Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 March 5

Science desk
< March 4	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 6 >

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.

March 5

Which tree is this?

Can somebody please identify this tree seen in the pics? See here [1]. It is from the southern state of Kerala in India. It seems to be rare variety introduced to this land. The young tree stands to a height of about 12 feet. The images show leaf arrangement, flower, seed, buds etc.--202.88.252.2 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS has been looking at this here. Melburnian (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Brain Tumor & Migraine

I read your article about Brain Tumor & Migraine. I find that the symptoms of both are the same. Now my question is can migraine lasts upto one month? If you have a brain tumor is there possible the headache is one sided? Is it must brain tumor is accompanied by vomiting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.103.10 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Our article says that migraines last 72 hours at the most, although you will find anecdotes online of people claiming far longer. As for brain tumors, nothing is a must with cancer. With such variation in where the tumor occurs, how fast it grows, and what chemical signals it produces, there will always be cancers that don't fit the mold. If this question is related to something you are going through yourself, please consult a medical professional, and never trust random people on the internet. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's reasonable to speculate that if the OP dies from it, it probably wasn't a migraine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sporting equivalent of Spearman's g

In intelligence studies, there is a general factor, g, that influences all cognitive abilities. Is there an equivalent for sporting ability? Anecdotally, it is easy to see that many sporting stars are just generally coordinated, and good at a wide range of sports, but is this a known statistical fact?

A related question: Does sporting ability correlate even slightly with intelligence? Anecdotally, one would say the correlation is not high, but I've wondered if it might be above zero.

Also, background for the second question: Intuitively, I would have thought the correlation ought to be high, so perhaps someone can show me where my understanding is lacking. The intuitive argument is based on average evoked potential experiments. These show that people differ in the consistency of their brain's response to a stimulus, measured by an EEG. Those with higher intelligence have higher consistency. Higher consistency basically means the brain is processing the signal in the same way each time the stimulus is repeated, which is kind of like having a "high fidelity" brain. It has been suggested, based on these experiments, that fidelity in processing in the brain is part of the biological basis for intelligence. Fidelity in processing would also seem to benefit sporting ability, since sport involves the brain in assessing eg. where a ball is going etc, and high-fidelity processing would mean more reliable processing of the stimuli from the ball. Hence the theory that sporting ability ought to be related to intelligence. On the other hand, I can't find a link anywhere about how reliable the average evoked potential experiments are, as a correlate of intelligence, so maybe that's the error. IBE (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The motor cortex and premotor cortex essentially rewire themselves to allow something akin to automation for sports activities. So I assume testing someone for a sport they are trained at you would almost certainly see high fidelity, whatever that actually means in the physiological sense. The more interesting thing would be to test athletes while they are playing sports they are unfamiliar with, but I don't know what the results would be. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about sporting ability, but this may be relavent: I have had a career covering 40+ years, mostly in middle management in very large companies. In management training 30 years or so ago, we were taught (for the purpose of selecting new recruits for management) that excelence in one field was an INDICATOR (ie indicated, but certainly did not garantee - other factors are important) that excellence was likely in another field. For example, when interviewing potential cadet management recruits just out of school, don't just look at how well they did in math, science, and english, look at how well they did in woodwork or metalwork. If interviewing (for a management job) a tradesman (eg cabinet maker, plumber etc) he won't have any office based work to sho how good he is. But if he was top class in his trade, that was an INDICATOR that he could in reasonable time be an excellent manager. In short, high ability in jobs requiring manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination made it more than likley that high performance would be achieved in jobs requiring mental dexterity and mental ability. This is interesting, as manual arts involves skills learnt by practice, just like sport. My experience since that training has shown it to be largely correct. Note that this is competely contrary to common belief, and completely contrary to the tenents of aptitude testing practiced by some industrial psychologists. In my experience they get it wrong more often than right. Ratbone121.215.52.37 (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Does sporting ability correlate even slightly with intelligence? I suspect that it does. It might be worthwhile to select a moderate size country with readily available data, say Australia, and look at the post sports retirement careers of noted sportspersons. Anecdotally, there does seem a correlation: Eg Olympic class runner Herb Elliot - now chairman on boards of major companies, or Lisa Curry - If I recall right she's an ex-olympic class swimmer now a very succesful businesswoman/CEO. I recall some past football greats who became major business leaders. It might be worth you obtaining some stats and looking into why they were succesful - it could be that they are people of strong drive, or it could be because there is a common factor between physical ability and mental ability. Ratbone124.182.144.237 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sporting ability" is such a broad and multifaceted concept that it's difficult to make generalizations. There are some sports, like baseball, where it helps to have lightning-fast reaction time. Reaction time is in fact strongly correlated with g. (Though the differences between high-g and low-g individuals are not particularly large. An individual at 1 standard deviation above the mean might have 10% to 15% faster reaction than an individual at 1 standard deviation below the mean.) In many others (say, professional bicycle racing), it is much more important to have extremely high potential VO2max. This one is predetermined by genetics and there's no logical reason why it should be correlated with g among normal people. There is a long tail of individuals with major genetic defects, these are likely to have poor VO2max and low g, but, outside that group, the two should be mostly independent.

