Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 December 3

= December 3 =

Do facial toning exercises work?
Do facial toning exercises work? I don't see how face muscles could be different from other muscles and not adapt when stimulated by physical exercise, but it could all be just snake oil. Or the effect could be minimal.

The facial toning article might need some quality peer-reviewed scientific sources. Most of it are alternative medicine, Chinese medicine, providers of services and so on. --Hofhof (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is problematic, so I mentioned it at Fringe theories/Noticeboard yesterday. It looks like someone has already significant cut down on the poorly sourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Fire nozzles
How do different fire nozzles (fog nozzle, straight-tip nozzle, solid-bore nozzle, etc.) differ in terms of their internal profile? I.e. how do they create the required pattern? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a homework question. Have you tried googling it? Aspro (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle like the exchangeable tips for Pastry bags. --Kharon (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, this is NOT a homework question -- unless you count a writer's book research as homework! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A large number of U.S. patents have been issued for various fire hose nozzles: you can find images and diagrams - including cross-sections and detailed explanations - by reviewing those. The official web site of the USPTO search engine lets you search by title; you may find Google's patent-search engine interface easier to browse for images.  Many of the patents are over a century old, (and probably expired); and you can probably use the imagery from any of these patent filings at no cost.
 * Bear in mind that not all patents-granted are for devices that actually work!
 * Nimur (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try that -- in the meantime, anyone else who has this info is welcome to share! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could look at Spray nozzle for a start... --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the patent office examiner concludes that a device built according to the specification will not do what it claims he will not accept the application.  This is only fair to others who may be working on similar lines.   The patent will cite the "prior art", i.e. previous inventions which are improved upon.   Of course, there's no requirement to exploit the patent once granted, but if it's not worked there's a risk of losing protection (which is only for a maximum of twenty years anyway). 92.8.221.62 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 92.8 is substantively correct here, according to patentability, a device must be 1) eligible 2) novel (does not yet exist) 3) non-obvious and 4) useful. #4 is the relevent bit here; a device which cannot work as intended fails the usefulness criteria.  That is why patent offices will generall reject any application for a perpetual motion machine, which cannot perform their intended function, and thus fail the usefulness criteria.  -- Jayron 32 17:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Construction of Britain’s railways in the 1800s
Who built Britain’s railways back in the 1800s? Did private construction companies exist back then? Who did people like Brunel work for? 90.192.100.85 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See History of rail transport in Great Britain - mostly small private companies applied for Acts of Parliament which allowed them to build lines between named towns. There was then a gradual process of amalgamation, leading to a small number of large companies.Wymspen (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But did those small companies hire construction companies to build it for them? And did they hire people like Brunel? 90.192.100.85 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that there's also a distinct split between railway companies (who are mostly speculative fund raisers during this phase), chief engineers, and then contractors. The chief engineer (Stephenson, Brunel, Locke) would be engaged by the railway company to plan the route, and to decide the important trade-offs between the quality of the finished line (its level and ease of operation) vs. the construction costs and the land purchase costs. A famous engineer might have several such projects on the go at once. They might design a major engineering work such as a bridge, or they might leave it to others. The actual building work would then be done by a contractor, such as Morton Peto, Thomas Brassey, Rowland Brotherhood or Thomas A. Walker. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. So would the modern equivalents be cheif engineer = consultancy, railway company = client/infrastructure authority, contractor = construction contractor? 82.132.216.104 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some very good books on Brunel are Stephen K Jones' 3 volume set Brunel in South Wales ISBN 9780752432366. Much of the general history of Brunel is coloured by Tom Rolt's old paperback biography of him, which over-emphasises Bristol and especially the suspension bridge, whilst ignoring the more voluminous work in Wales - and all Brunel's standard gauge work for the Taff Vale Railway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another book worth a read is, which is a history of the construction of the Grand Junction Railway, later the core of the LNWR, and the book covers the process of designing and constructing such a railway very well.Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * John Brogden and Sons was a very early builder of railways in the UK, but the company failed after Brogden's death when his sons seem to have mismanaged it. The company is of interest to me because it was instrumental in building the first railway lines in New Zealand, even though it was under controversial circumstances. One of my ancestors emigrated to NZ in 1872, apparently as a Brogden employee. If anyone can shed light on employment contracts or employee lists or other circumstances, I'd be interested to hear. Akld guy (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So most were specialist railway contractors? These days railways just seem to be built by general construction companies. 90.192.100.85 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly because the construction of a new railway is a comparatively rare event these days and companies need to keep their expensive plant occupied. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was railway mania at that time.  A group would form a company to build a railway, issue a prospectus, and there would be heavy demand for the shares.   These days not much railway building goes on, although in the past few days the government has signalled that it would like to reopen the lines which were closed in the sixties.   The Channel tunnel rail link was built by a dedicated company and an alternative is joint participation - see East West Rail Link. 92.8.223.3 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the railways (by size and length) were built after the mania period. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * America did it a bit differently. They industrialized later, the population density was lower and country was bigger and from 1850 to 1871 railroads got free land if they gave gov't freight a discount to encourage such expensive national improvements. Perhaps not coincidentally, rail exploded in the 1850s. The continent's biggest river had a rail bridge by 1856 (into Iowa) and the state's newness, farmability, treelessness, featurelessness and square land plots caused a mania of parallel railways too close to each other. To this day Iowa has too many East-West lines of unusually small major settlements. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The men who actually built the railways (and canals, before that) were known as navvies. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Difference between natural gas and coal for global warming.
People seem to say all over that the natural gas is preferable to the coal and by using the gas the global warming will be delayed or even eliminated? I don't see any difference at all with the exception that the coal gives away soot. The soot should eventually settle on the ground especially in areas with frequent rain. Both coal and natural gas contribute to $$CO_2$$ growth in the atmosphere. What is the difference? AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In general, if you remove all subsidies, direct (tax breaks/burdens) and indiret (use of public land without remediation to the environment, scrubbing of pollutants) then whichever fuel is cheaper will generally also be cleaner, since it will involve the least cost; i.e., the least effort and waste. Coal burning, for example, also produces oxides of sulfur.  There is also the relative cost of extraction and transportation.


