Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 August 2

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.

August 2

resistors

can two resistors be in series to each other if there is a battery between them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.126.108 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible, in the case of a three-component circuit. Even in an arbitrarily complicated circuit, two resistors with a battery in between them and no other connections to the battery will be Thévenin equivalent to the battery in series with the two resistors in series. Red Act (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully hydrogenated vegetable oil

My understanding is that completing the hydrogenation process eliminates any trans fats, however, this isn't often done because the result is too solid. Wouldn't blending the fully hydrogenated vegetable oil with non-hydrogenated vegetable oil allow them to achieve the desired consistency without any trans fats ? StuRat (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And it is in fact done, that's what Crisco is made of:

Ingredients: SOYBEAN OIL, FULLY HYDROGENATED PALM OIL, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED PALM AND SOYBEAN OILS, MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID (ANTIOXIDANTS).

Not sure why they had to also add trans-fats, but the main stuff is like you suggest. Ariel. (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, that's the big Q, what does the PHVO do for them that the blend I suggested doesn't ? StuRat (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why they add it - their label claims "0 trans fat" which is an obvious lie, which they are allowed to do because it's less than 0.5 grams per serving. Looks like 12 g fat in total, 3g saturated, 8.5g unsaturated (note they are happy to use decimals here!), 0.5g trans. Maybe they use it to exactly fine tune the melting point? I've seen other recipes that don't include PHVO and just get the desired melting point by adjusting the other two. More common these days is palm oil without hydrogenating it at all - but then you need more of it and can't put as much unsaturated oil and your label looks worse despite actually being better. Lies, Damned Lies, and Nutrition Labels. Ariel. (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know details, but I can forward a guess. Imagine you're a beanbag chair manufacturer. Key to the performance of your chair is the softness and resiliency of your "beans". Now imagine that instead of filling the chair with a single "bean" of the correct hardness, you had to mix too-hard beans with too-soft beans (e.g. "beans" made of steel and "beans" made of gelatin). You'd never get the correct behavior, despite the "beans" being the correct hardness "on average". Similar arguments can be made for vegetable oils. Triglycerides with only one or two unsaturated bonds will behave differently than a mix of saturated and polyunsaturated triglycerides which average to one or two unsaturated bonds per molecule. - Unfortunately, I can't say what particular property something like Crisco needs which means a mix would not suffice. But "desired consistency" isn't the only consideration. Melting point is another, and while consistency and melting point are related, they're not identical, as you can have a mix which goes from firm to molten suddenly, or one that slowly transitions through "oozy". Perhaps it might have to do with phase separation, where a mix would gradually partition out on long term storage into a solid, saturated phase and a liquid, unsaturated phase, but where including a small amount of PHVO prevents such behavior. That's pure speculation, though. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. Sounds like I need to get some of each and do the experiment myself to find the definitive answer. Can one buy fully hydrogenated vegetable oils ? StuRat (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where does Rainier end?

I guess this is a science question, more or less.

Recently I was hiking in Mount Rainier National Park. I was hoping to get onto Rainier itself, not to the summit, but just to physically step on the mountain, but I couldn't make that happen — at least, not by my interpretation, looking at the images on Google Maps.

But at least a couple of different people told me I was on Rainier. And looking again at the satellite images, it's hard to be quite sure they're wrong — the mountain is a little like a candle that's melted down, with rivulets of wax going off in all directions. I could have been standing on one of those wax globs, I guess.

So what say ye? Was I on the volcano as she is goodly understanded? I hiked from the visitor center at Sunrise Ridge, which is about here, to "Frozen Lake", which is about here. I know, short hike, but we were short on time; had to catch a plane. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rainy, Rainier, Rainiest. Sorry. DuncanHill (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rainier is a volcano, so if you were standing at the base of the mountain, on or above volcanic debris from the mountain, that should qualify as being "on" the mountain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, so that was sort of my question. Are the points I mentioned on ejecta from the volcano? --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

But then again, it's not the whole question. Sometimes volcanoes deposit enormous quantities of ash some distance from the peak. I suppose geologists have some criterion for distinguishing what is and what is not the volcano. Then again, they may not. Either way, someone here might know. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

