Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2006 June 29

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. Whilst you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above. This will insure that your question is answered more quickly.

< June 28 Science desk archive June 30 >

Looking for the Right Material #2

What kind of materials are able to resist Hydrofluoric Acid (HF)?

Hydrofluoric acid has the answer in the first paragraph.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a glass beaker full of HF I was going to test on various materials, but now the beaker seems to be empty with a hole in the bottom, oh well. :-) StuRat 01:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

StuRat also needs a new workbench, since that's where the beaker was sitting ;) Grutness...wha? 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And some new under-floor pipes.... Skittle 16:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

physics problem

an elastic cord vibrates with a frequency of 3.0hz, when a mass of .60kg is hang from it. what is its frequency if only .38kg hangs from it.

The same frequency that we seem to have to post "do your own homework" around here . . . --LarryMac 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the article about Hooke's Law. To save you a mouse click, look for this equation $\omega _{n}={\sqrt {k \over m}}.$. You might want to use different values in this equation and compare...hint hint... and don't forget to differentiate between angular frequency and frequency. I've said too much already. Now do your homework :) --18.239.6.57 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Isomers of Pentanol

How many isomers of 1-Pentanol (pentan-1-ol, C₅H₁₁OH) are there including 1-Pentanol? I'm not asking you to list them, that would take too long, I just need to know how many there are. --Tobes 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

9? and people'll get mad at me if I don't throw in a "do your own dang HW!"

That's not correct. Look at number 9. It isn't a propanol. There's a four carbon chain in it.-gadfium 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

so what it's still an isomer. ~Pete

Yes, but it isn't unique. It duplicates one of the others shown.-gadfium 03:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Our article on isomer may help if you are having trouble understanding the concept. You need to draw out the various possible backbones using five carbon atoms - the five-carbon chain, a four carbon chain with a methyl group (how many different places can you put a methyl group on a four carbon chain without making it a five carbon chain?), and so on. Then for each backbone, work out how many different compounds you can create by putting a single alcohol group in different places. Don't forget to allow for symmetry. For example, with the five-carbon chain, you can put the alcohol at the end (pentan-1-ol), or one away from the end (pentan-2-ol), or two away from the end (in the middle, or pentan-3-ol). If you try to put it three from the end, it's actually closer to the other end, so it is again pentan-2-ol. If you post your answer here with an explanation, we'll check it for you.-gadfium 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there's just one—the name 1-pentanol (or pentan-1-ol) is specific to a single compound. If you're interested in the number of primary alcohols you can make with the formula C₅H₁₁OH, that's a different question. Finally, if you're wondering how many isopentyl alcohols you can make, that's yet another (larger) group of answers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the question as originally asked was fine. The isomers of 1-pentanol are not themselves 1-pentanol, they just have the same chemical formula.-gadfium 03:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do they have to be alcohols? What about ethers like CH₃CH₂OCH₂CH₂CH₃? (I agree with Gadfium; the original question was worded correctly, as far as I can see). — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as well you pointed that out. I had overlooked it. Yes, ethers should certainly be included, as our article on isomers points out. To the original questioner: that will add a few possibilities. Again, please ask if you have trouble understanding the concepts.-gadfium 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. It's not actually for my homework. It was a question in a Chem exam I did yesterday, for people who finished early there was an extra "bonus" question at the end which was to name and draw all the isomers of 1-pentanol. And for clarification, by isomer I mean anything with the same number and type of atoms. I had a look at that website and it seems that 9 is identical to 6. Unfortunately in the exam I only did the 8 alcohols, but ethers will probably be counted too :( . Oh well, thanks for all your replies. --Tobes 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has an article listing the alcohol isomers of pentanol here, but I didn't want to link to it until I knew whether it was homework.-gadfium 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It not only "seems" 9 is identical to 6, that page itself informs you of this. Sorry you didn't get the bonus question. Of course, if you count stereoisomers, you get even more...several of the isomers are chiral. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt I'll get it, although I'm still hopeful because on the page there was only enough room for eight stuctural diagrams, which may mean they were only looking for alcohol isomers, even though they didnt specify alcohol isomers. And I didn't even consider stereroisomers when doing the question! --Tobes 09:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How about 1 - one isomer - itself? 2-pentanol is not an isomer of 1 pentanol - etc... There is only one compound that fits the description 1 pentanol - trick question perhaps.?HappyVR 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't a trick question. 2-pentanol is indeed an isomer of 1-pentanol. See above.-gadfium 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Did they discover polyminos while playing with isotopes ? --DLL 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Computer-aborted space shuttle launch

