Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 January 13

= January 13 =

Is there something like a reactivity series for melting points of organic compound types?
So at least the more important kinds are ranked like organic acids, normal 2-ketones, n-alkanes, n-alkenes, n-alkynes, n-alcohols, n-aldehydes, n-perfluoroalkanes, maybe n-cycloalkanes and so on? Then pick whatever number you want like butyl or dodeca- and all the melting points will be ordered? And one for boiling points if it's different?

If this isn't possible then is there a graph with dots or lines for the n-alkanes, n-alkynes and so on? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What you want is a specialized application of the Unified Physicochemical Property Estimation Relationships (UPPER) model developed at the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy. It's described in detail by its developers Bo Lian and Samuel Yalkowsky in the document Unified Physicochemical Property Estimation Relationships (UPPER) (which, uncharacteristically for an Elsevier title, is available outside a pay wall). Figure 4 on Page 2714 is the graph "Calculated versus experimental total entropy of melting : Walden’s rule; : line of identity; N = 352."


 * Akash Jain, also of the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, created a more detailed document "ESTIMATION OF MELTING POINTS OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS" as his PhD dissertation.  Luckily for you, that's free, too, courtesy of the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy.  Most of the information you're looking for is tabular, not graphic, in Jain. The graphs in the document are almost all the observed vs. predicted melting points for organics.


 * I hope this helps. It's probably not the cut-and-dry thing you were asking for, you'll have to scan or key the tabular values in to get any graphs not provided by the authors.  Increasing knowledge is increasingly expensive. loupgarous (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comme ci? -- Jayron 32 02:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comme ça. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What are the borders of the cerebral circulation?
When talking about the pulmonary circulation then its borders are very clear, since that it starts in the heart (to be accurate in the beginning of pulmonary artery in the heart) and ends in the beginning of pulmonary vein in the heart. But when talking about cerebral circulation it's not clear to me what are the borders of the vascular. I found on Google that it's "starts from the muscular carotid and vertebral arteries, which bring oxygenated blood the brain, and ends with jugular veins", but I don't know if it's reliable or not. In addition according the article here (cerebral circulation) there are two circulations, that actually makes it "cerebral circulations", anterior and posterior. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also the Circle of Willis which consists of communicating arteries which can shunt blood flow between the posterior and anterior circulation and the blood vessels supplying each side of the brain. This tends to prevent ischemia of an area of the brain to which direct flow of blood is blocked; blood can flow through the communicating arteries of the Circle of Willis from patent arteries in some cases to perfuse areas of the brain to which direct arterial blood flow's been interrupted.  This doesn't happen in all cases. loupgarous (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The border of any vascular territory, including those in the brain, are the boundaries of the watershed area. So, each of the arteries (such as the middle cerebral artery) will have a moderately-well-defined area that it usually supplies. Knowing this is relevant for physicians when assessing patients with strokes. For example, by identifying the area on a CT scan in which the brain is affected by a stroke, the location of the vascular problem (usually an embolus) can be identified. Klbrain (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

