Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 17 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 19 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
The science fair is coming up soon and i cant find any info on a way that a solar panal works theres all these words that lead to another word that lead to another word isthere an easy explination ive checked everywhere and it says stuff about photons electrons and stuff and it dousnt say how the electricity is created if anybody can help me on this with an easy explination please answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkamond ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
WHAT HAPPENS TO A COCONUT SEEN IN THE WATER?
HOW DOES A COCONUT SEED'S ABILITY TO FLAT HELP A NEW COCONUT TREE TO GROW?
HOW MIGHT THE HARD SHELL OF A COCONUT HELP A NEW COCONUT TREE GROW? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.121.96 ( talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
WHAT? - WE CAN'T HEAR YOU! Oh, that's better ;-) - hydnjo talk 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: |
Is there any kind of glass that is transparent to light rays when light incident on it from one side and reflect light rays when light is incident upon the glass from the opposite side ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamiul ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not coming to this pure, I just watched Colbert interview Bob Lutz, who kinda trashed his own battery vehicle , but it's a question I've been pondering. It seems that for hybrid and EV passenger cars to progress: lead-acid batteries won't cut it based on the power/weight ratio; NiMH is too limited (dendrification?); and lithium Lilon batteries are the way to go.
The question being, where does the lithium come from and is there enough of it to supply the massive demand for EVs? No question there's enough for cellphones and other small rechargeable batteries, but where is the source for really large demand? Let's say just a million vehicles per year and the amount of lithium in each battery is ?how much? I've found this, which is pessimistic, and I've also seen questions about lithium availability raised reliably. Does anyone have some good sources? Franamax ( talk) 07:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked this question on the miscellaneous section but the answers were not satisfactory and I hope you scientists can help. Last week in Istanbul, Turkey, I noticed in food shops, bottles of fir cones for sale. All were closed (immature) but some as long as three inches and perhaps two inches wide. I presume they were in some sort of brine or vinegar. My question is - how can wood impregnated with resin be made edible? (I use fir cones as fuel.) If this is truly the case, a vast food source is going unharvested worldwide. With thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.89.144 ( talk) 08:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I looked at the pine cone article but, unfortunately, the sort of 'cones' that appear to be edible are soft and berry-like, like yew, not remotely like the conventional hard pine cones I saw. The second reply is intriguing. So, the water is not drunk but used - what for please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.50 ( talk) 14:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the right conversion factor to be use in obtaining the volume of liquid CO2 from a pressure guage (pressure guage indicate the H2O content of the horizontal cylindrical tank). Note: Dimension of the tank is known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheann ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a student soon to go to work at a research institute where I'll be looking at the cellular of activity of small molecules which are made in-house. I would like to gain some insight by labelling these small molecules. Fluorescent labels would be as big as, or larger than the molecules of interest so that's out of the question. I'm left with radioactive labels or the use of non-radioactive isotopes, such as deuterium or carbon-13 etc. I was wondering if someone could advise on the relative cost, and practicality of using a radioactive versus non-radioactive isotopes. Since I would want to be able to visualise the molecules in a gel after electrophoresis, it may not even be possible to use non-radioactive isotopes (I don't know how you'd detect the presence/location of deuterium in a gel). I'd like to develop my ideas a little before they're shot down by my supervisor. :) ---- Seans Potato Business 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There's what looks like a phoney quote of Newton going around on creationist websites that's been said to me : one version goes -
Whilst this is by no way an exhaustive search this quote isn't on the wikiquote page for Isaac Newton ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton). If you've copied it word-for-word from somewhere I would say it is written really quite horribly. It feels (and i'm by no means an expert) like someone writing today trying to add an edge of age by twisting around the flow/sense. It doesn't seem to be real to me. I can't find an article on snopes though which would be my first resource usually. 194.221.133.226 ( talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the more amusing things about Newton that people have a hard time dealing with today is that when he postulated the idea of a force called "Gravity", a lot of his contemporaries thought it was basically magic he was arguing for, not science. They accused him of appealing to "occult" forces, to things that could not be explained. After all, Newton didn't know why it worked or how it worked, but postulating this invisible, weak force seemed to get the job done in the equations. After some time though the idea of gravity became pretty internalized and nobody doubted it as a real force, and then it waited until Einstein to say that there wasn't a force called gravity after all, that it was just warping of spacetime by mass, etc. Anyway, I always thought that was amusing—the idea that other scientists and philosophers accused Newton of being unscientific. -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 13:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty simple question, couldn't think of a simple answer..-- Shniken1 ( talk) 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm hijacking this question. I saw a Positive lightning bolt once and is there a reason that that lightning bolt was red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolotter88 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