There is an interesting table in Wonderlic Test which states that offensive players in NFL tend to be significantly smarter than defensive players. Most defensive players have below-average intelligence. The degree of intelligence of NBA players is well demonstrated by the fact that 60% go broke within five years after retirement.[2] --Itinerant1 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it kind of incredible that a guy can have a name as convenient as Wonderlic, when it fell to him to devise a test that is too good to be true (total aptitude for employment across many occupations). Eldon F Wonderlic - sort of sounds like Willy Wonka or something. Interesting link. IBE (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Black hole (Singularity and Evaporation)

This is not really a question, but rather a proposal to develop the article on black hole further. Having studied Samir Mathur's proposal of a "fuzzball", which might be called brane star in future (please refer to fuzzball, external links, 3rd lecture of Samir Mathur), two issues in the black hole article are solved: 1) There is no singularity any more, since the branes form a non-zero fuzzball just up to the volume given by the event horizon. 2) The Hawking radiation, an expression which Stephen Hawking himself did not prefer to use (as we are told on the DVD "Hawkings Universe", 1997 (?)), turns out to be the entanglement of quanta and, even more importantly, the one and only means that information really could leave a black hole. Of course, this implies that such quanta can be "read" and interpreted. Another immediate consequence is that a black hole cannot evaporate. Hence, I suggest to add an information to "singularity" and "evaporation", possibly also to "Hawking radiation" along the lines that these articles have been developed in the classical theoretical physics, being updated (overtaken by research) by the fuzzball theory. Further, the link to "fuzzball" should be added under "see also". 87.184.40.180 (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Except as far as I can tell, fuzzball research is absolutely not "overtaking" the classical view of black holes. It's a neat theory, but like all things string theory, there is no experimental evidence. In reality, there is not even any research going on, just conjecture. I'm not trying to diminish the work of theoretical physicists, but until it's more than theory, the main article on black hole should limit mention of fuzzballs to the mention that's already there, in the "alternatives" section. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It will never be "more than theory" because there isn't anything more than a theory in science (as we have to keep explaining to creationists that like to say "evolution is only a theory"). What's important for us is how accepted the theory is among scientists in the field. At the moment, it's just an interesting new idea. If it gains significant support among physicists, then we should increase the amount of attention given to it in our articles. --Tango (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Just a theory" here being a theory without significant support in Wikipedia's consideration, as you just stated yourself. I'd be in a pretty bad place in my career if I didn't what a theory was :) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! However, looking at the talk-page of the fuzzball article, there is apparently some active development to get the proposal completely agreed. Please note that a lot of theory is also involved in the article on the black hole, especially concerning the Hawking radiation (which is too often misunderstood as thermal signature of a black hole, which is clearly wrong). Here, another consideration still may be to add the (already tested) entanglement of quanta, which might be a more plausible interpretation of the Hawking "radiation". Concerning the "alternatives" section, may I suggest to re-consider that a fuzzball does have an event horizon, however not in the classical view (the "no hair theorem"), but with a "thickness" of a few Planck-lengths; the other significant point for an observer (provided a very long life) that there will be no evaporation (or other decay) of the brane star? 87.184.40.180 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read your dialogue (?) on the value of theories and don't quite understand the point. We have two basic theories for black holes, the classical one with, say, inconsistencies. May I quote Prof Michio Kaku who said that the current description of a singularity (involving infinite density and infinite mass in a zero volume) was simply "ridiculous", the correct description being "we don't kow, we have no clue". The same was stated in the past by Prof Sandra Faber. Prof Brian Greene has put forward that within a black hole, "the classical laws of physics break down and we have non-sensical predictions; however, the universe is not non-sensical". As we see, there is a lot of criticism against the current theory of the centre of a black hole. However, I didn't even ask to eliminate that theory but to just add that this is in fact a classical one - as is written in other chapters too. Now, as the fuzzball theory is almost 10 years old and has not met any significant opposition, I just thought it would be appropriate to be a little more precise in the article. I understand your reservation when it comes to challenging (if that is a challenge) part of the work of Prof Stephen Hawking. So, my last suggestion has just been to - at least - correct the error which is present in the short description of fuzzballs , which DO have an event horizon. I think this correction should not pose a problem. Although the other issue (Hawking radiation) is probably better described as being an entanglement of quanta, which is no theory, but a confirmed physical effect, this would be a refinement. Most physicists are aware of this effect, but I thought Wikipedia was considered a world-wide encyclopedia and any interested reader might be interested in completeness. 87.184.62.201 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A unreferenced statement on the bothriocephalus acheilognathi wiki page

