The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Is the "major product" shown here a Z or E isomer? To my way of thinking, the phenyl groups will have highest priority on both sides, so the isomer shown is Z, but the text says E. 61.247.39.121 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This question relates to nucleophilic substitution and elimination reactions in organic chemistry. If a particular species is a good nucleophile in a given solvent, does that then make it a poor leaving group? One of the characteristics that makes a species a good nucleophile is that it's poorly solvated, thus freeing up its surface and movement for interaction with a haloalkane. Conversely, one of the factors that makes a good leaving group is that it's well solvated, and leaving the haloalkane to form a carbocation is energetically favorable (or at least not very unfavorable). Given both of these facts, it stands to reason to me that if a given nucleophile is poor in a given solvent, then it should be a good leaving group in the same solvent. Further, if leaving group A is displaced by nucleophile B, but A is also a good nucleophile, then it should simply go back and displace B in an endless cycle. Of course an equilibrium of such alternating displacements is established in real world reactions, but the equilibrium position lies far to one side or the other in useful reactions. Despite all this, it seems to be generally accepted for example, that Br is a good leaving group, and Br- is a good nucleophile, and this is often stated without specifying the solvent (which makes it a bit meaningless to me). My text book includes a table of nucleophiles and their strengths in water/ethanol solution. It places Br- as stronger than Cl-. In a question in the chapter it asks a question that essentially boils down to which of the two halides is a better leaving group in ethanol. It says the answer is Br- which seems inexplicable given they already said it is a stronger nucleophile in almost exactly the same medium. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're generally right that good leaving groups make poor nucleophiles, and visa-versa, but there are some exceptions, and the halogens are often exceptions to these rules. For example, see Electrophilic aromatic directing groups, in electrophilic aromatic substitution, halogens are ortho-para directing, but are electron withdrawing groups; all other electron withdrawing groups are meta-directing; and all other ortho-para directing groups are electron donating. The reasoning for this may be closely related to the reason why halogens also buck the trend in nucleophilic substitution trends. --Jayron3211:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that response. In that case, if a halogen like Br can be considered both a better leaving group and a better nucleophile in a polar, protic solvent such as water or ethanol, then what do we expect to happen when say sodium bromide is added to a chloroalkane in ethanol? Do we expect the Br to displace chlorine because it's a better nucleophile? If so, does it then immediately form a carbocation because it's also a better leaving group? While I appreciate that the halogens have some unique behaviours, at some point these concepts of good nucleophiles and good leaving groups become mutually inconsistent. 114.124.243.188 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why organic chemistry is hard as balls. Real chemistry is messy as heck, because you've got dozens of competing principles, and trying to quantify how each one applies in a particular reaction will make you pull your hair out. This page actually has a good discussion of the solvent effects on nucleophilicity of halides. I think it can help you work out the answers to your questions. --Jayron3223:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have stumbled upon the property that lets Br− and I− act as effective nucleophilic catalysts; they really are both good nucleophiles and good leaving groups in SN2 reactions. It often improves yield in SN2 reactions to pass through an alkyl iodide on the way to the nucleophile you actually want, because an alkyl iodide is more easily substituted than an alkyl chloride (Clayden, Greeves, and Warren's Organic Chemistry discusses this point at the end of Chapter 15, which covers nucleophilic substitution at a saturated carbon atom.) Your reaction will not proceed to completion but will instead reach equilibrium. Other factors (such as the solvent) can drive such halogen exchange reactions to completion by giving things a push in one direction or the other; this is how the Finkelstein reaction works (although that is converting alkyl chlorides or bromides to alkyl iodides). Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Does Spironolactone have to do with Chronic heart failure that other diuretics doesn't have?
I saw the following question "Despite the administration of cardiotonic and thiazide diuretic a patient with chronic heart failure has
persistent edemas and the risk of ascites arose. What medication should be administered to enhance the diuretic effect of the administered drugs? A. Manithol B. Furosemide C. Amiloride D. Clopamide E. Spironolactone". The correct answer according to books and sites is Spironolactone. My question is what does it have to do with chronic heart failure that the others don't have? All of them diuretics, some of them are weaker and some of them are more potent diuretics, but I don't understand why they expect from the answerer to answer Spironolactone exactly while the others can be apparently also correct answer. Isn't it? 93.126.116.89 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even without any knowledge of the medications one can grok the reason if one is told the answer is Spironolactone. The others must be cardiotonics or thiazide diuretics, which aren't working. Spironolactone must work on another pathway. Abductive (reasoning)14:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
) Spironolactone is Spironolactone is K+ sparing diuretic and the rest are cardiotonics as well... I know the pathways of each of this drugs and I don't find any reason for this to be the chosen answer logically. Sometimes there are MCQs that have mistakes that's why I'm asking. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spironolactone is a diuretic, but not a thiazide diuretic! It is a specific pharmacologic antagonist of aldosterone, acting at the collecting tubule, preventing the adaptive process of cell hypertrophy that occurs with long-term loop diuretic use. Circulating aldosterone concentrations are often increased in advanced congestive heart failure, which makes spironolactone yet more effective. Spironolactone opposes the kaliuretic effect of loop or thiazide-type diuretics. And the addition of this potassium-sparing diuretic offsets the potassium-wasting of loop and thiazide-type diuretics. And maintaining normal potassium levels can be important when digitalis (a cardiotonic) is being administered. But the answer is probably to test if you know the empiric evidence: that "spironolactone has been found to increase life expectancy and reduce hospitalization frequency when added to the conventional therapeutic regimen of patients with advanced congestive heart failure and systolic dysfunction."[1]. - Nunh-huh17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question is really beating the point to death. For CHF patients, spironolactone is preferred. For patients with persistent edemas, spironolactone is preferred. For patients with ascites related to cirrhosis, spironolactone is preferred. So, the question gives the patient all three and asks which is preferred. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the case. Loop diuretics like furosemide are the mainstay of diuretic therapy in heart failure. Spironolactone is often added to loop diuretics, but it can't be simply stated that it is "preferred" in CHF. It is, as you say, the drug of choice in initial treatment of ascites due to cirrhosis. - Nunh-huh22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that furosemide is more effective diuretic in this context, but note that the question asks which would "enhance the diuretic effect of the administered drugs". Spironolactone, acting downstream (in the collecting duct) of the thiazides in the nephron would prevent the usual distal compensation for the more proximally-acting (distal convoluted tubule) thiazide. I also wonder whether the question might be a little dated, referring to spironolactone rather than newer more selective antagonists like eplerenone, and the thiazides rather than the more recent thiazide-like diuretics like indapamide. I agree with the K+/digoxin comments of Nunh-huh. Klbrain (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but if the question is designed to elicit the fact that adding spironolactone to furosemide results in synergy rather than a merely additive effect, it would benefit from a rewrite. Your point about it being a dated question is well-taken, though my thoughts were that it was perhaps aimed at practitioners in areas where the latest medications are not available. - Nunh-huh00:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
STO cells; what does STO stand for?
