Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
How is it like diving 600 feet underwater? what kind of marine life is down there? Are there coral reefs, sea slugs, moray eels, stonefish, or dolphins? I'd go scuba diving now if i could.--Diver62 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. You picked an interesting depth because the Photic zone goes down to a maximum of around 200 meters, or around 660 feet — below this, it is very very dark, and photosynthesis cannot occur; bioluminescence is essentially the only light available. So, in addition to the fact you're an technical diver at this point because of the crushing pressure, you're going to be carrying around a lot of flashlight gear. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
did u ever go diving before? i'm just a highschool teen and i'm interested in going for cetology and marine biology in college. i also want to go diving as a profesional and be diver in caverns and wrecks. do u have similiar interests? i even wrote a 6-page short story of my future life of diving in the red sea. the beautiful creation of God underwater, diving in a cavern, almost killed by an octopus, and losing our air and rope. it is also about wreck diving and finding treasures and seeing squid crushing fish in the window of a sunken ship. that's my type of life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, is there a reason in particular why you bolded this post? Falconusptc 03:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks accidental (he opened the bold but did not close it), I removed it. Ariel. (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen on the internet of an octopus taking someone's underwater camera from them and swimming away with it. I just wrote it in the story for excitement, even though it may not be true. I like octopuses and dolphins especially.I also like police, detectives, and karate. Even though I want to do karate, I don't do it. I'll hopefully do it when I'm grownup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can people withstand the water pressure at 600ft? That is about 20 atmospheres, or 300 psi roughly. Googlemeister (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People have dived 1,083 feet being the record on scuba gear! Isn't that amazing! All that pressure is upon you in such a deep, dark,area full of lantern-fish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is amazing! They must have spent weeks decompressing. Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor Jackson dived 600 feet and explored a ship wreck. That is a deep dive and maybe the deepest I would dive. there is also a danger of the bends, nitrogen narcosis, oxygen toxity, and related troubles down there i wouldn't ever want to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheck Exley is one of the ONLY EIGHT people in the history of technical scuba diving to go below 800 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, high pressure nervous sydrome starts occuring at 500 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting is that those really deep dives are interesting as technical accomplishments, rather than as exploration or entertainment. Under those pressures, one incurs tremendous amounts of time in decompression (up to twelve hours) at multiple depths and with multiple gas mixtures, in exchange for at most a few minutes of bottom time. It's also an extraordinarily risky pursuit — of the nine people (all men) who have made dives to at least 800 feet, at least three have subsequently been killed in diving mishaps. Even 600-foot dives are quite risky, costly, and time-consuming.
Truth be told, if you're just hoping to see interesting underwater sights – including coral reefs, sea slugs, moray eels, stonefish, or dolphins – you're probably better off staying within a hundred feet of the surface. You save all the technical mucking about and can spend hours exploring the sea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said 30 feet. It's nice and bright. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. That is a good point you brought out. I like to see all the paraphernalia of the sea, but also like to explore the caves, caverns, shipwrecks, and just go deep for the fun of it. I might even be a police diver someday, since i like police,or live in a submarine. Whatever God has for my life is the best thing, and that's what i'll do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see coral forming? Like, one year its small, and the next year it is 1/2 inch bigger. i thought it grows slow, but some trained divers maybe check the coral. what's the answer? PLEASE, I NEED AN ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Diver62 (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, many different kinds of coral, and they all grow at different rates. But the answer to your question is yes, for some corals. I try to spend a week diving in Tenerife each year, and there's a bay with volcanic rock sticking out of the sand at about 30 feet of depth. Each year since about 2000, I've seen a few small patches of coral there getting a little bit bigger. Tenerife is geographically near the extreme of where you might expect to find that sort of coral, but it does seem to suggest that its average water temperature is getting very slightly warmer. But no more shouting, please :) --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THanks. I finally got my question answered. Wow! You're fortunate you can go diving every year. Can I come with you? I hope no El Nino's come with warm currents and kill all the precious coral. How much bigger and what color is the coral???Diver62 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
