Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 May 25

Science desk
< May 24	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 26 >

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.

May 25

Consider a satellite moving at 3.87 km/s - how much is the clock aboard the satellite affected by special relativity per day?

The calculation I did was $86400{\sqrt {1-(3870/299792458)^{2}}}-86400=-7.2\times 10^{-6}s$ meaning that the clock aboard the satellite falls behind by about 7.2 microseconds per day. Could someone please verify that this is the correct approach?220.253.221.60 (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you give us the rest of your approach? It is difficult to know if it is right based on just the final answer. (I could try and calculate it myself and see if I get the same answer, but even if I do, that doesn't mean your approach was right - you might just have been lucky.) --Tango (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's fine, except that a day is 86400 seconds long, not 86500, and you can't realistically ignore general relativity in this situation. (Also, you're comparing your satellite clock to a clock "at infinity". If you wanted to compare to a clock on the surface, you'd have to take into account that surface clocks also move at up to 0.5 km/s relative to a nonrotating frame, depending on latitude.) -- BenRG (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's why I wasn't recognising the method! Now I see what the method is! --Tango (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Global Average Annual Temperature limits

How low/high can the Global Average Annual Temperature drop/rise before it irreversibly spirals into either an snowball effect or a runaway greenhouse gas effect.24.78.167.139 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the scientific community has reached a consensus on that. I'm not sure there is even a consensus that either of those things would happen at all. --Tango (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with climate change is that the current climate system has been relatively stable for a long period of time. Historical records of climate show that in transitions between different stable climate states, the system becomes highly chaotic and unpredictable before establishing a new equilibrium. So, while the current rate of carbon emissions is likely to lead to a warmer, on average, equilibrium climate conditions, the path to that new equilibrium state is likely to be a wild ride, and very unpredictable. Picture several centuries of unpredictable and wild climate swings, and that is part of the big problem. Its not that we can predict what will happen that is the problem. That would actually be less of a problem, because we could at least prepare for it even if we couldn't stop it. Its that we a) know its going to be crazy and b) can't predict what kind of crazy its going to be. The problem is that this is a complex problem which has been reduced by the popular media to "global warming" or "global cooling". Then people here scientists making both predictions, and think "they don't know what they are talking about, so we can ignore whatever the scientists predict." It might be better to think of it as "global climate clusterfuck." --Jayron32 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, climate change could go different ways in different parts of the world, too (for instance, we could have global warming in Europe and Africa but global colding in North America, among many other possibilities). FWiW 67.170.215.166 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're confused about the meaning of the word 'global'. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus that if it somehow got so cold that the oceans froze over down to the equator, the resulting Snowball Earth state would be stable until CO2 built up to extremely high levels. I think there is also a consensus that a runaway greenhouse is not a real possibility -- CO2 levels have been over ten times higher in the past without producing such an effect. Looie496 (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So there is no maximum temperature, and there is no minimum temperature??24.78.167.139 (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so. There are probably (though not certainly) both, but we don't yet know what they are, and other factors beyond average global temperature (such as atmospheric composition, continent distribution and biosphere feedbacks) also have influence through multiple interactions more complex than we yet understand. Our current studies are focussed mainly on changes and states that are much less extreme, but which nonetheless would have serious effects on human global infrastructures and civilisation (such as sea-level changes). Looie496's second point (on the runaway greenhouse) related only to CO₂ levels, but ultimately increased insolation due to the long-term brightening of the Sun will almost certainly cause one, and one way or the other will raise the average global temperature way above survivability. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The utter maximum could easily be close to the situation on Venus - 460°C!! Venus is a little closer to the sun - but not anywhere near enough to account for the difference. But the truth is that we don't know.

There is certainty in a short term (several years) rise in average global temperature and a rise in ocean levels...we're actually measuring that happen and seeing it correlate to CO2 levels. But if it levels out - and where it levels out is totally unknown.

• Firstly because we can't predict irrational human behavior...the degree to which we turn down the CO2 production rates is sensitively dependent on crazily unpredictable things like the reaction of the US public to a health-care bill pushing out the time when the climate change laws can be discussed and whether some accident in the gulf of mexico produces an oil spill and a knee-jerk reaction to pro-"green" agendas.
• Secondly, there are feedback loops - both positive and negative built into the system. Some things (like the melting of the polar ice causing the shiney white reflective surface to be replaced by dark green, heat-absorbing ocean) mean that as things get hotter, so those systems make the world hotter still - positive feedback - a 'runaway' effect that's impossible to stop once it gets started. Other things (like the increase in CO2 levels causing some kinds of plants to grow faster - enabling them to absorb yet more CO2) have the opposite effect - negative feedback.

When you get dualling run-away systems, the result is exceedingly hard to predict. If you turn on both taps on your bathtub and pull the plug out - will the bath stay more or less empty or will it eventually fill up and overflow? It's hard to guess. What if you install a device that opens the faucets up more and more the deeper the water gets? And this is a vastly over-simplified analogy. There aren't two systems (drain and faucets) fighting each other, there are hundreds of systems - and many of them have that property of positive feedback: "the worse things are, the worse they'll become".

The smart money says this: Even if the findings are 'iffy' and there is only (let's say) a 15% chance of making the planet essentially uninhabitable and an 85% chance that it's all just bad science - can we really just ignore that risk? Would you be prepared to risk the future of your child's life on the roll of a single dice? If it comes up '1', they shoot your kid...and everyone else's kid for good measure? If that was the choice then wouldn't you do absolutely everything in your power to avoid rolling that dice? The science is easily 15% reliable...probably more like 85% reliable. Roll a dice, if it doesn't come up '6' they kill your kid. Why are you waiting for a certain answer? SteveBaker (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that climate change has the slightest possibility of making the planet "essentially uninhabitable"? Even scientists who agree that global warming is happening don't make such outrageous claims anymore -- only Al Gore still makes these kinds of statements. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean human-caused climate change. The earth itself is capable of some pretty destructive stuff all on its own, without humans. There have been some catastrophic geologic events in the past, and there's nothing to say something like the Yellowstone Supervolcano couldn't happen again, say, tomorrow. Look at the effect of the Mount Tambora eruption on climate (the Year Without a Summer, and imagine an event several orders of magnitude larger. Such eruptions exist in the geologic record. There are lots of ways the climate could change to make the Earth essentially unlivable. It is unlikely humans could do anything like that, but that isn't to say that the Earth could not become unlivable. The article Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth contain some overview of this. --Jayron32 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have trouble buying anything in the foreseeable future completely destroying humans. At this point, we have the technology to survive in some pretty extreme conditions. I can imagine something wiping out 90+% of people (heck, we can even do that with nuclear weapons), but killing off everyone would be hard, even for nature. Buddy431 (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Brewing yeast and fructose