STO feeder cells are a cell line that are used to enable growth of other cells in culture. What does STO stand for? Does it even stand for anything? Everyone just seems to call them STO cells without explaining the letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.47.59 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our STO page suggests it is "SIMThioguanine/Ouabain-resistant mouse fibroblast cell line", which agrees with what doi:10.1095/biolreprod.103.017467 says about it and its relevance to your context. And clicking on the [characteristics] tab of the webpage you linked agrees that we're all talking about the same thing. DMacks (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read the article about Lagrange, who is famous for the Lagrangian points. In the article, it says "before his death at Paris in 1813, in 128 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré". As a Frenchman, I'm very familiar with this street (this is our "Pennsylvania Avenue") and I wanted to find out more about his house in the Presidential Palace's street. Problem is, when you google "128 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré", there is nothing about Lagrange. Are you sure the information in the article is correct? Ericdec85 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He died at the end of the Napoleonic era - Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré wasn't really established as a major street yet, the whole area would be redeveloped under Baron Hausmann. So (like so much of Paris) the path of the street is ancient, but the buildings aren't. I would suspect that wherever he lived on this street, there's probably very little left of that specific address today. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or the number moved. Streets are sometimes renumbered. Hard to say. Regarding the location, the Élysée Palace was built in 1722, so it was certainly there the early 1800s, and in 1813, it was actually owned by Napoleon, according to our article. However, that being noted, that doesn't mean that it was then, or is now, the only building on the street. The analogy to Pennsylvania Avenue is not necessarily all that apt; yes, the White House has a Pennsylvania Avenue address, but that's a fairly long street, and it goes through many different neighborhoods, some of which are sketchy enough I don't think you'd want to be there after dark. Anhyoo, back to the rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré This is the approximate location of the address today; and it doesn't look like the kind of place where he wouldn't have lived; it's a good mile from the Élysée and there's lots of what looks like late 17th century buildings there. It may even still be there today. --Jayron3218:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I say that every allergy is autoimmune disease?
If allergy is a wrong way of the body to interpret situations (such as considering nut as pathogens...) can all of allergies be under the umbrella of autoimmune system? And all of the autoimmune diseases are defect of the immune system in which the immune system doesn't interpret substances properly as it should. Isn't it? 93.126.116.89 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an immune system, but there's not an autoimmune system. Allergies are caused by the immune system (and can be further classified by the type of reaction that occurs—type I, type II, type III, or type IV hypersensitivities.) And yes, autoimmune disease also occurs via the action of the immune system. -Nunh-huh17:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt the links above will give more specific information, but for a quick analogy, you can think of autoimmune diseases as being cases where your own tissues are directly hit by "friendly fire" from the immune system — cascades meant to destroy invaders instead destroy your own substance.
In an allergy, on the other hand, the immune system targets "invaders" that don't really need to be destroyed, and you suffer the negative repercussions of being in a "war zone".
For example, the IgE system is triggered by, say, a pollen grain, and it causes mast cells to degranulate, releasing histamine, which provokes local inflammation. If you had a parasitic worm trying to make its way into your flesh, that inflammation would presumably impede the worm somehow. Pollen wasn't going to do that, so you didn't need the inflammation, and it causes you discomfort. But the inflammation isn't the payload; it isn't meant to attack your tissues.
