemisphere is summer, draw the jets closer to the poles, farther in winter, and moderately close tot he poles in spring and moderately far in autumn. Assuming that the Earth is rotation west-east during this era. Draw the polar jet streams with wind from east to west. Draw them from east to west, and make sure they meet on both ends of the map, like if it was at 80 deg at the rightmost egde of the map, make sure it is at 80 deg at the leftmost edge of the map. Cause it to dip south if there is a mountain range or large glacial sheet. If it was a warm period, draw them close to the poles. If it was a cold period, draw them away from the poles. If it was an ice age or there is an ice sheet on land kilometers thick covering the entire polar reigon and then some, draw them from west to east. Make sure that if there is a huge sheet of ice like this, make it so that the jet streams avoid the ice. On the leeward side of large tall mountain ranges that polar jet streams cross, which is the side facing away from the jet streams, cause the streams to dip towards the poles. The streams dip away from the poles if it encounters tundra or desert or ice, toward the poles if it encounters unfrozen water. It will dip towards the poles when it encounters forests in spring or summer, and away form the poles in autumn or winter. It will dip towards the poles if it encounters a coastal area after being over the sea.
 * the temperate jets are at temperate latitudes, from west to east Again draw them according to the season and warmth of the period. If it encounters mountains it will dip toward the equator. If in a warm season it encounters water it wil dip away from the poles and if in a cold season it will dip toward the poles. Rivers don't count as "water" unless it was a bay or gulf hundreds of km wide. Large areas below sea level but are not covered in water get a poleward dip and for other jets as well. Wetlands act like bodies of water if they are large enough. Deserts get poleward dips in spring and summer and equatorward dips in autumn and winter. The dips in spring and autumn are less than in summer and winter. Dip equatorward for any glaciers. For dry salt pans dip equatorward.
 * tropical jest go from east to west. Again draw them according to the global climate at the time. Oceans get a dip toward the equator, but if it just came from the sea and just met land at the coast, dip poleward. Make poleward dips if it just came from a forest. Dip poleward for deserts, and dip equatorward if it just came out of a desert. Do not cross the equator into the other hemisphere. Dip equatorward for mountains and any glaciers. Lakes and wetlands get equatorward dips if crossed.
 * high and low pressure
 * Label high pressure if an area generally has jet streams circling clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. For low pressure, the jets should be circling counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Label warm and cold fronts around the warm sectors of low pressure systems. The fronts can connect with other low pressure systems but not with high pressure. They should not cross the equator. Create isobars around the high and low pressure. Make the pressure systems especially intense if they are large. Have generally higher pressure at lower areas and lower pressure on mountains and high elevation, including ice as elevation. Make sure you do these for each season, as with below.
 * prevailing winds
 * Draw wind direction around the pressure systems. Remember which direction the pressure systems turn in. Wind also goes away form high pressure and toward low pressure. Label upwelling and sinking of wind, it rises if it hits mountain ranges, sinks if it hits a valley or the ocean from high elevations, rises at low pressure and sinks at high pressure. Also label upper-level winds which go from upwellings towards sinkings. Wind should be allowed to cross the equator.
 * ocean currents
 * Draw warm and cold ocean currents. Draw cold ocean currents in cold areas and where the wind goes equatorward. Draw warm ocean currents near tropical reigons and areas where wind goes poleward. Only count surface winds. Do not draw them for lakes and inland seas disconnected from main sea unless they are enormous and deep. Make sure the currents avoid land even if it means going in the opposite direction from prevaling winds. Warm and cold currents should be allowed to converge and cold ocean currents should cross the equator unless something blocks it such as a massive release of freshwater into the oceans. Only the largest rivers should be allowed to nudge existing currrents away from its mouth. Cold currents should not enter shallow tropical gulfs, bays, and seas, and warm currents should not cross polar seas. Currents should be allowed to directly cross under a pressure system if nessecary.