did the US used hummers in war years ago because i dont see anything about it in your site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.179.18 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M998 (the most common military vehicle called a HMMWV, "Humm-Vee", or "Hummer") is not at all like a commercial "Hummer", "H2" or "H3." The M998 is a sort of pipe-framed chassis supporting a canvas buggy powered by an eight-cylinder diesel engine; it has four-wheel independent suspension, four-wheel independent drive, a water-proof, bullet-resistant engine block, and for the most part would not be considered "safe" by NTSB standards as a civilian vehicle. The Hummer as it was commercially sold was a Chevy Tahoe with a customized fibreglass hull that marginally "looked like" an M998 (in my opinion, they are not even close, especially not in profile view: M998 vs. H3). It is not fair to call them the same vehicle at all. Nowadays, the need for a light troop transport has been largely replaced by the need for armored vehicles and MRAP, so it is probable that the HMMWV and its brethren will see very limited use on the next generation battlefield. They were never intended as "combat vehicles" (though many models did have light armament, they were intended as transports), and one of the great controversies during the early stages of the Iraq War was that American soldiers were being ferried into combat zones in unarmored HMMWVs. Nimur (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its completely unfair to compare the H3 to the M998. The H3 was not intended to resemble the military version, except perhaps in the grille. The H1 compares much more favorably in styling and build to its military cousin. See this pic instead of the H3 one you placed above. --Jayron32 22:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hummer H1 was a street-legal version of the HMMWV -- same frame, same drivetrain, same lousy suspension, same major body panels, and some of the same special features, and they both came off the same assembly line. The Hummer H2 was a standard GM SUV frame styled to look somewhat like the H1. The Hummer H3 was a SUV that bears a passing resemblance to an H1. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - the H2 is a Chevvy Tahoe with different body panels - and not much else! The H1 is the only one that bears any resemblance to the military vehicle - and even then, they dumbed it down a lot. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
around the hottest time of the summer, the bumble bees start acting very wierd. they stay on the plants at night and dont fly back to their nests. sometimes they dont eat too. then the other day i saw about 7 of them lying dead in the stones by our house. are they dehydrated perhaps???? or tired?? i cant find an answer anywhere else. thanks for answering--98.221.179.18 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contact your local university. Maybe they would be interesting in analyzing one of the dead ones. I doubt they would be dehydrated unless there were no flowers. Tired is unlikely too. Is it possible it's mating season, and you are seeing the dead drones, and the new queens who didn't make a hive? Ariel. (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar topic, I occasionally see bumble bees apparently trying to burrow into the lawn. What are they seeking? Dbfirs 09:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some bees are solitary and many of these dig small burrows to live in, so these might be a burrowing species (not actually a bumble bee, since these are apparently all communal) testing the ground to see if it's suitable. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we have these bees that are like bumblebees but theyre much bigger like three times the size and they have shiny black abdomens, not furry like bumblebees. we thouught they are carpenter bees but they gather pollen like other bees and i never see them chew wood. most books say they are carpenter bees but i dont think so. are they queen bees of some sort??? then there's some very, very tiny bumblebees that are half the normal size of a bee. i dont know!!!!--98.221.179.18 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carpenter bees do collect pollen and nectar, and they fit the description; so your "big bumblebees" are probably carpenter bees indeed. You need to find where they make their tunnels in order to see or hear them "chew wood" (they can't digest wood, really, AFAIK. They just burrow in it). It is much easier to find wasps that gnaw on wood than carpenter bees that do this. The reason, I am guessing, is that the carpenter bees have no interest in openly advertising the location of their largely defenseless larvae and of the food supply, whereas wasps gnaw on wood to build their nests elsewhere. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is mating season for bees but i thought the drones cant fly. and i dont know why they dont go to the flowers we have in abundance in our garden instead of dying--98.221.179.18 (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course drones can fly. That's pretty much the whole evolutionary point of having them :) . In most social bees the drones are basically flying insemination devices. Carpenter bees are not really social, so drones also protect the tunnels, at least in some species. --Dr Dima (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huge bees with shiny abdomens could be the Eastern cicada killer, which are actually wasps, not bees, but they have a more bee-like shape than a wasp-like shape. Carpenter bees are of similar size to a bumblebee, while cicada killers can be shockingly huge. The "three times the size of a bumblebee" indicates that the OP may be noticing a cicada killer instead of a Carpenter bee. --Jayron32 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, but I'd be very surprised. Cicada-killers look like hornets, not like bumblebees at all; and they nest in the ground, not in wood. A picture would be the best, of course, even a low-res one. --Dr Dima (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i want to make some homemade ink for a big crow feather i have but i dont know how. can anyone help--98.221.179.18 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any historical museums or that kind of thing in your area? I wouldn't be surprised if they know someone who knows how to make ink. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the rubric at the top of the page, google tends to be a good first stop for this sort of question. --Tagishsimon(talk) 01:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call a Judaica shop, they often sell (or know where to get) ink for quills, because scribes use it. You can also order it online. Ariel. (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest ink you can make would be from 'lamp black' - the fine-grained carbon that's deposited onto a surface from a smokey candle or some other kind of yellow-burning flame - mixed with a small amount of either water or alcohol (alcohol would help it dry faster on the page). Since you're going 'retro' here, you'll presumably be writing by the light of a tallow candle or an oil lamp...so this stuff will be easy to find! The mixture would probably be ground together in a pestle and mortar to ensure that the result is a smooth liquid. This stuff is bad for your lungs - and you should probably wear a face-mask while you're collecting the dry ingredient (although it should be safe once you've mixed in some liquid to stop the dust flying into the air). I wouldn't make a large batch of the stuff (at least not to start with) because it will settle out from the liquid and have to be re-ground when you need it again. This kind of ink is inconvenient, and doesn't produce great results...but that's why we now have ballpoint pens! SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"One great beauty of lampblack, especially for ink-making, is that it is extremely fine in grain, and does not need to be made finer by grinding. It may be used just as it is found deposited on the cold surface of metal or earthenware, and needs only to be mixed with a little gum water to make a black ink corresponding to what we call India ink." -- The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting, Daniel V. Thompson, Dover Books. You'll need to stir it again before using it, is all. Gum arabic is commonly found in art shops next to the watercolours, by the way. 213.122.25.117 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there must be some kind of subtelty about how the carbon is deposited. I did this (many years ago) with the soot from a candle made from a dried grass 'wick' and animal fat - condensing out onto a large, smooth river-rock, scraping it off with a slice of flint and mixing it with rainwater (yes, it was one of those "back to nature - how well can you survive with no tools or modern conveniences" kind of things). As I recall, the stuff I wound up with was maybe about the grain size of table-salt. It clearly wasn't going to be useful as ink - so I ground it up (more rocks!) - and then it worked reasonably OK so long as you didn't try to use it on really shiney paper (it wrote OK on dried leaves though...so that was OK). Maybe it matters what the smoke condenses onto - or perhaps for some reason the nature of the fuel you're burning matters? Anyway - this works. You can do it fairly easily and a crude quill pen works just great with it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book does say that the source of the flame makes some difference, because "there is apt to be a certain amount of unburnt or partly burnt material ... which may affect both the colour and the working properties of the pigment". I can't see how animal fat is different from tallow, though (both beeswax and tallow are suggested, those being what candles were made of)... well, I suppose tallow is purified, so there you are, unpurified fat makes lumpy ink, perhaps. Beeswax is likely better. (And where are you going to find a tallow candle anyway?) 213.122.43.197 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to power some LEDs while stationary on my bike and here is part of a circuit that I hope might work. I'm trying to calculate what resistor, if any, is needed between the battery and the LEDs. I don't know yet, whether I want it before or after the transistor.
My LED's have a max rated forward voltage of 3.8 V (and normal forward voltage of 3.3 V) and each needs 20 mA (I'm not certain whether I want eight LEDs or even more, but assuming it's eight, that's 160 mA total) and I need to use a PNP transistor but I don't know which one; is there a difference? I read somewhere that 0.7 V is a typical loss over a t
ransistor? My battery is 4.8 V, consisting of 4 NiCd cells.
Is the answer 1.875 ohms? In which case the LEDs in parallel can just be treated like a single component, carrying 160 mA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.105.88 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The circuit you show won't work because the pnp transistor needs a current flowing between its base and the negative rail. Frankly, I don't see the need for a transistor there at all; you're turning on and off with a SPST switch. You're right that you can treat the LEDs as being in parallel, but you run the risk of uneven lighting because you can't guarantee that their characteristics are matched when the same voltage is across them, Some may be brighter or dimmer than others. If each of the eight LEDS actually does drop 3.3 V at 20 mA, and your battery actually is 4.8 V, then a single resistor of (4.8 − 3.3) / 0.16 = 9.35 (use 9.1 or 10) ohms would do the trick - you'd be dissipating 1.5 x 0.16 = 0.24 watts in it (a bit close to the maximum rating for some small resistors). Personally, if space wasn't a problem, I'd use one 75 ohm resistor in series with each LED. That would likely lead to more uniform brightness if the LEDs weren't perfectly matched and reduce the dissipation in each resistor to a negligible wattage. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even the diode D5 is not needed. Remove the transistor and the diode D5, reverse the polarity of the batteries such that the positive terminal connects to the anode and the negative terminal connects to the cathode. See the article LED if you need details. The article says that a typical voltage drop is about 2V for a red LED. In this case, you can even put two LEDs and a suitable resistor in series and use four such combinations in parallel. This will bring down the current. -- WikiCheng | Talk 05:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the circuit diagram shown Resistor calculations. With this, assuming the voltage across each LED is 2V, the voltage across each resistor would be 4.8 - 2 * 2 = 0.8. If you need a current of 20 mA (0.02 A), then you will need to use the resistor of value 0.8 / 0.02 = 40 ohms. It will consume about 0.8 * 0.02 = 0.016 W and hence a 47 ohm quarter watt resistor would do.