Hi,

on the Bothriocephalus acheilognathi page there is the statement "The discovery of the tapeworm’s substantial infections within the crucian carp (Carassius carassius) population in the UK is of particular concern because there have not been any known natural tapeworm parasites of these crucian carp. A plausible cause may be that the crucian carp have limited immunological defenses against this parasite." but I cannot find this in the referenced papers. Please could the author tell me where it came from?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.66.254 (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly unlikely that the editor who added that text (whom you can identify through the article's "History" tab, although it might prove laborious) will read this query on the Reference desks. Making this query (if you haven't already) on the "Discussion" tab of the article itself is far more likely, though by no means certain, to get their response. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.145 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the author. I've attempted to clean up the referencing for the article (and added a few bits as well), but I do think the last portion was added later. I can't find it in the cited sources either, nor can I find any studies online on the effects of introduced Bothriocephalus acheilognathi on British populations of Carassius carassius -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

chemistry

what is the difference between the phase and state of matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarandpm (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, the term "state" refers to the simple physical nature ie solid, liquid, gas. The term "phase" tranditionally is more to do with "invisible" properties such as crystal structure (most elements and compounds that have crystaline forms can have more than one crystal structure depending on temperature and pressure) and thermodynamic propertities eg specific heat. However the two terms are often used interchangeably. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_of_matter and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter Keit58.170.183.65 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

An example: plasma is a phase that can exist as either a solid, liquid or gas just like mercury. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is actually not correct on many levels, Let's start with what you are referring to as a chemical "plasma" as defined at Plasma_(physics)#Definition_of_a_plasma. If you mean anything that could be called plasma, then yes, blood plasma is a liquid, but is unrelated to the ionized gas. Mercury is an element, which can exist in solid, liquid, or gas phases/states. But, the same can be true of almost any element or pure substance, even. --Jayron32 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I don't agree with that assessment of plasma either. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A good example to illustrate the difference is elemental carbon. It can be a solid, liquid or gas depending on it's temperature and pressure (could also be a plasma, supercritical fluid or something else). These are states of matter. In the solid state it has (at least) two allotropes; graphite and diamond. These are phases of matter. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron: I am not refering to anything that could be called a plasma, I am refering to a particular phase where a substance is composed of a collection of charge carriers which have mutual electric and magnetic interactions. Mercury, as a metal can conduct electricity because it has delocalised electrons, and can therefore be considered a plasma. It retains this function as both a liquid and a solid. In a mercury vapour lamp, mercury exists as a classical, gaseous plasma. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