 * When you have sweatheart deals, government giveaways, and artificial burdens posed by regulations meant to favor one industry over another, such market calculations become skewed, and you are dealing with hidden costs. For example, natural gas means natural gas pipelines, which means fires, construction at public cost, and use of eminent domain; while use of coal can potentially mean strip mining, coal-mine fires, and higher air pollution.


 * Otherwise, CO2 is CO2. See Ol Doinyo Lengai, which produces ~6,000 tons of CO2 daily. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * One differences among fuels is that different chemicals lead to different amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor to supply a certain amount of energy. See Natural gas for cited info. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Correct. With coal C+O2=CO2+ not very much heat. With nat gas CH4+2O2=CO2+2H2O plus about twice as much heat, the extra from the oxidation of the hydrogen. So for a given whiff of harmless CO2 you get twice as much heat with gas than coal, plus of course some deadly dihydrogen oxide. Greglocock (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Coal also contains sulphur, the burning of which can lead to acid rain, another reason why you might prefer not to use it.  Alansplodge (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Flue gas desulfurization is a well-known and widely-used technology -- and if you want to go even cleaner, coal gasification allows complete removal of sulfur (at extra cost). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for repeating this important fact, which I mentioned two days ago when I talked about scrubbing and oxides of sulfur. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the difference between coal and natural gas as an energy source is really what matters in the bottom line, I was using pure carbon equivalence as a proxy, but the same economic point holds--whatever form of energy is cheapest when all subsidies are removed and all costs factored in (including remediation, pollution, and disposal) will be the cleanest.  In our case, at this point, it's nuclear. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * How do you propose factoring in the cost of carbon dioxide? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why should we? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, SMW, if you are just comparing coal and natural gas, the CO2 cancels out as a factor if one assumes carbon equivalence, in which case methane at the destination (other costs ignored) is a cheaper source of heat, and the question has already been answered. If you assume CO2 is a pollutant that needs to be remediated, then the burden is on you to demonstrate this and its cost.  Since I have already mentioned nuclear power, I don't see your ultimate point. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't need to prove what all the climatology PhDs have figured out. Enough CO2 to significantly increase the greenhouse effect unless [magic] means more of it is a pollutant. Eh, here it is anyway. The drawback of nuclear power is that many people are stupid and think they cause lots of radiation in peoples' homes or they can explode with the power of Hiroshima, don't know that Chernobyl was less safe than American ones and would be against new ones being built near them even outside a seismic/tsunami zone. Even if that's a minority maybe politicians (who would have to approve permit) would rather not alienate any net voters. They also take very long to turn on after approval so the government could be different people with a different view before the plant can ever start reducing carbon and the plant gets shut down (i.e. Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant took 11 years and 6 billion dollars to build and was turned off forever during 5% power tests). So though it might be best in principle in the real world it might take a dictator. Maybe in the industrializing democracies the populace wouldn't care though, they'd rather have jobs and cheap electricity and the risk of meltdown doesn't seem as significant when many people die of things development could prevent every day (i.e. tropical diseases). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, no, SMW, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If you want to cite the IPCC as proof, well they are a politically appointed board who don't do any science at all (it's in the lead of their article and in their mission statement) and who by their very name start with Climate Change as their premise, not objectivity.  I am making no claim as to whether man-released CO2 is a problem or not.  If it is, then the cost of remediating it should be included, which I mentioned in my first post.  Your insistence that I recognize your concern is moral hysteria, not reasoned discourse. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the IPCC is organized and funded by the UN -- which means that, like the UN, they are influenced by third-world interests (so they have a vested interest in hindering industrial growth in civilized nations so that third-world nations could get ahead). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F9B4:9A86:7938:FC5D (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then couldn't I say you're making the claim "there's a realistic possibility that man-released CO2 is not a problem"? This seems like a tie then. Then I defer to the experts in the field who are both very smart and the best we've got (humans having no access to superhuman truth sources) and before even reading their papers it seems more likely that the scientists are right. And since vials of CO2 get hotter in the sun then identical vials of air, even if no research was done on climate whatsoever (hint: false) it'd be simpler and more likely (Occam's Razor) for the scientists to be right then for something to prevent that which you're sure probably exists even though you don't what. Now counterintuitive findings are not unheard of in science and to actually be science and get anywhere close to proof (you know there's no absolute proof in science) you have do the math and try to rule these out but luckily for us thousands of scientists did the math and it turns out no matter how rigorously they go (i.e. cement setting, contrail water, airplane vs. low altitude emissions and urban heat island) the salvatory homeostasic effect never happens (and I bet the very few contrarians are irrationally optimistic or bribed) Seems like you're the one with more burden of evidence. Tell me by what evidence is the greenhouse effect not working in the atmosphere the obvious way more likely. And how thousands of scientists' atmosphere calculations are wrong. Whatever evidence you have I'd love to see it. Evidence for such a popular and old-news scientific topic is so easy to find, if you're too lazy or skeptical to Google such common knowledge but still manage to have such extreme agnosticism, skepticism or whatever on the topic that's not my problem. (and I know you're not lazy or you'd be a Democrat) Since you so insist I googled "evidence for anthropogenic global warming" and the first result was https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ NASA] (NASA isn't bribed by a vast conspiracy right?) which has links to numerous scientific society statements (all bribed?), the doesn't do any science (strawman) IPCC, B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46, Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306, V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141, B.D. Santer et.al. and “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.


