Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 January 21

= January 21 =

Surface roughness
if two tubes one of steel and other of Zr-4 is coswaged is it possible to get 0.1 microns gap cosidering there suface roughness also?203.199.205.25 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what Zr-4 is (do you mean Zircaloy-4 (Zry-4)?) or exactly how you plan to swage the two, but this link may help you. It discusses the surface roughness height for steel produced by different methods. Since 4 microinches is about .1 micron you are going to need to get a very very very smooth set of tubing. If you are talking about Zircaloy-4 when you mean ZR-4, I stumbled across some micrographs from an electrode corrosion test. In the tests, it was found that Zircaloy-4 is susceptible to forming corrosion films which have surface irregularities which eyeballing the pictures appear to be on the order of a micron or so in height. That could be a problem depending on what exactly you are using the tubing for. From experience, stainless steel hypodermic tubing with a net diameter difference of 25.4 microns threads cleanly and slides easily but definitely not frictionlessly. I am going to guess that on the level of .1 micron the surface irregularities are going to be significant. I am no expert on this so I would suggest asking someone who has done this sort of thing or simply trying it out if it isn't difficult and you have materials and methods on hand. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BATTERY
BATTERY THAT CAN BE CHARGED WITHIN 30 SECONDS FOR 2 HOURS WITH 5000V OR MORE VOLTAGE SUPPLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.4.227 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently that battery is MAKING YOU SHOUT. Now, do you have a question, or did you merely want to scream at us about your battery?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you start with Rechargeable battery and Battery charger. I am not sure what your question is because you seem to have omitted the first word. If your question is, "Can a battery be charged within 30 seconds for 2 hours with 5000V or more?" the answer is no. Attempting to recharge many types of rechargeable batteries with a voltage of that magnitude is likely to irreparably damage the battery via excessive heating. Additionally, the battery could also explode. According to rechargeable battery, Duracell and Rayovac now sell chargers that can charge AA- and AAA-size NiMH batteries in just 15 minutes. It is good online etiquette to not use all-capital letters when writing because it is interpreted as yelling. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(following EC) ::Sounds like an awful lot of juice and a very short time. Couldn't you charge a capacitor first and then design your circuit to take your merry time to charge the battery?? I'm also not quite sure If I understand your question correctly: You are trying to find out whether there's a rechargeable battery that will supply in excess of 5kV for 2 hrs. That would most likely be a (huge) battery array, but with that many you are likely to run in to all sorts of strange effects because of internal resistance. Electrolysis of water and Fuel cell might help. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't say how much current you need this thing to source or at what voltage...that's a crucial question! It certainly sounds like you need a supercapacitor rather than a battery. If you need to source a lot of current then putting that much energy in one place so quickly means that any inefficiency within the battery/capacitor is going to get turned into heat. So if the charging process is even a tiny bit inefficient (say it's 80% efficient - so 20% of the energy gets turned into heat) - then the battery is going to get insanely hot - and presumably destroy itself. When you charge more slowly, the battery has time to radiate that heat naturally and it's not much of a problem...but even batteries that recharge over hours do get noticably hot during the process. If you shorten that time to 30 seconds then all of that heat is still created - but all at the same time! This will get the thing so hot that it'll literally melt (that's if the liquids inside don't boil or otherwise explode). So you need to find a supremely efficient solution that'll keep the heat down - or you'll need to consider some kind of active cooling approach. You could also consider other means to store the energy. For example, you would wind up a spring in a clockwork motor or pump water to the top of a tower and let it flow back through a turbine. My long-case clock can be wound up in 30 seconds and runs the clock for a month - that (technically) meets your requirements - but without knowing how much current & voltage it has to generate, there is no way to know whether that would work for you. More information needed please! SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Any device which stores large amounts of energy is inherently dangerous. Things fall, explode, react chemically, cause electrocution, etc. High voltages are easy to get from batteres, by connecting lots of cells in series. Humphry Davy built a primary (non-rechargeable) battery of 2000 cells of zinc and copper way back in 1808, which likely produced 2000 volts or so and could supply it for an extended time if the current draw was small. It could supply about 3 kilowatts. Lead-acid batteries provide about 2.1 volts per cell, so 2500 cells would suffice. It would be pretty dangerous and there would be a great danger of death or injury from electric shock. The 30 second recharge demand is unrealistic. You could use other forms of energy storage, such as putting current into a Superconducting magnetic energy storage, charging a capacitor, spinning up a flywheel, winding a spring, compressing air, lifting a weight, heating up a thermal storage mass, or adding chemical fuel to a device. Edison (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Plastic In Bandy Balls
What kind of plastic makes up Bandy balls? Are they hollow? Please look at the description :