All metals have delocalized electrons. That's not the defining characteristic of a plasma. Calling solid mercury a plasma is just not correct. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess, it's a matter of opinion then. It is what I was taught. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, it is indicated by the plasma article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is it indicated in that article? It specifically defines plasma as a state of matter (not a phase as you said earlier). It also says that it's similar to a gas and that "Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container". Solid mercury has a definite volume. It is therefor not a plasma. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, elemental carbon can only exist in one state - liquid. And it can only be liquid above the triple point pressure. Attempts to condense gasseous carbon leads to graphene or one of the other multi-atom forms. Attempts to sublimate solid carbon or boil liquid carbon leads to diatomic and triatomic molecules. I'm not sure what happens if you boil or freeze liquid carbon, but it seems unlikely it will be elemental ie monatomic. Much the same applies to other susbstances. Eg boiling N, O, F, Cl results in diatomic gas, not elemental gas. Keit58.170.160.12 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Elemental does not mean monoatomic. From Elemental "Elemental is the adjective form of the word element. In chemistry, it refers to matter composed of only one chemical element: graphite and diamond are both forms of elemental carbon." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the Wikipedia page cited says. But Wikipedia is a most valuable resource not because it is infallible (it most decidedly is not), but because it helps unblock thinking and provides references. I checked the three chemistry textbooks I have, ranging from college level to graduate level. They all (eg Chemistry - reactions, structure, and properties, 2nd Ed Clyde R Dillard 1978, page 2) give the following definition of a chemical element: "An element is a form of matter which cannot be further broken down to a simpler form by means of a chemical reaction." That is very different, and more precise, than the definition you gave, which is not even good english (an element is in elemental form. what's that?). It necessarily means monatomic forms, because anything other than monatomic can be broken down by chemical reaction, often as simple as just heating.

If you go by the definition of only one type of atom, then that has some important implications, such as sublimation temperature often different to condensing temperature. Keit58.170.160.12 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not a definition of elemental, that's a definition of element. From the limited literature I have available right now I can't find a specific definition of either element or elemental. But I can find plenty of uses of the term that run counter to your definition e.g. "Elemental crystalline boron is nearly inert...", "The uniqueness of boron is clearly seen in its elemental forms"(Advanced Inorganic Chemistry 6th A Collin, et al 1999 pp. 133). Note that it talks about "elemental forms"; plural. If only monoatomic boron is elemental, then how can there be more than one form of it? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, exactly! In this regard, Boron is no different to carbon. If the definition of an "element" means that which cannot be broken apart by chemical reaction, and is therefore monatomic, then there indeed should be only one form. That's why I said, strictly speaking, carbon does not exist in a form that is both an element, and is a solid, as carbon when solid is in the form of graphene, diamond, etc, all of which are not monatomic. But you have unearthed a point: The standard meaning among chemists of "elemental" may not just be a classifying descriptor of something that is in element form - though this does not seem likely or wise. It wopuld be worth following this up. You never see thermodynamic points listed as diferent for heating as for cooling, apart from very small divergences explained by the natural mix of diferent stable isotopes. This strongly suggests such data is for monatomic forms. Keit121.221.42.250 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon checking, I have found quite a range of authors use the term "elemental" where they mean a substance with only one type of atom - just as you have found. Like 203.27.72.5 I could not find a definition of "elemental" in a chemistry text. I learn something every day! Keit120.145.12.89 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@203.27.72.5: The graphical plot entitled Ranges of plasmas indicates a similiar opinion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The only example given in that plot that is even remotely like a solid is the non-neutral crystal plasma state. See here for some discussion of this type of plasma. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question, in the physics colloquial heard in a physics colloquium, "phase" is a general term for any kind of global quantitative change that's "significant". A "state" is a phase that's to some extent permanent (static, stable), well-defined, and generalizable to many types of materials and situations in nature.

For example, a grain of table salt is a cubic crystal of NaCl, with emphasis on the word "cubic", so all edges between NaCl molecules are equal length and at right angles. If we're very strong, we can push the salt grain and shear the molecules so that cube is now just a prism - all the side lengths are the same but the angles between molecules have changed. This is a change of "phase" - a non-right prism is less symmetric than a cube. However, as soon as we let go, the salt goes back to a cube. The change of phase was significant, but it didn't have any permanency or self-stability - NaCl likes to be in a cube, and that's that.

