Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 January 22

= January 22 =

Spraying water with alcohol to evaporate faster
Suppose I spill some water on my floor in my house at around STP (25C, 1 atm). If I spray the puddle of water with some alcohol, say isopropyl alcohol, will it help the puddle evaporate faster? Since isopropyl alcohol has a higher vapor pressure than water and since the total vapor pressure will be the sum of the two liquids, the total vapor pressure will be closer to the atmospheric pressure. Acceptable (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just mop it or wipe it up. Von Restorff (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Section 3 of Vapor Pressure may be of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.42 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would expect the alcohol component to evaporate at close to the rate alcohol normally evaporates, and the water component to continue to evaporate as slowly as ever. In other words, the percentage of alcohol will quickly reduce down to near zero.  (Not quite zero, though, as having all that water in the way will prevent some of the alcohol from evaporating first.) StuRat (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just adding alcohol won't help water evaporating faster. However, in theory, if you add much more alcohol than you have water spilled, the you can mop up most of the puddle, and (due to alcohol and water mixing well), the residue that you can't clean by mopping will be alcohol in more part than water, and thus evaporates faster than if you had as much water as the residue.  You would of course have to use alcohol without additives (water doesn't count), because additives would leave a stain residue on the floor that you would have a harder time removing than what you'd save with the whole alcohol thing.  Also, I wouldn't recommend the whole messing with alcohol in practice, because the alcohol could catch fire.
 * If you want to spend money on drying your floor faster, you'd better buy disposable paper towels (instead of alcohol), as these suck up the water easily. If you live in a geographical area where the air is very humid (but only in that case), then air conditioning in the room can help dry the air and thus make the puddle dry faster.
 * Here's a reference that mentions drying glass bottles with alcohol in practice. Note that in this case the bottles have a very small mouth so air can't get in easily, which is why the inside of the bottle dries very slowly under normal condidions.  This is not the case in the floor, where there's plenty of air available.  &#x2013; b_jonas 22:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the alcohol you are using forms an azeotrope with water, it will co-evaporate with the water at a lower temperature than the water would by itself. But it requires that the alcohol starts off fairly pure, and only some alcohols have a noticeable effect. Isopropanol does work this way, but only if you use the 90% or stronger formulation and it requires a volume many times the amount of water. For glassware-washing, it's not just "add alcohol and wait for the alcohol–water to evaporate faster in the bottle", but usually "add alcohol, pour it out, then evaporate the bottle". So the alcohol rinses out the water, leaving mostly alcohol to be evaporated. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Men: shaved or with beard
Are men with beard more attractive than shaved men? From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense to suppose that women would prefer real men with a grown beard, but almost all men that I see shave their beard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.192.250 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Attractive to who? Attractiveness is extremely subjective. What is a real man? Shaving is not a sex-change operation. Women generally prefer men who care about their appearance; so being well-shaven or having a well-trimmed beard is better than looking like this. Look at People_(magazine). Von Restorff (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose by that logic women with hairy armpits should be attractive to men. Both of these may have been the case almost universally, at some point, but once shaving became possible, being clean-shaven could be taken as being "well groomed", and this indicates a fit individual. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For a little background research on that topic consider File:Leaning on Barn Doors.png, a quite lovely photo which I recall from a particularly ugly instance of censors attacking a Commons contributor. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you could grow money in your beard that would probably attract a lot of females. Is this a real man with a grown beard, or did he just forget to shave for three days? Von Restorff (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that Attractiveness is extremely subjective. It's mainly biology, even if you don't experience it like that and live in the illusion that your will is free. Anyway, the case of women is different: if they shave their armpit and legs and whatever, they look younger, but why could a man would like to look like a boy? A beard sends the information: this man is an adult. 