 * precipitation
 * label wet and dry zones on the map. Areas where wind goes from the unfrozen sea or lake to land should be labelled wet. If warm currents approach land then makes a turn, colour in the areas it was approaching before it turned as wet. Leeward sides of mountains should be labelled dry. Areas directly under high pressure should be labelled dry. When cold ocean currents approach land, label these as dry. If wind from a large already wet place goes into another place, label it wet, and if wind from a large dry place goes to another place, label it wet. Label polar glaciers as dry. The windward side of a mountain, if the wind is from the ocean or a lake or a wet place, it should be labelled wet. Wind going from the land to the sea should be labelled dry. Areas where the jet stream goes from the ocean to land should be labelled wet until it turns around a large high pressure system. Areas ahead of a cold or warm front should be labelled wet, the cold front area larger in summer and warm fromt larger in winter. If the area is especially close to the equator, both spring/autumns should be considered summer. If an upwelling of air occurs near both the sea and the land, that area should be labelled wet. If upper-level winds go from the sea at an upwelling of air towards the land at moderate or high elevations, those areas should be labelled wet. Extremely large supercontinents should be labelled dry near the middle. Create lines denoting areas of equal precipitation for the particular month. Adjust the amount or precipitation of areas between wet and dry based on the global wetness at the era.
 * temperatures
 * If there is a large polar ice sheet on land, they are always cold, but warmer in summer than in winter. In polar areas, ocean should generally be warmer than land. Dips towards the poles should be warm, dips equatorward should be cooler. Mountains and higher elevation should generally be colder than surroundings. Temperate wet areas should be cooler than surroundings in spring and summer, and warmer in autumn and winter. Tropical wet areas should be cooler, tropical warm areas warmer. High pressure should be cooler if cold and warmer if warm. Low pressure should be warmer if cold, cooler if warm. Downwind from leeward side of mountains should be warmer. Poleward surface winds should be warmer, equatorward cooler. Consider the average global temperatures during that era and which areas are at which temperatures, create isotherms accordingly.
 * ecosystems and biomes
 * The ecosystems should be drawn on one map. Base it similarly to the modified Koppen system. If the total rainfall is very low for the four seasons, label it desert. Slightly wetter areas semidesert. Polar reigons, if there are glaciers, label it ice, if it’s cold and dry all year, label it tundra. If it’s sometimes warm in polar reigons and moderate precipitation, label it boreal forest. If a tropical area is warm and wet, label it rainforest. Label monsoonal reigons accorgingly and also based on their total precipitation. Label deserts hot and cold. Keep doing this according to both the climate in the areas and the likely biomes in the area.
 * final thoughts

non-medical placebos?
Hi. I know when you apply a treatment and convince the patient it will work and it works, that's a placebo, what what about non-medical, ie. the power of suggestion? Like for example, if you go into a dark house, and someone convinces you it's haunted, then suddenly you start experiencing signs of "ghosts" when it's really your mind playing tricks on you based on the suggestion, what is this effect called? Or, if you convince yourself you're sick, but you're really not, and you begin to experince what you think are "symptoms" of some sickness? Thanks. ~ A   H   1  (T C U) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are thinking of psychosomatic or conversion disorder --Omnipotence407 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: nocebo effect, suggestion, hypnotism.
 * You might also try confirmation bias or hypochondria. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Random outbursts give people cancer"?!?
Hi. This is not a request for medical advice. Is this possible? Or was this a sarcastic joke or itself a random outburst? Or is it brain cancer? Is the joke about "if your hand is bigger than your head, you have cancer" solely in order to slam the victim's hand into their face? Or was this question a random outburst? Thanks. ~ A   H   1  (T C U) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Complete and utter hoax.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe they meant random outbursts of gamma rays. And yes, the thing about your hand is so that you can hit someone on the nose. That's it. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Goatse - how does he do that with his butt?
How did the Goatse man manage to get his rectum so insanely stretchy? Is there a likely medical explanation for it (I saw a guy who could stretch his skin about two feet from his body on tv once, maybe its the same thing), or was it just a "gift" he was born with? How do you go about discovering that you can do that anyway? --62.136.16.236 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you can bet he probably started small and worked his way up. If you view the whole series (not recommended), you'll see that he inserts extremely large objects into his rear before doing the classic pose. That's got to help, if that's your goal. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's actually a martial art perfected by the Chinese monk Goa Tse. See here.  bibliomaniac  1   5  01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Eww!! That's uncyclopedia!!!!!!