By my reasoning, I would side with your opinion. Since there are named mountains between the location at Frozen Lake, and Mt. Rainier, then, technically you would be on the foothills of one of the other mountains, (imo). Here is a nice PDF map (which takes forever to load)   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As a coincidental aside, I noticed your improper use of "ye" — I just finished a discussion about that (over here). It seems that ye is from þ^e —Which is just "the" (but is actually a bit more complicated) 71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you over-interpreted the response there. What you were reading as ye is actually just-plain the, with a thorn. However, there is (or was) indeed a pronoun ye, which is a different word. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And neither is apparently related to D or dese "da and dat" dialects. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There can be only one correct answer to such questions of geography! So what you'll want is a geological map of Rainier, with which you can inform outrageous claims of geographic sovereignty. There's no shortage of those! Start with the 1:24,000 Surficial geology of Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. I'll leave it to you and your co-hikers to debate which geological features historically constitute Mount Rainier. (Obviously you must look to the subsurface to establish the boundary, because the surface features are subject to erosion and are unsuitable for establishing permanent boundaries).

Of course, you may find yourself in the company of fellow hikers who espouse the thalweg principle, which may provide contradictory boundaries to the subsurface material. When geological fact and superficial hydrology contradict, the only solution is senseless warfare to establish the border, which must exist at one specific line that can be mathematically derived from irrefutable scientific data and principles. Nimur (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Defining a "mountain" aside from the peak itself is tricky business. Other than monadnocks which rise abruptly from relatively flat plains, most mountains are parts of some rather complex topography, and defining the difference between one "mountain" or the next really comes down to local conventions. One system for defining mountains can be found under Topographic prominence, but I'm not even sure that's helpful hear. We can easily define Mount Rainier's summit as a distinct point, but deciding whether some patch of land an arbitrary distance from that summit is "part" of Rainier, or not, is really a semantic nightmare. Local conventions define a "mountain" (in terms of a geographic area, rather than merely a summit) different from locale to locale. For example, Catoctin Mountain is a 50 mile ridge within the Appalachian system; in other places similar structures may be called a mountain range and would define each of the various peaks a distinct "mountain". See, for example, the Black Mountains (North Carolina), which is a smaller geographic feature, but is structurally similar to Catoctin Mountain (a prominent ridge of high peaks), but which is considered locally to be a series of distinct mountains. --Jayron32 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Although this might be a different trail,[this must have been the trail, until you reached the junction to Frozen Lake trail] it describes the area; it seems that you were on Mt. Burroughs (or foothills thereof):[1] (and the map linked by Nimir seems to corroborate this).   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[edit:06:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)]

OK, thanks, all. Maybe there's not as clear a demarcation as I would have thought. To me, looking subjectively at the relief map, the stuff we were walking on looks like a lot of the little bumpy stuff in the region, which doesn't seem to me to be part of the mountain. I guess I need to figure out where I want to be next time. If I could make to Camp Muir, that would be good enough. --Trovatore (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

An end to "Rainier" will happen when the paleface acknowledges its old Indian name which is "Takhoma".

A British author Captain George Vancouver, in 1792, named the great peak "Mt. Rainier." in honor of Admiral Peter Rainier, of the British Navy. Literature is practically silent about the Mountain for more than sixty years. Those years witnessed the failure of England's memorable struggle to make good Vancouver's "annexation." Oregon was at last a state.

