Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 September 7

= September 7 =

Pill so that two people don't end up catching feelings
Is there any proposal for a pill that prevents people from catching feelings if they have casual sex? In other words an emotional 'condom'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The obvious idea is to block oxytocin; searching for block oxytocin pulls out refs like - though they go further afield.  (I should note for those below who still seem unbelieving of the possibility of such a thing that these are actually references, if not real science references, that seriously talk about "anti-love drugs")  A repeated suggestion involves SSRIs.  Seems like one of the most useless strains of witchcraft I've heard of... Wnt (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) Maybe an oxytocin antogonist might have that effect, but it would also make sex less enjoyable. StuRat (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Meditate on crying babies? — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't marriage enough without the babies? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Feelings are not a disease. I'm not sure the question is answerable as asked, because it's based on a false premise.  There is no "cure" for feelings, you don't "catch" them.  -- Jayron 32 13:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, many people may develop suicidal thoughts and feelings because they have recently taken prescription drugs recommended by their own physician. So, feelings can be a symptom of disease or abnormal psychology. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They may be a symptom, but they are not the disease. The question really is whether there's a drug that could make you stop having feelings. That goal, in itself, sounds depressing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hypoesthesia and prefrontal lobotomy may be of interest. That is surely a way to stop feeling and stop the conscious awareness of feeling! There are also various drugs that reduce sex drive. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you (random reader) should not perform lobotomy on anyone including yourself. Folks, please remember that we have to assume very very stupid people may be reading what you post here. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but think of how many more of us would be amused to watch the video. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I would hope most of us would be appalled, and would hope that most of the participants here would not find crude debilitating dehumanizing surgery amusing. - Nunh-huh 18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Atosiban blocks the action of oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin is involved in a number of roles including anxiety as it relates to emotional attachment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1621060/ Perhaps atosiban could reduce the feelings of attachment following a sexual encounter. 208.90.213.186 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"natural products"
John Cornforth's certificate of election to the Royal Society includes the phrase "Miscellaneous work on natural products". What does the RS mean by the phrase? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Link to the source from the article. Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Boyhood rambles in the bush inspired Cornforth's interest in natural products, and he began graduate studies at the University of Sydney. A number of his early papers were on the constituents of Australian plants, such as the caustic vine (Sarcostemma australe)".  So presumably it means naturally occurring compounds found in plants.   Alansplodge (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course, we have an article: Natural product, which explains all. I have wikilinked the phrase in our John Cornforth article. Alansplodge (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That article says "In the broadest sense, natural products include any substance produced by life." That doesn't seem broad enough to me.  I would include products like pumice, which are not produced by life.  I would also exclude products produced in a lab, by people (life), like einsteinium. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Erm, which organism makes pumice? And what is natural about an artificially produced element? You can use any definition you want to use, but the definition in the article is the one people actually in the field use, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you are proposing. In fact, it's probably a wider definition than most chemists would use, as is clearly stated in further paragraphs. Fgf10 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Per Fgf10, the definition is what the definition is. It's already established.  Just because YOU, StuRat, wish to create a new definition doesn't mean the already existing definition is wrong.  See etymological fallacy.  -- Jayron 32 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to be travelling through time. I'm not talking about a historical meaning or proposing a future meaning, I am stating the current, common usage. StuRat (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am stating that the scientific definition is at odds with the common (and likely legal) use of the term. If somebody wants to sell a pumice stone and puts "Natural product" on the label, nobody will claim false advertising.  If our article excludes the common and legal defs, then that's a mistake.  StuRat (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the question is specifically about the use of the term by the Royal Society, "the independent scientific academy of the UK and the Commonwealth", so I believe that the narrow, scientific definition is the one we're looking for (and seem to have found).  Alansplodge (talk)


 * For the Q, yes, but the article should have sections for non-scientific usages of the term, too. Part of the purpose of the Ref Desk is to find deficiencies and improve Wikipedia articles, after all. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Burst lithium battery pack
When a lithium battery pack is burst, noxious fumes are released. What are the chemical constituents of the fumes? 38.88.99.222 (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is little good work in this field as yet. Battery technology is changing rapidly and we don't have enough carefully studied hands-on experience. Large battery fires have been events like the M6 waste storage yard fire where the priority was to control a large blaze spreading to other materials, like solvents, rather than looking at the details of the battery fumes. The main constituents of lithium cells (which covers a broad range of types) are lithium salts such as lithium cobaltite which are not significantly hazardous. The main problem seems to be from a minor constituent of the electrolyte, lithium hexafluorophosphate (maybe 1% of the cell content mass). As the attentive will have already noticed, "fluoro-". So the fumes from that burning contain a small quantity of hydrofluoric acid, and that's never a good thing.
 * There's also the risk that such a cell burning is hot, in the middle of a piece of modern technology. So there could be all sorts of polymers, maybe fluorinated, around it. The fume risk might be more from the container than the cell. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane IRMA impact data (observed, not forecast)
I'm looking for tabular data or shapefiles of observed, not forecast Hurricane Irma wind speeds. All the NOAA data I can find is impressive looking forecasts. Where should I look? Hayttom (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , column 9, in knots. This dataset is a best estimate of historical behavior based on a mix of models, satellite, and such direct observations as may exist.  If you strictly want observations only then you probably have to track down the hurricane hunter plane data and whatever land-based sites it happened to pass over.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OP here. I've found what I need (sample below from 0300 Zulu today) in  this document available from this page.