Hello guys (and gals). I remember watching a video some time ago about a shuttle launch that was aborted a few seconds before lift-off (something like, 2 or 3 seconds) by an automatic system. I remember the video showing the inicial discharge of the main engines, and then the cutoff happened, even before the exaust had time to ignite. I tried searching everywhere and could only find the STS-51F ATO engine failure. From what I remember, it seems that the computer on the shuttle executed the abort due to increasing POGO effects, but I'm not sure if this recollection is acurate. Thanks everyone! --Quase 03:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

is it just me or did Quase miss the point of the reference desk?--195.93.21.8 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Im very sorry, I'll refrase that: What mission was this one I just spoke about? Hehehe got so worked up about the question that I forgot to ASK it! :-) --Quase 06:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Space Shuttle abort modes lists five pad aborts, googling for "STS-41-D" abort etc should find details. Weregerbil 09:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excelent. Thanks!--Quase 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Googling is unnecessary. The article on STS-51-F says "Launch countdown 12 July halted at T-3 seconds after main engine ignition when a malfunction of number two Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) coolant valve caused shutdown of all three main engines." -- Plutor 14:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient creatures of the deep

What are some of the ugliest or most bizarre or alien-looking ancient and now long-long-long extinct forms of life? It can be animal-like and obscure or mysterious. I seem to recall something that loks like a flat bug that is called cenabite or something? But I'm sure there are more creatures that meet the criteria i'm looking for. Thanks!!--Sonjaaa 04:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Trilobite? Proto///type 10:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the more bewilderingly shaped animals are far older than that. have a look at Burgess Shale, and follow any links (or google on the term "Burgess shale") - you should find some startlingly alien-looking life forms. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the weirdest looking animals are still around! Check out the Texas Blind Salamander. The picture there isn't that flattering, but if you watch David Attenborough's BBC Planet Earth: Caves you will be astonished. -Halidecyphon 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on, David Attenborough isn't all that weird-looking.-gadfium 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Although not extinct the Loch Ness Monster is pretty freaky looking, though it's also good at hiding. AllanHainey 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your cenabite search produced tons of flotsam :

• cenobite
• Obi-Wan Kenobi
• Da Vinci's The Last Supper (Ultima Cena or Cenacolo)
• Mosquito bites ... --DLL 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

BSD licensed X Server in Java

Hi, all!

Not here to start another one of those stupid flame wars about if Java is good/bad/ugly... but could anyone point me in the direction of a BSD-license X Server (X11R6 or greater) that is written in pure Java? I found JCraft's WeirdX and WiredX, but neither are suitable for inclusion in to my three-clause-BSD-license Java application.

Mosquitos

I'm looking for a way to get rid, or at least diminish the numbers, of the mosquitoes and other biting flying insects near my house. Is there some sort of bird that I could try to lure to nest near my house that would be good for this? I've thought of putting up bat houses but I don't know if we have bats anywhere around here. I live in Northern Vermont. Dismas|^(talk) 06:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search on "Bats of Vermont" turns up Bats of Vermont. Removing the quotes generates thousands of hits. Johntex\^talk 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

DDT. Works everytime.