So no, I don't think they're the same thing. There's a reasonably clear distinction. I don't know whether we have it laid out more expertly in our articles. --Trovatore (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is of course, no: In an allergy, the immune response is directed at an actual pathogen, it's just a benign pathogen, and any damage you suffer is due to the "secondary response" from the immune system. In an autoimmune disease, the auto is the key part: the immune system attacks your own cells as though they were pathogens. Different thing entirely. You can read about these differences at articles like allergy and autoimmune disease. --Jayron3218:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the only known recording which some English speakers are sure is one word and others are sure is a different word or name? I wouldn’t include recordings which are simply too faint, distorted or drowned out by noise or music to hear clearly, like movie scenes which need captions to be understood. I would also exclude Mondegreens. Edison (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are other such auditory illusions, though they are often constructed in far more complex ways. The Tritone paradox is one. If you want to learn more about the effect (the Yanny/Laurel effect or the Shepard tone effect at the center of the Tritone illusion) this is all part of the field of Psychoacoustics. My suspicion is that the Yanny/Laurel thing is someone hacking into the brain's ability to filter sounds and focus on specific speech patterns, known as the Cocktail party effect. This sort of auditory hacking is the the aural equivalent of optical illusions. --Jayron3223:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
YOU apparently hear "Yanny". Other people hear "Laurel", in fact its pretty close to 50/50. I can only hear "Laurel" in the original recording, and heat nothing of the Yanny. It really is a weird effect, but its real. Just a reminder that what goes on inside your brain (or my brain) is not universal to humanity. All experience is unique. --Jayron3223:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The clip they played on Fallon last night (assuming it's the right one) sounded more like if you started "Larry" with a "Y". I don't see how a trailing "ee" sound could be confused with a trailing "el" sound. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has some discussion and also a video with audio samples modified from the original clip which should enable most people to separately hear both Yanny and Laurel [2]. (The video is here on Twitter [3]) Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can hear Laurel quite easily. Run the sound through a graphic equaliser or similar sharp low-pass filter and strip the high frequencies. Normally I hear "Yarry", but take the top end off and it does indeed turn into "Laurel". Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that anyone hears this as "Yanny" ... and given that we know it is a recording of the word "Laurel", the other point of view seems hard to understand. But is the difference a matter of the human ear, or are some people listening on equipment that somehow confuses the sound? Wnt (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People are able to hear both. Some people after trying hard enough (I even read of someone who tried hard enough and now can only here that), some people semi randomly. So while equipment likely plays a part, clearly the human auditory system (by which I'm including the brain) plays a big part. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The difference is you hear Laurel and someone else hears Yanny. You are not right and they are not wrong, and you are not wrong and they are not right. Both sounds are present in equal measure, and how your own auditory processing system (brain and ears) deals with it is different than someone else. That's just it. It's nothing more than a lesson that your sensory perception is not universal. No one's is.--Jayron3202:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, continuing...) But --- I just RTFA and was directed to this tool. By pulling their slider over two units, I was able to hear "Yanny". Pulling it back one unit (to +1 Yanny) made it sound like "Laurel" again ... but putting it to +1.1 Yanny and then slowly working it back, I could hear that version even at +0.9 Yanny units. But after two minutes, trying again, I had to turn it up to +3 Yanny to hear that version, and tended to lose it around +1.2 or so. The one thing that's clear from my perspective is that there is substantial hysteresis turning up and down ... but it is possible to hear the versions alternately, without adjusting the slider at all, at some point in the intermediate zone, like +1.6 is good. Trying to switch interpretations, sometimes I "fail" and hear the previous one, but usually I make it sound like the version I'm trying to hear at that point. I feel some kind of actual muscular tension/response in my ears doing this mental shift, especially trying to hear the "Y" start ... Wnt (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And while I was posting that, and hit an edit conflict, with the sound repeating and getting distracted a moment, I somehow got stuck on "Yanny" so hard that I couldn't make it sound like "Laurel" without turning the slider back down to +0.8 or so. But a minute later I couldn't hear "Yanny" without a hard deliberate effort, same setting. This is odd. (Whether my hand is between the speaker and the ear seems to have some effect favoring Yanny, I think, but it isn't that strong) Wnt (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be the bore, but this effect is neither special nor unique to this specific audio recording.
In the general case, you can take any two audible waveforms and combine them using a mixer. For any two waveforms, there exists a wet/dry mix such that any individual will preferentially identify the wet- or dry- as the perceptually dominant sound. This is definitionally true: if we ask participants to classify a waveform as sounding like "A" or "B", there always exists some mix ratio for which there will be an exact 50-th percentile split in any focus group between those who hear "perceptual response A" and those who hear "perceptual response B." In many cases, that split will occur when the mix ratio is also exactly 50% wet/dry; but it could occur at any other value. With a very very trivial bit of standard off-the-shelf technology, and a large-enough focus group, we could construct such an "ambiguous" waveform from any two sounds or phonemes.
Here's a good article on mixing basics from the Music Department at University of Indiana.
And if you're in the mood for meatier treatment of acoustic processing theory, here's Physical Audio Signal Processing, one of my favorite technical books of all time. The chapter on voice synthesis gives a great overview on the history and technology of the vocoder and the art and practice of phoneme synthesis.
"One of the difficulties of formant synthesis methods is that formant parameter estimation is not always easy." This is techno-babble jargon that just means we all think we hear different things when we listen to the exact same waveform.
If you start playing games audio filtering, humans may still recognize the sound, but will notice that it's not quite right. One of the easiest ways to disarm the audience, and to make them more receptive to silly audio processing tricks, is to lower the signal to noise ratio by intentionally injecting noise. In fact, a great many of the important historical voice synthesis algorithms begin by injecting pure white noise, and then progressively filtering that noise until it sounds like human speech! The practicality of this is that if you use a modern operating system, you can make the computer talk; and you can change the voice. Ever wonder why there's almost universally an option to "whisper", in almost every configurable text-to-speech synthesizer? That synthesized breathy voice is full-mix white-noise injected into every synthetic phoneme!
If this is easy to do by mixing audio or filtering white noise or employing psychoacoustics or whatever, then per the original question where is another audio sample which about half the people hear as one word and the rest hear differently, and can’t Imagine how the others can hear what they hear. When this phenomenon first sprang up I seriously wondered if it was a gag and my signifcant other was just pretending to hear Yarry when I heard Laurel. I doubt it is a function of people with more sensitivity to high frequencies hearing Yanni since an 80 year old and someone with significant heating loss heard Yanni or Yarry or Yammy but my child heard Laurel. This makes me wonder if it is genetic. Edison (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather common. It is more common with digital media. The recording in question is a recording of the word "laurel." That is well documented, including the fact that it was made by an opera singer because the company that hired the speakers preferred opera singers. If you were to listen to the person actually speaking, you would hear laurel. After being digitized and compressed, some people year "yanny." If you go to music recordings, which are being digitized and compressed, you find the same thing. There are some words or phrases that, even without compression, are difficult to understand (e.g. "excuse me while I kiss this guy"). There are also many single words that sound like other words. I don't want to start a long exhaustive list, but everyone knows some lyric where a word just doesn't sound like it should. For me, personally, mp3 versions of Stairway to Heaven really mess up the end. "How everything turns to gold" really sounds like "How everything turns to stone." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want more examples, have a listen to the radio traffic at a busy airport on a website like LiveATC. Especially if there's radio static, the words can be pretty hard to distinguish. By the time the VHF voice radio signal gets received, processed, and digitally compressed for internet transmission, a lot of phonemes sound tricky. "Zero" can sound like "four"; "departure" can sound like "SouthWest". If you spend enough time listening to, or using, voice radio, you'll develop some skills to help reduce collision - but you'll also find times when you need things to get repeated!