88.14.192.250 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heterosexual males and heterosexual females seem to disagree on which features make someone attractive. To make it even more complicated, think about the fact some people are attracted to animals or hairy heavy-set men or objects or certain situations. I think that if attractiveness was not so subjective it wouldn't change much over time. Have you ever seen 80's porn? Read Physical_attractiveness. Everyone seems to like symmetrical faces for some reason. But to me certain goodlooking women are unattractive because they are stupid or they have a weird voice or weird laugh. You probably do not have free will, but I do. Are you a robot or a puppet or a religious person or a lazy philosopher who believes in fate? Do you think everything is predestined? If so I will not debate about that, that would be a waste of time since I am predestined to win that debate. Sean Connery was rated as a very attractive male and he has a fullgrown beard, but the "clean-shaven"- and "forgot to shave for 3 days"-groups are the majority. Von Restorff (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah, you clearly live under the illusion that your will is free. BTW, that's the standard religious or lazy philosophy position. The biological alternative explanation is the more elaborate one. Note also that your examples do not constitute the mainstream sexuality of society. Humans survive being what they are due to what most of us do, the minorities are not so relevant here.88.9.209.157 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The OPs original 'evolutionary argument' could also be turned on its head. Over the last 5 million years or so humans have evolved significantly less body hair; compare us to our closest cousins the chimps. Now while this could possibly be more a consequence of neoteny through the selection of other traits more vital to survival, rather than the selection of hairlessness itself, it is nonetheless clearly a pattern in our evolution, and our remaining body hair largely mirrors that where it first appears in the development of apes. It could therefore be argued that from an evolutionary perspective we should all be more attracted to mates with less hair on all parts of the body. And as a male starting to show some traces of male pattern baldness, that suits me much better. ;) --jjron (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me why you believe being an 'adult' matters. If you want to talk 'biology' one simplistic common modern POV is that for a human female, when it comes to choosing a male to be the biological father to her children (during her period of greatest fertility), they want a 'masculine' man (with signs of more testosterone exposure during development). Facial hair may play a small part in this, but other things like the shape of the face and muscle are often seen as bigger signs. (They may also value other things like facial symmetry and MHC variance.) This is to ensure the best genes for her offspring. Outside that window, they may care less about physical attractiveness and prefer a man who is somewhat more feminine and who is considered more likely to stick around. With the fairly widespread use of birth control in a number of countries which may reduce the effect of any fertility window, it may very well make sense to be someone who is perceived as likely to stick around and help look after the children, who coincidentally may not be his children, and just remember to do a DNA test for each of your children (if you have any). However while this theory may make some sense (but also seems to have some possible flaws), and there may be some evidence backing most parts of it up, it's just one of many theories many of which have their own evidence and also may make implicit sense. (And sometimes the evidence may be disputed, e.g. Sexy son hypothesis mentions this.) Our article Physical attractiveness which mentions body hair but not facial hair in men also makes clear in a number of areas things are far from clear cut and there does seem to be some variance across people. Perhaps these are really simply arising from differening spread of genes amongst different people as you seem to believe, or perhaps physical attractiveness really does have a cultural factor. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As very briefly mentioned in Facial hair, there are ethnic differences in the amount of facial hair developed. Now bear in mind that races, such as Native Americans or East Asians, date back only a very brief evolutionary interval, to sometime near the end of the last Ice Age.  I would presume that in previous eras there were other races, likewise prone to have or omit facial hair pretty much at random, and the sexual desires built into the human race have never really made its presence or absence much of a hindrance to perpetuating the species. Wnt (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Machine
what are the latest technology in mechanical field?

give a list of machines and tools used in mechanical engineering ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krsrv (talk • contribs) 02:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Try List of nanotechnology applications. Dolphin  ( t ) 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

c is fastest but what is slowest speed possible?