Let's now put the grain of salt in water. The water rips it apart - it dissolves the salt into individual NaCl molecules (and further into ions, but we'll ignore this). The NaCls go every which way, they are momentarily more concentrated in one part of the water than the other, etc, but as taken a whole, the NaCl is uniformly distributed in water, and there's no kind of twisting about I can do to get it back to a cubic crystal. This is a change of "state".

Note that the terms "phase" and "state" depend heavily on what type of "stuff" we're talking about. Molecular matter, like NaCl or water-ice-steam, has about 600 defined states. There is gas, liquid, aqueous (salt dissolved in water), cubic crystalline, tetrahedral crystalline, etc; and then there are quantum-electromagnetic states like ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, superconductive, etc; then states involving big sets of molecules like monomerized, cross-linked, interwoven, semi-flexible, etc.

If you're confused, you should be. The terms depend on context. The only thing to know is that "state" implies static, unchanging, permanent behavior in the context in which you're discussing physics. "Phase" is a bit more flexible in definition. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

SamuelRiv's view that a state is a permanent thing, and a phase is not, is an opinion that definitely conflicts with the usage in the chemistry books I have, and just about every chemistry book, paper, etc that I've ever seen. Many substances have different crystaline forms (phases), and these forms are mostly not at all transient - they can be stable for thousands of years if not permanent, without any external forces. The OP asked about states of matter. Things like monomers & crosslinking, while Samuel is not wrong, are not relevent to what the OP was trying to understand. Keit58.170.180.180 (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And even at a high school level, salt is absolutely not a "molecular" thing. The reason it does become a dissolved form and have its various crystalline forms and does have equal side-lengths is because it really is just a bunch of ions not "NaCl" units. DMacks (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really agree with SamuelRiv's definition of phases and states of matter. By placing a material under some force you may induce a phase transition as he desribed with the example of NaCl. The fact that it will undergo the reverse transition when the force is removed doesn't make it any less permanent. The only thing that materials "want" is to assume the form most stable given the conditions. Under the strain he described, that would be a prism. Without the strain, it would be a cube. Neither is any more permanent than the other since they're totally determined by the conditions (which may be as arbitrarily permanent or temporary as you like). By his logic only free quarks are a state of matter, since everything would "want" to fly apart if you took all of the forces off it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A phase of matter is any arrangement of the particles that make up a material. If the particles change their arrangment significantly you now have a different phase and a phase transition is said to have occured. Alpha ferrite may under go transition to delta ferrite, diamond to graphite or water to ice. Different materials, due to their own specific properties have their own different possible arrangements. For this reason most phases are specific to a particular material (i.e. the difference between the structure of diamond and graphite has no analogue with iron). A special subset of phases are known as states of matter. These are phases that exist for essentially all materials, and definitely for all chemical elements (i.e. the difference between the structure of ice and water is analagous to the difference between solid iron and molten iron). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Something odd

I recently started taking a course on Semiconductors and Analog Electronics. I came to learn about BJT recently and I found two things about common base configuration of BJTs really puzzling.

1) The input characteristics curve is affected by the output voltage or the base collector voltage V(CB). Then how can one distinguish between an input and an output voltage?. 2) The purpose of the common base configuration is totally unclear. I mean, instead of amplifying the input current, the output current seems to be rather a bit smaller than the input.