"To the rightmost a modern, plastic bandy ball." 96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more info from our Swedish page: The thing is 60 mm in diameter and weighs 60g. Maybe OP could find s.o. who speaks Russian and see what the Russian page / googling in Russian will give him. If you trust this article  new balls in Sweden are 2.4 mm thick, it doesn't say whether that's just a coating or whether they're hollow. That's barely a tenth of an inch. They're also a tad bigger at 62.4 mm76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bandy balls are not hollow, the inside is cork. Usually, I should add, since the official rules only require that the ball shall be made of an "approved material". Here is an article, in Swedish but with pictures, about bandy balls being made in Sweden out of cork and PVC plastic. --Rallette (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And as to that Aftonbladet article, it is actually about a dispute in the Swedish bandy league over the size of the ball. The ball used to be 60 mm in diameter, but this was increased in 2001 to 62,4 mm for better audience and television visibility. One team refused to use the new ball, but the bigger size is now official. So the 2.4 mm is just that increase in diameter, not the thickness of the plastic.--Rallette (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We had this question just the other day - but I'll repeat the answer (and repost the photo at right showing the stages of construction): They are made of cork, covered with a "knitted" material that looks like some sort of knotted rope and then painted with a thick coat of red paint.  As far as I can tell from our article - they are not made of plastic at all - although there may be unofficial practice balls or something that aren't made "properly". SteveBaker (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The description on that picture's page says the ball on the far right is a modern, plastic bandy ball. -- Mad031683  (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may well be they're made or have been made in a number of different ways; my answer was mainly based on that newspaper article about the major Swedish manufacturer (Jofa), who make them by spraying a shell of PVC onto the cork core. This also squares with my personal experience with bandy balls: the ones I've seen and handled (and even played with, this all brings back some awkward schoolday memories) have been of the plastic coated kind. I imagine the process described by SteveBaker is the original or old-fashioned way, and the knobbly surface of today's balls is an imitation of the result.--Rallette (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

penicillin test
--Milkbreath (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether this is a medical advice request is being debated here: . StuRat (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

747-400 seat cushion dimensions
What is the depth of a Thai Airways Boeing 747-400 ecomony class aircraft cushion? I need the measurement from the front of the seatback to the front of the seat cushion, NOT the pitch.Sarahonthemove (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are different seat dimensions for different airlines, unfortunatley. Each airline has the 747-400 constructed to their specs. American Airlinesloves to boast of their extra leg room in economy class. I, personally, have struggled to locate these mysterious few extra inches. :-) Operator873 (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Depleted uranium
Is ever used for the core of bowling balls? Thankyou. --90.240.55.65 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally doubt it. Bowling balls simply don't require the density. Even making the ball's core from mostly iron would be enough Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)For example Bowling ball says they're 21.6cm. Even assuming the inner core is only 16cm that would give a volume of 4/3 pi 8 cm^3 i.e. 2.14466058 liters. Taking the density of iron at RT from our article that is, 7.874 g/cubic centimetre we end up with nearly 17 kg. That is already a lot heavier then "Regulation ten-pin bowling balls must weigh no more than 16 pounds (7.2 kg)". While I appreciate some are constructed in somewhat different fashion then just having a solid core of weight, clearly you don't need the density given by depleted uranium. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I know what he was thinking, cuz I was thinking it too... no way right? Then I got to looking and searching... And then I nearly puked. Are You Kidding Me? (Click Here). Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause... and an "Enriched Uranium Bowling Ball" with a core made of U235. Wow... I'm left speechless by this... Upon further mental reasoning... U235 Uranium core has got to be a marketing gimic. U235 is radioactive with a halflife of 700 million years. Nevermind, I feel better now. Operator873 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg forgiveness from all Wikipedians out there. I don't know what to say to explain my lack of mathmatical and realistic reasoning. In a famous word, "oooopsieee." Operator873 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The benefit to using depleted uranium (or any other denser material) would be a reduction in the moment of inertia of the ball whilst remaining in the legal range of ball weights. As Nil Einne points out, you can easily reach the maximum allowed weight with very conventional materials - but if you used something with greater density, you could concentrate that mass in the center of the ball rather than distributing it through a larger part of the volume of the ball.  The result would be a ball that ought to be much more responsive to spin - it would change direction more easily as friction 'grabs' it and it would be easier to impart more spin onto the ball when you start it rolling.  So I can definitely see an advantage for better players to have a denser center even if the ball remains at the legal maximum.
 * Sadly, our article on bowling balls doesn't say what their centers are currently made from. If they are already using (say) lead - then the benefits of switching to depleted uranium would perhaps be quite significant in allowing more spin to be applied.  If you are riding the competitive edge, it might make the difference. Lead has a density of 11gcm-3 and uranium is up at 19gcm-3 (about the same as gold)...we should probably calculate how much that would help the "spinability" of a 16lb ball...but I'm not going to because I'm feeling lazy today!  Osmium would be the most dense "practical" choice - at 22gcm-3 it's even denser than gold...sadly, if you buy Osmium from these guys it's going to cost you $880,000 to get 16lbs of Osmium oxide...which you'd have to refine...so you might want to stick with the Uranium!  The ultimate would be a Hassium-centered ball.  Hassium is more than twice as dense as uranium or gold...of course it's not going to be cheap since it has to be made atom by atom in a nuclear reactor...and it's radioactive as all hell...and it's going to turn back into lead within an hour or two...unless 16lbs is more than it's critical mass - in which case what you have is more of an atom bomb than a bowling ball(!)...but for that championship game where the slightest edge matters, nothing else can beat it.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Does blowing up the bowling alley (and most of the surrounding city) count as a strike? --Tango (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. You're certainly unlikely to risk a 7-10 split - but sadly it risks a counter-strike. SteveBaker (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Years of researching this matter by watching the Loony Toons has taught me that no matter how badly the bowling ally is demolished, in the middle of the rubble, at least one pin will still be standing. It may be badly scorched. It may be wobbling. But it will not fall. APL (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you're familiar with my bowling style! SteveBaker (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Natural Polymers
I need a conclusion on the topic Natural Polymers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.15.143 (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without seeing your essay it's impossible to give a conclusion 78.146.113.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC).