Get two atoms, a clock and a ruler. Now if one atom (or smaller particle) is moving towards another, then is there any speed so slow that it cannot be any slower? And if so, what is it? Myles325a (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See Absolute zero. --jjron (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes it impossible to know any particle's momentum, and hence its velocity, precisely, unless it's completely unknowable where the particle is located. So at speeds too low, it becomes impossible to know whether the particle is moving at that low speed, or isn't moving at all.  What speed that occurs at depends on how tightly the particle's location is constrained, and on the particle's mass.  Red Act (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Zeno's "Achilles and the tortoise" paradox? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   06:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Slowest relative to what? The earth? The sun? The center of the Milky Way? The origin point of the Big Bang? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the experiment's equipment specification of two particles, a clock and a ruler, I think it's clear that the OP is intending that the speed of one particle is to be measured relative to the other particle. Red Act (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OP myles325a back here. Yep, I spelled it out like that to preempt the very objection made by Baseball Bugs. Ok, let me put it this way. Is there any way an object of some kind could move, in a continuous way, so that it would cover 1 cm in a billion years? If that's NOT on, then take that as a reductio ad absurdum. What speed WOULD be the slowest? My own query has now made me think there is more to this bizzo of moving around than I had hitherto thought. Myles325a (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dyson sphere/swarm surrounding planet rather than star
Does a Dyson sphere or Dyson swarm go by a different name if it's inside-out and surrounds a planet rather than a star (e.g. as a transitional solution for reaching Kardashev type I)? I think I've seen a space-based solar power proposal that amounted to a Dyson-like swarm of satellites a few inches wide, but I can't remember where. Neon Merlin  09:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Time of sunrise and sunset as viewed from the Moon
Are there any online sunrise/sunset calculators that will give a table of sunrises and sunsets for user-supplied selenographic coordinates? —Mathew5000 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if anyone has ever tried to make something so accurate, as there is about two weeks between each lunar sunrise and sunset.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But that’s all the more reason to have an online calculator; if you only get one chance a month to see a sunset, you don’t want to miss it! —Mathew5000 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Equinoxes on the moon
Defining a lunar equinox as the moment the Sun passes directly over the Moon's equator, how frequently does it occur? Twice a year like equinoxes on Earth? Or would it be approximately twice a month because the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth? And is there a table accessible online of the times of the lunar equinoxes and lunar solstices? —Mathew5000 (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some terminology: You're looking for the selenographic latitude of the subsolar point, in particular the times when that latitude is 0°. Here is a bit of information, though not exactly on your question. Given that the moon's rotational axis and its equatorial plane are fixed in space (like earth's axis and equator), the moon has to move around the sun for the latitude of the subsolar point to change. Hence, the equinoxes should occur twice a year. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wrongfilter. Do you have a source for the statement that the Moon's rotational axis is fixed in space? The article Moon doesn't specifically state that. I guess that is one cause of libration. Also, as the rotational axis of the Earth and that of the Moon each retains its orientation (relative to the stars) throughout the year, do they have the same orientation? I know the Earth's axial tilt is much greater, but what I mean is, if you consider the plane that is perpendicular to the ecliptic and contains the Earth's axis, as well as the plane that is perpendicular to the ecliptic and contains the Moon's axis, are those two planes parallel? —Mathew5000 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that conservation of angular momentum would ensure that the moon spins around a fixed axis, but I don't have a source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How can we join the definitions of entropy?
Exactly how does one prove that, for any process, $$\oint \frac{Q_{rev}}{T} = \Delta(k_B\ln\Omega)=\Delta S$$? I've looked through the statistical thermodynamics article, and couldn't understand all the new symbols (I'm used to classical thermodynamics, and I only know a bit of statistical).  I was able to prove that the two definitions of change in entropy are equivalent for an isothermal process carried out on a gas (by quantizing space and then limiting the quantization to infinity), but my proof makes the absolute entropy of the gas infinite. If the process is not infinite, the particle's velocities come into the picture and I don't know how to deal with that. I tried making various assumptions (quantizing time, etc), but it didn't work. I know that once I prove it for another process, it will be proven for any process carried out on ideal gases(as I can write any process as the combination of isothermal and another process). Could anyone please point me to the proof? Thanks, Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 10:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * bump Manish Earth Talk • Stalk 15:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Helium hydride ions
Wouldn't it be possible to prepare condensed helium hydride ions in a solution of pure helium, since the product of protonation by the helium hydride ions would merely be more helium hydride ions? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 17:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What counter-anion would you be able to use that wouldn't wind up re-combining with it? DMacks (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is, you are correct that:
