Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 13 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 15 > |
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. |
1. How can a black box give out a signal that can be mistaken for other signals?
Black box should send a signal that unambiguously identifies it as such, and also incorporate signal that identifies the aircraft it came from. Is that too hard to do?
2. Black box should surely be tethered to outside of craft, and fitted with a mechanism that releases it if and when the plane crashes. Is that too hard to do?
3. How can a plane turn off its transponder from the cockpit, and fly unnoticed half way round the world?
Surely, all major aircraft should be beaming signal continuously back to base or to satellites in such a way that no one can turn it off. Myles325a ( talk) 07:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Op back live. Can't figure out why transponder should be turned off in case of fire, or in case of malfunction for that matter.
Another idea: Voice recorder should be like other recorders elsewhere. When there is silence, it does not record. When someone speaks, it does. Black box was Aussie invention, and I'm proud of it, but it just seems like they could be doing a lot lot more with it, and with airplane safety in general. (This would also have the effect that if a pilot said something that might possibly incriminate him, he would have to talk complete rubbish, continuously, for two hours and a few minutes so that it would be erased from tape.)
Myles325a (
talk)
03:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Ok, Stephan, you obviously know something about that of which you speak, but the impression I get is that there is absolutely nothing that can be improved in ANY of these procedures. Hey, expert, don't tell me what's wrong with my ideas, tell me how they can be improved and MADE to work. I get the idea that folk like you would have found 29 excellent reasons for why a black box recorder was not a good idea in the first place. (In fact, there was a lot of opposition to it from the aviation industry in various parts of the world, especially in Australia, where it was, ironically, invented. And the pilots didn't like it either). If today we can have billions of mobile phones all transmitting at once, then don't tell me contemporary technology could not come up with a system that tracked a plane, everything on the plane, and sent it in real time to some location. It's easy peasy. Over to you for some CONSTRUCTIVE thinking. Leave the "it can't be done" stuff to the Luddites. Myles325a ( talk) 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Op myles325a back here. I’ve had 20 years working as a management consultant, and am a big fan of armchair theoreticians, and those who come up with a lot of ideas. I’m a big picture man, it’s up to others to work out the details. It is the lab boffins and admin fat cats who will be the first to tell you that “It can’t be done”. Original inventor of “black box” was an “armchair” theoretician, and among those who screamed that they would have nothing to do with it were the Luddite pilots, who have, like teachers and doctors, fought any and every attempt to curtail any aspect of their privilege. (That is why the flight recorder was originally derided as a “black box”.) Your objection to any of my notions could be sent back in time, and it would be EXACTLY the same kind of rubbish that was spouted against the introduction of any new safety device. Mine operators used similar against new innovations like lifts which are made safe from crashing down the pit right up until the 1930s. It was Orwellian, it was a waste of money, it interfered with their God-given right to run their business exactly the way they wanted, a few thousand people could die, c’est la vie...twas ever thus, there’s a lot more where they came from. Airline pilots are not taxi drivers, soon they will be flying a couple of thousand souls and I’d like to know they aren’t banging cocktail waitresses and slugging booze up there. They don’t like being observed. Stuff ‘em. Myles325a ( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. If “original signal” is “ruined”, how can I use Skype, and how can I watch High Definition colour TV in stereo? There are prob only a couple of hundred big planes flying every day. Can it really overwhelm the entire system to have them sending signals back to some base, while the rest of the world is sending literally billions of signals for nothing more than idle chat. Of course, there might be probs with having voice activated recordings. Well, that doesn’t mean, one simply slams the book on that idea. Let’s find a way around it. Myles325a ( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. How much “public money” has been spent in sending dozens of big planes, helicopters and ships, and hundreds of engineers and searchers in the Malaysia 370 case? And what about the billions lost in compensation, and replacement aircraft. You factored in this in petty cash, did you? And since when is flight recorder money “public money”? Who pays for the current installation and operation of Flight Recorders? Social Security? I don’t think so. What are you blathering on, about?