If you're looking for more sample::: audio files, here's a whole website dedicated to ultra-low-bit-rate voice compression: Rowetel: open telephony software. Listen to the 700 bit-per-second English speech recording: [5]. The limit of ultra-high compression ratio is the point where each phoneme is "one unit of JND" above un-intelligble!
Audio files which are simply distorted or degraded and unintelligible but do not present seemingly clear and unconfusable but different perceptions are not what I am looking for. Where is an audio file which some hear as “X” and others hear as an unmistakable “Y” where X and Y are different words or names. I have only seen assertions that it is easy and common, without any examples. In visual science there are many common examples such as the image which is a beautiful young woman or an ugly old woman, or the duck/rabbit, or the Necker cube. The Shepard ascending tone does not sound like a descending tone to half the listeners. Mondegreens do not count. Edison (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some great answers here, but there are some specifics not touched on. Why "Laurel" and "Yanny" but not intermediate forms? I mean, "L" vs. "Y" would seem to be a matter of whether the tongue touches the palate, and so is "R" vs. "N"... but in the opposite direction! So why no "Yannel", "Laurie", "Yaurel", "Lanny"...? How can it be reliable that I, hitting this for the first time, pick out these two and only two combinations, the same as everyone else, when I shift my mind listening to the same ambiguized version of the word repeated over and over? Wnt (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you read the sources, some people do say to hear something slightly different. In fact even in this thread we have someone saying Yarry. I suspect these have at least in part to do with what accents and other stuff people understand and expect. I mean for most people WTF is a Yannel, Yaurel or Lanny? More to the point though, I'm not sure why you're still doing weird things like analysing this from tongue movements. There is extensive discussion of the different frequencies involved and how they are perceived in the sources. These are what matter, not tongue movements. At least partially understanding that would likely be a key part of answering this question, since most people seem to be hearing either the low frequencies or the high frequencies rather than tongues in different positions. How these frequencies are normally produced in human speech seems to me to be largely an aside except getting back to the earlier point on what people understand and expect. Nil Einne (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May 19
What could a human notice if his antipodal hemisphere instantly disappeared?
Without the help of technology or other humans (i.e. Internet, seismometers, Internet feeds of seismometers, grandma tweeting you Internet feeds of seismometers)
What's the new (extremely temporary) gravity strength? How close to spherical would the hemisphere centered on you get before you're unconscious? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit hypothetical! How would this happen? Blasted by a stream of neutron star fragments? Anyway the gravity would drop a bit so you would notice that first. Next you would be hit with massive seismic waves. Air would disappear at about the speed of sound. You could expect that the remaining hemisphere would absorb so much energy from planetary reconfiguration that it would be turned into a magma ocean. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing we can be sure of is you get a 1/30 second grace period due to the speed of light, though a stickler will insist that during that period the Event hadn't happened "yet". Relativity sticklers will also note that the faster you get rid of the mass, by any means, the more you mess with space making gravitational waves; i.e. gravitomagnetic effects become relevant.
Removing one hemisphere implies that material at the center, formerly under no gravitational field, would suddenly be pulled to one side, and hence could release energy by falling. On the other hand, the pressure would reduce from insane to zero in an instant, so it would also push outward. The inner core surface is estimated at 5430 K and the boiling point of ironatatmospheric pressure is 3134 K, so a rather impressive explosion is to be expected. However, note that the core of a half-sphere is still a lot lower than the outer surface. I don't know how you'd begin trying to calculate if the explosion reaches the lip of the crust. To take a wild guess, I'd say figure the heat capacity of liquid iron, i.e. (5430K - 3134K)*heat*core volume, figure out how much iron that can vaporize in moles, figure out how much volume that takes at 1 atm, and see if it fits in the flat side -- but I know that's an equilibrium, but an explosion isn't.
To find the center of a hemisphere, you set up some nested integrals in polar coordinates ... lolno, you go and do a web search and let your skills rust a little longer. [6] It's 3/8 of the way in. That means that if West Berlin is just on the good side of the Event boundary, the gravity that was formerly straight down is now coming from R down and 3/8 R over, i.e. it is off by tan-1 (3/11), or 15.2 degrees. This would be a bad time to have a house on the west side of a lake, though then again, the water might get there just in time to put out the fire from that burning core material, I dunno. ;) But actually that's just an approximation - a planet's gravity seems to come from its center of gravity because it's a sphere, but gravity doesn't come from the center of gravity of the Cavendish apparatus or any other un-planet-like shape. I suppose we could do a set of integrals ... but this one would not be in polar coordinates. But using the approximation, we know that the two halves of the earth pulled equally, summing the cos(+-15.2deg) components of each but cancelling the sin(+-15.2deg) bits, so gravity is at 51.8% or so of what it was. Sounds like a great time to launch a rocket ship, but it better be a fast one. Oh, but if you're at the center of the hemisphere, let's say, somewhere between El Dorado and Cayambe Coca Ecological Reserve in Ecuador, then you are 3/8 closer to the "center of gravity", so by an increasingly dubious approximation you should get 51.8% * 121/64 = 97.9% gravity. Hmmmm. ;) Wnt (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you remove half the mass and have the Earth settle into a smaller sphere of the same density, the new gravity is (1/2)^(1/3) ~ 4/5 g. So the 98% for the top of the lone hemisphere isn't unrealistic at all IMO. 93.142.87.187 (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What to call it?
I'd like to know what to call this condition so I can do some research to understand it better. I'm not asking for medical advice.