The Northwestern Indian peopled the unknown with spirits good and bad, and felt the Power that dwelt on Tacoma. They told this Flood myth:

WHY THERE ARE NO SNAKES ON TAKHOMA

A long, long time ago, Tyhce Sahale became angry with his people. Sahale ordered a medicine man to take his bow and arrow and shoot into the cloud which hung low over Takhoma. The medicine man shot the arrow, and it stuck fast in the cloud. Then he shot another into the lower end of the first. Then he shot another into the lower end of the second. He shot arrows until he had made a chain which reached from the cloud to the earth. The medicine man told his klootchman and his children to climb up the arrow trail. Then he told the good animals to climb up the arrow trail. Then the medicine man climbed up himself. Just as he was climbing into the cloud, he looked back. A long line of bad animals and snakes were also climbing up the arrow trail. Therefore the medicine man broke the chain of arrows. Thus the snakes and bad animals fell down on the mountain side. Then at once it began to rain. It rained until all the land was flooded. Water reached even to the snow line of Takhoma. When all the bad animals and snakes were drowned, it stopped raining. After a while the waters sank again. Then the medicine man and his klootchman and the children climbed out of the cloud and came down the mountain side. The good animals also climbed out of the cloud. Thus there are now no snakes or bad animals on Takhoma.

See "The Mountain that was 'God' Being a Little Book About the Great Peak Which the Indians Named 'Tacoma' but Which is Officially Called 'Rainier'" 84.209.89.214 (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a lovely little find! I do sympathize with the position that it's too bad to have the mountain named after " an undistinguished foreign naval officer whose only connection with our history is the fact that he fought against us during the American Revolution". However, I'm not sure I could accept calling it Tacoma; even if that is the historically better justified name, it's now too connected with the city. --Trovatore (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "Mount Rainier" is a uniquely appropriate name for it -- because as DuncanHill correctly pointed out, it is much rainier than, say, Yellowstone (and, in fact, even that old Indian legend supports this name, because it specifically talks about rain that flooded all the land). We'll just have to start pronouncing it slightly differently, that's all! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, the name "Rainier" is French composed of the Germanic elements ragin ‘advice’ + hari, heri ‘army’. If you would hear of rain, learn the native Indian word for rain karyage or the Hopi name meaning rain Yoki. Sokanan is an Algonquin name that also means rain.

So what shall we say to these palefaces who came to take the name of Tacoma to put on their city by the shining sea? These are words of Aseenewub: This is what was spoken by my great-grandfather at the house he made for us ... And these are the words that were given him by the Master of Life : "At some time there shall come among you a stranger, speaking a language you do not understand. He will try to buy the land from you, but do not sell it; keep it for an inheritance to your children." We must say No, because if the Creator placed Mount Tacoma where it is, then it is in the right place.

Is it claimed that we should thank this paleface for the rain in his name? That is the sauciness of one who speaks with forked tongue. Hear then How Glooskap changed certain saucy Indians into Rattlesnakes:

You know At-o-sis, the Snake? Well, the worst of all is Rattlesnake. Long time ago the Rattlesnakes were saucy Indians. They were very saucy. They had too much face. They could not be put down by much, and they got up for very little. When the great Flood was coming Glooskap told them about it. They said they did not care. He told them the water would come over their heads. They said that would be very wet. He told them to be good and quiet, and pray. Then those Indians hurrahed. He said, "A great Flood is coming." Then they gave three cheers for the great Flood. He said, "The Flood will come and drown you all." Then these Indians hurrahed again, and got their rattles, made of turtle-shells, in the old fashion, fastened together, filled with pebbles, and rattled them and had a grand dance. Afterwards, when the white men brought cows and oxen into the country, they made rattles of horns. Yes, they had a great dance. The rain began to fall, but they danced. The thunder roared, and they shook their rattles and yelled at it. Then Glooskap was angry. He did not drown them in the Flood, however, but he changed them into rattlesnakes. Nowadays, when they see a man coming, they lift up their heads and move them about. That's the way snakes dance. And they shake the rattles in their tails just as Indians shake their rattles when they dance. How do you like such music?

It is many moons since the Great White Father drove the Rainier back to the circle of his tribe. Black Elk of the Oglala Sioux explains how everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the Power of the World always works in circles, and everything tries to be round. In the old days when we were a strong and happy people, all our power came to us from the sacred hoop of the nation, and so long as the hoop was unbroken, the people flourished. The flowering tree was the living center of the hoop, and the circle of the four quarters nourished it. The east gave peace and light, the south gave warmth, the west gave rain, and the north with its cold and mighty wind gave strength and endurance. But Rainier sailed from the east and brought the Indian neither peace nor rain. So it is not to his name that we look up. Instead we address our thanks to our ancestors and to the Great Spirit that made Mount Tahoma in words of praise that are too sacred to post here (though an editor who diligently seeks can find them hidden nearby.) 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC) This post was deleted then recovered. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

flower

small & cute flower

somebody knows the flower in the picture?

