Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 June 20

= June 20 =

Weird brown egg
Does anyone know what the bumps are at the bottom of the egg? Smallman12q (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an egg defect. More specifically, an irregular calcification. Quite common in home-grown eggs, and also far from rare in industrial eggs. For more info, see this resource, which would describe the defect as "pimples", or perhaps a "misshapen egg." SemanticMantis (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect that those who produce eggs for supermarkets sort out the ugly ones like this, and use them for other purposes, like in precooked baked goods. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. All you have is a little extra eggshell. Absolutely nothing wrong with the egg. There IS something wrong with an egg marketing system that wants ignorant customers to think that all eggs are identical. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just wait until they engineer cube-shaped eggs, to better fit in the shelf space. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of time, and not at all biologically impossible. Gallstones are often cubical, for example. In any case, there appears to be some readiness among the egg-consuming public for cubical eggs, and you can make your own in the comfort and privacy of your own humble abode with this: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gallstones are crystalline. Lots of crystals have a cubic structure. Eggs are not crystalline, so the existence of cubic gallstones is not evidence that you could get cubic eggs. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Do fish have tongues ?
StuRat (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Here's an article describing how fish tongues work a little differently from mammal tongues . Unless, of course, the tongue has been replaced by this tongue-eating parasitic louse. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. They must be shorter than the tongues of other animals, because I've never seen one stick it's tongue out (except maybe that one that uses it's tongue as a lure). StuRat (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Are plastic houses doable?
Plastic is known to be very durable, even if it would possibly be more expensive than mortar and bricks. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem like a good idea, for several reasons:


 * 1) Plastics outgas toxic fumes, so the house might be too toxic to live in for the first year or so.


 * 2) Plastics are flammable, again giving off toxic fumes when they burn. This is true of wood, too, but to a lesser extent.  Burning plastics can also stick to human flesh, like napalm.


 * 3) Plastics tend to degrade under UV light. A protective coating might help here, though.


 * 4) Plastics have a high coefficient of thermal expansion, and some become noticeably softer when hotter and harder when cold. Thus, they could crack in winter and sag in summer.


 * 5) Plastics don't have as much compression strength as other common building materials, like bricks. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems all was said then, about my revolutionary idea. :( OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It might have been revolutionary in the 1960s, but plastic houses have been around for a long time. A Google search will turn up lots of hits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 6) Plastics are highly susceptible to creep. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that plastics are used extensively in building houses, though. Here are a few ways:


 * a) Carpets made from synthetic fibers (outgassing from these can be a problem, too).


 * b) Thermal insulation made of Styrofoam, etc.


 * c) Plastic vapor barrier sheets in walls.


 * d) PEX plumbing.


 * e) Wire (electrical) insulation. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're conception of "house" seems to be a bit culturocentric and narrow, Stu. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about igloos, grass huts, etc., I don't tend to call those "houses", no, those are other types of dwellings. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. Think about the houses that most of the planet lives in, not most of the people in your neighborhood. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Face it StuRat, you are a culturocenting culturocentor. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At least some of those features, like electrical wiring, are widespread in houses around the world (excluding other types of dwellings). StuRat (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Top Gear presenter James May built a two-story house out of lego. Wasn't the most liveable of places though. . LukeSurlt c 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think electric wiring with plastic insulation is pretty universal. In additon to the features StuRat listed, there's also vinyl floor covering, which in some cases goes right through the house, and the adhesives that hold the whole mess together. The extensive use of plastics in the constrution of houses, combined with the large amount of plastic in furniture, white goods, sterosystems, etc. seems to belie StuRat's claims about outgassing of plastics making homes unlivable after construction though. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Small quantities of plastic aren't a problem, but large quantities, like certain floor coverings, can cause sick building syndrome. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are already houses built that use a great deal of plastic. White/brown/etc ultraviolet resistant PVC foam insulated  weatherboarding clad the outside. Double glazed UV PVC windows and doors stop the wind blowing through. Inside surfaces are clad in plastics. Plumbing often is now mostly  plastic. Much of the wood furniture is made from chip wast, formed into sheets by bonding with plastic. The jacuzzi is often plastic.  The carpets are made from synthetic fibre (plastic). And in hot climates they are surrounded by drought resistant astro-turf; surrounded in turn by plastic white picket fences.--Aspro (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the house come with free health insurance for cancer, asthma, birth defects, eczema and breathing mask with suit ..? :-) Electron9 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Smokeless powder compared to bullets
Lets say you shoot a blank cartridge. Would the escaping gasses accelerated out the muzzle have a total kinetic energy greater than a bullet accelerated by those same escaping gasses? The reason I ask is if the gasses are doing work on the bullet, shouldn't there be inefficiencies involved that make the total energy imparted to the bullet less than the total energy that the escaping gasses would normally have if there were no bullet? ScienceApe (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, given the same amount of powder in either scenario, the bullet will get some of the kinetic energy, and the gases will get some (or all, if there is no bullet). However, that kinetic energy from the gases will quickly dissipate by moving air, while the bullet will keep most of it's kinetic energy far longer and farther.  However, shooting somebody point-blank with a blank can still kill them, as the gases still have sufficient potential energy to do so at that distance. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What StuRat said isn't wrong, but the line between kinetic energy, sound energy (in the pressure wave) and heat is a bit less obvious in this situation. Whether there is more energy as kinetic, heat or in the pressure wave at any given point depends on how you want to delineate each. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)