I have trouble remembering things I want to do. For some time I've relied on visual clues, like placing objects in appropriate places. I put things in my calendar but sometimes forget to look there (I don't have many calendar events). Sometimes I remember the day but not the time.
On a cruise recently the problem was magnified. The ship each day provided a schedule with a few dozen entertainment opportunities, and I would pick three or four I was interested in. But I had a hard time remembering not only the time and place, but even what the event was. (To tell the truth, I wasn't very committed to most of them.)
What you describe sounds to me like the perfectly normal performance of an ordinarymemory (of someone who has not adopted special techniques of memory improvement). Some tactics to avoid the problems you mention are obvious: Forget to look in your calendar/diary? – form the habit of doing so on a regular basis, e.g. at breakfast. Forget times of events? – check those written in the calendar/diary, that you carry on you, more often instead of trying to memorize them. Become confused by many-choiced schedules of events? – Highlight the ones you're most interested in on a printed schedule and carry it with you; maybe mark back-ups in a second colour in case you're prevented from attending a first-rank choice. (Your cruise ship scenario is similar to that encountered at any large Science fiction convention, of which I have extensive experience, most of it in a less-than-sober state :-).) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.140 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do milk and eggs whilte function as anti intoxication?
I always used to hear that milk is used in case of intoxication but I didn't take it seriously and it was for me as a myth. But today I was read in allegedly academical book (pharmacology - Odessa university): "Inactivation and binding of the poison in the stomach should be performed simultaneously to rinsing.] Potassium permanganate, tannin, activated carbon, egg whites and milk are used for these purposes." (I found the same sentence in Wiki university...) then my question what is the mechanism that these things fight the intoxication? 18:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.116.89 (talk)
My understanding has always been that they react with stomach acids and enzymes to form a jelly like substance which forms a protective layer coating the stomach lining, and thereby reducing the absorption of toxins. I think that comes from First Aid training some 50 years ago. Wymspen (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those substances have different mechanisms of action, so they're not equally useful for all poisonings. Potassium permanganate as an oxidizing agent to chemically modify (hopefully inactivate) a poison, and activated charcoal because it binds to many poisons due to its large surface-area for non-specific binding of a wide variety of toxins. I don't know the proposed mechanisms of egg white, but it may be much as for the activated charcoal, a close analogy being the very common phenomenon of plasma protein binding, an effect which greatly reduces the free concentration of many drugs in the blood plasma. As an aside, not that the main protein in the plasma is albumin, and egg white is also known as albumen. Milk also contains proteins which might serve the same function, while its fat might isolate lipophilic drugs and slow stomach emptying, which would slow toxin absorption (which largely occurs in the small intestine). There are drugs which line the surface of the stomach, like sucralfate, but they are used to protect the oesophagus/stomach in cases of ulceration rather for poisoning; they don't really help absorption because that doesn't take place to a significant extent in the stomach. Klbrain (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it seems like the ability to set fundamental speed limits however you look at an evolving system has to be something with an importance comparable to the level of relativity -- with which these speed limits are said to have nothing in common by all involved. (The Bekenstein bound apparently can be used to derive general relativity from scratch, if you are very good at physics; it seems superficially related to these others but what do I know?)
At a real dumb level, I saw a mention that one of the bounds was basically the Planck constant. At a glance this kind of makes sense, in that the J * s units of that can be divided by time or energy to give (inMargolus-Levitin theorem, with a 4 thrown in) a time to make a change in energy. The idea would be that anything heavy has a de Broglie frequency, or at least a de Broglie wavelength, that limits how fast it can change, the more the lighter it is. That said, I don't get how an "average energy" as our article talks about can exist; I mean, can you have a dense blast of energy in one region of space and a weak trace of energy next to it, and when you average them, now the weak energy can beat the limit? How do you decide what to average? Etc.
Anyway, I wanted to throw this question out there, see if someone can pick out some useful epitopes for a person to latch onto, maybe you could start some kind of "quantum speed limit" article (or maybe that's a bad name!), maybe you could tell me if this is majorly important to the progress of physics or 'trivial'. Wnt (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isthis sequence of reaction mechanism steps correct? In particular, in the first step, the reactants contain a cation and an anion (plus a neutral molecule shown over the reaction arrow), but the products show a neutral molecule and a cation. Charge is not conserved, and there are no omitted spectator ions as far as I can see. Looking at the charge shown on the Iodine in Diacetoxyalkoxy Periodinane, the iodine had a positive charge in the reactant and 6 electrons (4 bonds and a lone pair), but then still has the charge in the product despite now having 7 electrons (5 bonds and a lone pair). It seems to me like that charge is not correct. In the second step, it has the opposite problem. The charge disappears from the reactants to the products despite it having the same number of electrons. Again, charges on the left and right don't balance (net positive charge on the left, no net charge on the right). I know sometimes in electron pushing to metals that are undergoing redox the electrons are omitted (since they're not held as lone pairs), but iodine is a non-metal, and the lone pairs are shown. There's no pushing that is summoning electrons from iodine that were previously omitted, or indicating electrons that disappear into iodine. I would think the steps should appear thus i.e. without the positive charge indicated on iodine in diacetoxyalkoxy periodinane. 103.228.155.51 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem is that the original structure of Dess–Martin periodinane is not correct: all three acetates should be bonded to the I. But either way, the result of the first step indeed should have a neutral iodine atom. See our article about the chemical that I linked, or also Dess–Martin oxidation that appears to be an incomplete/overlapping subarticle about the reaction you are discussing. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's interesting. I can't find a single other source that depicts DMP as an ionic species. Thanks for that answer. Very helpful. 103.228.155.51 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: are you sure that the first ionic structure is inappropriate here? I'm wondering if there might be a "step 0", not shown for this reaction, where the -OAc is lost more or less spontaneously, leaving an I+ to react with something else in an SN1 type reaction. I suppose the isopropanol could lose a proton first and replace the -OAc in an SN2 type reaction, but I'm not sure you can use such basic conditions on DMP. (but yes, the I+ on the right side seems like a simple mistake) Wnt (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen literature support for a pre-dissociation (SN1-like) mechanism. DMP oxidations are usually done in non-protic fairly non-polar solvents (but I cannot find a ref specifically analyzing solvent/temperature effects). Papers examining mechanism/kinetics seem to treat the acetate/alkoxy exchange as a single step for purposes of reaction rate and especially Keq analysis. And doi:10.1021/jo901841v provides NMR evidence that DMP itself does not rapidly exchange acetate with added acetate in solution, but instead finds distinct non-equivalent (non-exchanging) acetates on the I. Instead, that ref supports exchanges of the I on the two O of acetate is rapid via an intramolecular shift (tighter not looser attachment of them?). DMacks (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is sodium nucleotide?