79.181.60.192 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a foxglove. Probably the common foxglove Rojomoke (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks

79.181.60.192 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Where'd you see it? --Trovatore (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Does whole Chia Seeds dismantled anywhere in the Digestive system?

If someone eats Chia seeds when they are whole (unpeeled\uncrushed), Can their Fibrous' bark be dismantled so that most of the nutrients in them be available to the body? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

According to our article (Salvia_hispanica#Preliminary_health_research), no, they need to be milled for optimal nutritional benefit. StuRat (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can generalize from that sentence there ("One pilot study found that 10 weeks ingestion of 25 grams per day of milled chia seeds"...) that the seeds needs to be milled in every case... Ben-Natan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that this is is going to be an issue with just about any seed; if you don't at least break the seed coat then there's a good chance that you won't be digesting any of those nutrients within. Sebastian Garth (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

HBV

If hepatitis B is more easily transmitted and also there are more cases of it compared to HIV, why is it not included in the standard std panel test in most countries along with Chlamydia, Gonnorhea, Syphilis and HIV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.113.228 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Help wanted at the Entertainment desk (botanists, arboriculturists, etc wanted)

Rather than insisting that the OP re-post here (and the question does also involve computer gaming), I am drawing your attention to: Entertainment#Real_Life_Version_of_Runescape_Magic_Tree (crap, yes indeed, see below, thanks Andy!). Thanks in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meant to linkWikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Real_Life_Version_of_Runescape_Magic_Tree AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Untreated cancer survival rates

Imagine a group of people who have just been diagnosed with the same kind of cancer at the same stage: some of them are weak and elderly, some are young and strong, and we have some who are young and weak and others who are old and strong. Statistically speaking, which of the four groups will likely have the longest life expectancy? I'm assuming no unrelated deaths, e.g. heart attacks or car crashes, because of course that will skew the elderly groups. I can imagine that the stronger and younger people won't succumb as easily to identical cancers, but I can also imagine that cancers in the stronger and younger people will be more vigourous, so I'm not sure what to think — especially since I don't know if my imaginations are right. I've looked at articles on various cancers, and none of them tend to say which populations have the longest life expectancies; with that in mind, the ideal answer will provide details about specific cancers instead of attempting to provide a general answer for all types of cancer. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read many times that most men who die of old age technically have prostate cancer (like 70% if I'm not off), which is usually slow growing and encapsulated. I'll refer you to google for sources and stats. Of course my neighbor is going on her third year now with lung cancer that had spread to the brain. Average survival of that with treatment is less than six months, so I think treatment is usually the preferred option in most cases. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood; I'm basically trying to understand the effects of age and weakness on cancer growth, and of course the stats on that will be greatly skewed if we include cancers that are treated. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is why you wouldn't include heart attacks. Even if the cancer isn't directly involved (like through an embolism chunk), it can create stress through physical discomfort, and thinking about the cancer can mentally stress people. Some people grow wiser and calmer with age, others more paranoid about every ache, pain or looming spectre.

In that sense, the strong, in physical and rhetorical heart, should survive. For longer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Then again, cancer relies on the same energy processes normal cells do, so if you're at peak performance, so are they. Dying cures it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I ignored heart attacks as a sample of unrelated deaths, e.g. you're diagnosed with advanced melanoma and die two days later of a sudden heart attack. Of course I understand that heart attacks (and other common causes of death) can be fatal because of cancer-caused systemic weakness or other cancer-caused reasons; I was attempting to ignore only things that would have happened to the patients had they not had cancer. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Another sort of stress I just learned (a bit) about is oxidative stress. Coincidentally, it seems "likely to be involved in age-related development of cancer". Seems to "suppress apoptosis and promote proliferation." Which again, can be good or bad, depending which cells are stressed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This summary answers some of your questions about physical activity, saying it may be linked to reduced risk of cancer recurrence in addition to its normal positive effects in reducing depression, etc. This study showed people who were fitter at diagnosis had an increased chance of surviving colorectal cancer.