If you use a single LED instead of two, then the calculations would change. The current through each resistor will increase and hence you may need a resistor of higher wattage. WikiCheng | Talk 10:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full circuit. I corrected the batteries (thanks!!) but the D5 diode and the T1 transistor are needed. The idea behind the SPST switch is that I can switch off the circuit when the bike is parked/locked up, so I don't drain the batteries. When on the road, I want the transistor to switch on the LEDs when I stop at lights. Does the transistor work, now that the orientation of the batteries has changed (just a careless mistake)?
The LEDs which I'm looking at buying (taking into account their brightness) have a forward voltage of 3.3 V but can tolerate a max of 3.8. I don't want to use a resistor to bring the voltage down to 3.3 V because the LEDs will quickly loose full brightness as the batteries drain. This way, each battery has to loose 0.15 V (=at least a few minutes?) before the brightness starts to decrease. 89.243.130.113 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what you want to do is monitor the voltage across the two series LEDs 'XPG' and switch on the other LEDs when it drops below a certain voltage? The thing you have to realise is that semiconductor junctions have an approximately exponential relationship between voltage and current, so you cannot simply apply a voltage to them and expect to be able to predict the current. You always need a current limiting mechanism (usually a resistor), particularly as the junctions have a negative temperature coefficient of voltage - which means as they get hotter, they pass more current and get even hotter. You will always need some series resistance. Looking at your full diagram, when the alternator is stopped, you are clamping the battery with the E-B junction of the transistor and the two 'XPG' junctions. There's no limit to the current, so you will need a resistor in series with the base of the transistor. That will have to be calculated from a knowledge of the forward drop of the LEDs marked 'XPG' and the fact that to turn on the transistor fully, you should plan to have a B-E current of 16 mA, about one-tenth of the C-E current (160 mA). Then you still need to limit the current through your LEDs 1–8 to 20 mA each. A fully saturated power transistor can drop as little as 0.2 V (look for VCEsat in the data sheet). That would give a voltage of about 4.6 V at the collector, so the resistor(s) have to now drop about 1.3 V while passing the current (160 mA for one or 20 mA for eight individual ones). That gives a single resistor of 8.2 ohms or eight individual series resistors of 63 ohms. I'd prefer the latter, to allow for individual variations in the LEDs 1–8. I suspect you're also trying to use the transistor to provide a constant current as the battery voltage reduces, but you really don't have enough voltage headroom to do that with simple circuitry, although FET-based ICs that provide constant current are available with relatively low voltage drops, but that would make it a lot more complex and expensive. However, you are using NiCd batteries which have a low internal resistance and a remarkably small voltage drop as they discharge, so that would compensate to some extent for your fears of the light dimming as the batteries discharge. Finally, I should warn that you're clamping the LEDs 'XPG' to about 0.7 V above the charging voltage of the batteries – please ensure this will give the results you want, or again use a resistor in series with diode D5 to limit the charging current to the NiCds if the voltage across the 'XPG' LEDs should be more than that when the alternator is running. --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my modified circuit but I'm pretty confused. My understanding is that when the bike is in motion, the 6 V will charge the batteries (1.4 V are needed to fully charge each NiCd cell so if I put a resistor there, I prevent them from fully charging and reaching 4.8 V?) I don't know how to figure what current will pass through the batteries relative to the LEDs.