 * HHe+ + He ⇌ He + HHe+
 * is obviously a wash, so the HHe+ persists. If this is the strongest acid known, then any base, no matter how weak, would be protonatable and when you prepare an actual solution of X+, you get a balanced amount (in terms of charge) of Y–. Even if it's formed by beta decay, the expelled electron has to go somewhere...not sure how much overall positive charge you could form in a flask (via escape of the electrons) before coulombic repulsion makes it explode, and the beta particles of 3H decay are fairly low-energy anyway. Are there any such anions that are less protonatable than? Otherwise:
 * HHe+ + Y– ⇌ He + HY
 * would shift to the right. DMacks (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that even if there wasn't any counter ion in solution, the walls of the container would also likely act as such a base, so you'd have the adsorption of the proton onto the glass/metal as soon as ion gets close. I don't have any clue as to the rate of diffusion through a solution of liquid helium is, but the coulombic repulsion of multiple helium hydride ions and/or the coulombic attraction with (induced) charges on the walls of the container will likely mean you'd get faster than diffusion transfer to the container walls. -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a) a noncoordinating anion such as SbF6- and a container made of solid helium? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 20:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You would only be able to hold small groups of HHe+ ions in solution using this method, due to the repulsion problem, but how about b) matrix isolation at a temperature of < 10K in solid helium? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the cited comments in the fluoroantimonic acid about the structure of this chemical. But regardless of the perceived "coordinating" property, check the pKa values for the standard way of deciding where the H+ is more likely to go in an equilibrium. DMacks (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, there goes a), but how about b)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A helium matrix would be 0.95 K at 2.5 MPa of pressure (freezing point of helium). That's probably hard to achieve and maintain for long enough and stable enough to perform chemistry in it (for example, waiting for enough embedded tritium to decay to get a detectable presence of HHe+). Solid helium is also not particularly rigid in terms of crystal structure, and defects are fairly mobile (per cite in helium). That means your inclusions of HHe+ aren't really fixed in position--the whole reason you would be wanting to use a matrix. DMacks (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the origin of WWPU's "< 10K" idea from the matrix isolation article because there's nothing magical about that temperature. The key is to get a matrix--some common ones are much warmer whereas others require somewhat colder--so it's the mp of the matrix material that matters. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. How about a huge, planet-sized ball of an extremely dilute solution of HHe+ in pure liquid helium, large enough for its own gravity to hold it together? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the charged ions would end up on the surface of the liquid. In solid hydrogen you can get solvated electrons or H- but you would not be able to get this happening with helium.  Once the charge built up enough you should be able to get spontaneous discharge of HeH+ or protons expelled from the surface of our helium ball. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How can HHe+ be the strongest known acid? Isn't H+ a stronger acid than that?  I mean, if you're counting ions as "acids". Wnt (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hydraulic Pressure
As per Bernaulli's equation, P.E.+K.E.+Pot.E.=constant in a pipe flow. So, if water flows from larger pipe to smaller pipe, then Potential Energy remains the same(assume), kinetic energy increases, therefore, pressure energy decreases. Then, why smaller pipe will burst for the same flow. It means, if pressure energy is more in larger pipe, then larger should burst instead of smaller pipe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkbansal22 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Since the smaller pipe is smaller in diameter, and hence, smaller in internal surface area, the critical radial stress is lower (P=F/A) (assuming same thickness of pipe). It hence requires lower pressure to rupture, a pressure which could be supplied even by the reduced pressures of the flow.  Lynch 7  19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)  Just figured out that radial stress is not proportional to surface area.  Lynch  7  19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Feeling quite stupid now. I guess the larger pipe should burst, given that the entrance to the smaller pipes are filleted out properly.  Lynch 7  19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, all this is true if you assume that the flow is steady, and there are no obstructions.  Lynch 7  19:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's negligible in most cases, and that you're more like to "burst" at a stress concentration i.e. exactly where the larger pipe meets the smaller and where the smaller pipe connects to another pipe of the same size. --Izno (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Resting Membrane Potential
Hello. When measuring the membrane potential of muscle fibres at different concentrations of extracellular KCl with glass micropipettes, why is KCl a better electrode solution than NaCl? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because normally the concentration of K+ ions inside a cell is much higher than the concentration of Na+ ions. If you use NaCl, the sodium will diffuse from the pipette into the cell and depolarize the muscle fiber. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've learned, K+ and Cl- have similar ionic sizes, and hence, similar ionic mobilities, and hence are used to measure membrane potentials. Feel free to disregard this explanation, its been quite a while since I went towards chemistry .  Lynch 7  19:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