What is the difference between yeast metabolism of glucose and fructose? Our yeast article only mentions fructose once. Specifically, I'm curious in brewing yeast whether fructose has the same conversion rate as glucose. Shadowjams (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Most yeast uses glycolysis to convert sugars into energy (and alcohol). One of the early steps in glycolysis is the conversion of glucose-6-phosphate to fructose-6-phosphate. This reaction is easily catalyzed, and goes back and forth freely (glucose-6-phosphate isomerase is not a control point in glycolysis). The only difference between glucose and fructose utilization would be differences in efficiencies between going from free glucose to glucose-6-phosphate and free fructose to fructose-1-phosphate. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I think glycolysis differs greatly from fructolysis and fructose-6-phosphate is quite different from molecular fructose. Do yeast have a fructolysis pathway? Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cats and newborn/infant humans

My wife and I have 4 cats and we are planning on adding a human soon. Could someone please help me find reliable sources regarding precautions and practices for newborns and cats? I am not asking for medical advice, I'm asking for help finding government health guidelines and the like - there is certainly a distinction. I'm already aware of toxoplasmosis - but that's the only reliable and well-sourced issue I can find. Help? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The medical professionals you consult at various stages during the pregnancy will be able to give you advice on pets or at least tell you where to find that advice. I think they can do that better than we can. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When I was a baby our cat (Kitty Fisher) used to sit in my pram and guard me :) DuncanHill (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cats rock, but ask your doctor. The toxoplasmosis issue is relevant, but perhaps there are other issues. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Antenatal classes warned us on the risk of accidental suffocation from cats thinking babies faces were nice warm places to sit. A cot net or exclusion was advised. --BozMo talk 10:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW [1] looks pretty reasonable. --BozMo talk 10:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there are documented cases of that, with babies at least as old as 3 months. EverGreg (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A study found that children who were exposed to cat-allergenes in the household dust at age two, had an increased risk of developing asthma at age 10. So cleaning would be important. cleaning, vacuuming mattresses and keeping the cats away from the bed would be a precaution. (This is from the PhD thesis of R.J. Bertelsen: "The indoor environment and childhood allergic disease; the importance of allergens and microbial components" [2])

This goes hand-in-hand with the suffocation issue. Never let the cat have access to a sleeping child and keep it out of the bedroom completely.

Confusingly, other studies have shown the opposite effect of cats and allergies, so the issue is not completely settled, though this appears to be one of the more thorough studies.

There are also issues of cat-psychology. The cat could get jeleaous or stressed and react by biting the baby or defecating indoors. Some recommend to famliarize the cat with the baby, by letting it smell the baby for instance. EverGreg (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My sister didn't have a cat at home until she was about 3 - she is asthmatic. I had a cat in my pram from as soon as Kitty could get in there, and I'm not asthmatic. When she had her kitten (Pussy Simpkins) she'd bring Puss in by me too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal but I would strongly advise against this kind of anecdote. This is one of the reasons we don't give medical advice, everyone has an anecdote but for all we know, your and your sisters asthma (or lack of) could very well have nothing to do with cats. The OP was asking where to find information, not for personal experiences. Anecdotes are what superstitions, pseudoscience and quackery thrive on. Vespine (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but no. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Vespine is right. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Vespine is absolutely right, we all know people who lived to old age despite smoking and not wearing seat-belts, but those stories are not an appropriate answer to a question about whether those things are good ideas. APL (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You should also take in to account the personality of the cats. Babies cry, whine to be fed constantly, and puke at inopportune moments. Some cats react badly to this. We were lucky in that we had a Siamese which considered all that to be perfectly normal behaviour. As EverGreg mentioned above, jealousy can be expressed in all kinds of ways; during the first meeting, you'll want to be extremely close by to immediately correct any violent behaviour towards the infant; they'll need to learn right off the bat that attacking the new naked "cat" is unprofitable. Contrary to popular belief, cats can understand a basic social hierarchy, so long as it is presented clearly. This site suggests that some cats may "spray" in response to the new arrival (in an attempt to cover the new scent). I'm not sure what kind of precautions you can take with that, but if you've been thinking about replacing your carpets with linoleum, now might be a good time. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cats Protection has published a leaflet Cats and children (PDF). This publication by UK government website Teachernet, advises the use of cat nets to prevent suffocation, as mentioned above. There is Cats and babies - can they co-exist? (although it does contradict the cat suffocation thing). This article is about psychologically preparing your cat for a new arrival. I also found this and this which provide some more of the same advice. I had a trawl through some UK government websites, but haven't found anything more substantive so far. --Kateshortforbob _talk 20:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Future computer (from IP 117.197.246.107)

if in future somebody makes a future predicting device/computer , what would be its concequences??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.246.107 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been considered and there are results in computer science that state that such a machine is impossible. Consider: Machine #1, able to predict the future, tries to predict what will be going on inside a house. In that house there is machine #2 which can also predict the future, but it predicts the future of machine #1. That is, it knows what machine #1 will predict and then it does something that breaks with that prediction, invalidating the result of machine #1. Put in another way, a machine can't predict the outside world because you can't cram all the complexity of the outside world into a computer. EverGreg (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect future prediction being available creates causality problems, so they couldn't exist unless we are massively wrong about the way the universe works. For example, imagine that this computer predicts whether I'm going to say "apple" or "orange" next. In order for the prediction to work, I can't look at the prediction and do the opposite, but that's the very thing I want to do!