When stationary, the potential difference that normally exists between the emitter and the base reverses from <-0.7 to +4.8 and current flows through the emitter to the base and collector but to return to the batteries from the base, it must pass through the XP-G LEDs which have a forward voltage of 3.0 V and therefore wont allow a current to pass? How will any current be able to pass through the base? Surely the LEDs themselves offer plenty of resistance to only 4.8V? --SeansPotato Business 20:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we know the voltage drop across the 'XPG' LEDs (around 6 V) when conducting, we can do a little more working out. You can see that the return path for current from the base of the transistor in your new circuit has to pass through the XPG LEDs. But you should be reckoning on around 16 mA for the base current and the base of the transistor needs to be at about 4.1 V (battery voltage &minus 0.7) for it to conduct. With the diodes requiring about 6 V to conduct, you don't have enough voltage to sink 16 mA through them, so the transistor won't switch on - that is, the LEDs will offer a huge resistance to 4.8 V as you say. Here comes the next problem: you could put a resistor across the two diodes to provide a return path, but a low value resistor would waste energy when the alternator was working. The other problem is that there is C3 which has to discharge below 4.1 V for the transistor to switch on, but once the XPG diodes have switched off, it has no effective discharge path other than leakage. If C3 really is 3.3 farads (please check), a super-capacitor, then the discharge time constant for even a 100 ohm resistor is 330 seconds (and 100 ohms would waste 60 mA when peddling). I doubt you want to wait five minutes at the lights for the transistor to switch on. Have another look at C3 and see if it's actually a smaller value that we could discharge within sensible times.
R11 will limit the charging current into your NiCds - you have to drop around 0.5–1.1 V across it when the XPG LEDs are on (using Vf=3.0–3.3 V as indicated). The additional current you are asking the alternator to supply ought really to be a 'trickle' current, as NiCds don't like continuous charging above a certain value, usually rated around "N/10" – that means for example a 1200 mAH NiCd will tolerate up to 120 mA continuous charging - for such batteries, R11 would be 9.1 ohms (6.6 &minus 4.8 &minus 0.7)/0.120.
R10 will be calculated to give a base current sufficient to saturate the transistor when it is supplying 160 mA collector current, but we need to know what value of discharge resistor for C3 will be used for us to work that out. It's worth noting that a normal transistor will usually guarantee saturation if IB is one tenth of IC, but a high-gain/darlington power transistor would allow much smaller base currents, while a power FET would need virtually no current, but would require other design considerations. --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The capacitor was a mistake! I got the units wrong! I was 3.3mF! Now it's 4.7mF, 'cause I found a better value option.
What if I just added another cell to the battery? Then current could flow through the LEDs (I estimate 50mA at 2.6V each - the graph is at the top of page 4 on this datasheet) - it ends before it touches either axis. With the extra cell in the battery, I wouldn't need a resistor to limit current during charging, although I will never get them fully charged.
Here is my circuit now. The capacitor can discharge through the LEDs to below 5.4V, during which time, the battery-powered lights take over. With 5.4V over the XP-Gs, the 12 ohm resistor limits the current to 50mA, with 0.6V across it. What do you think?
Also, one thing stands in the way of my full comprehension of the circuit and I've highlighted it in yellow. It's taken from circuit 6 on this page, where it's described as "increasing power at moderate speeds". I've asked elsewhere and one person said they think it smooths out the fluctuations while another said it was a voltage doubler. I think the capacitors are too small to smooth. --SeansPotato Business 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering some post grad studies, specifically a new course offered at a local art university entitled "Visualizing Science and Art". To be accepted by the institute, a portfolio and an admission test is required.
I possess adequate (?) skills in computing and graphics, but am widely illiterate in scientific disciplines beyond the level of secondary education. Fortunately, some tests indicate that, given time, dedication and curiosity, one can learn new tricks in advanced canine years.
So, the question: Can you suggest some (maybe six to eight) "smallish" projects for this portfolio, preferably from different disciplines, where I could test my skills, both at researching and visualising scientific ideas?
Of course, images / short movies will be made available to the WP and can be linked to relevant articles if expert editors deem them to be constructive didactic tools. Feel free to post to my talk-page, if required.
Thank you. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go to American Scientist and look through their current and past issues, paying special attention to the column called "Sightings". It's devoted to scientific visualizations, and many of the articles and images are online. If you know how to use Google to find what you want, do a site search for "sightings" and/or "visualizations". There is enough material there to keep you busy for years. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious one to me would be wildlife photography. Sow about finding a species article on here that can be found where you live but is currently very short and lacks images and trying to improve it? You could also look at some microscopic stuff - try looking at this site for some ideas. There are also some cool books filled with scientific pictures of varying scales - similar to the power of ten video. I can't remember what they are called but maybe someone else can. Smartse (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question we should ask you is, what type of scientific visualization are you hoping to generate? Is it photographs and photo-like images (microscope images, computed tomography, astrophotography, etc.)? Is it quantitative information (for numerical data presented effectively and honestly, see Edward Tufte's gold-standard works, especially The Visual Display of Quantitative Information)? Is it processes, project outlines, or flowcharts? Is it diagrams or explanatory illustrations? Is your target audience scientific specialists, university students, the general public, or high schoolers? Do you have some examples of what type of work you're considering? Finally, what access do you have to original data/material which might guide your chioces? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing your skills, it's hard to know what's possible. In my opinion working to make clear graphics that explain complicated things—like, say, quantum mechanics—would probably be a fairly good project and be impressive to anyone reading them, and there are plenty of existing models to look at, think about, copy, improve upon, etc. E.g. imagine you are illustrating an article in Scientific American which discusses: quantum leap, uncertainty principle, double-slit experiment, EPR paradox, Bell's inequality, and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. Try to come up with images that both look better and explain better—at a glance—than do the ones in Wikipedia articles. (Which frankly won't be very hard!)