On the same note, how does the pipette measure membrane potential if the electrode solution (3 M) is of a concentration different from the bath? (This is a dissected muscle fibre submerged in KCl on the scale of mM.) The membrane potential does change with the concentration of extracellular KCl. The pipette does make a tight seal with the cell membrane. --Mayfare (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Think there is something missing here in the question, as the question didn't seem to make 'complete' sense. If the extracellular medium is potassium rich (equal to the intracellular concentration) it will neutralize  the potential. E.g. Inject enough potassium salt into the blood stream and the hart will stop. Can the OP expanded  on  the purpose this experiment. The potential is dependant ( I think) on the relative concentrations between these two ion on each side of the cellular wall. As Looie alludes to, the intracellular medium is normally potassium rich in In vivo but the OP is talking in vitro. However, to measure the potential 'change' one needs to refer to the potential difference from within  the cell which is normally -in vivo- potassium rich. So again, to measure a change in potential from the 'normal'  in vivo  condition one still needs to use a potassium electrolyte, as sodium would alter the very potential that one is attempting to measure. Also for the pump to continue to function (and maintain any potential), one would also need some glucose; which one would imagine is not included in this experiment. --Aspro (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When measuring the membrane potential of a muscle cell, the pipette is placed in the intracellular space. Even in vitro there is usually a high intracellular potassium concentration and low intracellular sodium concentration, unless things are very abnormal in some way.  Regarding the "tight seal" with the cell membrane, that only happens during patch clamping -- the more commonly used method is to jab the pipette into the cell.  And in patch clamping, the area of membrane inside the seal has to be blown away in order to create continuity between the pipette fluid and the cell interior. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Chunks of ions
What would a chunk of pure sodium ions or chloride ions look like? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be extremely difficult to try to create a "chunk" of any single kind of ion, since the ions would strongly repel each other. How would you hold a chunk of pure anions, or a chunk of pure cations, together?  Red Act (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing that could be done would be to use inertial electrostatic confinement to contain a charged plasma consisting of purely sodium ions or chloride ions. The density of such a plasma would have to be very low, to be able to contain it successfully.  I'll leave it up to you as to whether that counts as a "chunk", since "chunk" is a nontechnical term that could either mean "a thick solid piece" or "a considerable amount".  The plasma wouldn't fit the former definition, but it could arguably fit the second definition.  Different states of matter for the same substance can appear quite different, and my previous answer assumed you were asking about a solid state, since I interpreted "chunk" using the first definition.  And you just can't form a true solid out of all the same kind of ion.


 * I'm not sure, but it might also be possible to form some other nonclassical state(s) of matter out of pure anions or pure cations, in addition to a plasma. Red Act (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you be able to form a solid of ions if you compressed them enough to overcome the electrostatic repulsion and force them to form a solid? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Take Na+ for example.  Solid neutral Na has a density of about 1 g/cm3.  But if through Herculean effort you managed to form a gram of Na+ into a sphere with a volume of 1 cm3, the result would be qualitatively very different from that of a solid.


 * As per the Solid article, solids are characterized by structural rigidity and resistance to changes of shape or volume. A solid does not flow to take on the shape of its container, nor does it expand to fill the entire volume available to it.  And the atoms in a solid are tightly bound to each other.  Every one of those characteristics of a solid would not be met by that sphere of Na+.


 * If you take pretty much any solid out of a container it's in, the solid tends to pretty much just sit there and do nothing. But if you switched off the containment field to that sphere of Na+, the result would be a very powerful explosion.  Red Act (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rain vs. snow
Common experience has shown those of us in snowy areas that when the temperature is above freezing, rain will cause the snow to melt much faster than if it were not raining. Have there been attempts to quantify this effect? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're just talking about thermal conductivity; liquid water is about 25 times better than air at transferring heat (alternately phrased, air is about 25 times as good a thermal insulator). Thus, direct contact with cold water will melt things much faster than contact with even hot air. &mdash; Lomn 20:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link; I was also interested in the effect of the kinetic energy of the raindrops adding some heat to the snow. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't expect that to have much effect. There is also another reason rain can melt snow.  Having snow on the ground while it's raining implies that a warm front has just moved in.  This frequently results in warm air aloft and cold air at ground level.  Rain is a mechanism by which the warm air aloft transfers it's heat to ground level. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

regarding to communicatio
sir, why mobile no. is 10 digit.? how to communicate with two mobile no.????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaim1008 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Telephone numbering plans vary worldwide and generally exist via long-term gradual evolution rather than a one-time design statement. E.164 is the present international recommendation but it doesn't mandate a single length for phone numbers.