I was shy to ask my prof about this but now I am getting sort of confused. Any help will be deeply appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.65.52 (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ans to (1) The input voltage is applied across the emitter-base junction, and the output voltage is measured across the collector-base junction. They are thus across separate parts of the cicuit and there is no confustion. Ans to (2). Yes the output curent is substantually the same, and cannot be equal or greater, than the input current. However teh configuration is usefull because a) the output is at higher impedance than the input and so there is voltage gain (and therfore power gain); b) it is usefull in sitautions where the signal source is low impedance, and the following circuitry is relatively high impedance; and c) the configuration puts a signal ground between the the collector-base capacitance and input, improving high frequency performance; d) there is a notional feedback resistance (Early effect) between collector and base that causes negative feedbakc and thereby lowers the output resistance in the common emitter configuration. If a very high output impedance is required, operating in common base provides a solution, because it stops the negative feedback; e) because common base interposes a ground between this notional feedback resistance and the input, the performance of the output circuit is less affected by changes in input circuit impedance - this is sometimes useful. Kei58.170.183.65 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The WP page Common base may help, or this website http://www.tpub.com/neets/book7/25f.htm. which says regarding your Q 2) "The common-base configuration (CB) ... is mainly used for impedance matching, since it has a low input resistance...and a high output resistance..)." - 220 of ^Borg 15:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct. Common base is used just as much, if not more, because of its better high frequency performance (often as part of the cascode configuration - two BJT's used, common emitter followed by common base). Keit58.170.160.12 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind about analog electronics - in particular with bipolar transistors - is that isolation is difficult. In other words, it is difficult to distinguish between inputs and outputs: they affect each other! In a bipolar junction transistor, there are implicit feedback loops and the effects are nonlinear. For this reason, most engineers use SPICE to simulate the circuit, because an accurate analytic solution is prohibitively difficult - even in some simple, one-transistor circuits. Nimur (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most engineers use SPICE...even in simple one-transistor circuits.." Good grief, no! I've been an electronics design engineer for 40 years, and never used SPICE outside of university until personal computers became common around 1985. Most circuits use BJT's in such a way that simple approximates are good enough. However, if you are pushing for best performance, either at high frequencies and/or very low distortion, SPICE has a place. But even SPICE is very much an approximation. Keit58.170.160.12 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that this question comes from the same OP that posted the questions on BJT biasing and diode forward biasing in teh last few days. I note that the OP is embarrased to ask his prof. This can only be because the OP knows he's lacking somewhere. There is a common thread to all these questions - the OP is not fully comfortable with basic series circuits and resistors etc connected in loops and meshes - hence the questions about + and - on the same terminal, and how output is distinguished from input. It maybe that the OP's course is a full electronics or electrical diploma or degree, or maybe his/her Semiconductors and Analog subject is just a minor part of a non-electrical course such as physics or mechanical engineering. If the latter, hang in there - you just need to pass the subject. If the former, you need to go back and MAKE SURE you are totally comfortable in analysing series and mesh passive circuits. Get a good First Year text and do ALL the questions in it until you are totally confident. You need to be totally comfortable with series and mesh circuits as otherwise you will be continually frustrated throughout your course and will not enjoy it. At one time they used to introduce undergrad students to amplification with two-terminal devices such as varactors and tunnel diodes. Nowadays they leave them out. This is good because in practice such things are extremely rare, so time isn't wasted, but it's also bad, because if students move from simple passive circuits to varactors and tunnel diodes, its an easy step, it makes sure that passive circuit understanding is bedded in, and the next step to 3-terminal devices such as BJT's and FETS is easier. Theres's nothing to stop you going to the library and getting out an old textbook that covers tunnel diodes and varactors though. Keit58.170.160.12 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Old seed germination issues

I grow giant C. maxima (pumpkins and squash, differentiated by their color) for competition, and I'm in possession of a seed from a 611 lb "Show King" squash from 1997. It's a large white seed, as most from that era of giant squash were, and last year I received two seeds from the specimen. I tried germinating the first one among my other seeds in a chamber with light moisture and at or above 87°F, and the rest, all newer seeds, germinated. My 611 seed rotted before it even cracked out of its casing. Fearing that, I saved the second one to try other germination methods, whatever they may be. My question, then, is do I have any hope of getting this 15-year old seed to grow? I don't know if it has ever been frozen, but the seed seems intact and solid. Thanks to anybody who can help. Juliancolton (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the chances are low, but so is the investment, so why not give it a try ? Myself I grow peppers, and find that only a small portion of the seeds ever germinate, so I just go for quantity. As for preventing rotting, you could try to germinate it in a sterile environment, but that does get expensive, so not sure if you really want to go that far. Besides, I doubt that rotting actually killed it, but only took advantage of the already dead seed. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had very good success germinating pepper seeds, I normally see germination rates over 90% (my seedlings tend to die afterwards because I forget to water them regularly, but that's a different story...) I just wrap them in a wet paper towel (uniformly wet but not so wet as to make puddles), seal them in a ziploc bag, and keep them someplace dark and warm where temps are in the 80-90 F range.