Due to the bio-accumulative effects of DDT, you will kill thoe birds you were trying to nest that eat mosquitos. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, biological control methods (e.g., introducing bats, birds, dragonflies) is not very effective as a control method, since such animals can easily switch to other types of prey - besides the fact that they don't eat much to begin with. Probably the most you can do, at a household level, is to drain or dispose of anything where mosquitoes can breed (i.e., anything that holds water). You can also use a bug zapper, although this kills insects fairly indiscriminately. If the problem is particularly bad, you may be able to try treating your outdoor walls with insecticide so that mosquitoes die when they land on them. Also try complaining to your local council, as they may act if they receive enough complaints, and they can take more effective control measures on a larger scale. This site has more information. 220.253.90.98 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)BenC

• With regards to the bug zapper - a better bet would be something like this which attracts and kills mosquitos preferentially. It does this by burning propane fuel - the resultant heat and carbon dioxide are the same things the mosquito is trying to use to find its food (animals like us emit heat and carbon dioxide also). There are other brands available, including models that attach to a permenant natural gas line instead of needing refillable propane tanks to be switched out. Johntex\^talk 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern Phoebe for example is an phenomenal flycatcher. I don't have the figures, but I'm pretty sure a family or two of them in your backyard will do some damage to the insect population. I mean, all they do all day is fly from one stick to another eating insects (and they're fun to watch). I don't know how to attract them, but Vermont is well inside their natural range. And if you can actually attract a bat colony, your problems are over - A colony can consume billions of insects every night. I know you can buy bat houses and such, but I don't know much about it. I do know that merely putting up a bird feeder or two in your backyard can massively increase bird activity in your area, and I'm almost certain that you will see an decrease in mosquito population. Birds are surprisingly effective. Good luck - and please don't cover your house with insecticide - it's poisonous to everybody :(. --18.239.6.57 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm up in Canada, and know your pain! There is little you can do if you are surrounded by bogs and swamps, and if your place is closed in by trees. Screened gazebos are great! My cottage is good because it is fairly open, faces south, which attracts hundreds of dragonflys. You can see tons of them buzzing overhead, so that there are virtually no mosquitos during the day, and they totally decimate the blackflys! --Zeizmic 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, any pesticides are out since they would harm our chickens (only eight of them, so they are little help) plus if it got into the water then that would harm myself, the dogs, the cats, etc. So that wasn't even an option really.

I have some time this weekend and my girlfriend and I have been meaning to go to the audobon center near us, so maybe we'll go ask them about how to get the Eastern Phoebe to nest around us.

I'll also check into the bat situation. That first link that was provided is from the University of Vermont which is near me. So they may be of help in telling me how to get a bat colony to move into the neighborhood.

I'm not crazy about the propane skeeter eater things since I don't really want to dump a bunch of money into propane every year. I'd rather just have the local wildlife do the job for free.  :-)

Thanks for all the responses! Dismas|^(talk) 04:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosquitoes are attracted to water because female mosquitoes lay eggs on water after they suck blood out of something. So if you have water near your home I suggest you get rid of it IMEDDIATELY! Also research has proven that mosquitoes prefer children to adults and blondes to brunettes. Skin factor and the level of CO2 of a person is also a factor in their choice. But to get rid of the mosquitoes I suggest putting citronella in the mosquito populated places around your house. Mosquitoes avoid citronella because it irritates their feet.

User: Himanyo

Why two different carrier systems... E1/T1???

Though the functions and the purposes are same, why North Americans do things one way and rest of the world does a differnt way. For example, E1/T1, ISDN, SS7 etc. Why there is always two differet kind of standards seperately in the technologies for North America and the rest of the world???

The rest are copies. =D --mboverload@ 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This happens a lot, and it's not just North America versus the rest of the world. Electricity supplies vary wildly from country to country (the voltage, the amperage, and even the shape of the plugs). This often does have an affect on what the technology can output. But often it's because designing, marketing and selling your own product that does the same thing to an existing product that has market saturation elsewhere (but is different enough not to infringe on patents) allows you to keep all the profit. Like with PAL + NTSC, and so on. Proto///type 09:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

chemistry

How would you change an Alkaloid to a Hydrochloride?

Most (all?) alkaloids are amines. You can change the free base form to the ammonium salt form simply by adding hydrochloric acid.

R₃N + HCl → R₃NH⁺ + Cl⁻ —Keenan Pepper 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Faulty MPG

I've an MPG file that only plays to 4 mins 19 secs and then the program playing it (eg. winamp, WMP) crashes - every time; why does this happen?

