Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 August 15

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Science
Science desk
< August 14 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 16 >
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 15

edit

Capacities of Chemours titanium dioxide plants

edit

Hi,

I'm looking for the capacities of the Chemours titanium dioxide plants:

  • DeLisle, MS
  • New Johnsonville, TN
  • Altamira, Mexico
  • Kuan Yin, Taiwan

The newest document I could find was from EPA (2001): Link (page 4).

Do you anything more recent? Or is here any expert on this topic?

Thanks, White Dowes (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chemours is the World's largest producer of Titanium dioxide TiO2. You may ask their experts at the contact address given on their website. DroneB (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DroneB: They won't tell me, it's a secret. Very ironic, since I a few years I've had a presentation PDF containing the numbers for DuPont, but I can't find that again.--White Dowes (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a slightly newer snapshot:
I'm not sure if you can access any of their newer material via:
Here are some other refs. Not a single timepoint snapshot and may require some calculation from other information to find what you want:
I found those by googling "New Johnsonville" "titanium dioxide" capacity (or replacing other site-names). DMacks (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of drug 'Mideral'

edit

Hi all,

I was reading a novel ('The Hades Factor' by Robert Ludlum and Gayle Lynds) and Mideral was mentioned alongside Adderall, Ritalin, and Cylert, as a drug which functions as a central nervous system stimulant. However, although I know the other three exist, I can find no trace of Mideral, and was wondering whether it was fictional?

Thank you all for your help! 144.32.240.169 (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mideral is not in the PDR. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mediral distributes homeopathic remedies that include Mediral Weight Loss Formula and Mediral HCG Detox. The article Homeopathy notes that homeopathy is not a plausible system of treatment. DroneB (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was definitely not a reference to that company. The reason 'Mideral' doesn't exist is that it was explicitly a plot device for that novel, and so the authors had to make something up. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someguy1221 it didn't come up in this novel, is it a plot point later in the series? Thank you 209.149.113.5 and DroneB for your help! 144.32.240.169 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it does. It's not major, it's just the drug that Marty keeps taking. They wanted a drug with a certain effect for Marty to take throughout the novel so they made this up. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK thank you Someguy1221, I felt the relationship between Marty's Asperger's and the drug was inaccurate, hence my curiosity. Best wishes, 144.32.240.169 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

iiser post allotment

edit

sir, I got iiser tirupati in scb post registration allotment. Is it is better to join iiser tirupati after commencement of classes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.146.208 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5.6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--Jayron32 14:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article about IISER ((Indian Institute of Science Education and Research)) Tirupati and you can send questions to the contact address and phone number given on their website http://www.iisertirupati.ac.in/ . DroneB (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academic research in engineering in the UK