 * As can be seen in slideshow form at http://www.goatsemarathon.com (obviously not worksafe). I've sometimes wondered if his internet antics (legendary they may be) have affected his continence. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to self: When 98.217.18.109 says "not recommended", you don't need to check for yourself. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been years since I've seen it yet I can remember some of the scenes like it was yesterday. It's one of those visual memories you sort of resent having semi-permanently burned into your brain somewhere. Also, re: speculation about his health, I doubt that's a terribly good thing to do for your body and probably has a number of long-term side effects. That's not medical advice though I doubt any doctor would recommend doing that. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Men who engage long-term in normal (well, normal for some) receptive anal intercourse (let alone grotesque activities such as fisting) often end up with continence problems because of the weakening of the muscles. What this guy has done to himself ... I'm lost for words. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, being familiar with all matters Down Under, speaks wisely. If this practice hasn't already wrecked him, I'm confident it soon will. I'd wager that traditional medicine would frown on this practice, but holistic medicine would open up to it, perhaps. StuRat (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know if the Down Under comment was accidental Stu, but its hilarious nevertheless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.144.62 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, would you be speaking from experience or is it just fist wishful thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.144.62 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Might it cause a Fist ula? Edison (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds odd - but I think that the internet would probably be a poorer place without the Goatse Man. He's inspired a lot of people to do creative, humourous and culture jamming-related things over the years - just take a look at all those 'tribute to Goatse' and 'Goatse sightings in the real world' pages. Heh, Time Magazine may have even placed a deliberate nod to him on one of their covers... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most people believe the goatse man is Kirk Johnson. If you are sick enough to compare his vast collection of photos and videos to the official goatse photo, it is difficult to imagine that Kirk is not the goatse man. So, now that you have a good idea who he is, you search for his email address and ask him about his practices. Who knows, he may have written books or produced do-it-yourself videos. -- k a i n a w  &trade; 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the goatse man is dead. In fact just Google that phrase (goatse man is dead) and you'll find plenty of links, none of which I'm going to attempt to visit from my workplace computer. -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you heard a story about him dying at the age of 70-something, that was from a hoax newspaper article knocked up by the boys at Stileproject years ago. If he died recently, I haven't heard anything about it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Years of stretching; you can do it with almost any part of your body. Mac Davis (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

psa levels
can alchohol consumption effect psa levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon julie (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If people didn't drink so much, there wouldn't be so many public service announcements about drunk driving and so forth. I hope this answers your question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To translate, "psa" could refer to anything on this page. Could you please (a) work out which one you're talking about, (b) check the article about it to see if it mentions the effect of alcohol, and (c) if it doesn't, feel free to come back here and clarify what you meant. And the grammar freak in me would like to point out that the word you probably meant to use was affect, although context may prove effect correct. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed my joke, but he's probably referring to Prostate specific antigen levels.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed it too, and I agree that that's the likely candidate, but you know what they say about people who assume. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don’t assume that we know what they say. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ass u me--Shniken1 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Well, it is something about a donkey, it is a stupid American phrase!" &mdash; Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

About Albert Einstien (E=mc^2)