 * We don't have an article on natural polymers - but if you do a search on the term, you'll find that there is a lot of material on the topic scattered throughout the encyclopedia.


 * Natural rubber might be a good place to start, but perhaps not the best place to conclude. StuRat (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also the ubiquitous carbohydrate and protein, the two types of polymers used by organisms to fill structural (and a myriad of other) roles. If you're not just looking for structural functions, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the nucleic acid polymers, RNA and DNA. – ClockworkSoul 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed these, which may be helpful: biopolymer and bioplastic. They need some love, but you may find them helpful. – ClockworkSoul 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have almost completed my project on Natural Polymers, I just need a conclusion. The sub-topics were Nucleic acids, natural rubber, protein, cellulose and chitin. It mainly contains structure, characteristics and their uses. All I need is a conclusion. Any ideas?59.93.1.19 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's the old standby "life itself would be impossible without X". Of course, there are a huge number of things which can be argued to fall under category X. (And, of course, natural rubbers may have also prevented quite a few lives. :-) ) StuRat (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Iris Depigmentation
Is there a disease or condition in which the iris in the eye will slowly depigmentate (years), especially in teens or young adults? I am aware of what glaucoma can do to the elderly..... --Emyn ned (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a nutritional deficiency could also cause this. Also, glaucoma doesn't always just affect the elderly.  StuRat (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

--Emyn ned (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lingual Frenectomy in Adults?
I have asked this question recently but was never answered. I am asking what are the medical benefits, if any, for adult lingual frenectomy? Are there any sound medical reasons an adult would need this, not want this? --Emyn ned (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read Lingual frenectomy? --Tango (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Better question, have you? --Emyn ned (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The one benefit they listed which might apply to adults is to "help improve speech". However, this, and any other benefits, would only apply if there's some abnormality to begin with. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the article in Wiki only refers to children or infants. Did I misread it? It is possible...--Emyn ned (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't specify that the speech improvement only applies to children. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article in Wiki says: "This is used to treat a tongue tied patient. Immediately after this minor oral surgery, the tongue can often dramatically extend out of the mouth which it could not do before. This can help reduce breastfeeding complications, help improve speech and promote proper tooth arch development."

The last sentence implies that everything else stated was referring to infants. I realize that adults can be tongue tied, but the article does not imply that at all. If the Ref Desk doesn't know the answer to my question, that's all right. No need to conjecture. It is possible that adult Lingual Frenectomy is only done for aesthetic reasons. --Emyn ned (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While breastfeeding complications and tooth arch development would seem to refer to children, that doesn't mean the speech improvement does (although, in most cases it will do - why wait until adulthood to fix a speech impediment?). --Tango (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am only referring to reading comprehension here. The article clearly implies children only despite your opinion that the article references adult speech impediment. All in all, the article ONLY refers this procedure as performed on children. Please let's not fight about what you think the article should state. Besides Tango, do you have a direct answer to my original direct question? Do you have any knowledge or expertise in oral surgery in general? --Emyn ned (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW Tango, don't confuse my bluntness for rudeness. I do actually want to know if you have any knowledge or expertise in oral surgery in general.  I would like to know which volunteer takes the most medical/biological questions on this board. --Emyn ned (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Woah - slow down here. We're all just volunteers - we're not REQUIRED to answer your question.  If you need an answer from an expert in oral surgery then this is a question of a medical nature that we are emphatically NOT allowed to answer.  If it's just general curiosity then please listen to the volunteers because they are amongst the smartest people you'll ever meet AND they have this incredible encyclopedia at their fingertips which they know how to use effectively.  There is also an element of common sense here.  So chill out - stop arguing with the very people you're asking to help - listen to what they have to say and take away whatever nuggets of truth you wish.  If you don't want to do that - then please feel free to head over to Yahoo Answers] and seek the truth there.  Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SteveBaker, in that case, Tango and the rest of the Ref Desk volunteers should state "we're not REQUIRED to answer your question". I can't listen to the volunteers because they are not speaking. However, I can READ their responses. And in response to your comment "they are amongst the smartest people you'll ever meet AND they have this incredible encyclopedia at their fingertips which they know how to use effectively", why does my original question remain unanswered? Any reason will suffice. BTW - I was already chilled. I wanted to point out to Tango that reading comprehension should be required when responding to questions.