That's one approach. The other is to take a look at the work of Edward Tufte, which is basically the Alpha and the Omega for thinking clever thoughts about visualizing data. I see TenOfAllTrades had this same idea... if you haven't seen Tufte's work, give it a glance. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only person who doesn't like Edward Tufte? I mean, at all? I think his diagrams are hideous and do at best an average job of communicating information. Designing effective diagrams is not all that difficult, and the world is full of people who do it better than Tufte. I can't be the only person who feels this way. -- BenRG (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think his diagrams are generally fine, but more important is his overall methodological approach. I think it's hard to argue with his general arguments—diagrams should be clear, devoid of chartjunk, should take care not to unintentionally mislead, and should be rich in interpretation (and he gives lots of examples pro and con of each)—whether one likes his own aesthetic implementations of them. In a world where most popular forms of representation of quantitative data are limited to the horrors of Microsoft Excel, I think he does a lot of good... --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that phones in the UK have a different type connectors than those in the US, but form factors aside, are the two interfaces electrically compatible? Also, do the phones in the UK have different handset connectors than those in the US? Will a headset amplifier made for US phones work with a UK phone, assuming no connector issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.10.26 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are electrically compatible - you can buy simple mechanical adapters between the two. As for headset amplifiers it should work, but I'm not sure if there's even a standard on the headset connector for phones. --antilivedT | C | G 02:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While Antilived's comment is mostly accurate, bear in mind BT jacks used in NZ and from reading the article in the UK very occasionally have a third wire used for the ringer. I'm not sure if there is a standard way for this on RJ11, or if it was even used (there article isn't that clear). Nowadays since all phones have their own ringers, and most houses have moved to 2 wire configs (which is the current standard) but in the unlikely event you have a very old phone which doesn't have a ringer it may not work with an adapter (of course it also won't work with the vast majority of NZ sockets and I'm guessing UK sockets by far). I think this is only one way so plugging a phone with a ringer even if it has an RJ11 plug into a 3 wire BT socket with appropriate adapter should be fine. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many stars in Sagittarius are known to have planets? (The Wikipedia article says 16 and 19, so that needs to be fixed) Also, where can I find a list of these particular stars? Finally, is it true that "Sagittarius has more planetary host stars than any other constellation"? Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. regarding 16 vs 19. "Number of stars known to have planets" is a (usually increasing) function of time, so it simply needs a date and a reference. 2. Regarding "more planetary hosts". Sagittarius is a constellation, that is, a group of stars that look close for the Earth-based observer but are not necessarily close to each-other (indeed, distance from Earth to different stars in the same constellation is often very different). The farther is the star from Earth, the harder it is to detect a planet orbiting it. Besides, we do not even know how many stars there are in the Sagittarius. This being said, it is indeed possible that Sagittarius houses more Milky Way stars (and therefore maybe more stars with planets) than any other constellation. That is because the center of the Milky Way galaxy (our galaxy) happens for the Earth-based observer to lie within the bounds of Sagittarius constellation. Does this help? --Dr Dima (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all that, but I'm looking for specific answers to my questions so I can fix the article and add refs. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lately, more and more of my friends have been buying head massagers (like the ones seen here: http://www.rolostore.com/images/medium/kk_headm.jpg). I've noticed that these things have interesting, differing and sometimes hilarious effects on people. For instance a friend of mine is immune to the effects, another finds them overly tickelish and yet another just becomes totally relaxed. I myself get goosebumps. What could explain the effect of these simple devices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They obviously don't have any meaningful effect but reflect the expectation of the purchaser. Different strokes for different folks, but they all pay. 86.4.183.90 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good answer in my opinion, 86.4. People have varying degrees of sensitivity to stimulation. Complete OR, but I had no expectations when one of those devices was used on me, and the experience was quite noticeable. 10draftsdeep (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whenever I eat watermellon I am struck by the fact that it resembles flesh somewhat. has anyone tried implanting it to see what happens? what does the body have to say about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.207.86 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not being rude, but are you being serious? I seriously doubt anyone has tried, if they did something similar to transplant rejection would probably occur. Smartse (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Doctors don't randomly implant tissues into people to see what would happen. That would be very, very unethical and most likely, illegal. In any case, as watermelon flesh is 92% water, and most of the rest seems to be sugar, it would be very surprising indeed if the human body was able to use watermelon flesh for anything (other then eating it). Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sepsis? It's a vegetable. What's it supposed to accomplish in an animal, other than to either putrefy or be absorbed by the body? Acroterion(talk) 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I implanted some in my mouth, and then my stomach, and lo, it was good. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OP here. Guys, in case it wasn't clear, I'm not a doctor. I was just curious. 92.230.234.245 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for mocking you, by the way, below. Wikipedia has a rule against that. I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing near you. 213.122.25.117 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whenever I eat jelly I am struck by the fact that it resembles vitreous humour somewhat. has anyone tried gouging out someones eyes and replacing it with jelly to see what happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.107.38 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I eat human flesh, I am struck by the fact that it resembles watermelon. Has anyone tried grafting arms and legs onto a watermelon to see what happens? 213.122.25.117 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny? it is sad that this passes for humour - no, not vitreous humour, just young schoolkid humour. 86.4.183.90 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a serious response to what seems to have been a serious question, watermelon will likely cause a foreign body reaction that would initiate a granuloma. Because watermelon is very soft and easily compressible, it would not fit into the category of space-maintaining graft material, such as calcium sulfate, silicon dioxide or allograft/xenograft bone particles such as would be used in a bone graft. In fact, calcium sulfate is not very firm and resorbs quite quickly (few weeks) and so is also not good if one would like to maintain space. Everything I've said above applied primarily to intraoral grafting and can be found in any advanced-level dentistry text. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 15:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are watermelons oval? Are they shaped like the seed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diver62 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the skin on the backs of my arms (where the triceps are) is noticeably colder than other places on my body. Why is that? It doesn't matter if I have had a workout and my metabolism is elevated, or if I am otherwise fairly warm, the backs of the arms always feel cool. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think because they get a lot of air which helps the sweat to evaporate and cools them. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why are baby birds less scared of humans than the adult birds????? there is a mockingbird and it has about three babies hidden around our yard. the adults fly away at first sight of humans, but the babies even let us pick them up. some people say the parents teach the baby birds to be scared --98.221.179.18 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. You're not supposed to pick up baby birds. The parents may abandon them because they will smell different after coming into contact with your skin. 2. Our fear article is about humans, but it notes that although a capacity to fear seems to be part of human nature, "people develop specific fears as a result of learning". Human babies fear nothing, either; it's through learning that they develop fear. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure 1. is because they smell different? As a general rule, most birds have a poor sense of smell except in scavenger species. Googlemeister (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site says my claim #1 is a total urban myth! My apologies! Pick 'em up, toss 'em back into the nest, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving them is a problem. Just touching them is usually ok. I still wouldn't advise doing it without a good reason - you may interfere with the bird's usual development even if it isn't abandoned. The adult won't feed it while you are holding it, for instance, so it may not get as much food as it would otherwise get. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What use would fear be to a baby bird? It can't escape or defend itself in any case. Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could make an alarm call. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thats what it did around my house. the baby called an alarm because a cat was near and the mother attacked the cat, pecking its head and tail--Horseluv10 (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether baby birds feel fear or not - but just because they don't have a use for the emotion (yet), doesn't mean that they don't feel it. Evolution is a harsh mistress. If fear-when-young doesn't actually worsen their chances of survival then they might very well develop the fear response very early on just because it's an 'easier' way for the mechanism to form in the growing brain. Emotions such as fear, stress, anger and pain are often horribly counter-productive - but so long as (on average) they help more often than they hinder - those emotions will be there. What benefit is there for a zebra to feel horrible pain as its living body is ripped to shreds by a lion? Zero - but having that terminal pain doesn't in any way decrease their ability to pass on their genes because death is the next thing to happen. There is no drive whatever for a zebra to evolve the ability to die peacefully under those circumstances - so the pain is there regardless. Nature is horrifyingly cruel. SteveBaker (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The suffix "-osis" just means "condition", but usually a diseased condition of some kind.