edit

Are there any data on what share of the engineering research conducted by British universities is ever employed in industry? Furthermore, is there any reason to fund researchers to conduct research that will not be used industrially? If so, what?--Leon (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what will or will not in the future be used industrially? The purpose of scientific research is to expand the corpus of human knowledge, and to create more and more accurate models of the world. It isn't the purpose of research of that type to create industries. It's to create knowledge. Economics will create such industries after the knowledge exists. --Jayron32 18:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic" or better Basic research is, was and always will be disputed but the alternative would be to stop science. Just imagine the history of human civilization without explorers "uselessly" trying to find the "end of the world". Its simply what science is. You can not play in a Lottery with the intention of only marking numbers or buying tickets that guarantee you a win. It simply does not work that way. --Kharon (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that there is a way to calculate the share, but there are some true statements. The vast majority of scientific publications get few or no citations from other research groups. The vast majority of patents filed by academic institutions are never licensed. So why basic research? Well to begin, you literally cannot know what basic research will turn up. You also cannot know which discoveries would have been made if research was driven by profit-motive. Even many highly profitable inventions rely on discoveries that did not lead to any kind of profit for decades or longer. Finally, the funding of basic research is considered by many to be an investment in the nation's future. Most students trained in science and engineering do not stay in academia - most of them actually go into applied sciences, management, or consulting. The United States, for instance, has so many scientists and engineers available to work in industry in large part because of the generous funding of the sciences by the federal government. You can read these perspectives and more about the history of the funding of basic research, at least in the United States, here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem in distinguishing "useless" science is not only that you do not know what is or is not useless before the fact, but there is also a huge continuum. Here's an example.
  1. The year is 1928 and some guy is doing useless theoretical calculations about stimulated light emission; do you cut his funding?
  2. Later, in 1947, two other guys demonstrate that phenomenon in hydrogen atoms, but none in the industry cares; cut or no cut?
  3. Later in 1953, some other guy builds a prototype of stimulated light emittor, but none knows what it could be used for; cut or no cut?
  4. Later in 1957-1960, a few people play with that idea at Bells Labs (private company, sure, but still partially university-funded) - cut or no cut?
  5. More and more people start using them, and eventually those toys becomes a multi-billion market (and that is only the "manufacture and sell" part, not the whole "use it" part which is probably[citation needed] order of magnitudes more important).
Of course after the fact you can say that funding should have been provided at every point. But until the 1960s-1970s, you could hardly say it would have any use whatsoever. For sure, tons of other research from the first half of the century were useless, dead ends, misconceptions and the like, and none knew it. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original question comes from a user who self-reports as an Oxford-educated physicist. I wonder - who can be more qualified to answer than himself, when he asks, "is there any reason to fund researchers to conduct research that will not be used industrially...?"
So, to turn this question onto its origin: How was your study of physics financed? Was there any benefit to the investment of that money? Can there be a clear and direct attribution of gainful industrial productivity that is a direct result of the up-front investment in your education? If yes, then we have one anecdotal case. If no ... was there any other benefit to this up-front cost? If there was an intangible benefit, how or why would we try to quantify it? If there is no benefit whatsoever, then ought we reform our policies, as a society, and should we start sending our bright and talented youth directly into the coal mines, where they can labor industriously?
I am inclined to link to our article on another Oxford physicist, Robert Hooke; his great accomplishments were financed by a lump sum of forty pounds (which might be equivalent, by way of anachronistic currency comparisons, to somewhere between $20,000 and $200,000 US, in 2018, depending on how you prefer to measure purchasing power across so many centuries). In lieu of industrial productivity as a watch repairman or a limner, Hooke studied useless subjects, like the Greek language and Euclid's theories of geometry; instead of repairing watch springs, he just thought about them a whole lot. At his death, his assets included more than 8000 pounds, or a 200-fold increase in his personal wealth; and he also left behind a wealth of drawings of springs, lice, moons, mice; and mechanical couplings.
Was this a wise investment of resources? Is there any reason to invest in basic science?
Nimur (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the OP was thinking about a more extreme case of useless basic research.
The answers above seem to assume that the OP had in mind things like basic research about properties of light or materials. Things that tells us who nature works and are useful in the long term, but are topics where people not interested in science would bang the forehead on the table and ask why their tax dollars are being wasted on it.
However it might well be that he meant someone from this list or any other research regularly ridiculed within the scientific community itself.
Is there a thing like pointless research being financed with public taxes? Doroletho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tax dollars aren't wasted on it; the only thing humanity does as humanity is amass cumulative knowledge over time. The sine qua non of being human is to create. Create knowledge, create art, create whatever. Everything someone ever calls "a waste of tax dollars" whether it is funding the arts or the humanities, or scientific research, is exactly those things that make being human worth doing. Civilization is defined by leisure time; time spent pursuing that which makes us human. A society's level of humanity is assessed not by how much money it makes, but by what fraction of its resources are spent creatively; better societies have more time to spend on creative pursuits. To deny resources to such endeavors is to admit that one is less human than one should be, and that one is living in a failed civilization. </rant> --Jayron32 19:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except I wasn't talking about "basic" research; I was talking about applied engineering research done at universities; it is with such research that I quibble the utility.--Leon (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been said that the optimist says the class is half full, the pessimist says it's half empty, and the efficiency expert says there's 50 percent too much glass. I suspect your philosophy is in the third category. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such research sometimes does lead to the researchers setting up a commercial company, often in partnership or association with their parent university, to exploit and market the applications of their discoveries: see for example the article Science Park. I'd be surprised if there aren't somewhere official UK government statistics that measure this activity, but for the moment I don't know where to look. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.130.143 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2018_August_15&oldid=1043471560"