In the meantime, do you have an answer to my question or did you just want to bite OP's? --Emyn ned (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC


 * I couldn't find any relevant Pubmed or Google references for this in adults. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for the focus on treatment of children in the phrase you quoted might be because that's the most common application of the procedure. Medicine is compartmentalized into pediatrics, geriatrics and the like to allow practitioners and researchers to focus on the most relevant factors.  The medical professions try to prevent or counteract an impairment as close to it's onset as possible.  The more is known about a condition and the longer treatments have been around the closer to early intervention you get.  That means that if the known onset is in childhood or prenatal there are fewer adult sufferers who remained untreated and treatment and new developments are going to be focused on young patients and treatment in the womb.  Information on such conditions will reflect that.  An article on Alzheimer's disease on the other hand will rarely contain information on treatment in children.  OR When the Allergy wave hit I used to be frustrated by having to wade through tons of information on treatment of children and babies.  So I sympathize if you find the sentence you quoted frustrating.  Information on application of the procedure in adults may be hard to come by.  If you do find something you could add a paragraph to the article.  If it is indeed rarely done, be sure to identify that by adding something line "In rare cases..."  76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Emyn ned, my impression is that you don't realize that some of your responses are very off-putting. Not sure whether this is helpful, but please realize that folks on the RefDesk are well-intentioned and well-informed as a rule.  This is not a medical advice forum, it is a Reference Desk for Science questions.  People have tried to be helpful within the guidelines we have, so if you're not satisfied with the answer please don't criticize.  Please assume good faith.  --Scray (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Emyn ned another thing you don't seem to appreciate is that the RD isn't like some single entity. It's possible someone could give a better answer but hasn't yet seen your question, or perhaps has but can't be bothered replying after seeing the way you responded. If you really need an answer so desperately, I believe there are one or two doctors around, I don't know if there are any whose expertise is in this area but if you offer to pay them I'm sure they could research the matter better. For that matter, even no experts could as well. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. This article while not a reliable source, suggests speech improvement is actually a common reason for adults seeking the surgery, contrary to your beliefs to the contrary. The good thing is, again despite your claims to the contrary, nothing in our article suggests it is the speech thing is for adult only. It also gives other reasons. Having said that, there's no evidence any of the reasons, even in children are really a case of need. Actually that applies to a lot of surgeries we're it comes down to a balance of the advantages and potential complications. If the advantages are overwhelming (e.g. a significant improvement of the quality of life) and the complications/disadvantages few for most people the choice is clear but unless your going to die without the surgery, it's difficult to say you need the surgery. Perhaps you're thinking of the definitions used, particularly by government funded health services and I guess insurance companies for elective surgery but even these are rather complicated Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The history of Medicine is littered with cases where surgeons have jumped in to "correct" things in children that seem abnormal - only to later discover that they weren't abnormal at all - or that fixing them wasn't necessary because the child would "grow out of it" later - or that the risk of the procedure exceeds the actual benefits. Hence (no doubt) there is extreme caution involved in leaping into something like this.  This may explain why the procedure isn't common in kids.  I would assume (without evidence) that the issue of whether to perform this surgery on kids or not would hinge on whether there were collateral developmental issues with not treating it early.  Does a child with this condition actually fail to learn intelligable speech such that when treated for it as an adult, the impairment continues after surgery corrects the anatomical problem?  If so then you'd expect there to be more research into treating children.  If the surgery is effective even when delayed into adulthood - then probably doctors will advise a 'wait and see' approach simply because adults survive surgery at better rates than little kids do.


 * Examples that I can think of are with cross-eyed babies...about 15 to 20 years ago, it was discovered that if that's not corrected within just a few months of birth, the child will never form the brain "circuitry" to perform adequate depth-perception - and even if the eyes straighten themselves out by (say) two years of age as they typically do. Just three or four years ago, the impairment was considered permenant and untreatable. Hence, early correction of cross-eyes in tiny babies is currently seen to be essential.  However, in just the last couple of years there have been a few cases of successful adult treatment - where certain exercises can allow someone with no effective depth perception to see in perfect 3D - research into brain plasticity tends to back this up.  It should now be expected that early intervention for cross-eyed babies would be regarded as a bad idea - it being better to let them un-cross naturally and to treat the resulting brain underdevelopment later.  In that case, we're right on the nexus of "OMFG! They treated all of those poor babies unnecessarily!"...having only recently gone through "OMFG!  We didn't treat this baby and now it's permenantly impaired!"...it's a tough business!