As for age, here are some statistics for survival based on age at diagnosis; it sums up that "Five-year net survival is highest in the youngest adults for nearly all cancers, with survival generally decreasing with increasing age".

I didn't find any exploration of the interaction of these two factors :) 184.147.144.166 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Climbing steps for exercise

Has anything been studied about the health benefits of walking up long flights of steps as exercise, compared to going to the gym, etc? --rossb (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a direct answer in our article on stair climbing, but some of the information and references there might be of interest.--Srleffler (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The only additional concern with stairs (along with the usual cautions about overdoing any exercise) is that impact injuries could damage the feet and legs. This is more likely on cement steps, with wood being an improvement, especially if covered with carpet. Footwear also matters, of course. And, of course, if the person has poor balance or is otherwise impaired, falling might be a worry, too.

One downside of gyms is the potential to pick up infectious diseases there. I got plantar warts from my high school gym, for example. It took years to get rid of them. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

An upside is the stuff gyms have for all (or some of) your other fitness needs. Stairs are stairs, and that's fine, but that's all. Some stairwells are also pretty filthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And muggers/rapists can be hiding in stair wells, so I'd stick with open stairs in public places. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I've heard bad things about well-lit and familiar public places. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

At the corporate headquarters, some years ago, after lunch i would ride the elevator down to the basement, then run up the stairs to the 20th (or so) floor where the stairs ended, then walk back down to the 5th floor where my office was, and I found it quite beneficial. In some more modern buildings, it sets off an alarm if you enter the stairs. I never encountered a plausible mugger or rapist in the stairs. (More's the pity). Edison (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't it accompanied by the sign saying "The door is alarmed", leading one to speak to it softly to calm it back down ?

I had a problem when I decided to take the stairs to get some exercise, midwinter, but then found all the doors out of the stairwell were locked, except the door on the ground floor to the outside, which dumped me in the middle of the air conditioning equipment, with a long walk back to the entrance, in subzero weather. When they do this type of thing it discourages people from using the stairs, which then results in them being used for storage, people not knowing where they are, etc. So, it's an unsafe practice. They should encourage people to use them regularly, and put cameras in there so security can watch for criminal activity. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

OP, could you be more specific about what you're looking for? As IH mentioned, a gym obviously offers many benefits over stairs simply due to the multitude of exercise options it gives you. Including stair climbing machines. It's not really much of a comparison, like asking whether eating fish has health benefits over a more varied diet that also includes fish. Are you asking about a comparison between climbing stairs versus using stair machines, such as a StairMaster? Here's an article that looks at the calorie burning of various activities, including stair climbing versus walking and running. Matt Deres (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I asked the question is that I'm wanting to get more exercise, and local to me in Purley, South London, is an outdoor flight of steps (containing over 150 steps) and I've started including it in my regular walks, assuming this will be beneficial. One advantage over the gym is of course that it's free! But I expect I ought to supplement it with other exercises.--rossb (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely beats walking or running horizontally. One possible advantage of a stair machine is its constant height from the ground. Depending how hard you push yourself, you may prefer being exhausted in a gym, rather than on the 150th wet stair, with vertigo. But yeah, a good gym can literally rob you far worse than a mugger, and hardcore trainers can figuratively rape your soul. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't beat free, but there are downsides. Besides inclement weather (in England?!), there's the simple mechanical problem of getting back down the stairs, which is probably more dangerous than going up them. If you slip going up, you tend to fall on your hands, but slipping down can be much more... precipitous. On the other hand, getting out of bed in the morning can be dangerous as well. Matt Deres (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why I recommend staying in bed all day. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As for going back down the stairs, you can always take the elevator or escalator, assuming there is one. If they would adopt my idea of using body weight to power the downward cycles on each (using a thickening, non-Newtonian fluid to limit speed), that would also eliminate the energy waste. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)