Interestingly, there's a a similar argument that the easier-sounding problem of halting problem is also unsolvable. If you could write a program (call it "H") to determine whether another program will halt or not, you could write another program that runs H on itself, and obstinately does whatever H said it wouldn't do it. It may seem like a silly trick, but this kind of thing comes up all the time in computer science. Paul (Stansifer) 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Been done already - see weather forecasting. 92.28.244.102 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect prediction is impossible since quantum mechanics tells use the universe isn't deterministic. Approximate prediction we already have in various ways (eg. weather forecasting, as already mentioned). --Tango (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We have computers which predict the future! They predict the weather every day. They compute the orbits of satellites and predict where they will be. They predict solar eclipses, predict winners in baseball games, predict population growth for traffic studies, predict where an artillery shell will land, etc. anonymous6494 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. You can predict "future" (trajectory) of a macroscopic system, with accuracy that decreases for longer time. If the dominant interpretation of the quantum mechanics is correct, however, you can not predict the outcome of a measurement unless the system is in an eigenstate of the operator involved; you can only predict the probabilities of all possible outcomes, but not the outcome itself. Even when you disregard the quantum-mechanical "complications", in classical mechanics most many-body systems exhibit "deterministic chaos", which essentially makes the long-term prediction of future an exercise in futility; I can go into more details if you want me to. --Dr Dima (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't "predict" the future (check your dictionary!) - that would imply that they always get the answer 100% perfectly right! They estimate the future...with varying degrees of success - that's certainly possible.

Wrong. Predictions always have a finite accuracy, and are never implied to be 100% correct. That is how a prediction is defined. See Prediction interval. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with perfectly predicting the future is also a matter of thermodynamics. The computer requires energy in order to perform calculations - and that energy gets turned into (mostly) radio waves and heat. The amount of radio/thermal energy and the direction it's radiating in depends entirely on how those calculations turn out - roughly, on how many bits have to be flipped. Simplistically: if the answer to a simple piece of arithmetic changes the value in a one-byte memory location from 0 to 127 (which in binary is from 00000000 to 01111111) then the computer will consume seven times more energy than if the answer to the calculation had been just one bigger and changed the memory contents from 0 to 128 (ie from 00000000 to 10000000). Since the energy output by the computer as a part of its calculations goes out into the environment, it actually affects the very future that the computer is trying to predict (not by much...but think "butterfly effect"!). That means that to perfectly calculate the future, the computer would have to be able to perfectly calculate the effect of it's own energy output...energy that will come about from a calculation it has yet to perform! But doing that requires that the computer perform those very calculations that it has not yet performed in order to know what data to feed into those very same calculations! Hence there is an infinite regress and the computer cannot possibly predict the future accurately because any calculation it does in order to perform that prediction changes what the outcome should be. SteveBaker (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind a bit of Tom Cruise, minority report deals with this causality problem. Jabberwalkee (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And if you can't take even a tiny bit of Tom Cruise, you can just read "The Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick (first published in 1956!). SteveBaker (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the Asimov story that's a bit like Minority Report, except that instead of arresting people for crimes they haven't committed, Multivac gives action to prevent them from committing it with no further action taken (like calling the person and telling them not to do it!). I think the action of the story was the computer trying to kill itself while staying within the bounds of its programming, by predicting that someon would try to kill it. 212.183.140.2 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is The Evitable Conflict. That does sound like a story Asimov would write, though. Paul (Stansifer) 02:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember the story Mr. 212's talking about, but unfortunately, I can't remember the title, or what collection(s) it's in. Buddy431 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tyvek and Nylon

is tyvek any better than nylon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Better than nylon at doing what? Both Tyvek and nylon have many uses. Dismas|^(talk) 10:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be assumed that unless tyvek and nylon are controlled by regulation, that they would not both continue to be on the market, unless each had a distinct niche. Nylon has been widely made for decades, therefore it's almost certain that tyvek, a newcomer, has some inherent advantage. 24.130.145.253 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

list

please list these in order of solvent strength. 91% alcohol, pure acetone, 3% peroxide, kerosene, turpentine, 5% vinegar, pure lemon juice (citric acid) household ammonia, 10 % hydrochloric acid, 10 % nitric acid, , ethyl ether, chlorine bleach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Solvent strength for what? sugar, salt ?87.102.85.123 (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it depends on what you want to dissolve: food, bacteria, plastic, goo, salt, etc. etc. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For copper the 10% nitric acid is strongest, a mixture of the 3% peroxide and 10% hydrochloric acid is next, then bleach, then ammonia. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

to dissolve oil off surfaces —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In order

Kerosene and turpentine are oils, they will mix with other oils.

Depending on the type of oil Acetone .. ethyl ether .. 91% alcohol will have roughly the same de-oiling properties, alcohol being slightly weaker, or possibly innefective for heavier non vegetable oils.

Citric acid is a well known degreaser, vinegar to a lesser extent.

The other acids and ammonia may be slightly better than pure water. Non will have any true de-oiling effect. Neither chlorine bleach or nitric acid can be recommended and are potentially unsafe.

end

In general hot water, or water with detergent will be more effective than all except ether/acetone. Thick oils may not even dissolve in a ether acetone mixture, but hot detergent solution will work in this case.77.86.125.207 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

An oil can still be a solvent. Edison (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Acetone is a common choice for removing oil from surfaces. Reasonably pure acetone will leave no visible residue, and is fairly safe except for fire hazard. Alcohol is also fairly safe, but less effective for oil / fat, and is also a fire hazard. Commercial detergents (say, a liquid for manual dish-washing) should work well, too. What kind of surface are we talking about? Acetone may damage plastic surfaces. And don't even think of using nitric acid or (di)ethyl ether. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

i dont want to use a detergent. i know that Kerosene and turpentine are oils. but they are also solvents. where do they rank in that list in terms of strength? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between the passage of time for a stationary object and the passage of time for a moving object

My understanding is that the relationship between the passage of time for a stationary object and the passage of time for a moving object is given by the formula $\Delta t'={\frac {\Delta t}{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}$