In this image the whole thing is called a chromosome and each strand is known as a chromatid. So when the 2 strands are pulled apart, what are they called? Chromosomes as well? -- RMFan1 ( talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
So basically, it's what I said:
Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMFan1 ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is a man with big penis more likely to have such problems? Has anyone researched into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 September 2008
Hello,
I read something years ago about examples of imperfect evolution in humans. I.e to prove the point the humans aren't pinnacles of creation- there are things about our physiology which suck. Anyway, i now can't for the life of me remember any examples. Can anyone help? 82.22.4.63 ( talk) 18:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
They are not actually specific to humans. I would hazard a guess and say all animals with eyes have blindspots, all with teeth have tooth decay, all with knees have, well, knees. And the 'lower back' thing, I am not sure what you are talking about. -- ChokinBako ( talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The urethra passes through the prostate. [1] -- Kjoon lee 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure if you ask any of your female friends whether their reproductive system seems "perfectly designed" or "just the bare minimum needed for a species to survive" I'm sure you'd find most of them believe the latter. I say this with tongue firmly in cheek, but it is not too hard to imagine a female reproductive system that doesn't involve monthly periods (and their waste of energy and material) or a birth process that breaks the pelvis. (My wife and I have discussed this very issue—she loathes her reproductive system.) -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
But surely most of these things were positives when we were cavemen? i take your point about the lower back but with the reproductive system, surely all (female) mammals have periods? i.e. they are, whilst no doubt inconvenient for todays career woman, an efficient system to ensure the possibility of lots of babies. I actually can't imagine a better method (although this has more to do with my non-existent understanding of female anything physiology so some info would be appreciated).
Equally the eye faults (apart from that awful pun!) are surely a by-product of the fact that our environments are relatively 'boring'. I.e. we don't need whizz-bang eyes because we usually operate during the day. presumaly there are various trade offs with things like energy requirements but i don't know..(Although it is weird that they have no healing capacity..)
217.169.40.194 (
talk) 08:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
My back chronically hurts, my eyesight is poor, I get sunburns to even mild exposure to the sun, I have to spend a third of my life sleeping, I'll spare you other details, but whoever created us did a very losy job :P Not even a technical support line to complain :P Equendil Talk 09:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
My own personal peeve, the inability to get sharp visual focus at high speeds, even at 30mph, at anything other than straight ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.246.212 ( talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of all the plants and animals....???.... Seems a little silly doesn't it? Was this a random choice? Or perhaps it occured to him after tipping a few?-- Sunburned Baby ( talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Mendel was performing hybridization experiments, which were traditionally used to investigate the problem of the origin of species rather than laws of heredity. Plant hybridization studies were favored by horticulturalists who wanted to learn how to create and fix varieties, and academic studies of hybrids focused on whether new species could be created by cross-breeding existing ones. It has been argued that Mendel was actually trying to oppose evolutionism and instead defend Linnaeus' theory of the production of new species by hybridization. In this, peas were an example of “variable” hybrids, where as Hieracium was an example of "constant hybrids" that were potentially new species.
But yeah. Enough of my notes from ages ago. Why peas? Don't underestimate Mendel as a horticulturalist. He experimented with a number of different plants. Peas gave the best results. (The results were a little too good, in fact—there is evidence that Mendel doctored his figures a bit. But alas.) He was not just some clueless monk who happened to by chance pick a useful species; he considered himself a pretty able scientist. The idea that he was totally out of the loop and happened upon this great insight by chance and was just painfully ignored though ahead of his time is a myth. The actual history is a lot more complicated. Mendel didn't think he was discovering wonderful laws of heredity. A wonderful, short book on the topic is Peter J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergency of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society (1989). -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Are siblings of the same parents closer genetically than father and son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babycygnet ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The period of transition between the Ordovician and the Silurian, the Carboniferous and the Permian, the Jurassic and the Cretaceous, and the Tertiary and the Quaternary periods appears to be marked by an average global temperature of not more than 12°C. What might have caused this reduction in average global temperature from the average global temperature of 22°C for all other period transitions? 71.100.15.15 ( talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 17 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 19 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
The science fair is coming up soon and i cant find any info on a way that a solar panal works theres all these words that lead to another word that lead to another word isthere an easy explination ive checked everywhere and it says stuff about photons electrons and stuff and it dousnt say how the electricity is created if anybody can help me on this with an easy explination please answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkamond ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
WHAT HAPPENS TO A COCONUT SEEN IN THE WATER?