I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect that Winamp, and the other players you've tried, all use the Windows Media Player engine to do the grunt work of actually playing the video. As to why that engine crashes, it's impossible to say exactly. But you could try a player that doesn't use the WMP engine, like VLC media player, and see if that works. --Robert Merkel 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that - I had almost the exact same problem yesterday, except I was playing a movie with VLC player, and it crashed every time it got to one part. I assume it's just that the file was corrupted though; not blaming VLC. --18.239.6.57 13:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, you should blame VLC, as well as the file. Software should be able to handle bad input gracefully, without crashing. —Bkell (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you can, submit a bug report to the VLC people, and provide them access to the video if at all possible (yes, yes, I know that there are any number of reasons why you might not want to share precisely what you were playing with the VLC developers...). --03:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Install new codecs perhaps. --Proficient 13:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Electronics - Wah pedal adapter

I just purchased a Dunlop Cry Baby wah pedal, which recommends I use a "9vDC AC adapter with greater than 20 ma current capability". I have an adapter with a "12vDC 700ma" output. If I use it on this piece of equipment, will I fry it? Is this an okay adapter to use? Thanks! NIRVANA2764 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the internals of the pedal. Chances are the pedal contains a few ICs in it. They have a limited voltage range. So, you protect them with limiters. Can the limiter inside the pedal convert 12v to 9v? In the end, it will cost $10-$20 to get a 9vDC/20ma power supply from Radio Shack. So, why risk ruining the pedal? In fact, buy one of the multi-volt/multi-amp power supplies for $30 and never worry about it again. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What's important is that you match the voltage (so get a 9-volt adapter), and the current capacity of the adapter should be at least as large as the current requirements for the pedal. So a 9V 20mA adapter will do fine, as will a 9V 100mA adapter, or even a 9V 1000mA adapter. But if you get a 12V adapter, you'll be providing the pedal with too high a voltage, which is not good. —Bkell (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Most wall-wart transformers are not voltage-regulated, so they only produce the specified output voltage at full load. So you'll want to get a close match between current capacity and current usage: for a 20ma device, I wouldn't go over about 40ma for the transformer. --Serie 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you buy an adapter at RadioShack, you'll probably get one of their adapters with a removable plug on the end. This way you can choose the plug that fits your equipment (they come in about 20 sizes). But you should be careful when you put the plug on that you put it on the right direction, to get the polarity right; there are two ways you can do so, but only one of them will match what the pedal is expecting. —Bkell (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Time

Question: I want to add a controversial view of Space-Time to the Time and Unified Field Theory Sections, site: www.geocities.com/maatsociety/5summary.html and now just give a dimensional analysis of 3-d space and 3-d time.

The Dimensions of Space and Time 

"Space" as it relates to physics, math, and thought is defined by Daniel Webster as: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. These "3" Dimensions are mathematically portrayed as three orthogonal lines called the x, y, and z-axis. When space is defined this way, it becomes pictured as the the Cube that physically corresponds to the plane mirrors that trap light or time.

Space uses the dimension called "Length" and units of meters (m). The volume is just the length in the three orthogonal directions given the different names of length, width, and depth to stipulate which axis the length is measured in. The volume or 3-Dimensional space is based on the cube and called "Cubic" meters or centimeters and defines the Cartesian coordinate system in algebra. This is not too difficult to grasp, so elaboration is unnecessary.

However, it must be understood that volume in matter is created by the Helix/conical spiral motion of time. As a flat spiral groove creates area in an otherwise linear record album, likewise volume in matter is generated by conical and spherical spirals that commonly became known as the "Wave". And the Wavelength, Wavewidth, and Wavedepth depict the 3 dimensions of time multiplying space by spiraling it to form matter. This shall be explained more thoroughly as the dimensions of time are analyzed.

In physics and math the concept of "Time" varies greatly and since this concept is not as well understood, it must be elaborated upon. Daniel Webster defines "Time" as: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future. With the 4th dimension of time definitely existing in the thoughts of many, physics measures this "time" in units of change called seconds (s). It must be noted that just as "length" is the basic abstraction of space, "change" is the basic abstraction of time and the Fourth Dimension is NOT actually time, but more precisely "change".