 * I'm not sure what you're asking by your second question, though in my experience, mobile phones call each other via the same functional mechanism as calls between any other phones. Or are you asking about three-way calling? &mdash; Lomn 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fusor weapon
Would it be possible to use a fusor in neutron-production mode as an modulated neutron initiator in a nuclear weapon? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 22:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To be useful in a nuclear weapon, a neutron source must be able to be activated nearly instantly, and provide a sharp pulse of fast neutrons. Now I don't know much about the fusors but the videos I've seen of them on YouTube show them taking at least a few seconds to go from zero to bright balls of gas. That isn't fast enough. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about if you activated the fusor first, and then the explosives, giving the fusor a few seconds to warm up before the explosives fire, so it emits it's neutrons at exactly the right time for it to do so? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 23:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It probably depends on the specifics of the neutron flux. What you want is a sudden, precisely timed burst. Too many neutrons too soon and you run the risk of predetonation. Too late and, well, they're too late to be useful. I don't know much about fusors. I doubt they fit the requirements for this. There are various Rube Goldberg ideas one could use to try and do something like this (e.g. keep the fusor in a shielding, and then explosively remove the shielding at the instant you need the neutrons), but I don't know why you'd bother with all that. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dyeing one's brain
I had a dream where at a fair there was a booth where people could pay to have their brain dyed a different color via immersion in dye solution. My question is, would this be possible, and would it have any side effects? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing said here should be taken as medical advice. First, as to the pointlessness of the practice, If your brain were dyed some color, how would you know, unless the skull was opened to see the brain? Second, when there is to be a "brain scan," a contrast medium, or dye, is sometimes introduced into the cerebrovascular fluid via a lumbar puncture. The dye is not so much to color the brain as to be radio-opaque to aid in radioimaging, but it can discolor the urine for the next day. Some patients do have side effects from the contrast dye or the procedure. See "Illustrated manual of nursing practice" (2002) pp 452-453 "Clinical neurology," (2002) page 24, and "Comprehensive medical terminology",(2010) page 289. Edison (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this a reaction to the question on dying your blood (link valid later) from a few days earlier? &#x2013; b_jonas 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well they could certainly have their brain dyed by immersion but whether they'd be able to get it back inside their skull again is a question I'm not qualified to answer -  me not being a brain surgeon and all. How the brain would be dyed by simple immersion of the body, total or part thereof remains an zero improbability for me, given the impermeability of the skin and the difficulty of knowing whether the brain has been dyed. You had the dream, how did the folks know their brains were green or black or whatever colour? Side efects? well when someone comes up with a theory about how to dye the brain by immersion I will disclose the likely side effects. I'm not holding my breath! Richard Avery (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the dream, this was done by removing the skull caps. No idea as to whether this would work in reality. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 23:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This would have been done in the old Soviet Union, which was pretty good at brain washing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is kind of a silly question, but butting my head against it I come up with ; by using a particular color (well, probably in the infrared - maybe terahertz?) of quantum dots, an effect can then be generated in the brain remotely. This might allow any number of sinister manipulations (for which, no doubt, the "beneficiaries" would be expected to pay if they want to possibly be employable). Wnt (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Staining chemicals like phosphotungstic acid might be used?, question is if they are poisonous? Electron9 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lettuce
How long has Lactula sativa (Lettuce) been around as a species? i.e., approximately when did it first appear? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If mean the date the species was established taxonomically - it was one of the first plants ever classified, by Linnaeus of course, in Species Plantarum (1753).


 * If you meant the oldest known cultivation date - the oldest identifiable depiction of L. sativa (believed to be L. sativa var. longifolia)  is from Egyptian tomb paintings from around 4500 BC.