In this formula, which variable represents the passage of time for the stationary object (i.e. $\Delta t$ or $\Delta t'$) and which one represents the passage of time for the moving object?--Wikinv (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In relativity, it's not possible to distinguish between which object is moving and which is stationary. To object A it may appear that it is stationary and object B is moving. To object B, it may appear that it is stationary but A is moving. So we can only talk about the passage of time in our frame of reference, and the other that appears to us to be moving. I beleive that $\Delta t$ refers to our frame of reference, and $\Delta t'$ refers to the frame of reference that we see to be moving. See Time dilation --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's what that equation really means: if you have a bunch of clocks that are at relative rest ("comoving") and all synchronized in a certain way ("Einstein synchronisation"), and you have one clock that moves at a speed v relative to all the others (which I'll call the wandering clock), and the wandering clock passes two of the other clocks at different times, and Δt is the time ticked off by the wandering clock between those encounters, and Δt' is the difference between the readings of the two clocks it encountered, then that equation gives the relationship between Δt, Δt', and v. Don't try to remember the primes; just remember that the wandering clock always records the shorter time ("time dilation"). -- BenRG (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

...So does that mean that it takes less time for a traveling object, "C" to go from stationary objects "A" to "B" than it does for stationary objects "A" and "B" to stand still, i.e., "A" and "B" would have more ticks than "C"? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Dauto (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Artificial microbes to help terraform Mars

Now that a semi-artificial microbe has been created, would any microbe, artificial or otherwise, be able to survive and grow on Mars? And could they help to terraform Mars, by changing the composition of the (thin) atmosphere, or raise temperatures by the greenhouse effect for example? 92.28.244.102 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In theory, sure. There's no reason such an organism would need to be artificial, though: current techniques could be used to encourage an existing organism to adapt to the Martian climate. As for how much change such organisms could make, and how long it would take them to make it, that's for a scientist of a different sort to answer. – ClockworkSoul 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, one of the major problems with Mars is the lack of a magnetosphere, and the consequent exposure to solar winds. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

From the description in the article, it sounds as if deinococcus radiodurans could survive on Mars. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between spores surviving and a microbe actually being able to grow. Nothing we know of would be able to grow on the surface of Mars without a major assist. It is barely possible that there are deep subsurface environments where liquid water exists and microbial growth could occur -- but since the crust is solid and therefore lacks mixing, any such life would quickly exhaust its resources. Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiation is not that much of a problem. If our article on Terraforming of Mars is right, even humans without shielding can survive Mars radiation levels for years. Microorganisms should be doing just fine with this. Of course, a direct hit by a coronal mass ejection is a different story. One would imagine that the said microorganisms live in the H2O and CO2 ice-rich top layer of the "soil" near the polar caps, and reproduce during summer when the temperatures go up and the ice starts to melt/sublimate. For the winter they would either freeze or form spores or endospores. The hope is mostly to increase Mars albedo in the visible range, so the surface is warmer; and, to a lesser extent, to increase Mars atmospheric pressure. I would not be surprised if many of the extant terrestrial microorganisms can survive dormant on Mars for years or longer. Coercing them to effectively grow and multiply is much harder, though. Bear in mind that the spores from Earth are probably present on Mars already, and likely in large quantities. Earth atmosphere "leaks out" into space due to the interaction with solar wind, so small airborne particles are likely to be carried with it. Some of these particles can (and will) eventually get deposited on the surface of Mars. The fact, however, is that we have not conclusively detected any microorganisms on Mars so far. This may be because (1) we did not look hard enough or in the right places, (2) the microorganisms are all dead by the time they reach the surface of Mars (e.g. killed during re-entry), (3) The conditions do not allow for any of them to multiply. As for bringing the bioengineered ones from Earth - it would me far more appropriate to thoroughly search for the local ones first. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also the fact that aggressively introducing microbes to the surface of Mars could destroy any life/evidence of life previously extant on mars, or at least complicate the identification of it, so we'll probably be studying the surface of mars for at least a few more decades before anyone with the means seriously thinks about terraforming it. 210.165.30.169 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Effective Max speed of the international space station during interplanetary travel.

Using the Drag equation I am trying to figure out the effective max speed of the International Space Station if the pilot felt so inclined to take a joyride. Here is what I have so far:

Coefficient of drag: >2.5 (shall we assume 2.5?)

Mass density of Interplanetary medium: 5 particles / cc (5,000,000 particles / m^3) (I need help converting this to actual mass-density)

Velocity: This is my variable.

Force of drag: I want to set this equal to the force of the stabilizing engines, but I cannot find this information.

Reference Area: Since the main engines are in Zvezda, I'll use height and width instead of length for the area to give me: 108.5 m * 20 m = 2170 m^2

So can anyone help me find the force of the main engines and calculated the mass density of interplanetary medium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anythingapplied (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You can ignore drag, it won't be a significant factor. It's not going to stop accelerating when drag balances thrust, it's going to stop accelerating when it runs out of fuel. I don't think the ISS's own engines would be enough to even get it out of orbit - they use the engines of docked spacecraft just to boost the orbit a bit, they would need to attach much bigger engines to get it to escape velocity. --Tango (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But the ISS is scheduled to get a VASIMR engine. This has much better specific impulse than old-fashioned chemical rockets, so it will certainly change things. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What if fuel were unlimited? I've been told by others that drag is insignificant, but at some speeds, it has got to start being significant (say 1/100 the speed of light?). Maybe you have to start getting into relativistic speeds before it matters, but I'm still really curious to what would happen if you plugged in all the right numbers... how fast you could get going? So assume fuel is infinite and that the solar system is infinite stretching on at 5 particles / cc. How fast could you get going? I guess I would like to see first hand the results of the equation that say the drag is insignificant, but am having trouble finding a complete set of numbers to plug in. Anythingapplied (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My guess (but we await an expert on this) is that even at speeds approaching the speed of light, the drag force will still be less than that of the (reasonable powered) thrusters, so, with infinite fuel, the energy acquired (but not the velocity of course) can increase without limit (assuming that time is also infinite). As a simple, back of an envelope calculation, one could assume that the number of particles emitted by the thrusters would have to be many times greater than the number of drag particles encountered. The number of times greater would depend on the speed at which the thrusters emit particles. Dbfirs 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the ISS would be destroyed by the interplanetary medium ablating the hull (which is one of the biggest problems with interstellar travel - if you go fast enough to make the trip a reasonable length, the interstellar medium destroys you) before the drag became an issue. If we ignore that, we should be able to work it out, but it would require relativistic calculations. I'll let somebody else do that. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that. Since we are dealing in unrealistic infinities, should we assume that the hull is infinitely strong? I assume that magnetic field shielding becomes ineffective at these speeds? Dbfirs 01:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