Abstracting space into the concept of "length" derives meters, and abstracting time into the concept of "change" derives seconds. And although this one-dimesional time called "change" is utilized in mathematics as well as physics, seldom does math promulgate multiple dimensions of "change" as does physics (i.e. acceleration has "circled" activity or 2 dimensions of change just as space has a "squared" area representing 2 dimensions of length).

Without going into all the possible concepts of time, a concept that accurately depicts personal experience and is applicable to the laws of science and reason must be settled upon. A perspective of time based on the Sphere appears to be the only reasonable concept that depicts the reality of this universe, assuming that space is based on the cube.

Time is the Concave/Convex lenses that multiply and divide light, called the Polar coordinate system and represents 3-Dimensional spiral/circular instances in time (Trigonometry). These views of space and time can be related by relating the sine function of time to the Cartesian geometry of the circle.

Just as length, width, and depth are all actually length in orthogonal directions to an origin, the 3-dimensions of time are actually "Change" that propagates at right angles along the sphere. The three dimensions of time are called linear (duration), variance, and repetition and are the only three ways in which change is noticed. The cyclical rings of control is called "variance".

As length, width, and depth define an object; the duration, activity, and frequency define an event. And as the 3 dimensions of space unite to form the "volume" of space the 3 dimensions of time unite to form the "volume" of time, which is called the field and has far, far reaching ramifications. As length has left, right, and center, change has past, present and future and it must be understood that the past, present, and future components of change exist in all 3 dimensions of time.

The Conical Spiral, tilted on it's side is the current concept of the "wave" and we just notice amplitude, frequency and wavelength of this spiral cone. Although we don't think of this wave as occupying volume, in reality it does and this cone is not only oriented from left to right forming wavelength, but also from top to bottom and from front to back forming 3 dimensions.

The Sphere is created by the conical spiral of time traveling as a wave occupying volume. The viewpoint can be shifted from the side to the top/bottom perspective of the conical spiral and this will show the helical structure of DNA (or an undampened 3-Dimensional Time Wave - The Cone is just a dampened cylinder.)

Finally, Black-Hole, Tornado-like Vortices of time, creates the spiral motion of nothingness, which forms the conical spirals and spheres that produces volume in matter. These tornado vortices show the sequence of time as volume is created from nothingness and the creation/destruction pattern called frequency.

These 3 dimensions of time can be seen in any event such as going to the store, but they are best pictured using the conical spiral and spheres shown at the above web site and easily explained verbally using the computer programming analogies below.

The Linear time is the time it takes a computer program to run on a single processor. This is the following through of instruction after instruction and called the duration with components of past, present, and future. This "Linear" time is also the "wavelength" and distance from one peak or trough to the next in a conical section. This is simply calculated by taking how long each instruction takes to execute and adding them together.

The variance or activity is what is now called "parallel" processing used by vector processors that simultaneously execute various vectorized instructions. The more activity or variance, the quicker time is perceived. Thus the saying "time fly's when your having fun". The time it takes for each instruction to execute is now distributed over several processors and addition no longer becomes necessary. All instructions are simultaneous executed as if there were only one instruction. The variance is the circular path followed by one revolution of the spiral conical section and the activity is the area of this circular path.

Finally, The repetition/frequency is the loops within programs or the repetition of instructions. This acknowledges the fact that waves propagate and what is pictured as a wave is just one propagation or snapshot of a wave. Although a computer analogy was given because of the precision of computer terminology, these 3 dimensions of time are used to accurately define any event in nature whether micro or macro scopic.

The acceleration is the derivative of the velocity, and the frequency may very well be the derivative of the acceleration or a differential equation related to such phenomena. In a 3-d time based UFT, the velocity is called - change (s), the acceleration change in change (s^2), and the frequency change in change in change (s^3). However, since we base time off of the sphere and not the cube, the seconds raised to the power of 2 will be defined as "circled" and the seconds raised to the power of 3 will be call "sphered".

Notice how these definitions are in agreement with both thought and physics. The velocity or duration is simply the change or change in position called motion. Yet the acceleration "circles" this change and raises it to the second power. With acceleration, we are not just noticing change or change in position called motion, but we are noticing that the motion itself is changing or a "change in change" of the position. This "variance" is simply a second dimension of change as width is simply a second dimension of length.