 * So - expect caution, and a firm adherence to the "First, Do No Harm" oath that doctors are (mythically, I think) supposed to swear to. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While not your fault given the way the discussion has progressed, I think you may have gotten confused. As far as I'm aware, the claim made by the OP, semi supported by the refs that the surgery is usually performed on children and the OP was demanding to know if there was any reason why an adult would need the surgery and if there was, why our article didn't say there was (even though our article didn't really comment on the age the surgery is performed). I don't know if I got this through or not but my point was the 1) It appears the surgery is performed on adults for at least one of the same reasons it is performed in children 2) Whether you can say they 'need' the surgery as opposed to 'want' the surgery is an extremely complicated issue since it's a continuum, there's no line between need and want and depends on how you classify each. On your point, from my brief look through the refs and wikipedia articles, it looks like there is some controversy of how often this surgery should be performed (and although I never saw any, I'm guessing there is also some discussion over whether it should be delayed to adulthood) which while an interesting ethical issue, not really one for the RD and AFAIK is not what the OP was asking. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All, found more info at this article ankyloglossia. Pretty much mirrors what Nil Einne wrote. Can we now end this discussion. I am tired of discussing and wasting space on how Steve Baker's feelings were so hurt. If you bite OP's, expect, once in a while, someone might bite back. --Emyn ned (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This snipping of the membrane under the tongue, if done badly, can result in a tongue which can be thrust out of the mouth to an unseemly extent, as in the case of am individual I know. Edison (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Total size of all Wikipedia articles
Please see Reference desk/Computing for duplicate question. Cycle~ (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This page seems to imply there are only 4330 people with >100 total edits? This seems really low to me, am I reading it right? Thanks Anythingapplied (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That page, which is 2+ years out of date, is referring to >100 edits per month in the column you are reading. Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Submarine motion
hai i am doing aeronautical engineering i suppose to do a working model of submarine is it possible to get the up and down motion of the submarine by using a elevator as in a aircraft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veeraraghavan.D (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (I added a header for your question.) I don't understand what you mean. Is it possible to have an elevator inside a submarine? Sure it is. But the "up and down motion" part is confusing -- an elevator isn't going to make the submarine rise or descend. (It doesn't do that in an aircraft, either.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about a passenger elevator ? I'm sure they meant elevator (aircraft). StuRat (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh... yeah. Never mind. Ahem. (Geez, it's not often that my English vocabulary fails me, but what the hell, here's something to file away for future reference...) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider yourself lucky, you managed to improve your vocab today. We should all strive for that every day. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ironically, if there was a passenger elevator on a sub, which lacked a counterbalance but relied exclusively on motors to raise it, moving it up and down would slightly change the depth of the sub, based on "every action causes an equal and opposite reaction". StuRat (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I think it would push you one way when the elevator accelerated and then push you the other when the elevator stopped- zero net force. You'd need a mile high elevator that you could keep going and going so you can stay deep for awhile and then you stop the elevator to go back to where you were. 72.236.192.238 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct that there would be no net, long term change in the depth of the submarine, but it would cause small, temporary changes in depth, that's all I'm saying. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (I improved the header.) In the short term, yes, but to maintain a certain depth you will need to alter the buoyancy of the submarine. This is typically done by filling and emptying ballast tanks.  You might wonder why this is different from aircraft.  Well, (heavier-than-air) aircraft must always be moving forward to stay aloft, and you can therefore use an elevator to adjust the altitude, but submarines are often still, or moving too slowly for the elevator to be used in this way.  StuRat (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have definitely seen pictures of Personal submarines that use control surfaces exclusively to control their depth. The obvious problem of this is that you need constant forward motion to fight the craft's normal buoyancy. (Compare to an airplane.)
 * This isn't practical for large navel submarines need to be able to control their depth independently of their forward speed. APL (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The best depth control makes use of a ballast tank which can be variably filled with water or gas (usually from a compressed gas tank). There are other submarine depth control techniques such as elevators (which are used on large navy submarines in conjunction with ballast tanks).  ROVs are often designed to be neutrally buoyant (a difficult challenge, sensitive to tiny variations), the idea being that the ROV will float at whatever depth it is currently at - and then a vertical motor or propulsion system is used to set that depth.  You can fight buoyancy with such a method but it will impact your energy budget, controllability, and reliability.  Nimur (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) You're probably looking for our article on dive planes. A surfaced submarine with its ballast tanks 'blown' (empty) has a substantial amount of positive buoyancy; it would be difficult or impossible to force it beneath the surface using its dive planes alone, and the submarine would have to be under constant thrust.
 * A large military submarine beneath the surface and with ballast tanks 'trimmed' (adjusted) to neutral buoyancy will tend to hold a constant depth &mdash; the average density of the submarine matches the surrounding water. Since both submarine and surrounding water are poorly compressible – and consequently, have nearly constant density even through large changes in depth – it is very difficult to select a depth using ballast adjustments alone.  (It would also take a long time for the submarine to change depth, as very small changes in buoyancy would be used.)
 * Instead, a very small amount of forward thrust combined with elevation changes of the dive planes allows a submarine commander to change depths without requiring further adjustment of ballast tanks. Unlike elevators on aircraft, submarines fit dive planes in up to three locations: bow, stern, and sail/conning tower (these last are sometimes called 'fairwater planes').  Since water is much, much, much denser than air, the control surfaces on a submarine are smaller and work at much lower speeds than comparable equipment on an aircraft. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A very detailed guide to building a model submarine with an electric motor and a ballast tank which has a compresssed air supply to make it resurface after it dives is found in "The boy's book of submarines" by A. Frederick Collins, pages 21-48. Although the book was written in 1917, you could alter the shape to match that of modern submarines. Although Collins discussed diving planes elsewhere in the book, his model omitted them. Edison (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible to get downthrust with an 'elevator' - and indeed, real submarines do have such things for subtle depth and attitude adjustment (those are the "Bow planes"). However, they only work when you're moving through the water - and only when the elevator is submerged...both of which might be a problem.  Real submarines sink because they pump water into and out of ballast tanks - compressing the air inside...but that's a pain to deal with in a model.  The model submarine we have at home for messing around in our swimming pool uses a propeller encased in a vertical tube as a 'down-thruster' to drive it underwater - and before you play with the submarine, you have to adjust the bouyancy with little metal disks to get the submarine to very slowly rise by itself when the motor shuts off. That's for the vital reason that you want to be able to get the submarine back when it goes too deep for the radio signal to reach it anymore - or if the batteries die on you.  With ALMOST neutral bouyancy, the thruster controls both up and down motion while the propeller and rudder deal with turning and forward or reverse motion.  If you drive the submarine too deep and the radio stops working, the electronics inside simply stop all of the motors so the submarine can gently rise until radio contact is re-established.  This works amazingly well - much better than I thought it would.   When you drive the submarine too deep, all you really notice is that it refuses to go any deeper - but if you look closely, you see that it's actally drifting up and down over a period of a half second or so as the vertical thruster motor cuts in and out - but that gives you enough control that you can still steer at maximum depth.  The trouble with an 'elevator/bow-planes' is that once the submarine goes too deep for you to control, you really want it to come back up automatically.  Theoretically, turning off the thrust motor will stop the boat from moving forwards - then the bow planes can't drive it down anymore - so it'll float back up into radio range.  That's a difficult approach because even when you shut off the thrust motor, the sub will still slide through the water for quite a distance before water resistance slows it down enough for the bow planes to stop working.  For all of that time, you have no radio control because the sub is still too deep.  So now you need to alter the bow plane angle to push the sub upwards when it loses radio contact.  Ikky.  That's why I like the vertical thruster concept. SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a balloon work for a model? You put a balloon inside the hull, with the hull open to the water. You then attach a tube to the neck of the balloon (making sure it's airtight) and take the tube up to the surface. You then blow the balloon up to make the submarine surface and let the air out to make it sink (after adding the appropriate amount of weights, anyway). --Tango (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