What is Sodium nucleotide? I saw it in a list of choices as a part of MCQs about blood components... but when I googled it I found a little bit information about it (something like 250 results on Google!), so I had a thought that maybe it is known in another name? --93.126.116.89 (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term seems unfamiliar, but I assume that they mean something like ATP disodium salt [9]. Nucleotides contain phosphate groups, which are related to phosphoric acid; hence they are not usually neutral at physiological conditions but carry a negative charge (which is of relevance to DNA melting, etc.) Which means that if you try to isolate them from solution, some kind of counterion must be present, and in extracellular environments or saline buffers etc. that would most often be sodium. That said, there are other counterions present in such situations, which will be mixed together as the nucleotide is isolated to bring things to a net neutral charge, and I wouldn't ordinarily think to say "sodium salt of a nucleotide" about something unless it had been synthesized or purified. Wnt (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, an incorrect answer on a multiple choice quiz doesn't necessarily have a specific meaning. In the literature "sodium nucleotide" usually refers to a salt formed by combining sodium with a nucleotide. Looie496 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An incorrect answer ("distractor") on a multiple-choice quiz doesn't necessarily have to have any meaning in context, be self-contradictory, or even be actual words at all. After all, they are, by definition, "not correct" for the context. Just off the top of my head[original research?], goofy choices might be added when a test-writer needs one more option but can't think of anything else plausible, as a "freebie" hint for random-guessers who even have a slight idea, as tension-breakers to make students smile when reading a difficult exam, or just to see if they can catch someone who is truely clueless. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brain wiring
Why is the brain wiring not as optimized as possible? And even 'twisted'? That is, left hemisphere connected to right side of the body and right hemisphere to the left side (more or less)?
Why is the visual cortex quite on the back of the brain, wouldn't the neuronal connection be safer closer to the eyes?
Wouldn't simplicity be a clear evolutionary advantage? Less stuff means less stuff that can go wrong. --Doroletho (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our Contralateral brain article discusses some theories about the evolution of this feature. Be careful not to assume that this is something other than the end result of smaller changes. Some of them early on may have had a clearer "reason" with no obvious drawback, and once there became some drawbacks, the cost of getting out of that evolutionary rut was too great at that time. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to "Why didn't evolution find this better way?" is always: there's no chain of incremental changes, leading from one to the other, such that each step is an improvement. —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not quite always. It's also possible that the existing form is too new for the necessary mutations to have happened (and been selected for) yet. --76.69.47.55 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because evolution works on the basis of "good enough". See argument from poor design; the examples of "suboptimal" design in nature are legion. As long as an organism can survive and reproduce, its traits can make it to the next generation. Traits that are only somewhat suboptimal will only be slowly acted against by selection pressure. It's also difficult for evolution to "go back" and "undo" a bunch of traits to replace them with something "better". If an organism is at a local maximum in the fitness landscape, it's very unlikely for evolutionary pressure to push it "downhill" in order to get to another "peak", even if said peak is higher. The usual outcome instead is gradual tinkering with existing traits, which often leads to exaptation of a trait for something else. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reference on evolution of the optic chiasm - one surprising detail is that some humans have achiasmatic syndrome aka nondecussating retinal-fugal fiber syndrome; they can see but have congenital nystagmus, involuntary horizontal movements of the eye. From this paper it looks like the tracts don't cross over, at least in one case. Curiously, that one says there is "mirror reversality" because the nerves from the side of the eye that should cross over end up aligning with others from the opposite side. But I don't know if that means that the person actually sees the world superimposed with a mirror image or not; I don't think so because the same paper says that gross vision is maintained.
In a broader context I should note that the pineal gland is, in some vertebrates, a dorsal eye. The optic tracts enter the thalamus at the dorsal side. The superior colliculus integrates optic information dorsally in the midbrain just below the thalamus. And the eyes are originally derived from the brain, a dorsal structure. It seems, therefore, that there should be a deep dorsal evolutionary origin for eyes, but I haven't seen a good model for how it would once have worked. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some book I read decades ago, perhaps by Asimov, speculated that having the right side of the brain connected to the left arm, leg and eye might help you fight an attacker who is to your left and who whacks the left side of your head, rendering the left brain less effective. Seems like that would rarely be an advantage to the wild animal who also have the crossover like it would be to a human fighter. Edison (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the attacker is to your left and conks the left side of your head, and the left hemisphere of the brain is impaired as a result more than the right side, then per the writer, the less damaged right hemisphere could direct the left arm to punch him back. “Brain damage” is not always necessarily to the same extent throughout the brain. Please email me if you need further explanation of concepts such as localized injury to brain tissue. . Edison (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid Hofhof's objection cannot be that easily dismissed. 1) Only an insanely tiny fraction of TBIs sufficient to create significant brain damage are going to specifically impair just contralateral motor function of the specific extremities needed to defend one's self, while leaving the individual otherwise mostly unharmed (and certainly, able to survive, because the survival part is a precondition of the argument that this is a selected-for pressure). That's just not remotely the way brain injuries work. 2) Weighed against the collective pressures on brain anatomy and neurophysiology, even if there was a selective pressure here, it would not have been sufficient enough to have selective value when balanced against the overall structures/modules which have arisen because of much greater pragmatic benefit. And 3) hemispheric development began weeeeelllll before humans in vertebrate history and is common to many animals which can expect no great incidence of head trauma, much less the sort which would require the creature to thereafter bob and weave around an opponent attacking from a given side. Nor is there a correlation between creatures with greater susceptibility to head trauma and increased hemispheric isolation of motor function.