. How much interplanetary spaceship-destroying "interplanetary medium" is there per cubic kilometer, exclusive of asteroids? Why haven't all the previous interplanetary probes been destroyed by it? Edison (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because none of them travelled at relativistic speeds. --Tango (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

75% of the universe is hydrogen, so 5 particles / cc is essentially 5 amu / cc = 8.3×10⁻²¹ kg / m^-3. It is pretty trivial to show that this density results in negligible drag for anything less than highly relavitstic speeds. Dragons flight (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but there will come a time, even with the most powerful thrusters, when the momentum of these "drag particles" (apparently approaching at a speed just a whisker short of c), will be greater than the momentum of the particles ejected by the thrust jets, so my guess above was wrong. There will always be a limiting speed, just short of c. Could an expert on relativity please check my understanding of the situation? Dbfirs 16:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon

Given the level of technology available in 1959, would it have been technologically possible to send people to the moon, and return them? Or to put it another way, were the materials, technology and understanding of space travel developed enough at that point? I know the moon landing is considered fact (I don't want to get into a big discussion about that) and you could just say "yes" and post the wikipedia article as proof, but I would like something more that actually adresses the question of if the technology was advanced enough. Thank you, and sorry if I've come across as rude or forceful in my asking of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.115.208 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it took about 10 years from 1959 to develop technology to that level. See Apollo Program. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Coneslayer) Almost certainly not. The first artificial satellite was only launched in 1957, and it wasn't until 1961 that anyone at all was put into space (and that was one person, for one short orbit, in a space capsule that was basically designed like a submarine; way too heavy to be suitable for a moon trip). In 1959, there just weren't rockets big enough, nor the technical knowhow to send someone to the moon and back. The first probe to the moon, Luna 1, did fly by the moon in 1959. However, the first three Luna missions, in 1958, all failed. The technology was coming along, but it was nowhere near ready to launch a person to the moon at that point in time. Buddy431 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean 1959 or is that a typo and you actually mean 1969? The moon landing in 1969 is considered fact and is the proof that the technology was advanced enough then to do it. I can't imagine what kind of proof could possibly be better than it actually being done. If you really mean 1959 then the rest of your question doesn't really fit, but the answers already given are correct. Both the USSR and the USA were doing everything they could to get to the moon as fast as possible, so I think we can safely assume that they couldn't have done so any sooner than they did. --Tango (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless it was a hoax... 82.44.55.254 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But it wasn't - and that's remarkably trivial to prove to all but the most recalcitrant idiot. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they probably could have done it a year or two earlier if it hadn't been for the Apollo 1 fire. That incident – and the subsequent capsule redesign – delayed the first manned Apollo launch by 21 months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but I don't think it delayed the first manned lunar landing by anywhere near that much. As I understand it, they turned some of the planned manned missions into unmanned ones, but still kept going along the same timetable. There may have been a delay, but I don't think it was as much as 21 months. I can't find the original timetable... --Tango (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't rule out the possibility that if President Truman had announced in 1951 (as Kennedy did a decade later) that the U.S. would land a man on the moon and return him safely within 9 years, that it might have been feasible. It would have been a prestigious program, and better intercontinental ballistic missiles and spy satellites would have been valued spinoff. Microelectronics and computer technology would seem to be major hurdles to be overcome. Giving Von Braun and company the huge funding NASA received in the 1960s would have greatly accelerated building of the Saturn V. Edison (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would have been a crazy thing for Truman to announce. We had V2 rockets in 1951, but that was it. There was no way he could have had any idea it would work. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Truman certainly would have had no idea it could be done, but Von Braun and the other rocket scientists were thinking about it. They just needed a big budget for R & D and they could have gotten to the moon years earlier than 1969. Edison (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sort of tangentially related, I like pictures such as this one taken of the Apollo sites recently from space. They don't do much to deter the conspiricy buffs (if NASA can fake a moon landing, surely they can fake a few photographs from their own spacecraft, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter), but if you do accept the moon landings as fact, it provides an interesting link to the past. Buddy431 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are mirrors left on the moon that are Corner reflector. With the right equipment you can shine a laser at moon and have it bounce back back. This proves at the least that there is man made equipment on the Moon. Anythingapplied (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that the technology to get to the moon in 1969 would not have existed unless someone had decided years earlier to develop that technology. If someone had just woken up on Jan 1st 1969 and said "Hey! Let's go to the moon next month!" then of course that would have been impossible because they would not have had all of those years of prior technological build-up. Similarly, if Obama woke up today and said "Let's go to the moon on Jan 1st 2011" - then we couldn't do it...despite "having the technology". So if someone had decided that going to the moon would be an urgent priority in (say) 1939 - then maybe we would have had the technology to do so by 1959. These kinds of "What if history had been different?" stories are impossible to resolve. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the OP means 1969, they still do have I good point. It's really quite amazing what we were able to do with the technology, especially the limited computers (2048 words of RAM?!), of the 1960s. That's not to say that we didn't land on the Moon; we most certainly did. It just means that we should admire the technical proficiency and ingenuity of the engineers, scientists, flight planners, etc. who made it happen. Buddy431 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Shadow of the Moon is a great doco made a few years ago about the moon landings as told by the people who actually went there. I really enjoyed it. Vespine (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The most amazing thing to me is the fact that it occurred less than 70 years after the first heavier than air flight. I'm in awe of the fact that lots of people lived their lives where in childhood they knew only balloon flight and by retirement could see folks hopping around on the moon. It's a bit like going from a Fluyt to Alvin in two generations. Matt Deres (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the "Journal of the British Interplanetary Society" published, in 1939, fairly detailed and reasonably accurate plans for a rocket to take humans to the moon. Sadly, what I read in the journal print edition many years ago does not appear to be available online. They specified things like the consumable oxygen and water needed, the mass of the ship, and the thrust from the engines, naturally without detailed blueprints of how the engines were built. That publication was noted by the United States Army Air Corps in 1942 [3], and by many other organizations. Scientific science fiction by such writers as Heinlein and Clark had astronauts navigating with star sights and using sliderules to make calculations, and sending back Morse code communications via shortwave. In addition, they had to actually fly the thing (as the Apollo 13 astronauts had to do on the emergency return trip), rather than having autopilot control or fly by wire. An earlier start of the "space program" and a disregard for loss of life comparable to, say early arctic expeditions, or efforts to climb Everest, might have allowed a moon landing a very long time before 1969. Edison (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2048 words of dynamic state is a lot. I imagine that the computers were given that amount of RAM because that's how much they needed to do their job. I think that would still be true today, more or less, for the same reasons it was true then. You could move to a fancy memory-hungry operating environment, but it would be much harder to validate and I'm not sure you'd gain much in return. -- BenRG (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - that's plenty. I built an entire telephone exchange control computer with only 1024 bytes of random-access memory back in the late 1970's - and I still fritz around making little 'fun' projects with Arduino computers which are capable of useful work with only 512 bytes of RAM (the chips only cost $5 - so they are great for making all sorts of fun projects)! The Apollo computer was mostly just a fancy calculator - and quite honestly, it wasn't required. If you watch the movie "The Right Stuff" (which isn't far from the truth) - you'll note that the NASA scientists didn't really want the astronauts to fly the spacecraft anyway - allowing the astronauts to do so was mostly a publicity stunt. Consider the Russian Lunokhod programme which was carried out at the exact same time as the NASA moon landings - with no computers anywhere in sight! Everything was done by remote radio-control from the ground, including soft-landing and deploying a rover, driving it around on the surface of the moon, returning photographs and TV footage, testing moon rock samples, deploying all sorts of scientific instruments, etc. Even the first Russian manned space stations had no on-board computers - they used paper tape sequencers (like a "player piano") to control complicated time-critical processes like re-entry manouvers. When the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project linked a US and Soviet spacecraft for the first time, it was remarked that the HP programmable calculators that the US astronauts carried in their flight suits were each vastly more capable than the entire Soyuz spacecraft. So computer technology was definitely not required on board the spacecraft in order to achieve the moon landings. Use of computers on the ground would have been more important - but we had commercial all-electronic calculators in 1961 - it's not much of a stretch to imagine a well-funded space program could push that development forward by a few years to make experimental computers sufficient for a 1959 moon launch. SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pendulum question