steel
what is the weight of 10mm mild steel plate per square meter as per indian standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.114.29 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find the density of mild steel in our article. For Indian standards, you would need to check the website of a steel service centre in India to see what actual thickness they roll "10mm" steel to. Franamax (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our article, the density of mild steel is: 7,861.093 kg/m3. If it truly is 10mm thick then the weight is 78.611kg/m2 regardless of where you happen to be!  However, (as Franamax alludes) some materials are quoted a being some thickness "before polishing" or they might include some kind of protective coating or whatever.  So I suppose it's possible that 10mm steel plate isn't exactly 10mm thick in India.  (Just like a '2x4' piece of timber is really only $1 1/2$" × $3 1/2$" in reality because the 2"x4" refers to the dimensions before planing). SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

concrete specimen
when we subject aconcrete cube 15*15*15 cm to acompressive strength, the regular result will start from 150 kg\cm2 to 500 kg\cm2 in ordinary structures , and as we know cement is the material which provide cohesive bond between concrete components , so why is that the compressive strength of a cement cube will be much less than aconcrete one , since that the essintisl bond is been provided by cement... the answer must have scientific base.., thank you...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.224.133 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The little rocks and other 'aggregate' carry most of the compressive loads in concrete. Cement lacks that. SteveBaker (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in our articles on Cement and Concrete. Your engineereing teacher likely also talked about this in class, so if you re-read your notes from that day, teh information is likely there. Also, if your teacher gave you a textbook, it is likely in there as well.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's assume good faith, shall we? While the OP may have been learning about this in class recently, the question could well be something they've thought of for themselves rather than homework. --Tango (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed no bad faith at all. The reference desk is designed to help people find answers to questions.  Lecture notes from ones own classes and textbooks given out in those classes are likely going to contain lots of good information for answering this question.  If you have a place better than his own textbook to look this information up in, please feel free to add it.  But please, the assumption of the assumption of bad faith is an assumption of bad faith in itself.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