HOW DOES A COCONUT SEED'S ABILITY TO FLAT HELP A NEW COCONUT TREE TO GROW?
HOW MIGHT THE HARD SHELL OF A COCONUT HELP A NEW COCONUT TREE GROW? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.121.96 ( talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
WHAT? - WE CAN'T HEAR YOU! Oh, that's better ;-) - hydnjo talk 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: |
Is there any kind of glass that is transparent to light rays when light incident on it from one side and reflect light rays when light is incident upon the glass from the opposite side ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamiul ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not coming to this pure, I just watched Colbert interview Bob Lutz, who kinda trashed his own battery vehicle , but it's a question I've been pondering. It seems that for hybrid and EV passenger cars to progress: lead-acid batteries won't cut it based on the power/weight ratio; NiMH is too limited (dendrification?); and lithium Lilon batteries are the way to go.
The question being, where does the lithium come from and is there enough of it to supply the massive demand for EVs? No question there's enough for cellphones and other small rechargeable batteries, but where is the source for really large demand? Let's say just a million vehicles per year and the amount of lithium in each battery is ?how much? I've found this, which is pessimistic, and I've also seen questions about lithium availability raised reliably. Does anyone have some good sources? Franamax ( talk) 07:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked this question on the miscellaneous section but the answers were not satisfactory and I hope you scientists can help. Last week in Istanbul, Turkey, I noticed in food shops, bottles of fir cones for sale. All were closed (immature) but some as long as three inches and perhaps two inches wide. I presume they were in some sort of brine or vinegar. My question is - how can wood impregnated with resin be made edible? (I use fir cones as fuel.) If this is truly the case, a vast food source is going unharvested worldwide. With thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.89.144 ( talk) 08:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I looked at the pine cone article but, unfortunately, the sort of 'cones' that appear to be edible are soft and berry-like, like yew, not remotely like the conventional hard pine cones I saw. The second reply is intriguing. So, the water is not drunk but used - what for please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.50 ( talk) 14:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the right conversion factor to be use in obtaining the volume of liquid CO2 from a pressure guage (pressure guage indicate the H2O content of the horizontal cylindrical tank). Note: Dimension of the tank is known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheann ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a student soon to go to work at a research institute where I'll be looking at the cellular of activity of small molecules which are made in-house. I would like to gain some insight by labelling these small molecules. Fluorescent labels would be as big as, or larger than the molecules of interest so that's out of the question. I'm left with radioactive labels or the use of non-radioactive isotopes, such as deuterium or carbon-13 etc. I was wondering if someone could advise on the relative cost, and practicality of using a radioactive versus non-radioactive isotopes. Since I would want to be able to visualise the molecules in a gel after electrophoresis, it may not even be possible to use non-radioactive isotopes (I don't know how you'd detect the presence/location of deuterium in a gel). I'd like to develop my ideas a little before they're shot down by my supervisor. :) ---- Seans Potato Business 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There's what looks like a phoney quote of Newton going around on creationist websites that's been said to me : one version goes -
Whilst this is by no way an exhaustive search this quote isn't on the wikiquote page for Isaac Newton ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton). If you've copied it word-for-word from somewhere I would say it is written really quite horribly. It feels (and i'm by no means an expert) like someone writing today trying to add an edge of age by twisting around the flow/sense. It doesn't seem to be real to me. I can't find an article on snopes though which would be my first resource usually. 194.221.133.226 ( talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the more amusing things about Newton that people have a hard time dealing with today is that when he postulated the idea of a force called "Gravity", a lot of his contemporaries thought it was basically magic he was arguing for, not science. They accused him of appealing to "occult" forces, to things that could not be explained. After all, Newton didn't know why it worked or how it worked, but postulating this invisible, weak force seemed to get the job done in the equations. After some time though the idea of gravity became pretty internalized and nobody doubted it as a real force, and then it waited until Einstein to say that there wasn't a force called gravity after all, that it was just warping of spacetime by mass, etc. Anyway, I always thought that was amusing—the idea that other scientists and philosophers accused Newton of being unscientific. -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 13:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty simple question, couldn't think of a simple answer..-- Shniken1 ( talk) 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm hijacking this question. I saw a Positive lightning bolt once and is there a reason that that lightning bolt was red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolotter88 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