"-itis" means "inflammation", which is just one kind of pathological condition.
"Dissecans" means "dissected" or "split".
So putting all that together:
"Osteochondrosis" is any disease of the bone and cartilage.
"Osteochondritis" is when the bone and/or cartilage are inflamed, and kind of osteochondrosis.
"Osteochondritis dissecans" is a condition of the bone and cartilage where there is inflammation and where the bone and/or cartilage has split. It is a kind of osteochondritis, and therefore also a kind of osteochondrosis.
Medical terminology does not always match the things described, as many usages evolve past their roots, but reading osteochondritis dissecans indicates that the above is correct: "[[Osteochondritis dissecans]] is a type of osteochondrosis in which a lesion has formed within the cartilage layer itself, giving rise to secondary inflammation.". --Sean 19:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
when people are fed interveinously, do they get hungry--Horseluv10 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. People are only fed by IV if their digestive system is not working (people that are just in a coma are fed by a tube into the stomach, rather than into a vein), so it may depend on what is wrong with their digestive system. You can't get stomach contractions if the muscles around the stomach don't work, for example. --Tango (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Intravenous hookups supplies only ion-balanced fluid but no nutrients. People who are, for instance, in a coma, are also provided with a gastrointestinal tube through which they are fed a mush of necessary nutrients (protein, carbohydrate, etc.) DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely accurate. Total parenteral nutrition does provide nutrients in the form of carbohydrates, amino acids, lipids, and vitamins. It still isn't a great long-term plan, however. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer (from reading around a bit) is that I think they feel hunger for at least the first few days - but that feeling then subsides. However I have only indirect evidence of that:
Hunger_(motivational_state)#Biological_mechanisms says that "The fluctuation of leptin and ghrelin hormone levels results in the motivation of an organism to consume food. When an organism eats, adipocytes trigger the release of leptin into the body. Increasing levels of leptin results in a reduction of one's motivation to eat. After hours of non-consumption, leptin levels drop significantly. These low levels of leptin cause the release of secondary hormone, ghrelin, which in turn reinitiates the feeling of hunger." - which suggests that so long as those hormones are kept at the correct level, you won't get hungry.
Our Leptin article says that "Leptin has also been discovered to be synthesised from gastric chief cells and P/D1 cells in the stomach." - so it seems likely that without the stomach being stimulated in appropriate ways, you'd not have much leptin - and you'd be hungry no matter how well your intravenous feeding works. It also explains that administering leptin by injection doesn't work well at supressing hunger - for all sorts of complicated reasons.
Our Ghrelin article says similar things: "Ghrelin is a hormone produced mainly by P/D1 cells lining the fundus of the human stomach and epsilon cells of the pancreas that stimulates hunger." - so, again, if there is no stomach stimulation, you'll feel hungry.
Hunger_(motivational_state)#Hunger_pangs also says that hunger pangs disappear after 3 to 4 days without food...so there is clearly something more complex going on.
Tentative conclusion: You'll be OK for the first 12 to 24 hours - then you'll feel starving hungry for a few days - then you'll be OK again.
I hope someone can give us some more direct evidence. SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In one previous discussion we had a claim that it is not possible to get enough calories by IV, which would suggest that even if the hunger mechanism were independant of the digestive system you would still feel hungry. If this past asking of the same question is any guide, Edison should be able to help. Perhaps he can now remember which book he needs to reference? 86.163.212.254 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, there are people who live their entire life on IV nutrition. Intestinal cancer for example, and certain birth defects. Ariel. (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that Ariel. Richard Avery (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article? Total parenteral nutrition: "Long-term PN is occasionally used to treat people suffering the extended consequences of an accident, surgery, or digestive disorder. PN has extended the life of children born with nonexistent or severely deformed organs. People have survived on total parenteral nutrition for more than 35 years, living fully productive lives." Ariel. (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My two bits. I was once (three years ago) hooked up to an IV for about 24 hours. Normally I eat quite a lot (though a good metabolism doesn't let this be seen)), but when I was fed through the tube, I did not feel hunger, which was very, very weird. It was more like missing tastes of things (I was forbidden to eat because it was duodenal ulcer treatment). --Ouro (blah blah) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told personally ( first hand info) from several of my patients in the ICU ( who have been on total parenteral nutrition) that they were very hungry, one particular patient was on life support for 68 days and he used to tell me specifically ( by writing on paper) that he wanted coffee and that he craved for home cooked food. he specifically told me he was hungry- ravenously!!! Fragrantforever 07:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