"Squaring" the length is multipling the length by the width, birthing a concept called area. Likewise, "Circling" the change is multipling the change by the variance birthing a concept called "activity". Thus, Area is related to Width as Activity is related to Variance. The more things vary, the more activity is perceived in it.

Although frequency is physically measured as 1/s or hertz, the same concept of change is applied to frequency . Frequency is pictured as the "sameness" in change, but what is actually happening in frequency is that the "change" is the same and not the lack of change. Thus frequency becomes "sphered" change and when the change is "sphered" it forms the "Field". Thus Volume is related to Depth as The Field is related to Frequency.

One must take note of the divisions and multiplications in the dimensions of space and time. "Depth" is viewed as the third dimension of space, and "frequency" is viewed as the third dimension of time. When the 3 dimensions of space are multiplied, "Volume" and the "Cube" is created and when the 3 dimensions of time are multiplied, "The Volume of Time" called the "Field" and the "Sphere" is created.

However, just as the "volume" of space is not the same as the "depth" of space, the "field" of time is not the same as the "frequency" of time. As space goes from length to length and width forming area, time goes from change to change and variance forming activity. Then as space adds depth to the area to form volume, time adds frequency to the activity forming the field. Any rotating body has components of a tangential velocity (m/s), a tangential acceleration (m/s^2), and a frequency (m/s^3).

The following table shows the dimensions of space and time:

Dimension Concept Description

0 – Nothing         The MIND                Stillness, Absolute ZERO
1- Length           Roll = x-axis rotation  Spin, Wavelength
2 – Width           (Area) Yaw=y-axis       Spin left or right, Wavewidth
3 – Depth           (Volume) Pitch=z-axis   Spin Forward or Backward, wavedepth
4 – Change          linear, duration        Motion itself, velocity
5 – Variance        (Activity)motion change Wave Peak/trough, Acceleration
6 – Frequency       (Field) recurrence      Wave Frequency/repetition
Infinity - ALL       Infinity               The Speed of Light (c)

Daryl E. Waite

It is apparent that you didn't notice on the Wikipedia homepage the message that this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You are included in anyone. So, edit the article. Just accept that others may remove it if they deem it to be some crackpot theory. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my early days at the Wiki, I had a spurt of crackpotism, and put in a very nice theory of a 'water laser', which actually happened at a nuclear plant. However, it provoked a very nasty response, as well as rational ones. In the end, it could be rejected because it was 'original research' with no references, and we don't do that (thank god!). I don't know where there could be a good home for these things. --Zeizmic 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I read that, and I was wondering, does all that make sense to you? Could you could explain a few quotes that were particularly confusing to me:

• "it must be understood that volume in matter is created by the Helix/conical spiral motion of time. "
• "Time is the Concave/Convex lenses that multiply and divide light, called the Polar coordinate system and represents 3-Dimensional spiral/circular instances in time (Trigonometry)."
• "The Conical Spiral, tilted on it's side is the current concept of the "wave" and we just notice amplitude, frequency and wavelength of this spiral cone."

I encourage you without reservation to post anything you want to an article in Wikipedia, but I don't expect it to stay up very long. I am trying to keep an open mind about it. To be very honest, to me it reads like spark notes for a high-school physics course written on LSD. But then most great ideas were at first considered idiotic, so who am i to talk - go forth and wiki --198.125.178.207 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a concept of the derivative of acceleration. It's called jerk—why do you call it frequency? The concept of jerk is used in roller coasters and motion control systems. Also why would you try to redefine words that are already in common use in science under this new "theory" when all it does is lead people who know the words to not be able to understand the your mumbo jumbo? I'd be very interested to see if any logical responses could be given to the quoted text of the previous poster. —Bradley 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Posting controversial theories on Wikipedia is explicitly forbidden by WP:NOT policy. If you want to post this at geocities, contact the site's webmaster. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Icelanders