On deriving E=mc², did Einstien also come to know how to travel with the speed of light by converting mass into energy (energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation) and back to mass? i.e, did he know how to travel so fast that one could almost 'dissappear' from one place and 'appear' at another place almost at the same time?59.95.77.132 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The short answer is no, certainly not for "everyday" objects - there is usually an irreversible increase in entropy when mass is converted to energy. But see our article on teleportation for recent developments. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * E=mc² wasn't a process for extracting energy, it was an upper bound on the energy that might be extracted by any process. Prior to this the only way you could quantify energy was by the amount converted from one form to another. You could extract work from a substance by converting it into something else, but (aside from thermodynamic limitations) it was never clear whether you'd gotten all the work you could get out of it or whether there was some yet-undiscovered way of getting more. Einstein's argument suggested that an object of (inertial) mass m had a total of mc² energy, meaning that that was the most you could ever extract — after that there would be nothing left of the original object. It said nothing about whether there was actually any physical process that could extract that much energy. However at the time people had already noticed that radioactive substances seemed to release an enormous amount of energy — though very slowly — and I think people imagined or hoped that by studying and harnessing this process they could get the full mc² energy out of ordinary matter. It's now known that this isn't correct — radioactivity is just another kind of chemical process, involving nuclear bonds instead of atomic bonds, and just rearranges the constituents of matter without creating or destroying them — but nuclear energy seems to be permanently associated with E=mc² in the public consciousness. It's also now known that you can't turn the basic constituents of matter into useful energy without violating various conservation laws. Actually all of the laws that you need to violate seem to be only approximate, but the situations in which they're violated are pretty extreme, and it's very hard for me to believe that you could ever construct a useful (and safe!) power source this way. You can get plenty of energy from nuclear chemistry alone, and for that you just need the laws of nuclear chemistry, not E=mc². So although E=mc² is of major theoretical importance, it's not relevant to any practical technology. -- BenRG (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuclear fission and radioactivity are not chemical processes. Nuclear chemistry covers different aspects of a nuclear power plant to the actual energy production. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, massive particles such as beta particles, neutrinos and antineutrinos are created in radioactive decay. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And, uh, E=mc^2 is relevant to practical technology. There is a real mass differential between U-235 and its fission products, and the energy resulting from the fission reaction (mostly in the form of the kinetic energy of the repelling fission pieces) corresponds exactly to that "missing mass" times the speed of light squared. It comes into play in fusion reactions as well. To say nothing of atomic weapons! It's not an accident or an error that the public associate E=mc^2 with nuclear energy. Fission doesn't violate any conservation laws — total energy of the system is conserved even if some of it is in the form of nuclear bonds and then it becomes kinetic energy, etc. It does violate conservation of mass, but all of SR does that, and that's OK. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me if it' snot a good idea....
...to make an air filter based on the design of the human nose. That is, it would consist of several long tubes filled with fibers (nose hairs) extending from the walls, coated with a thick fluid dripping from the walls onto the fibers. Air would be blown through the tubes. The nostrils would need to be occasionally cleaned, perhaps with a silicone corkscrew that could be run through them once a day. Some type of antibacterial solution would need to be used in the drip, to prevent nasties from growing in it. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Snot for me my friend. Who gets to work the corkscrew? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose the high-end models could have this function automated. On the other hand, if the liquid drips through quickly enough, that may clean the nostrils out sufficiently without needing a corkscrew. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Underemployed telephone sanitisers.


 * Atlant (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The nose is not designed primarily as a filter, and it doesn't make a particularly good one. I don't think we're gonna see this on Dragons' Den in the near future.--Shantavira|feed me 08:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Citation please? Seems to me that noses are excellent filters. I don't know about you but whenever I'm inside where the air quality is lower, I'm breathing through my nose to filter our some of the dust etc. And yes the nose is of course an excellent olefactory device, but if I were to posit its main functions, smell would be 1A and getting filtered oxygen to the lungs would be 1B. Vranak (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is actually done. Many mechanical air filters are coated with a water-soluable "stickum". They then server their purpose for a while, get dirty, are washed up, recoated, and placed back in service for another cycle. Light oil is also used but requires a detergent or solvent during the washing-up phase. My sports car has just such a filter.