The following is a homework question, but I don't want a solution, just some clarification. (The problem is taken from Kleppner and Kolenkow, problem 8.3): "A pendulum is at rest with its bob pointed toward the center of the earth. The support of the pendulum starts to move horizontally with a unifor acceleration a, and the pendulum starts to swing. Find the angular acceleration α' of the pendulum. Find the period for which the bob continues to point toward the center of the earth."

I'm not sure what they mean by the angular acceleration of the pendulum. Do they mean at the very instant the support starts accelerating? In that case, I would imagine the answer would be a/L, where L is the length of the pendulum. But they don't mention L, so I assume this answer is incorrect. Also, is the bob is continuously pointing towards the center of the earth, then how is it swinging? Wouldn't the period be zero in that case? And then, wouldn't the length of the pendulum have to be the same as the radius of the earth? Please, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question either. I guess it means the angular acceleration as a function of time since, if it is swinging, the angular acceleration won't be constant. If it it swinging, though, the bob can't be always pointing towards the centre of the Earth... I have tried to work out what would happen in the situation described, but I've failed so far. As I'm typing, I've thought of something I can try, so I'll get back to you. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I've failed. The problem I'm having is that we have a constant acceleration, rather than a constant force, and that acceleration is of the support, not the bob, so I just can't work out what to do with it. Given no information to the contrary, I'm treating the support as massless, which means the forces on it much balance, but I have no idea what either the external force is or what the tension in the string is. I need one of them to work out the other... If anyone else is better at mechanics that me and can work this out, I would love to know you did it! --Tango (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusing question (is it a difficult book?) - it seems to me that at constant acceleration of the support the equilibrium position would be at tan(theta)=a/g where theta is the angle to the vertical - thus this is your equilibrium position. note : at this equilibrium position the bob/string does not point through the centre of the earth due to the acceleration

You should be able to calculate the force (sideways) on the bob at t=0 (?) and at positions offset from the equilibrium point. I'd assume the angular acceleration is wanted as a function (either of offset or of time) - the fact that it doesn't state which is confusing.

The swinging is caused by the bob becoming offset from the equilibrium position at the time the sideways acceleration starts acting (I assume it starts abruptly) ie at t=0 the pendulum is offset by angle theta given by the equation above.

If you are setting up the equations it seems easier to use a 'flat earth' with gravity pointing down rather than attempting to model a round earth..77.86.125.207 (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

the maths desk may also be able to help77.86.125.207 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't understand the question either until I looked it up in the book, where there is further text and a diagram that make the meaning clear. You are meant to approximate Earth as a sphere, not a plane. The horizontal acceleration is circular (around the center of the Earth). If α' (calculated at the moment the acceleration starts) is equal to the angular acceleration of the pendulum support about the center of the Earth, then the pendulum will continue to point toward the center of the Earth. Example 8.3 ("pendulum in an accelerating car") may be helpful. -- BenRG (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, sorry if I gave the impression that I was assuming the earth was flat, my fault for not clarifying. But anyhow, I did something akin to what was described above, but I got some silly answers. If the pendulum is to continue pointing to the earth, then α'/L = a/R_e, meaning that the pendulum should be the length of the radius of the earth. I used that to calculate what the pendulum's period would be were it not accelerating (2π*sqrt(R_e/g)), but still this seems wrong, because I would think that the pendulum wouldn't be moving or swinging at all, if it's pointing continuously toward the center of the earth. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