i had reed about it ... the explanation presented that alot of cement will release alot of heat from the reaction and so ... larg volume changs will occure producing dangrous hairy cracks within the mass of concrete which cause the low compressive strength ... but if we manage to avoide the heat effect could the compressive strength come larger or it will remain the same...? --Mjaafreh2008 (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it would seem to me that the methods of avoiding the heat effects all involve adding something to the cement in some way. I suppose you could add a network of pipes through the cement through which we could pump water to keep the cement cool; however in order to have enough pipes to be effective, you'd have created what would essentially be reinforced concrete; the pipes would act like rebar and would at that point be serving exactly as the aggregate stone does in concrete.  I'm not sure we have any reliable method of cooling the drying cement in a manner that does not end up creating what would functionally be concrete anyway.  Plus, I am pretty sure that the aggregate itself provides considerable strength, even assuming that the cement could be cooled and dried under ideal conditions.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously concrete with no cracks is stronger than concrete with cracks! It is indeed a standard practice to try to abate the heat when that's an issue.  See Hoover Dam for an example.  --Sean 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the question was not about "cracked concrete" vs. "uncracked concrete". The question was about "cement" vs. "cement with stuff in it" (otherwise known by the name "concrete").  The question was about why concrete was stronger than an otherwise idenitcal amount of pure cement.  The OP then noted that in his reading, he came accross the explanation that the aggregate (the stuff in the cement that makes it concrete) had a dampening effect on heat generation, and that was what resulted in a stronger product.  He then asked about other ways to dissipate the heat in such a way as to retain the purity of the cement; however I noted that I doubted that any system which could be used to dissipate the heat of the drying cement would not in itself produce a product which was essentially concrete.  In other words, it would be impossible to actually effectively cool a block of pure cement without in some way introducing foreign materials or objects; which would then make it concrete.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The ways they have to control heat build up when making large concrete structures (like dams for example) is to pour in thin layers - let each layer cool - then pour another layer. But I saw a Discovery channel thing about making large concrete structures in the middle east where they mixed ice and in some cases even dry ice into the cement along with the aggregate.  So there certainly are ways to do that without pipes and such. SteveBaker (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding sight
Why do objects farther away appear smaller? And is there a way to mathematically find the relationship bewteen apparent size and distance (i.e. inverse relationship)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.7.221 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles such as Perspective (visual) and Visual angle may be of use to you. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC)See Perspective (visual). For a mathematical calculation of image size versus distance, see Visual angle. For an excruciatingly mathematical treatment of the subject, see "Teaching Leonardo" by Rick Faloon. You might also find Vanishing point useful. Edison (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I poked around and couldn't find a reference in Wikipedia, but it's a simple ratio. An object one meter away will look ten times bigger than the same object ten meters away. This is for apparent size in inches or centimeters, not degrees or radians. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "apparent size in inches/centimeters" mean? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was afraid somebody would ask that. Say you're on the International Space Station, and the Space Shuttle is approaching head-on. If you know the Shuttle's wingspan, you can determine how far away it is by holding a meter stick out and noting its apparent wingspan on the stick. If you then measure from your eyes to the stick, you can calculate the distance by the ratio eye-to-stick/eye-to-shuttle = apparent wingspan/true wingspan. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine you are looking through a window that's 'ZW' meters in front of your eyes. Some object is XO meters across and ZO meters from your eyes. The size of the object as it appears to be on the glass of your window is: XW = XO x ZW / ZO  Hence, when the object is twice as far away, it's appears to be half the size. The reason is a matter of similar triangles. If you draw a line that's the same size and distance as the object and then form a triangle from the ends of that line back to your eyes...then draw another triangle using the width and distance of the image of the object that you see on your window - then the ANGLES inside those triangles has to be the same...right? Geometry 101 says that two triangles with the same interior angles are SIMILAR and the ratio of their sides is the same. Hence, the ratio XW / XO equals ZW/ZO -- which you can rearrange into my equation above. That is also the "why" of why things get smaller as they get further away. If the angles stay the same (which is also implied by the object retaining the same general shape) as it gets further away - then in order to keep that true - the size has to change in the same exact proportion. SteveBaker (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried trigonometry? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Titan vs. Europa over 5-7 billion year sun
Isn't it possible when sun swells up in 5 to 6 billion years, Europa's ice can melt into oceans, and Titan I thouhgt will keep some atmosphere. It is ultraviolet light and solar winds which kill atmopshere. Europa's surface is made of frozen oxygen and methane, when sun heats up I thouht it will sublime into atmosphere. This all deepnds on sun's expansion. Maybe for a certain amount of time, Europa can harbor life, eventually Titan will drain probably about 90% of atmosphere, but it will keep some at least, I thought.--69.226.46.118 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both those moons are very small, so if they heated up the Earth-like temperatures (and they could well end up much hotter or much colder, it would be a pretty big coincidence if they were just right) they would lose (most of) their atmospheres very quickly. It would probably take some effort to make them breathable anyway, so it would probably be better just to build domes or similar on them and just worry about a little bit of atmosphere. However, the Sun will only remain a red giant for a very short period of time on astronomic scales (millions of years, maybe). If the human race survives the next 5 billion years, I hope it is thinking more long term than the next few million (especially since Earth will be uninhabitable in about 1 billion years, so they'll have already had 4 billion years of living with a dead planet, so they ought to be prepared to live with a dead star!). --Tango (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Europa may harbor life now. The oceans on Europa are among the best candidates for harboring life in our solar system outside the Earth.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Mars. The academic paper said when the sun heats up in aobut one billion year, frozen carbon dioxiode and wapour can gradually sublimes, creating a greenhouse effect and more substantial atmosphere, may make Mars blue again. Anyways, I saw one source said the sun's expansion could be up too 400 R (up to 1.6 AU or so), will it expand enough to penetrate Mars' orbit. Mars may be swallow up as well, but unlikely-but no guarentee to survinve. Europa's ice layers is made up of oxygen and methane, it is possible that it may create an atmosphere for short time. Do Tango mean if they create an atmopshere for short of tme, it will go away quickly. The thing is ultraviolet, and solar winds wipes out atmospheres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.46.118 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, no! We have to put an end to this "after the sun turns into a red giant" crap.  Step 1: The sun's intensity grows by 10% per billion years - this is quite enough to boil away our oceans long before the sun does the red giant thing.  Step 2: Before it blows up - it first collapses and becomes (for a while) 1,000 to 10,000 times brighter.  That's quite enough to boil all of the oceans on Europa and sterilise life there.  Step 3: There is a "Helium pulse" - for a very brief time, the sun gets 100,000,000 times brighter.  This ensures that all hope of anything at all surviving or having an atmosphere is gone.  Step 4: It gently expands and swallows some of the toasted wrecks of molten lava that might be close enough - tearing more apart due to bizarre tidal effects.