Atlant (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This wouldn't be much different than blowing air past one of those hanging fly-strips and hoping all the nasties get stuck to it. They don't. You have two things working against you. You need an adhesive that will trap everything - which will be difficult to find. The adhesive cannot dry out as air blows past - which will be difficult to find. -- k a i n a w  &trade; 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think any filter removes 100% of the particulates from the air with each pass. As for drying out, my idea was to have a reservoir of liquid which slowly drips over the fibers. To make the fluid last longer, it should be oil-based instead of water-based. Glue traps for mice use such an adhesive, and they stay tacky for quite a long time. To do double duty, the dripping oil could have a nice scent to it, like cinnamon or mint, to provide "aromatherapy" at the same time it cleans the air. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This makes me wonder about bubbling air up through a reservoir of sticky oil. By the time the bubble hits the top, much of the gunk will get stuck. No need to clean anything. Just dump out the reservoir and refill as necessary. -- k a i n a w  &trade; 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That might work, or it might just make a thick foam that fills the entire house. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't Kainaw's idea simular to how a bong works? However, those use water and get gunky relatively quickly. Some of our inventions based off nature work quite well (velcro) while others not so well (Ornithopter). But as for this invention...who nose? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference is that bubbles containing water quickly pop as the water evaporates, but this is not so for bubbles made of oil. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations you’ve made it onto my list. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

volume of space
may we say that the space has afinite volume but infinite surface,like Gabriel`s horn???thank youHusseinshimaljasimdini (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can say anything you like. It's a free Internet. However, there are existing arguments about what constitutes the "end" of space. Is it infinite? Does it have a boundary? Does it wrap back upon itself? -- k a i n a w  &trade; 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If space has infinite volume I would surmise that it has infinite dimension (radius?) and so would come to the conclusion that the outer surface would have infinte area. Nevertheless the concept of an outer surface of infinite radius is a difficult one to consider.87.102.94.198 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The general belief is that physical space doesn't have a boundary at all. -- BenRG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Husseinshimaljasimdini - I am not clear what you mean by "infinite surface". You seem to be assuming that the Universe has a boundary. As BenRG says, all common models for the topology of the Universe assume that the Universe does not have a boundary (don't be misled by the use of the word "horn" in models such as the Picard horn). On the other hand, you say that "space has a finite volume". Some observations of possible periodicities in the cosmic microwave background hint at a finite universe but this is not certain, and there are still plausible models in which the Universe is infinite. Possibly when you say "space" you may be thinking of the observable universe (which is finite) rather than the whole Universe ? Our article on the shape of the Universe has more details. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC).I got it .thank you all.Husseinshimaljasimdini (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In case it was not clear, the original question referenced Gabriel's Horn, a known mathematical paradox; the unique shape of this figure results in infinite area surrounding a finite volume. I don't think this shape is widely regarded as a good analogy for the universe as we know it. Nimur (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

buisness
what is the importance of buisness to the society?nipet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipet (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at The Wealth of Nations. It will point you in the right direction. – Clockwork Soul 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gases "dissolved" in liquids; fish breathing
Can someone explain to me, in layman's terms, how exactly oxygen is dissolved in sea water and how fish breathe with their gills? Is the oxygen in sea water in the form of tiny bubbles, which the fish's gills suck into their bloodstream in the same way that land animals absorb oxygen through their lungs? Or is the oxygen somehow chemically bound to water or other molecules in sea water as it is to hemoglobin in the blood, in which case the fish's gills would presumably perform a chemical reaction? Or is there some other mechanism involved? Thanks! Marco polo (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Refer to solubility. To put it in very simple terms, consider water as being composed of many small particles (molecules) of water. These particles nonetheless have a lot of space between them, and molecules of oxygen are able to fill some of that empty space. This is the oxygen dissolving in the water. The way the oxygen then gets transferred into a fish's bloodstream is a similar process to how lungs work. Water is passed over the gills, and the oxygen diffuses into the blood where it is at a lower concentration than in the water. It doesn't require a chemical reaction on the gills to extract the oxygen. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nitpick: diffusion across a cell membrane, in this case that of the gill's cells, is called osmosis. --Bowlhover 15:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't osmosis mean the water is diffusing, not the oxygen? DMacks (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well water is made partially of oxygen (It's H2O) but I don't think that is how they do it. I'm sure there is oxygen that is disolved in the water (not in the form of bubbles otherwise fish could breath out of water) but liquid, if that makes sense. I'm not sure how this happens since oxygen has to be REALLY cold before it becomes a liquid on its own. I wouldn't mind hearing an answer to this also. EDIT: Oh hey an answer TheGreatZorko (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * jjron's answer covers that aspect fairly well. As for how the air is initially dissolved in water, there are several mechanisms. Wave action at the surface forces tiny bubbles into the water, which then dissolve into the water. Plants in the water also give off oxygen as a result of photosynthesis, which is then dissolved in the water. Even still water with no plant life will absorb some oxygen at the surface. Ocean currents are critical to the distribution of this dissolved oxygen, which otherwise would be at a much higher concentration near the surface than deep underwater. Note that other gases in air, like nitrogen and carbon dioxide, also dissolve in water. There is an occasional problem where an area of water is low on oxygen, creating a dead zone. Aquariums which lack wave action or sufficient plants often add oxygen to the water by bubbling air through it. StuRat (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * oxygen has to be REALLY cold before it becomes a liquid on its own
 * Doesn't matter. Salt has to be REALLY hot before it melts into a liquid on its own, but you have no problem with salt dissolving in water, right? — Keenan Pepper 14:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out Lake Nyos for an interesting gas-dissolved-in-water story. --Sean 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the Lake Nyos article several times before, and I can't help but wonder at the thought processes and value systems I see. I'd support the "lower the level" plan a lot more cheerfully if all of the planners' children lived downstream. Lowering the pressure, without reducing the gas load, seems, well, unwise. I mean, they already have a vent pipe which works on it's own, powered solely by the rising gases coming out of solution. The vent pretty much proves that we've figured out what we're dealing with. So, given that kind of supersaturation, what happens to the immense pressure in the lower levels if the water level is lowered by the proposed 20m? You are dropping the pressure by about 5 atmospheres, which will, incidentally, allow some of the dissolved gas down there to come out on it's own, and the rising bubbles will probably cause the impending-disaster-to-be-prevented to happen right then and there. I know, take it to the discussion page. -SandyJax (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "lower the level" plan has nothing to do with dissolved gas. It's about preventing a landslide and resulting flood that could kill tens of thousands. --Carnildo (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and it will create another massive gas outpour, which will....wait for it...kill tens of thousands. It might be a good idea AFTER the pumps have lowered the supersaturation level of the deep water. -SandyJax (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw a movie where a pressurised water suit had a large amount of oxygen disolved in it. Can you breath water if enough oxygen is disolved in it?--155.144.251.120 (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See liquid breathing. DMacks (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Water can't absorb nearly enough oxygen to support a mammal. If you're thinking about the film "The Abyss", then they were not breathing water, but some sort of super-oxygenated fluid like perfluorocarbon. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good day, Oxygen is soluble in water. To absorb that oxygen, fishes take a gulp of water and force it out of their gills. Their Gills consists of tiny, fibrous filaments (increase Surface area to volume). These filaments are held up by gill bars which have more tiny individual lamallae which are even smaller (yet again more Surface area to volume ratio). The lamallae is the part of the gills that does the absorbing because it is very thin (few cells thin) so oxygen is easily diffused into the body via a steep concentration gradient difference between O2 outside the lamallae and inside the lamalle, and just right underneath the lamallae are vast networks of capillaries to absorb the oxygen and transport it to the rest of the body where oxygen is needed through the aid of the heart's pumping action. Consequently it is the opposite when Co2 needed to be diffused out through a concentration gradient through the lammale.Hey mrs tee (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

International Space Station
So far the international space station has always housed 3 crew members. When the ISS is finished, will it house more crew members. (I don't believe our article says; I read through it but it is possible I missed it). ike9898 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this SPACE.com article, the final crew capacity will be six or seven people. --Bowlhover 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometime during Expedition 19 next year, the crew will increase from 3 to 6. anonymous6494 05:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

IV nurse (medicine)
A question from Germany: What is an "IV nurse"? I have heared it in Grey's Anatomy ("IV nurse to ICU") What is "LR"? - a medical acronym. ("two liter LR running wide open") (Kind of a liquid for i.v. application to substitute a volume deficit.) --84.137.46.213 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't a IV nurse a nurse who knows how to do intravenous therapy? --Bowlhover 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * and also assigned to carry out IV therapy, as opposed to other duties. (If five nurses are on a single hospital floor, they may all know how to do IV therapy, but only one might be assigned to be the IV nurse). - Nunh-huh 02:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LR is lactated Ringer's solution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fast answers. --84.137.46.213 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the night-blooming vegetables?