 * I also found this from the UK government. It says "Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.". The British government can't be bribed too right? (by who? the solar companies? they're not rich). And about the UN, most of the budget is paid by rich countries: . Do you have evidence the General Assembly has more influence on it than their budget sources? At any rate, gaining slightly if rich countries cut sooner (or, less insignificantly, free nuclear plants or windmills to the third world) doesn't mean their answer can't still be right. So I guess my answer then is yes you would be okay with that cost being included (consistent! great!) but you're not sure if it exists. What you agree with on sulfur is called internalizing a negative externality which is actually very similar to evil living wage and socialized medicine laws where the costs of paying employees less than needed to live is passed to the employer instead of evil Food Stamps, Medicaid, small town public transit so shitty the last bus is 5-something, taxes for the fraction of welfare office employee wages that wouldn't be needed if full-time workers didn't need welfare and other otherwise cuttable welfares. And the communist healthcare where the cost of people who take their chances without insurance but then cry to the hospital to fix their broken leg so the public pays out of mercy is then passed on to those irresponsible people (poorly implemented in America I know but the general idea's good) Consistency is good! I get that Soviet-bloc life was terrible/communism won't work/the Democratic approach on crime sucks balls but just because liberals believe something doesn't make it automatically bullshit. (the cost of switching from fossil fuels over a few decades isn't even that big. Plus the new sources will last longer than a few hundred yea Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The planet is doomed anyway and it is scary. AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have three and a half minutes, here's a video on the Natural Gas Initiative from my old professor, Mark Zoback. He explains his view on why natural gas is part of the bigger picture for energy policy in the United States and the rest of the world.
 * Optimism is irrelevant - and for that matter, so is pessimism. Actual engineers and scientists are going to work on these problems, whether the solutions are easy or hard.
 * Nimur (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The earth is not doomed, at least not anytime soon. We might be doomed, but the earth is not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that the above answers aren't clearer. The difference between coal and natural gas is how much CO2 is produced per unit of usable energy, a concept known as the emission intensity. A 2011 IPCC review indicated that per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated burning typical coal released 1000 grams of CO2. For comparison, you only get about 470 grams of CO2 if you burn natural gas to generate a kilowatt-hour of electricity. So, for the same amount of energy, natural gas releases only about half as much CO2. The difference arises from the fact that when you burn natural gas (e.g. CH4) you get energy by converting both the C to CO2 and the H to H2O, whereas almost all the energy in coal comes from burning carbon. See also life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources. Dragons flight (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ^^^ That's the correct answer, but I should add that methane released from leaky natural gas infrastructure does have a stronger short-term effect on global warming... and I would speculate we're building a lot of brand new natural gas infrastructure that eventually will be old leaky natural gas infrastructure... Wnt (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)