HURRICANE CENTER LOCATED NEAR 21.3N 72.4W AT 08/0300Z POSITION ACCURATE WITHIN 10 NM PRESENT MOVEMENT TOWARD THE WEST-NORTHWEST OR 290 DEGREES AT  14 KT ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE  920 MB EYE DIAMETER  20 NM MAX SUSTAINED WINDS 145 KT WITH GUSTS TO 175 KT. 64 KT....... 65NE 45SE  35SW  55NW. 50 KT.......100NE 70SE  50SW  80NW. 34 KT.......160NE 120SE 80SW 150NW. 12 FT SEAS..540NE 240SE 90SW 480NW. WINDS AND SEAS VARY GREATLY IN EACH QUADRANT. RADII IN NAUTICAL MILES ARE THE LARGEST RADII EXPECTED ANYWHERE IN THAT QUADRANT.

I'm parsing it into ArcGIS. Hayttom (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Our original question seeks "observed, not forecast" wind speeds. Oh boy!  If you're a weather geek, it's time to become educated about the most strict interpretation of weather terminology: weather information is categorized into three distinct types of weather information: observations, analyses, and forecasts.
 * Quoth the canonical text: "Observations are raw weather data collected by sensor(s). The observations can either be in situ (i.e., surface or airborne) or remote (i.e., weather radar, satellite, profiler, and lightning)."
 * Categorically, "Winds Aloft" fall under the definition of the category of a forecast, not an observation.
 * Surface wind observations, on the other hand, are available: if you want only observations and no forecasts, try the official Aviation Weather website - click on "Observations" and select METARs for a graphical view of all the reporting stations.
 * If you want text data, the observation prefixes the forecast in the textual data viewer tool: so click on the Forecasts menu and select TAF, and type in the stations you want.
 * For example, on Wednesday, I got this fantastic bit of amazing weather from the surface observation at TNCM:

TNCM 061121Z 0612/0712 300120G140KT 1SM +RA BKN015 OVC030
 * That is an observed surface wind, generally from the north-west, at 120 knots wind speed (sustained for a 2 minute period), with gusting up to 140 knots.
 * Here's a link for decoded current conditions; here are recent hourly data dumps; and you can figure out how to check other surface stations by modifying those URLs or navigating around on the NOAA weather websites.
 * If you care about the technicalities - here's a free book you ought to read: Advisory Circular 00-45H: Aviation Weather Services.  (The full book is a PDF link at the bottom of that page; this book gets updated every few years, so check for the most current version).
 * This book provides information on all the operational weather products that the National Weather Service publishes. This book defines the standard formats: refer to it when you want to decode the various hard-to-read weather text products.
 * It's pretty darned near impossible to observe the wind at every point in three-dimensional space; we rely on forecast and analysis to figure out what the wind speed is in the hurricane. So if we're using the strict definitions, you won't find many hurricane wind observations - except for the occasional PIREP, or pilot weather report from an aircraft that is intentionally flying into the hurricane - that would be, in specific, one of the Air Force or NOAA hurricane hunters like the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron or the NOAA P-3D fleet. You can find those observation reports - if any were made - at the weather service's ADDS Aircraft Reports graphical view webpage.
 * Since we're mincing words about "forecast" and "observed" data - here's a note about the legal-ese definition of "operational" - when a weather product is "operational," it means there is some legal obligation by the government to provide it, usually mandated by some law, regulation, an act of Congress, a legally-binding letter of intent, and so on. Operational weather products adhere to standard methodology and terminology - and is generally executed in a manner I would describe as flawless.  Things like surface weather observations and winds-aloft forecasts are both operational.  For example - if you had to stand in front of a judge and testify that the wind was 120 knots on a specific day, you would want to cite a reliable source - like an operational weather observation - and if one was not available, you would want to cite an operational forecast.  This matters if there is any reasonable doubt about the actual wind speed.  Truth is a fleeting entity!  But if you have an operational forecast, it's nearly as good as an actual observation, and in some cases, it's still better than a non-operational observation!
 * Every once in a while, you may find "non-operational" weather information - in other words, the weather service might have a wind measurement obtained by "unregulated" or "undocumented" methods - like some machine that the research lab has churned out, but does not yet have any proverbial Government "stamp of approval." Those data products are rarely spread far and wide to the public; but you can find it in published research, at weather conferences, and so on.
 * So, why do you care? Well, suppose you are constructing a big data aggregation database - it is nice to know that your data is standardized and every data collection station has been formally, procedurally verified.  The machines and measurement sensors are standard; the computer software is standard; and so on.
 * On the other hand, suppose your house got blown away by a hurricane, and your life insurance policy didn't cover you in the event that you failed to evacuate during winds forecast to be stronger than ... well, you get the idea.
 * Nimur (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nimur (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Past eclipse weather
That question reminds me: are reports available showing the weather (cloud cover in particular) actually observed at points all along the recent solar eclipse track, to compare with early general predictions like this or with specific forecasts that were published in the days before the eclipse? And similarly for other eclipses of the past. All I could find by looking in newspapers online this time is reports on places that each paper thought its readers would be intrested in, or reports on people's activities that don't actually mention the weather, which is not surprising. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)