Did the most recent common ancestor of the Icelanders live before or after the settlement of the island? The article mentions genetic studies but unfortunately cites no references. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Which article has what claim? Rmhermen 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

the Demographics of Iceland mentions the ethnic composition at original settlement. It doesn't cite sources, so Wikipedia was no help in answering my question. I am now asking RD if anyone can be bothered to look into it. 85.0.167.82 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see it is in the second line. I missed it. Those numbers seem to be correct with my memories of some articles - I'll try to run down the sources. Rmhermen 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The references would be two papers by Agnar Helgason:

mtDNA and the Origin of the Icelanders: Deciphering Signals of Recent Population History and mtDNA and the Islands of the North Atlantic: Estimating the Proportions of Norse and Gaelic Ancestry, both published in Am. J. Hum. Genet.. I will add it to the article. Rmhermen 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbidol question

I didn't know where else to post this but here. I am not a native English speaker, and would like if someone can just reread the article Arbidol and correct/change mistakes that I am unable to catch as a non native speaker (worder order and such). I'd really appreciate it!

Thank you.

I just realized I didn't log in - Svetlana Miljkovic

130.111.226.25 15:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits, but it looked as good or better than most articles when they are first started even by native English speakers. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of Arbidol, but I knew it was a drug. Maybe the "ol" suffix. I was very surprised to find that it was Russian. But the author's name might have been a hint. Any links with Arbat or what ? --DLL 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

?

when an atom has lost one or more electrons it is said to be?

Looking under the couch cushions for them ? StuRat 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this homework question is easily answered by reading the articles atom or electron? I just checked and yes it is! --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be more quickly answered by going to ion (leaving you more time to play computer games) --Username132 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I, on occasion, give hints to homework questions, ever ones with pathetically poor titles. StuRat

Ctrl + F, and typing in "ion" comes up part of the word in "registration." ;-) Iolakana|^T 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Atom1: I just lost an electron.
Atom2: Are you sure?
Atom1: Yes, I'm positive.
82.131.187.36 09:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I got a charge out of that radical joke. StuRat 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mercury shape in water

On the right in the mercury article I see that mercury has a very distinctive shape in air. But in a discussion we had on IRC we were wondering how this shape would be in water or another liquid. Would it be more spherical, less, or perhaps something totally different? (I've posted the question on the mercury talk page a few days back but it doesn't seem to get visited a lot) - Dammit 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mercury is much denser than water and insoluble in it, so I think it would sit at the bottom in a lump, about the same shape as in air. —Keenan Pepper 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Mercury is heavier than water. When old mercury compasses (I believe that is what they were used for) are found in sunken ships, they appear to be a mirror - flat and shiny on top. Perhaps you are asking about mercury in water without gravity? --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends how much mercury you have. Small volumes will form droplets like the picture in our article. Larger amounts of mercury will form flat sheets that curl down and around at the edges. The flatness comes from mercury's density; the curling around at the edges from mercury's substantial surface tension. (The contact angle that mercury forms with many materials – in air or water – is greater than ninety degrees, giving a 'tucked-in' edge. Mercury in glass forms a convex meniscus for a similar reason.)

Assuming there are no significant chemical interactions - not sure about that - I think mercury would look pretty much the same. The density of mercury is so much greater than air or water, that it would make little difference (mercury ==> 13.534 g/cm³, air ==> 0.0012 g/cm³, water ==> 1 g/cm³, percentage difference between water and air ==> 7%). I think the molecular effects are pretty much the same too, so I don't think surface tension would be very different. --Bmk 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So the answer is that it would be slightly more spherical, but not by much. Note that if you found a liquid with the same density as mercury, but the two still did not mix or react, the mercury would be expected to form a perfect sphere, disturbed occasionally by currents, or possibly broken into smaller spheres by a strong current. StuRat 15:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about days and nights

I know intuitively, and partly from experience (what with living in the northernmost country in mainland Europe) that near the poles, in winter it's almost continuously dark, and in summer it's almost continuously bright, whereas at near the equator, days are bright and night are dark all year round. But what is causing this? Can someone explain in layman's terms? JIP | Talk 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See effect of sun angle on climate. It has a pretty picture that shows how the equator is always about the same angle to the sun, but the poles are not. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'd recommend downloading and playing with the excellent free program Celestia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, good call! seconded. Celestia "kicks ass", as I believe the kids say these days --Noodhoog 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sun, on average, goes straight overhead at the equator, while it's on the horizon at the poles. The tilt of the Earth causes the Sun to go over at a different angle in the summer and winter, because either mainly the Earth's Northern or Southern Hemisphere is pointed toward the Sun as the Earth revolves around the Sun. This angle change isn't very significant near the equator, but at the poles it literally makes the difference between day and night, since the Sun moves above or below the horizon, depending on the angle. StuRat 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the name of this chemical?