According to User:BenRG below length of pendulum is the same as the radius of the earth - you were right. (bit of a trick question in my opinion).. 77.86.125.207 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just can't arrive at a physical understanding of how this works. When the support starts accelerating (assume in the plus X direction), the pendulum bob will obviously lag behind. If the support accelerated to some speed then moved at constant speed, clearly the bob would swing forward and pass through the line between the support and the center of the Earth. But constant acceleration of the support would seem to leave the bob always lagging behind, by an increasing angle which would depend on the acceleration versus the gravitation, in a balance between the force (in the minus X direction) due to the acceleration of the support, and a force in the plus x direction due to gravity (with due acknowledgement of resolution of forces into components parallel to and perpendicular to the ideal massless thread connection the bob to the support). If the acceleration of the support were equal to gravity, why would the bob swing back and forth through the line connecting the support to the center of the Earth, rather than settling in at, say, a lagging 45 degree angle? Edison (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

reply to last question - 'hanging' at a 45 degree angle is right (for a=g) if it starts in that position .. this would also be the rest position of a damped pendulum.. but I would assume that the acceleration started abruptly (at t=0) and previously (t<0) the acceleration of the pivot was 0, thus as the new accelerating frame comes into being at t=0 the pendulum would be in a non-equilibrium position - hence the oscillations. (the line of the pendulum string would pass through the centre of the earth at the extremity of its oscillations in this case ie when V_{bob,relative to pivot}=0)

(of course in the question nowhere does it state that explicitly - but it's what I expect it to be implying - perhaps wrongly - I still confused about wording of question)77.86.125.207 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that when the acceleration started, it was previously 0 and instantaneously changed - this means that initial the line of the pendulum was passing through the center of the earth - thus (as above) - I get a shift in equilibrium position to a lagging the motion orientation.. Since initially the pendulum starts with the bob not in line with the 'lagging' equilibrium position it starts to swing.

I still don't really understand the second half of the question though .. when it says Find the period for which the bob continues to point toward the center of the earth. I assume this to be a time period - but it never continues to point towards the centre of the earth.. except under odd conditions - if time period of the oscillation is P then it instantaneously points towards the centre at t=0,P,2P,3P etc.. Also Find the angular acceleration α' of the pendulum - I assumed about the pivot, and not the earth.. this must be a function (except under curious circumstances) - either I'm totally misreading it, or the authors have a curious way of asking things.experience tells me it's the former yet I still think I'm right...77.86.125.207 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Period" means "pendulum period", i.e. T = 2π/ω. The angular acceleration α' is about the pivot, and you're supposed to calculate it at the moment the pivot acceleration starts. I've solved the problem and I get the answer given in the book (T ≈ 1.5 hr). I'm not sure how much of a hint to give you. -- BenRG (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not the OP) I've got to admit I'm totally stumped (same thought process as the OP so far) - though I finally understand what the question grammar meant . thanks. 77.86.125.207 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Doh. 1min later - reverse engineered your answer. OP's idea was right - pendulum must be length of earth radius. (I think both of us refused to accept that it might be anything like a trick question) Thanks.77.86.125.207 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's something similar here about an 'accelerating frame of reference' [4] - linear not circular though, what it doesn't explain is the apparently strange questions that are being asked in the original question.77.86.125.207 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the help-personally I think this was a bit of a stupid question, but that's just me... 173.179.59.66 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that the bob would start pointing to the center of the Earth, then swing up to a lagging max, and if undamped, swing back to a point once more pointing tto the center of the Earth, but that is not the end of the story unless a flat Earth is posited. The support is travelling around a spherical Earth at constant acceleration. The rotation of the support around the center of the Earth will be negligible at the beginning of the experiment, unless the acceleration is very large, like many orders of magnitude greater than G. But after a while (depending on the unspecified acceleration) it is whipping around the Earth every few seconds, eventually approaching (but not equalling) the speed of light (hope the ideal string holding the bob is ideally strong). From the point of view of the "bob," the support is eventually twirling it around and around as it circuits the Earth, like a YoYo in the hands of a pro, hence it does point toward the center of the Earth relative to the support, due to the increasingly rapid whirling of the support around the Earth, just under once per rotation eventually, possibly overwhelming whatever the (unspecified) period of the pendulum was (maybe it was several minutes, or several hours). At 1 G acceleration how long until the support is racing around the Earth once per second? How soon would it approach c? Edison (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves, 1g acceleration gets you to c in about a year (ignore relativistic effects, of course). (Google's calculator confirms this approximation.) Of course, that is linear acceleration - the support in this case is accelerating due to gravity (and being held down, presumably, once it gets above orbital speed) as well, but that is perpendicular to motion so can be ignored. --Tango (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The gravitational attraction on the bob if it is not between the support and the center of the Earth will resolve into a component in line with the thread (which has no effect) and a component at a right angle to the thread, which will certainly cause the bob to move, along with the force due to the acceleration of the support along the Earth's surface, which will also resolve into components normal to and orthogonal to the thread. Plus as noted the support is moving along a circle of radius about 4000 miles, which might be a negligible effect (or not, since this is physics and not engineering, and the acceleration and period were unspecified) . Edison (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the bob with the period that means it always points towards the centre of the Earth. --Tango (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

perkinson's disease

Explain how you would an Augumentative and Alternative Communication device with one suffering from perkinson's disease to enable effective communication —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.168.3 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a homework question, and we aren't supposed to do those for people. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article Augmentative and alternative communication, at least partial answers will be found in that article. Please do your own work/research.77.86.125.207 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article on Parkinson's disease, which could prove helpful for links to other websites. Brammers (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How to tell if plastic is degradable