How could air embolism in the artery (by syringe) cause heart attack or stroke?
1) I've been reading very well the article here on "air embolism", and it's not clear to me how can a bubble that inserted by syringe to the artery of the arm, reach to the heart or the brain and damage them. the blood flow is just in opposite direction (from the heart to the tissue in case of artery). 2) In addition, why the bubble (air) is not dissolved in the blood? 3) Those bubble that we are talking about in the context of air embolism they are with the composition of the air outside? (78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases) 4) The article here states: "Gas embolism into an artery is a more serious matter than in a vein, because a gas bubble in an artery may directly stop blood flow to an area fed by the artery.", I don't understand the statement that support in the claim that the Artery gas embolism is more serious than in vein, because we can say that the same thing can happen with bubble in veins that the bubble can stop the blood floe to an area that drown by the vein, such in case of DVT. 5) It's written also that in case of vein embolise in the most of the cases it's stopped in the lung. what does it mean "stopped"? does it mean that it goes out by diffusion or it's stuck there? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Same way that an air lock in a fluid line happens -- the bubble reaches a local high point and gets stuck there (because air is lighter than blood), and interrupts the blood flow. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From the hand to the heart or brain? In addition, unlike a fluid line, the artery has a pressured flow toward the opposite direction, as noted. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your car's gasoline line is also pressurized, but that doesn't mean an air bubble can't cut off the fuel flow to the engine if the conditions are right! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article on that is air lock, and it explains that "circulating pumps usually do not generate enough pressure to overcome air locks". Now normal systolic blood pressure is about 120 mm Hg, which means it's enough to raise a column of mercury 120 mm.  Now compared to blood, mercury is about 12.8 times as dense, so that pressure would lift blood by more than 1.5 meters&mdash;which makes sense in view of where the blood has to go to circulate.  That sounds to me as though it should overcome an air lock all right&mdash;but of course that pressure won't apply everywhere in the body.  There must be places where the pressure is lower and which are therefore more vulnerable.  --69.159.60.210 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason why air bubles in the fuel line of a car can stop fuel flow is NOT because the pump cannot develop enough pressure to overcome it. The pressure is what it is.  It is because when the air bubble reaches the pump, the pump is sucking against air and not fluid.  Fluid is not compressible or expandable, but air is.  As most car fuel pumps are reciprocating, the inlet valve closes at the end of each pump stroke before the expanding bubble clears the valve. I too have noticed nurses getting air bubbles out of syringes, and thought I knew why.  But then my wife had a lot of chemo delivered by IV into a vein, and the nurses pretty much ignore air bubbles, unless they stop the IV pump pumping, in the same way as air can stop a car fuel pump pumping!  The quick-connect plumbing they use for chemo pretty much guarantees a few air bubles each time.  121.221.103.89 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then the air lock article needs to talk about air bubbles reaching pumps. It doesn't now. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And since the heart is also a reciprocating pump, if you get a big enough air bubble inside it, you'll stop the heart as well by the same mechanism! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but the size of the air bubble big enough to stop heart pumping would have to be the ENTIRE volume of a LARGE syringe, even allowing for expansion at the heart intake pressure. The millimeter size bubles you get in syringes and IV tubing is at least 2 orders of magnitude below that. Also the heart is a 2-stage pump.  It is inconceivable that one air bubble could stop pumping in both sides. 121.221.103.89 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I lost it through the reach discussion. I still don't understand how it can arrive from the arm artery to the heart or brain against the flow. What did I missed? (In addition the articles that were mentioned here are talking about insertion of bubble very close to the ares of the heart or the brain) 93.126.88.30 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither can I. If air is injected into an arm artery, it would have to travel the round trip, into arm tissue capaillaries, then to veins, back to the heart, and from there to the lungs, back to the heart, and then to the brain.  I googled and  All articles returned nominate rapid ascent diving or certain types of major surgery as causing the problem.  In teh case of diving, gas bubbles form throughout the body and can amalgamate into larger bubbles.  None of the articles I scanned mentioned syringe injections as a possible cause - though that might be because all syringe users are taught to exclude air and generally do so. 121.221.103.89 (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sleep-wake in DSM
The DSM is a "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (my emphasis).

It includes a great deal on sleep-wake disorders. Why? I assume that it's because of much overlap, but I can't find anywhere that it actually explains why they are included. Certainly (I hope!) they aren't claiming that all sleep disorders are psychiatric disorders? Yet I know that some people insist that since they are in a manual with that name, that means that all sleep disorders are mental illnesses. I note that the ICD prefaces each sleep condition with "non-organic"; DSM doesn't.

I've looked for a good, reliable explanation. Can you find one?

Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the DSM is to provide a clearly-defined technical language for professionals (especially psychiatric medical doctors). This enables consistent diagnosis and description.
 * The DSM, by itself, doesn't provide an explanation or causal link for the various conditions.
 * Nor does it preclude a causal link to some other condition; nor does it preclude comorbidity with other medical conditions.
 * So - to answer your question - the DSM contains a large chapter on sleep disorders because providing a consistent nomenclature and a formal technical language to describe such disorders is useful to the audience of professionals and researchers who normally use the DSM. The inclusion of the section on sleep disorders does not imply that every sleep disorder is a mental health issue.  It simply provides a clear and consistent technical language, commonly used by mental health professionals, that can describe certain sleep disorders.
 * There is probably no better reference to cite than the DSM itself: in the introduction to the section on sleep/wake disorders, it says: "this chapter is designed to facilitate differential diagnosis of sleep-wake complaints and to clarify when referral to a sleep specialist is appropriate for further assessment and treatment planning." A sleep complaint certainly need not be a mental illness, even if a person seeks medical help for it!
 * Nimur (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . Interesting and very sensible.  Do you consider all the sleep-wake conditions described in the DSM as "mental" disorders or illnesses?  I don't have access to the DSM; I wonder if it specifically states why sleep is included and points out that the conditions described aren't (necessarily) psychological, though they may have psychological consequences for some people.  I've read several dictionary definitions of the word "mental" -- no help there.
 * (I do have a sleep-wake disorder. It's disturbing to be told that it's a mental disorder.)  --Hordaland (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is a false assumption here, that DSM is only supposed to cover "mental" or "psychological" disorders. The reality is that the main function of the DSM is to provide a consistent set of labels for all the conditions that psychiatrists may be called on to treat.  Even though sleep disorders are not considered psychological disorders per se, they are often co-morbid with psychological disorders.  In particular the majority of people with serious depression also suffer from sleep disorders. Looie496 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think two or three points ought to be made. Most importantly - we don't and won't try to tell the OP what their condition is - that would be providing a diagnosis, and we just don't do that on Wikipedia's science reference desk.  We don't know what your condition is; we aren't going to try to diagnose it; we're just here to help readers find good, high-quality scientific references.
 * The OP has also expressed concern that some might call a sleep problem a "mental disorder." Would it help if we called it a "wakalixes disorder"?  The name of the condition has no impact on how severe the condition is, nor on whether the OP needs professional help to solve it.  The more important word in this case is "disorder" - which specifically means that something is not right.  You can have any kind of sleep condition, but if you have a sleep disorder, it means that the condition is causing some kind of trouble.  A professional can help you to find a probable cause and a suitable fix - and depending on your specific case, the cause might be something totally unrelated to your mental state.
 * Finally: whether or not anybody is formally diagnosed with a mental health disorder: there is no good reason to stigmatize "mental" health. Mental health issues are commonplace and many professionals and other support services are available to help people become well.  Scientific research, like this 2007 study by the CDC, shows that we have a great need to help educate the public "about how to support persons with mental illness and the need to reduce barriers for those seeking or receiving treatment for mental illness."  So: whatever comes of your investigations into your own sleep condition, maybe you can step away with a slightly enlightened view of mental health!
 * Nimur (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sleep is pretty emphatically a "brain thing", so it seems fairly logical to me. I can see why you might not consider something like encephalitis a mental disorder, as it's usually from an exogenous cause, but sleep is a behavior that arises from the brain. And from a purely practical angle, sleep disorders have a high rate of comorbidity with things like depression, so it makes sense to integrate them into the DSM. (I have Asperger's syndrome, major depressive disorder, and sleep apnea! Isn't life fun sometimes?) --47.138.163.230 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with these comments. Excessive sleep, or lack of sleep, is associated as a symptom of many mental/mind/brain disorders. The reliable sources refer to hypersomnia and hypersomnolence disorder, as a mind, or mental disorder, not just the DSM-5! Hordaland, just because you said "I do have a sleep-wake disorder. It's disturbing to be told that it's a mental disorder" in your earlier comments, seems to be your personal opinion, and you not wanting the reliable sources to be calling it a mental disorder.Charlotte135 (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that the consensus is that mental disorder should be the term used, instead of condition.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Away a couple of days, and comments pile in! Thanks.  I especially appreciate Looie496's sensible one; well put, "Looie"!  That the DSM is only supposed to cover "mental" or "psychological" disorders is indeed a false assumption, and sleep disorders are not considered psychological disorders per se.
 * While Charlotte135 correctly states that some sleep issues are symptoms of mental disorders, it does not follow that all sleep disorders are symptoms of mental disorders. I believe that even the DSM is clear on that.  Referring to "the reliable sources" is meaningless without citing them.  No disorders are mental disorders unless reliable sources say they are.
 * Since I mentioned it, my own sleep disorder was correctly diagnosed years ago. While it did lead me to getting active as a wikipedian in the first place, let me clarify that it was not the background for my question here.
 * --Hordaland (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that most comments here have concluded that the term mental disorder is most appropriate Hordaland. Disorder or condition is not specific enough, and not helpful.Charlotte135 (talk)
 * I disagree. Anyone wanting to continue the discussion is welcome to do so at the  Talk page at Hypersomnia.  There is IMO no point in using up more space here.  --Hordaland (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

life expectancy of guns in terms of EFC?
hi. can anyone help me know how to aseratin the life ascertation of guns in terms of EFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexterkhan (talk • contribs) 10:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned


 * Moved to new section - comment added by Wymspen (talk • contribs)
 * Maybe this will be obvious to someone more familiar with guns but what do you mean by EFC? Effective full charge? Expected Family Contribution (although I don't get how this relates to your question)? Something else? Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is noted at the link Nil Eine provided that the actual decision to retire any specific gun barrel would be made on examination and measurement of actual wear rather than that predicted by the EFC count. Blooteuth (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What's a life ascertation? —Tamfang (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Stopping power
How does the stopping power of a bullet (at equal distance, like say 25 yards) correlate with its (1) diameter, (2) muzzle velocity, (3) muzzle energy, (4) momentum, (5) propellant charge, and (6) ballistic coefficient? Which of these parameters correlates most closely with stopping power? Also, how do the following cartridges rank in stopping power (highest to lowest or lowest to highest, your choice): 5.56X45 NATO, 223 Remington, 22 Long Rifle, 7.62X39 Soviet, 7.62X51 NATO, 308 Winchester, 7.65X21 Parabellum, 9X19 Parabellum, 38 Special, 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum, 45 ACP and 45 Colt? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron 32 14:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's controversy on this point. Until the 1960s, the Hatcher Relative Stopping Power formula was considered to be definitive in estimating the stopping power of ammunition (your question refers to the "stopping power of a bullet", when properly you should have referred to the "stopping power of a cartridge", because the bullet has no stopping power without a charge of propellant behind it and a barrel around it to spin the bullet and contain the expanding gases of the propellant - cartridge cases usually also figure into this, and the history of caseless ammunition indicates that cartridge cases are necessary for the best performance of a given combination of bullet, propellant charge and barrel).
 * From the 1940s to the 1970s various writers in the firearms press and consultants to the Federal government began examining the Hatcher Relative Stopping Power formula critically. The December 28th, 2012 post to the blog "Firearms History, Technology & Development" describes the history and specifics of estimating relative stopping power since Hatcher's RSP formula. loupgarous (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article Stopping power cited by the OP explains how many other factors than the bullet alone affect stopping power. Blooteuth (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But the OP didn't appear to have internalized that knowledge. Now the OP can read the materials I pointed out as well as our article Stopping power and answer the original question knowledgeably. loupgarous (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot to specify bullet shape and material -- in this case, assume the bullet is a non-expanding, full metal jacket ball type as used by the military. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just read the post about Hatcher's formula -- it says that the most important parameters are momentum and bullet cross-section (i.e. diameter), plus the type of bullet (full-metal jacket, hollow-point, etc.) Thanks!  2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what type of course the original question might be a homework question in. I know I can't think of one. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Military schools offer coursework in the study of ordnance. West Point has had such coursework for most of its existence. loupgarous (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not in a military school (and, in fact, I think West Point might not yet have resumed classes after the Christmas break) -- so it's not homework, but a pet project of mine (which, however, is not likely to be done in the near future). Specifically, if you want to know more, I've recently come up with an idea for a spy-themed FPS game, and I want this info so I can figure out how much damage the various weapons in the game should deal to enemies.  (And this means that had Hatcher's formula been correct, it would have been a great way to calculate this -- the number it gives is claimed to have a 1-to-1 correlation with the probability of stopping the enemy with 1 shot, so I could just replace "probability of stopping an enemy with 1 shot" with "damage dealt to an enemy without body armor with 1 hit to the torso area" and it wouldn't be too far off the mark.  But unfortunately, if what you said is correct, Hathcher's formula is off by a factor of 30-40 and cannot be used even as a first approximation.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Honey bee behavior and oatmeal?
I noticed something strange today when I went to toss some scraps onto the compost pile. There was a huge congregation of bees rolling about in a mound of quick oats (which I had mistakenly bought, thinking they were the old-fashioned style that I happen to like). I couldn't find any references to this sort of behaviour and would like to know if this has been observed before. Also, any theories as to why they do that sort of thing? I did take a video of them, but haven't yet figured out how to upload it. If and when I do I will post a link here. Thanks! Earl of Arundel (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is possible you saw a mass of drones around a queen when she was on a mating flight, or whilst she was trying to start up a new colony. See here DrChrissy (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it almost seemed like they were eating the stuff. But also sort of wallowing around and such. Very peculiar. I'm going to check the pile periodically over the next few days to see if they keep at it. Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To bee or not to bee, that is the question here. There are a lot of flying insects that look like bees, especially in the southern states. So would like to see the video or some stills first for identification. Problem is that even quick-oats (that have been steam treated) are mostly starch which is toxic to bees as far as I know. So would be surprised if they are indeed honey bees ... unless Monsanto have genetically created some sort of kamikaze breed. Use a still digital camera. Images from them are easier to upload and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. If you do not own a macro-lens see if you can borrow one as you will get a better photo. --Aspro (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, these were most certainly bees, now whether or not they were the honey-producing sort I can't say for sure. But yes, I will post a link to a photo or video here later (if I ever manage to get that bit worked out, that is!).Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is actually quite easy to upload files to the Commons[]. Keeping an eye on the area for the next few days will be interesting.  When drones have mated, they usually die.  So, you might find a few bodies of those that have not flown away.  However, if the oats are toxic, as suggested above, any bodies you find may be due to this. DrChrissy (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, well I'll keep that in mind then. And yes, I agree, monitoring them over a longer period may be the key to solving this puzzle. Thanks for the tips! Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe something beneath the oatmeal in the compost pile was attracting them, or maybe something else in the compost pile was interacting with the oatmeal, creating some new substance that was of interest to the bees. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too, at first. But on closer inspection, neither of those scenarios seems very likely. For one thing, if there is something underneath attracting them then they are definitely confused because they are clearly focusing on the oat granules. Second, the oats were tossed out just yesterday so not really enough time (especially considering the cool weather) for much chance of a reaction to take place to create some sort of hybrid substance. That said, I wouldn't rule it out completely. I think I'm going to try an experiment with the oats by themselves in a mound on top of the grass some meters away to determine if they are without doubt attracted to the oatmeal. Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a theory: I believe bees infested with mites, and in particular Varroa destructor, will roll around in any powdery substance they can find, as it apparently irritates the mites and drives them to leave. The quick oats must qualify. StuRat (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might be on to something there. Reviewing all of the footage now there is definitely an unusual degree of franticity in the nature of their movements. I'm no expert, but I have done quite a bit of "arm-chair" bee observation over the years and never have seen anything quite like this. It doesn't appear that they're frolicking in the stuff so much as, well, sort of rubbing themselves against it and whatnot in a visibly agitated fashion. So yes I think your theory sounds quite plausible, actually. Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a quick question: were the quick oats plain? I've seen various flavoured or sweetened versions (not unlike instant oatmeal). If there was sugar on the oats, the bees might be after that. Matt Deres (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For consideration: bees are particularly attracted to grasses (e.g. oats)   --or at least the pollen, but who knows ... oatmeal itself is quite odorous .  --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Before we head off to speculation land, let's remember not to anthropomorphise here. Just because humans find oatmeal odiferous does not mean that bees do. DrChrissy (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I intentionally chose odorous (having a distinctive odor) instead of odiferous  (smelly). ;)  --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There's two issues there. The first does not depend on species, and that's how volatile the components are.  No species, for example, will find that glass has a strong odor.  The second issue, which is species-dependent, is whether that species has scent receptors for the volatile compounds in question. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's the point: bees that are attracted to grasses are likely "receptive" to oat VOCs. And since oatmeal is perceptively odorous, the information was proffered "for consideration". --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @StuRat. "No species, for example, will find that glass has a strong odor." That is a very strong statement to make on a science reference desk.  What is your evidence for this? DrChrissy (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you dispute that a substance must be volatile to be smelled, or that glass is not volatile at STP ? StuRat (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What I am disputing is that you are making categorical statements about animals' sensory capabilities, but without offering references. This is a reference desk. DrChrissy (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My statements boil down to there having to be something to smell, in the air, in order to smell it. If you are claiming otherwise, then that's an extraordinary claim, and you need to provide extraordinary evidence. StuRat (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am making no claims whatsoever. It is you that is making the claim.  Where is your evidence? DrChrissy (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My claim that there has to be something in the air to smell it doesn't require a source. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was not your original claim. Your original claim was "No species, for example, will find that glass has a strong odor."  Even your original claim suggests that glass can have an odour, just not a strong odour.  So which is it, and where is your evidence? DrChrissy (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

- please bee careful if you decide to get that video! There are a lot of incidents with "killer bees" expanding widely into the U.S.; don't assume the swarm won't turn hostile. The suggestion you get it might just be the most dangerous suggestion ever posted on the Refdesk. That said, by all means, of course we'd love to have that video! ;) Wnt (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)