But I have no idea how that would work with a 15-year-old seed. If I were to try it, I'd sterilize the paper towel, boil the water, and keep the temperature on the low side. Unlike peppers, squash seeds normally do just fine at 70-75 F, and that should inhibit the rotting long enough to give the seed a chance. I read that it also helps to pre-soak the seed in room-temperature water overnight and to add a tiny bit of nitrogen fertilizer (one teaspoon per gallon of water). --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I always soak my competition seeds in a light fertilizer solution for 6 to 12 hours and file the edges of the seed, and I've had success with all but two seeds in my growing career. I have many alternatives to grow, but I just wanted to see if I could reintroduce some "older" genetic lines into the current pool. Is it worth trying a Gibberellic acid supplement? I know a few people in my hobby who have reported some unique successes with GA3, but I don't know if that would make much of a difference in this situation. Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Our policy on medical advice doesn't apply to pumpkin seeds, but ... proceed at your own risk. Hunting around online I'm finding that old seeds should be kept dry, dark, and cool and still might not sprout [3][4] and that old inviable seeds may tend to float [5]. I haven't really hunted much for scientific literature hits - most of them are locked up in obscure journals (at least to me) - but [6] gives a few tips on long term storage. Saying "Lazarus, come forth!" over the seeds may also help. ;) Wnt (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See, my plants like to be sung to. I just wouldn't know which genre an old-school seed would most enjoy. :) Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Before trying to grow it, I recommend you contact your nearest seed company and ask them for general instructions on how to make seeds germinate in the laboratory. I think it's usually done by containing the seed within two damp cloths, but don't take my word for it, as there is probably much more to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll definitely put this and TammyMoet's advice to work. Juliancolton (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a recent report of successful growth of seeds buried circa 30,000 years ago by squirrels in a chilly area. More recently , Professor William James Beal at Michigan State University (then Michigan Agricultural College) buried 50 seeds of 21 species of plants in the fall of 1879. to see how long they would remain viable. Prof. Darlington took over the study in 1915. Prof. Bandursky took over the study in 1980. Telewski continued the study in 2000. The number of species sprouting decreased in each study. The next study will be in 2020. The experiment is scheduled to conclude in 2100. (Beal should be a co-author in each publication). Edison (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting stuff. I guess it all just depends on how the seeds were stored. Juliancolton (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This pdf may be useful: "Seed Production and Germinability of Cucurbit Crops" [7], it has a section on "Techniques for evaluating viability, germinability and storability". It gives a general seed half-life of five years, but of course that can vary by strain and luck. Given the problems with the first seed, I'd consider sterilizing the media, and a mild fungicide treatment for the the last seed. Maybe also soak it for a shorter duration, and with with less (if any) fertilizer. As for the GA3: the textbook example is that it has large effect on heirloom tomatoes, but very little on modern hybrids, because they've been bred to already make the maximum usable amount. So if your pumpkin strain is already highly selected for growth, I wouldn't expect it to help much. Finally, does filing really help much? It may speed up the first break a little bit, but that wound might also help bacteria and fungi invade. Good luck! SemanticMantis (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and info, it's much appreciated. That's good to know about GA3 before I started messing about with it. As for the filing, the goal is that—since giant pumpkin seeds are much bigger and require more heat than heirloom C. maximas, they tend to rot in the potting media before they fully germinate. Once that happens, it's harder for the cotyledons to break the shell and leads to funky growth. Whether rot is a cause or effect of that, I'm not sure, but most giant pumpkin growers say it's necessary to limit the amount of time in the media by speeding up germination slightly. In any case, thanks again! Juliancolton (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if contacting either the Heritage Seed Library or Kew Seed Bank to see what they advise might help? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely a good idea. I'll try contacting either them or similar organizations to see what they have to say. Juliancolton (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)