We are interested in a comprehensive list of night-blooming vegetables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webstergl (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you include herbs, you might like to look into these: Silver Thyme, 'Alba' or white Eggplant, white pumpkins, Basil, Mint, Oregano according to. Silver or reflective foliage and white fruits seem to be indicators. Bats and moths the agents. Are you thinking of starting an article here? hint hint Julia Rossi (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you include fruit, don't forget pineapple. — Keenan Pepper 05:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

if cocaine is just a molecule, why dont peeple synthesize it?
so if cocaine is just a molecule (picture to the right in that article) why don't peeple synthesize it, like they do with meth or lsd, which are also molecules right? why go thru all the trouble of stuffing it up some immigrants butt excuse my french to get it past border control thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.103.78 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because synthesizing it takes time, effort, and some technical know how.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even LSD and methamphetamine have starting materials, and those happen to be quite readily available. But as mentioned in Cocain, creating a drug from scratch would be difficult, problematic, and also very expensive. The only answer I can give you is to guess that unlike the other two drugs, there are simply no possible starting materials that occur naturally (or in pharmacies) in sufficient quantity to make synthesis cheaper than smuggling. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Well, sneaking it past border patrol is actually pretty cost-effective for cocaine, which has a very high street value for its relatively small volumes, unlike LSD and methamphetamines (cocaine costs roughly 10X that for the same volume of meth, if I recall). So you only have to smuggle a small amount to make up for the price of smuggling and the dangers associated. In any case, there is a section on synthesis in the article: Cocaine. It's not cited but it sounds plausible to me: "Synthetic cocaine would be highly desirable to the illegal drug industry, as it would eliminate the high visibility and low reliability of offshore sources and international smuggling, replacing them with clandestine domestic laboratories, as are common for illicit methamphetamine. However, natural cocaine remains the lowest cost and highest quality supply of cocaine. Actual full synthesis of cocaine is rarely done. Formation of inactive enantiomers and synthetic by-products limits the yield and purity."--98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Of course, I am aware that the cost of the drug is directly related to the availability. But I'm just pointing out that when the price is that high the smuggling isn't all that bad a method, even though, of course, the price is that high in part because smuggling is the method.) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer to these types of questions is almost always "Because it's not cost effective". If people could make big money synthesizing cocaine, they would presumably already be doing it. Friday (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An important part of the answer is that setting up a cocaine-synthesis plant would require a lot of up-front investment for an uncertain return, while paying somebody to smuggle it doesn't require much investment at all. --69.134.115.242 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, but there is still investment on smuggling. The cocaine doesn't just make itself (or bribe officials, or hide from the Americans, or whatever). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically same reason as there is no industrial-scale synthesis of caffeine - it can be synthesised, but it is cheaper to extract it from organic sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The organic pool is always an atractive source for compounds. The other point is that synthesis requires skilled people who will get less dangerous jobs elsewhere.--Stone (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Caffeine suggests that caffeine as an additive is sometimes or maybe even often/usually synthetic. But Caffeine says (and cites) that it's so easy to extract (and so much is extracted anyway) that it's usually natural. DMacks (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cocaine suggests there are problems with current methods. It's likely that these could be solves but as people have already mentioned, existing natural sources are good enough that there is I presume no incentive. Note that the those in charge of the grower side of supply as well as anything else that would be affected by synthesis would obviously not be happy with any threat to their profit and may actively supress any attempts to develop methods to sythesise cocaine if they expect they will be significiantly cut out from the new market Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)