So yeah, whoever your "expert" was, they were practicing pure folk neurophysiology. It could have been Asimov, frankly. I adored the man, but he came from an earlier era when popular science gurus were expected to comment on a wide array of topics and sometimes found themselves stranded when going out on a limb. And boy did Asimov like to speculate; indeed, that ceaseless wonder at every aspect of the human condition that science could inform upon was part of his charm, and something then-contemporary popular science culture was more tolerant of, thirty to fifty years ago. But today, we know a lot about the selective pressures which are thought likely to have lead to hemispheric physiology, and no serious researcher has ever suggested the theory you discuss above as being anywhere on the map of commonly contemplated selective features for this quite major aspect of brain physiology. Snowlet's rap03:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OP, I would advise against ever analyzing adaptive fitness through the lens that it needs to move an organism towards more "optimized" or "perfect" form, especially when it comes to neurophysiology. Organisms are only "optimized" in the sense that they are calibrated towards their particular ecological niche, and therefore are more likely to survive in the environment and contexts they are likely to face. But as a more or less per se matter, all useful adaptions have trade-offs, and this most certainly applies to brain structure. The brain (with regard to organisms with developed cerebrums in particular, but also other vertebrates) is also highly modular; it has many different structures which developed under separate (if sometimes overlapping) pressures, and generally controlled by different genes, meaning they sometimes work at cross purposes, competing (in a manner of speaking) at fulfilling the function of their design, as each was arrived at because it conferred some evolutionary advantage in some context. Even if the brain were not modular, it would (in the context of its adaptive value to all vertebrates) still need to find some way to be (to varying extent amongst different species) something of a generalist, because it needs to be able to process unpredictable stimuli and meet a wide variety of practical challenges, and the nature of existence for all organisms (particularly those of great complexity) is that they can't know in advance exactly what problems they will be facing in every instant of their life.
So most brains are highly optimized in the sense that they prepare the specific organism they are a part of to face the challenges that it is likely to face--or more precisely, which its forebearers did in fact face. While at the same time, optimization outside of the terms of context/ecological niche is a more or less meaningless concept. There are some fields of the cognitive sciences which are completely predicated on these principles; for example, with regard to human hebaviour, there is evolutionary psychology which attempts to explain some of our more peculiar and sometimes counter-intuitive-seeming propensities as a product of our genetic heritage (which, unless you are an animist of some sort, you must do if you want to be rational about human nature). According to the general thrust of EP, these "irrational" behaviours are the result of the operation of modules which developed as part of our genetic heritage, and because very little time has passed in evolutionary terms since we became behaviorally modern humans (meaning that we have not "evolved" much in the "mere" 100,000 years or so since), our hunter-gatherer brains still make many decisions which are not yet perfectly adapted to the advantages of our new developed societies/ecological context. So, simply because we have come so far so fast in terms of changes to our environment (social and technological) we sometimes behave in a manner that is not 100% conductive to our own well-being as modern humans, but in a fashion that was quite optimized to our original context as the third chimpanzee. To use a (somewhat inaccurate) metaphor, we have software that is just a little too out-of-date to make perfect use of our hardware, without bugs.
Lastly, your final proposition there deserves special mention, because you are quite right that sometimes the simplest design is the most optimal for an organism, including with regard to its nervous system. So, many species are highly optimized (and highly successful in terms of longevity of the species in a more or less unaltered state for up to hundreds of millions of years or more) to their environment despite having relatively simple brains. But some of their offspring or distant cousins found themselves in contexts where random mutations and adaptive pressures caused them to adopt traits which allowed them to discern between a greater number of stimuli or to adapt to a wider variety of challenges. Then some of the offspring of these organisms (with their brains that were necessarily just slightly more complicated than their forebearers) also went on to even further grow their brain complexity, and so on, and so on. Some of them also occasionally traded back their complexity for simpler designs again, because their environment demanded it (although this happens less frequently for very complex reasons I won't go into here). What you are left with at the end of the day (err, epoch) is is a huge array of different species with greatly varying neuro-complexity (and very different specialization of its structures even among the highly complex varieties), each according to its ecological niche. I hope that helps address some of your questions--feel free to ping if you have follow-ups! Snowlet's rap04:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to its article, E. coli "usually...is immobile, and keeps its round shape". How does the thing consume nutrients? I was under the impression (wrongly, apparently) that all amoebae consumed food by surrounding it and basically engulfing it, but that doesn't work if one doesn't move and doesn't deviate from a round shape. The article's almost entirely focused on the amoeba as the source of diseases of various sorts and says almost nothing about the species itself, as if our article on lion talked almost entirely about people getting attacked by lions and basically didn't address the animal's life cycle. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Keeps its round shape" is only sort of true, in a "compared to what" sort of way. It does form pseudopods, and is capable of phagocytosis. I have a feeling this may be a bad paraphrase of info here: "Motility: visible only in fresh, unfixed stool specimens. The trophozoite slowly forms a pseudopod, then withdraws it and remains immobile maintaining a round shape. After a few moments, a new pseudopod forms in a new position, and so on. The result is an anarchic, sur place (non-progressive) movement, without a defined direction. In some cases, it is possible to observe the simultaneous, explosive formation of 3-5 small, rounded pseudopods extend simultaneously, but even in this case the amoeba remains within the microscopic field." - Nunh-huh03:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to this discussion, I wonder if there is any source that uses Escherichia coli and Entamoeba coli in the same work. Both of them can be written as E. coli. SSS (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mom's hands are often cold during the colder days but warm on warmer days. It makes me ask if there's some people's hands that are never that warm, or rather always dependent on the temperature of the surroundings, no matter what time of year is that? PlanetStar05:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fuel pin outer diameter in BWRs is 12.5 mm however, it is 9.5 mm in PWRs, why?