 * If you meant the date when it became a distinct species - it probably didn't (at least not yet). There are no reproductive barriers between L. sativa and its wild ancestor Lactuca serriola and they can undergo normal meiosis when crossed and produce perfectly fertile "hybrids" with each other. They are better treated as ecotypes rather than species. In addition, two other species are also probably ecotypes of L. serriola : Lactuca dregeana and Lactuca altaica.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was pretty much getting at the third thing you mentioned. Were heads of whatever you would classify in the same group as lettuce around in the Cretaceous, Jurassic, Carboniferous, or what? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, they're flowering plants, so definitely not Jurassic nor Carboniferous. But neither even Cretaceous. I can't find any sources for the fossil record of Lactuca, but the family it belongs to (Asteraceae) first diversified around 42 to 36 million years ago in the Lutetian to Priabonian Ages of the Eocene Epoch, Paleogene (or Lower Tertiary) Period; with the stem group diverging 49 million years ago in the Ypresian Age.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   23:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * About your last comment, have you checked out Lactuca serriola? It has pictures showing you what it looks like. As with many cultivated species. The cultivated forms have been heavily selected to be something that works well for human consumption. I expect what Lactuca serriola has would not be identified as a head by many. Although of course as mentioned in our article not all cultivated varieties of Lactuca sativa have a head form anyway (although are still more suited for human consumption). I'm presuming you're referring to a head of leaves rather then the flower heads. About your main point, you may want to see species problem and speciation, the trouble with a question like this is that it's questionable if there can ever be a simple but definite logical system of when to recognise things as seperate species. When you are referring to ancestral types, even if you have a some definition like the traditional ability to crossbreed to produce fertile offspring it's even less clear cut since even if a 10 million year old form (for example) can't successfully breed with a current form, it may be the case that this form could breed with each of its offspring that eventually led to the current form. Of course in angiosperm plants particularly, since polyploidy is more common, there may have been cases when the offspring couldn't successfully breed with the parental plants. This is further complicated by whether you think Punctuated equilibrium or Phyletic gradualism or Punctuated gradualism or something else is the best model for the evolution of whatever you're referring to. We have had some discussion of these issues before, you may want to check the archives. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Poisonous contrails?
This doesn't go in the direction of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, but if some aircrafts use chlorosulfuric acid to avoid leaving a contrail, wouldn't that contaminate, at least a little, the area below its trail? 88.9.209.157 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically it'll contaminate something, but whether that's the area below the contrail, or somewhere miles (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) away due to wind, or whether it remains in measurable quantities, or even if its byproducts remain in measurable quantities.... Sure. It got used, so it's in the environment.  Whether that rises to anything remotely resembling "contamination" is another matter. &mdash; Lomn 23:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, "below" is the wrong word. It would be better to say "some area in the ground." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.209.157 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "contaminate" might also be the wrong word. What Lomn is saying — and I don't know if this is correct — is that the release of that amount of chemicals into the atmosphere is going to dilute it to immeasurable quantities by the time it gets anywhere near the surface. If that's the case then it is probably not much of a contaminant. Presumably this has been studied to some degree before it was introduced into use. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly&mdash;the breakdown products of chlorosulfuric acid are sulfuric acid and hydrogen chloride, and form rapidly and readily in the presence of water. (As, for example, one might find in a contrail.)  The chlorosulfuric acid itself will not persist for any significant length of time, so it's not going to 'contaminate' anything.  While sulfuric acid and hydrogen chloride are not particularly pleasant compounds if you're exposed to high concentrations, both are present in the atmosphere at low concentrations anyway as a result of industrial pollution (leading to acid rain).  I would be inclined to wonder if the aircraft's generation of nitrogen oxides wouldn't contribute more to air pollution than the chlorosulfuric acid.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the same reason the chemtrail conspiracies fail, this isn't any threat to the ground at all. It simply disperses so much that, if any of the chemicals reach the ground, they're in such small amounts as to be insignificant. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nerveagentase
Would it be possible to create artificial enzymes which would deactivate nerve agents by replacing their leaving groups with inactive alkyl groups? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 23:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Enzymes already deactivate nerve agent that block other enzymes – its just that they don't do it fast enough to prevent the grim reaper -if the dose is too high. Gardeners don't drop dead from normal spaying (with lesser versions) but rub the same stuff undiluted (agricultural  grade) all over your skin and you too, will  be soon pushing up the daises. And just what destruction do you think these artificial enzyme would do to you're other metabolic processes. If it was humanly possible to avoid deathly side effects, they already would be under development. The best defense from these WMD's  is not boffin concocted enzymes but  the same that holds true for nuclear weapons – just be on another continent when they go off. --Aspro (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Creating such an enzyme is certainly possible, and its expression could be targeted to useful places (skin, alveolae, endothelium, blood cells etc.) but you'd have to get it into the person before exposure to the gas. If doing this for any long period, immune rejection would become an issue, though there are workarounds.  For sci-fi, I'd say it's a good idea, but in the real world it's just not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hah! Looks like I was wrong.  This reference  describes a catalytic antibody approach for degrading methamphetamine.  The approach has also been used on cocaine, apparently.  It probably could be adapted for this function instead, though I haven't considered the specifics.  In theory the antibody targeting the nerve agent could be a human antibody already present in the normal repertoire at very low levels; thus rejection might be avoided (no promises). Wnt (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)