 * So - no life left ANYWHERE within a few lightyears. Game over. SteveBaker (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, if it is only ~1000 then Triton and Pluto would see flux like the modern day Earth and could be quite livable for a while. Dragons flight (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea right, Triton have been slowly diminishing it's orbit, and somewhere between 1.4 and 3.6 billion years, Triton will most likely get torn apart by tidal force, most likely form a ring. Few billion years, Neptune's rings like Saturn's now will go away too. About pluto, why you think pluto will get benefit, it's so faraway from sun.--69.226.46.118 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Was I unclear? At ~1600 times modern luminosity, Pluto would get the same amount of light as the Earth does now.  Hence, when the sun is a red giant, Pluto would be expected to have roughly the same temperature as the Earth does now.  Pluto is not so far away that one can ignore it when you start throwing around factors of 1000.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Life couldn't survive the helium pulse even at that distance. And once the sun actually reaches the red giant stage - the energy it pushes out to a lower level than it does now.  So Pluto's fate as the Sun ages is that it slowly gets nice and warm and for a short time (well, assuming it's orbit doesn't expand too much due to the reduction in mass of the sun) life could even survive there - then it's bombarded by the planetary nebula - then it's irradiated to hell, sterilizing anything that might have survived - then it's back to being an even colder ice-ball than it is now.  It's hard to imagine any kind of life that would survive that kind of mistreatment...and that's what it takes to still be there when the sun becomes a red giant. SteveBaker (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, does planetary nebula even swallow and destroy planets. I originally thought Pluto's orbit might almost double by then.--69.226.46.118 (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's after sun's giant stage, when sun forms a planetary nebulae and disintegrates it's outer laers. Between sun's maximum extent and white dwarf stage, there is something call "planetary nebulae". Planetary nebulae big enough (trillions of mile across), it glows white but don't swallow planets. At step two Titan is further from sun, it's atmosphere might just be half gone. At that time, Titan probably heats up to Mars' surface temperature, then when Titan heats up to around Earth's temperature, then the atmosphere is probably down to 0.02.--69.226.46.118 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Atmospheres bleed away over time even without UV and solar wind (although, there will be plenty of both anyway), warm air molecules move around a lot, at any given time a certain proportion will be moving around enough to escape and will do so. I guess it's possible that Mars will become close to habitable for a short period as the Sun brightens, before it gets bright enough to scorch the planet (probably only a span of a few million, or tens of million years), but it would probably be some time after the Earth was rendered dead, so the human race would have to survive elsewhere for a few million years anyway... --Tango (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When the sun "explodes", it's quite possible that the gas planets (and other bodies with atmospheres) will be reduced to their core. So even if the inner oceans of Europa survive, they will probably freeze over since there will be no tidal action from Jupiter. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see the sun exploding with enough energy to strip a large portion of Jupiter's atmosphere away, some sure, but not much. (This is just intuition, I haven't looked it up or done any calculations, so I could be wrong - if you have a reference, please say.) --Tango (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)