I guess it has to do something with CHF (critical heat flux) but not able to correlate totally.14.139.124.180 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How come that radio waves (lower side of the frequency spectrum) can cross walls, light (in the middle) can't, but X-rays (upper side) can cross walls too?
And regarding mechanical waves, why do sound waves can cross walls (somehow), but ultrasound (starting at a certain frequency - don't know which) is blocked? If ultrasound has more energy, shouldn't it be able to cross walls? --Hofhof (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this guy says X-rays only partially penetrate walls, and it depends on the density of the wall.[12] And you know from personal experience that reception of radio waves also varies depending on various factors, including the structure of whatever wall you're within, if any. Like if you go through a tunnel and lose the signal. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tunnel has a mash of steel, it's not really the walls proper that are blocking the radio waves. But the point it, brick walls block 100% light, a little radio waves, and some x-rays. So, the blocking is not proportional to the wave frequency. Hofhof (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The radio waves have a very low energy per photon, so they do not interact in quantum ways, instead they interact with electrical and magnetic properties of what it encounters. If there is no iron or steel the magnetic interaction is simplified, and it is more effected by dielectric constant and electric eddy currents. The waves can still penetrate bricks, plaster, and wood, but some will reflect off, and a little will be absorbed. As the frequency rises into the high microwaves, more and more will be absorbed. In the sub-millimeter range there are many molecular absorption bands, which extend into the infrared. With things like bricks and plaster, they are composed of tiny crystals just a bit bigger than the wavelength of light. These will scatter the light, as each time it goes into a crystal or comes out, some light will be reflected, and soon none makes it through. But if you had a thin sliver of brick, you will be able to see some light coming through diffusely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is why thin metallic (usually aluminium) coatings on mylar plastic film or on glass can be used as filters on camera and telescope lenses to directly view and to photograph the Sun safely. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.140 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of thumb in linear physics (which includes most common waves) is that everything is a low-pass filter beyond a certain frequency, so that very high frequencies always get blocked by everything. You can expect exotic effects close to resonance frequencies though, and the meaning of "very high" can vary.
For mechanical waves across walls, first of all ultrasound has more energy is a bit misleading. You would not say that "blue light has more energy than red light". Similarly to light, you have more energy per "particle" (phonon) at higher frequencies, but it does not mean that the whole excitation is higher-energy. See Sound_energy_density#Mathematical_definition for the math (v/c is essentially frequency; sound pressure can vary between your typical ultrasound and your typical sound, though).
turmeric with black pepper vs crcumin with piperine
This is a layman's question. The benefits of turmeric are said to be unavailable when consumed raw due to rapid metabolism of curcumin. Curcumin compounded with piperine is said to increase absorption of the former many times over. Do raw turmeric powder/paste mixed with raw black pepper powder provide any considerable beneficial results?
--Skillguru (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Count Iblis: That paper makes some very strong statements, and whenever one paper says that thousands are wrong, we should be cautious. To be sure, it is true that curcumin sticks nonspecifically to things and is fluorescent, which can make many false positive results. However, there is at least some indication [13] that curcumin really influences a subject animal. Studies on animal models and patients suggest real effects. The most impressive effect is its effect on liver toxicity from something like an injection of carbon tetrachloride -- see [14] for example, but there are dozens of papers like this on PubMed. Nothing in Figure 1 looks like it is due to nonspecific activity or autofluorescence. To be clear, I'm not making a case here that it is known to be beneficial (or not) for a human, but the results should not all be discarded just because the research has a few known obstacles. Wnt (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in some way provides something considered a "beneficial result." To ask this question, you must define what a "beneficial result" might be and then define what level of result is considered "considerable." For example, hemlock provides a considerably beneficial result if your goal is suicide. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fat
According to this video on Youtube saturated fat contains only 6 calories per gram instead of the 9 calories which is traditionally stated for fat. Dude sounds like he knows what he's saying. Can anyone prove to me if he is telling the truth? Couldn't find any references myself on this one. Thanks bros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.154.145 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He says cocoa butter is 6 calories per gram. This site says "there are 248 calories in 1 oz. of cocoa butter" There are 28.35 grams in an ounce, so this works out to 8.7 calories/gram. Pretty close to 9. Why would you believe one site more than the many sites that give an approximation of 9? Seems to be the "dude" needs to present some sources if he wants to be believed, rather than merely making an assertion. - Nunh-huh22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since butter is an emulsion of water in fat, it's reasonable that it's calorie content per gram is somewhat lower than that for pure fat. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's more like Barry Groves is to healthy dying.... He died of a heart attack in 2013 at the age of 77. - Nunh-huh02:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In an ordinary, commercial single quadrupole ICP mass spectrometer (such as an Agilent 7800), what happens to all of the ions that hit the detector? I presume that there must be some mechanism to clear them off, otherwise they'd just build up and eventually ruin the detector. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gunk (the technical term) does build up inside of mass spectrometers, and they do need to be disassembled and cleaned regularly to address this. While many of the ions will grab an electron and dissipate as a gas when the system is vented at various times, plenty of gunk collects on the components after regular use. The components need to be taken out, disassembled, cleaned, and re-assembled. I've not used that specific model, but I suspect the processes are similar for any Mass Spec. The documentation above notes the need to periodically clean the "ion lenses", which IIRC are metal plates that carry an adjustable voltage to allow the ion beam to be focused. This was the most fidly bit in the cleaning process. Source: My first job as a chemist was doing exactly that. It was 22 years ago, so things may have changed a bit, as well. --Jayron3214:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the strongly orange-colored fungus that grows in the Mid Atlantic states?