What is the name of the chemical with SMILES string N1=NC12N=N2? Its diagram is the following:

N===N
 \ /
  C
 / \
N===N

Seahen 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1,2,4,5-Tetraazaspiro[2.2]penta-1,4-diene

CAS number [138853-45-9]

It has never been made - it is only theoretical. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

One carbon, four nitrogens, and eight bonds, and nobody's managed to synthesize it?! Seahen 20:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering the ring strain inherent in a three-membered ring containing a double bond (and this one has two joined in a spiro arrangement adding more strain), it's very likely that this compound would not be stable except at extraordinarily low temperatures. It's decomposition to nitrogen gas and carbon (graphite, soot, or something like that) would be very exothermic: CN₄ → 2 N_{2 (g)} + carbon soot (+ BOOM!)

--Ed (Edgar181) 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, the bond angle is so tight it seems like it would be to difficult to be worth making. If possible. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, diazirines (with only one of the three membered rings, shown below) are possible to make - and worth making, too. They are useful intermediates in certain types of reactions (such as making carbenes). But they are generally used about as quickly as they are made because they are not terribly stable. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

R   R
 \ /
  C
 / \
N===N

What are the R's, radicals? Philc _T^E_C^I 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably they're R groups. --David Iberri (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Criss Angel

This was recently explained by the woman having a birth defect - very short legs. But how about this, where he "cuts" himself in half? zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We should not be in the general habit of discussing the solution to magic tricks. Those guys have to make a living, too! --Zeizmic 00:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this. This seems like some weird superstition. Knowing every line of your favorite movie doesn't ruin it for you. Knowing about biology or physics doesn't ruin the experience of nature. Why are magic tricks so closely guarded? Where is a web site that really explains these things? —Bradley 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it's done, but there are a number of irregularities that give hints:

1. That saw blade cannot possibly cut anything thicker than cardboard or cloth -- it's entirely the wrong size, and has entirely the wrong tooth pattern.
2. The saw blade does not cut through the table. It doesn't descend far enough.
3. The sparks you see are from pyrotechnics, not from metal being cut.
4. It's a video, not a live performance. The audience is in on it.
5. There are so many camera cuts, they could hide almost anything.
6. Criss Angel doesn't move after being cut in half.
7. The camera angles never show the cut surfaces.
8. The camera never gives a view of the underside of the table.

Hope this gives you some ideas. --Carnildo 05:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• The moment the two parts of his body separate give a pretty good look under that table. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• The film manages never to show a recognizable shot of the magician's face after he has been cut, only moving blurry shots from a distance; mostly he just looks away from the camera. Could even be the exact same trick... Weregerbil 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowing every line of the movie in fact does ruin it for some people. I've heard people even say they can't stand to watch the same movie twice, ever. I know for myself that I can't read the same book twice within a short period; I have to wait months or years before I've forgotten enough that I don't feel bored with it. Magic tricks are like that, but add in the delicacy of a riddle: once the information is in your head, it's never coming out, no matter how long you wait between times. Who in their right mind likes hearing the same clever riddle more than once? And the fun of magic tricks is not having any idea how it could possibly have happened. Most of them actually aren't inherently beautiful, the way a waterfall or a bonfire is. The only fun is that it's inexplicable. Black Carrot 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. People are different; some want to know the trick, even so much that they come to the Wikipedia reference desk and ask about it. I'm an engineer by nature; when I see a magic trick or any mechanical gadget my first thought is "where is my screwdriver, I'm gonna take that apart and see what makes it tick..." Weregerbil 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, traditionally when discussing spoilers one disguises them in some trivial manner, so that people can choose to skip them - perhaps redirect this discussion to a sub-page or something? Trollderella 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)