In this image the whole thing is called a chromosome and each strand is known as a chromatid. So when the 2 strands are pulled apart, what are they called? Chromosomes as well? -- RMFan1 ( talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
So basically, it's what I said:
Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMFan1 ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is a man with big penis more likely to have such problems? Has anyone researched into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 September 2008
Hello,
I read something years ago about examples of imperfect evolution in humans. I.e to prove the point the humans aren't pinnacles of creation- there are things about our physiology which suck. Anyway, i now can't for the life of me remember any examples. Can anyone help? 82.22.4.63 ( talk) 18:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
They are not actually specific to humans. I would hazard a guess and say all animals with eyes have blindspots, all with teeth have tooth decay, all with knees have, well, knees. And the 'lower back' thing, I am not sure what you are talking about. -- ChokinBako ( talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The urethra passes through the prostate. [1] -- Kjoon lee 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure if you ask any of your female friends whether their reproductive system seems "perfectly designed" or "just the bare minimum needed for a species to survive" I'm sure you'd find most of them believe the latter. I say this with tongue firmly in cheek, but it is not too hard to imagine a female reproductive system that doesn't involve monthly periods (and their waste of energy and material) or a birth process that breaks the pelvis. (My wife and I have discussed this very issue—she loathes her reproductive system.) -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
But surely most of these things were positives when we were cavemen? i take your point about the lower back but with the reproductive system, surely all (female) mammals have periods? i.e. they are, whilst no doubt inconvenient for todays career woman, an efficient system to ensure the possibility of lots of babies. I actually can't imagine a better method (although this has more to do with my non-existent understanding of female anything physiology so some info would be appreciated).
Equally the eye faults (apart from that awful pun!) are surely a by-product of the fact that our environments are relatively 'boring'. I.e. we don't need whizz-bang eyes because we usually operate during the day. presumaly there are various trade offs with things like energy requirements but i don't know..(Although it is weird that they have no healing capacity..)
217.169.40.194 (
talk) 08:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
My back chronically hurts, my eyesight is poor, I get sunburns to even mild exposure to the sun, I have to spend a third of my life sleeping, I'll spare you other details, but whoever created us did a very losy job :P Not even a technical support line to complain :P Equendil Talk 09:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
My own personal peeve, the inability to get sharp visual focus at high speeds, even at 30mph, at anything other than straight ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.246.212 ( talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of all the plants and animals....???.... Seems a little silly doesn't it? Was this a random choice? Or perhaps it occured to him after tipping a few?-- Sunburned Baby ( talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Mendel was performing hybridization experiments, which were traditionally used to investigate the problem of the origin of species rather than laws of heredity. Plant hybridization studies were favored by horticulturalists who wanted to learn how to create and fix varieties, and academic studies of hybrids focused on whether new species could be created by cross-breeding existing ones. It has been argued that Mendel was actually trying to oppose evolutionism and instead defend Linnaeus' theory of the production of new species by hybridization. In this, peas were an example of “variable” hybrids, where as Hieracium was an example of "constant hybrids" that were potentially new species.
But yeah. Enough of my notes from ages ago. Why peas? Don't underestimate Mendel as a horticulturalist. He experimented with a number of different plants. Peas gave the best results. (The results were a little too good, in fact—there is evidence that Mendel doctored his figures a bit. But alas.) He was not just some clueless monk who happened to by chance pick a useful species; he considered himself a pretty able scientist. The idea that he was totally out of the loop and happened upon this great insight by chance and was just painfully ignored though ahead of his time is a myth. The actual history is a lot more complicated. Mendel didn't think he was discovering wonderful laws of heredity. A wonderful, short book on the topic is Peter J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergency of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society (1989). -- 98.217.8.46 ( talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Are siblings of the same parents closer genetically than father and son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babycygnet ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The period of transition between the Ordovician and the Silurian, the Carboniferous and the Permian, the Jurassic and the Cretaceous, and the Tertiary and the Quaternary periods appears to be marked by an average global temperature of not more than 12°C. What might have caused this reduction in average global temperature from the average global temperature of 22°C for all other period transitions? 71.100.15.15 ( talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)