I was reading through my science book on the last day of school (I know, how unusual for a young person to actually read a textbook when not required to by a teacher), and I saw something about a plastic fork formulated to biodegrade in a week if burried. That got me wondering if the plastic silverware at the hospital or school cafeterias could possibly be degradable plastic. Is there any to tell other than the recycle codes, which isn't present? The ones at the hospital are made by Sysco and if they're not bioplastic (which I wouldn't know because I'm not overly familiar with that type), then they seem to be polystyrene, which I do not believe is biodegradable. The ones at school are more like polyethelene or polypropyline, if not some sort of bioplastic. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably they aren't biodegradable, but you can just do an experiment to see. Bury them in dirt and forget it for a year. Dig it up and see if it is decomposed. I an a student and I read my science book through and through whether teacher says to or not. Also plastic silverware? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The only biodegradeable plastic I'm aware of in common use is Polylactic acid - there are ways to tell if it is this - notably it cannot hold a hot liquid (put in boiling water), it is also chiral which you might possibly be able to tell (if it's transparent -easier for a cup) - otherwise bury it and see (or ask).77.86.125.207 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article Biodegradable plastic mentions the use of the word "compostable" on the packaging. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

e/c ::Good to see I'm not the only one that went to school to learn and not just to get a piece of paper. So what are the general characteristics of bioplastics, and what are their most common uses? I see that plastic bags appear to be a big one, and although bags I see almost always have a 2 or 4 resin code for polyethelene, I've see some of such that say degradable. I'm assuming that would be Bio-derived polyethylene. I sometimes see food containers that have 7 resin codes (7 other), so I'm assuming that could be PLA or some other sort of bioplastic? Are bioplastics usually labeled as such with pride, or are they often "undercover?" PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

See articles Biodegradable plastic and Bioplastic, which are often different things. note that bio-derived does not have to mean bio-degradable and vice versa 77.86.125.207 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The resin code doesn't indicate source -so they can be undercover.77.86.125.207 (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Resin code 7 includes Polycarbonate which is/was used for bottles, could also be Styrene-acrylonitrile resin for containers (plastic cups), polylactic acid (disposable plastic cups), or many other things.77.86.125.207 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They contain bad chemicals, though. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether ChemicalInterest's aside was intended as a joke or not, but I've noticed that at least some Americans say "silverware" where I would say "cutlery". Then of course there are plastic glasses ... --ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

reducing MAC layer handoff latency

i was studying the different ways to reduce handoff latency in wlans (ieee802.1x) when i found this[5] (page18:tableII) comparison among the many popular techniques adopted. in it there is a criteria called signalling overhead. what does this "SIGNALING OVERHEAD" mean? i have given many searches regarding the topic but havn't found anything concrete. i would be very thankful if anybody can shed some light on the matter. --scoobydoo (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "signalling overhead" is the amount of the tranmission that is not data, but is other information required to ensure that the data arrives correctly at the right place and time.

ie consider a written letter to a friend, the 'signalling overhead' in this case would be the address written on the envolope.

More specifically it's the amount of bandwidth wasted/bandwidth disrupted, rather than the absolute data amount

You might get a better answer on the computing desk.77.86.125.207 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case, it's talking about all the network traffic that the different strategies discussed use. In order to be able to perform a (hopefully seamless) transition from one access-point to another, the different strategies preemptively start new (concurrent) connections to potential APs, so that if the current connection dies we're already some or all of the way through establishing a fresh connection to a better AP (so our phone call or video stream or whatever can continue unmolested). The more aggressive strategies actually establish and authenticate connections, so they're ready to go. But doing this involves extra communications to one or several nodes, using bandwidth (and placing extra stress on potentially busy nodes). This extra traffic (which mostly results in establishing connections that go unused) is wasted - it's the overhead. Less aggressive strategies impose less overhead (they don't try so hard), but are at greater risk of a material interruption if things go wrong. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, i've got it now. that's why channel masking techniques got such low overhead signaling stats seeing as that it hardly mantains much contact with other APs.... thanks a lot. --scoobydoo (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cats - gender and coat colour

This is the grandmother of the kitten. This is the colour I'm talking about.

I know that a tortoiseshell cat is very likely female, because the coats of (normal) male cats can't be black and orange at the same time. Well, a tortoiseshell cat I take care of gave birth to five kittens. One of them is grey (like the Russian Blue) with a yellow stripe on its head. Is it likely that the kitten is female? Do the genes that produce grey (blue) and orange coat act like the genes that produce black and orange coat? Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article Cat coat genetics? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't understand a word of it. Actually, I have understood that tortoiseshell cats can only be females but I haven't found the answer to my question.

For a cat to be tortoiseshell, calico, or one of the variants such as blue-cream or chocolate tortoiseshell, the cat must simultaneously express two alleles, O and o, which are located on the X chromosome. Males normally cannot do this, as they have only one X chromosome, and therefore only one allele, and so calico cats are normally only female. I am not sure that "blue-cream" is the colour I'm talking about. Is the cat on the photograph a "blue-cream" cat? Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest, as a practical matter, that there are easier and more reliable ways to determine the sex of your kittens? I'm aware that Googling "sex kittens" will get you quite a lot of, err, "noise", but here's a practical article (warning, pictures of kitten butts... should be safe for work, I guess, unless they prohibit kitty porn, hyuk hyuk hurrrr). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have book on cats wich has a list of possible coat colors depending on parents, tortoiseshell cats are capale of producing blac, blue, red, cream and red-cream males, which suggests that if your kitte indeed is blue-cream it`s a female, I`m not sure though that one stripe constitutes fur color - that may come from some diffrent gene, for example, I had a cat who had a white stripe on neck as did all her black and blue kittens regardless of gender. Speaking of which the method suggested by person before me is more efficient - take kitten by neck skin so that it curls up, draw back tail, look at its butt - both sexes have two... um... openings, the diffrence is that in females they are very close to each other and of equal size, while in males, they are further apart, lower hole is slightly smaller, plus their sexual organs form a small bump. In my expierience if you have five kittens they are not of one sex - compere and you`ll figure it out ~~Xil (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! I am aware that checking below the tail is easier than guessing on the basis of colour but I really don't want to touch the kittens. They are only four days old and they are their mother's first litter. I don't want to upset her, as I'm afraid she might abandon them. In the last litter of 5 I had, all 5 were females (including 2 tabbies, a black-white-orange one, a blue-white-orange one, and a tortoiseshell - the new mother) Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I sugest looking at the cts genitals and then you can, hopefully, tell us what sex it is, if not you have bigger things to worry about than this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That was needlessly rude - and incorrect. Sexing of young kittens is not necessarily straightforward. When we got our kitten, for example, both vets in the clinic said they thought it was male, but said that it wouldn't become clear until the kitten had gotten a bit older. The kitten in question (which was indeed male) was probably only 8 weeks old at the time. And the next time you decide to impugn someone's intelligence, make sure you know how to spell words like "cat" correctly. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Matt Deres! Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)