See, this is typical of reactionaries I’ve faced on any site where progress must be made. I’m no techie, and I don’t wanna be, but I DO know that voice-operated recordings COULD easily mark the time whenever a voice activated them. And there could be OTHER recorders for non-voice sounds. I mean, don’t just say “It can’t be done”. Like, as if 50 years from now we are going to have the same system we have now. If it was up to you, we would still be taking canaries in cages down mines. As for “a presumption” being made that pilots are unprofessional, that is no more true than that security measures in banks are “presumptions” that customers are all crooks. Myles325a ( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Is realistic permanent prosthetic skin available to injured people instead of grafts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 ( talk) 08:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of a special effects prosthetic skin but realistic and porous and permanent, or semi-permanent, that can be laid over the patient's missing or damaged skin after their wounds are effectively healed. Is that an option? Since it's much more simple than making skin out of spider silk or shark cartilage I would think this was a better surgical solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 ( talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If it takes 4 weeks- 3 months for antigen and antibodies to develop for HIV tests, why do sexual health clinics recommend being tested 2 weeks after exposure? Wouldn't it save them money and false results, if they just test everyone at 4 weeks? 2.221.71.95 ( talk) 08:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think all matter is made of photons- the energy or light particle. Because electrons can accept or emit photons. They are still electrons disregarding they are exited or in ground state. And another reason is gamma radiation. In this case photons are emmitted from nucleus. So it seems that proton, neutron, and electrons are all big clumps of photons. So a photon should also have some mass. (Black hole attracting light supports this). Am I correct or not?-- G.Kiruthikan ( talk) 10:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The majority of the "rest mass" of your body is kinetic energy. Of course the total mass and energy of the universe is zero, so any mass you might see around you is just a rounding error. Hcobb ( talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
So gauge bosons are the energy particles? If I was incorrect why does Einstein's equation say E=mc2? Doesn't that mean that all matter can be converted into energy and vise versa? And another equation say that wavelength= Plank's constant/ (velocity*mass). It is applicable to electrons and all matter. If we apply it to EM radiation, we get a mass to photon. And if we combine this equation with E=ch/wavelength, then we get E=muc. Doesn't all these say that photons have mass and they may be the only elementary particle? -- G.Kiruthikan ( talk) 06:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
On an earthworks mass haul diagram, is the average haul distance simply the length of the line between the balance line and the free haul line? Clover345 ( talk) 15:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading a research article. It says "we observed a notable additional seven-fold increase in specificity upon further decreasing transfected DNA from 9.0 × 10^11 to 1.8 × 10^11 nmol/cell (50 ng to 10 ng plasmid; Fig. 4c)."
Since a mole is 6.02214129(27)×10^23, does that mean there are about 10^11 plasmids? That's a lot of plasmids! -- 129.215.47.59 ( talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 13 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 15 > |
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. |
1. How can a black box give out a signal that can be mistaken for other signals?
Black box should send a signal that unambiguously identifies it as such, and also incorporate signal that identifies the aircraft it came from. Is that too hard to do?
2. Black box should surely be tethered to outside of craft, and fitted with a mechanism that releases it if and when the plane crashes. Is that too hard to do?
3. How can a plane turn off its transponder from the cockpit, and fly unnoticed half way round the world?
Surely, all major aircraft should be beaming signal continuously back to base or to satellites in such a way that no one can turn it off. Myles325a ( talk) 07:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Op back live. Can't figure out why transponder should be turned off in case of fire, or in case of malfunction for that matter.
Another idea: Voice recorder should be like other recorders elsewhere. When there is silence, it does not record. When someone speaks, it does. Black box was Aussie invention, and I'm proud of it, but it just seems like they could be doing a lot lot more with it, and with airplane safety in general. (This would also have the effect that if a pilot said something that might possibly incriminate him, he would have to talk complete rubbish, continuously, for two hours and a few minutes so that it would be erased from tape.)
Myles325a (
talk)
03:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Ok, Stephan, you obviously know something about that of which you speak, but the impression I get is that there is absolutely nothing that can be improved in ANY of these procedures. Hey, expert, don't tell me what's wrong with my ideas, tell me how they can be improved and MADE to work. I get the idea that folk like you would have found 29 excellent reasons for why a black box recorder was not a good idea in the first place. (In fact, there was a lot of opposition to it from the aviation industry in various parts of the world, especially in Australia, where it was, ironically, invented. And the pilots didn't like it either). If today we can have billions of mobile phones all transmitting at once, then don't tell me contemporary technology could not come up with a system that tracked a plane, everything on the plane, and sent it in real time to some location. It's easy peasy. Over to you for some CONSTRUCTIVE thinking. Leave the "it can't be done" stuff to the Luddites. Myles325a ( talk) 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Op myles325a back here. I’ve had 20 years working as a management consultant, and am a big fan of armchair theoreticians, and those who come up with a lot of ideas. I’m a big picture man, it’s up to others to work out the details. It is the lab boffins and admin fat cats who will be the first to tell you that “It can’t be done”. Original inventor of “black box” was an “armchair” theoretician, and among those who screamed that they would have nothing to do with it were the Luddite pilots, who have, like teachers and doctors, fought any and every attempt to curtail any aspect of their privilege. (That is why the flight recorder was originally derided as a “black box”.) Your objection to any of my notions could be sent back in time, and it would be EXACTLY the same kind of rubbish that was spouted against the introduction of any new safety device. Mine operators used similar against new innovations like lifts which are made safe from crashing down the pit right up until the 1930s. It was Orwellian, it was a waste of money, it interfered with their God-given right to run their business exactly the way they wanted, a few thousand people could die, c’est la vie...twas ever thus, there’s a lot more where they came from. Airline pilots are not taxi drivers, soon they will be flying a couple of thousand souls and I’d like to know they aren’t banging cocktail waitresses and slugging booze up there. They don’t like being observed. Stuff ‘em. Myles325a ( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. If “original signal” is “ruined”, how can I use Skype, and how can I watch High Definition colour TV in stereo? There are prob only a couple of hundred big planes flying every day. Can it really overwhelm the entire system to have them sending signals back to some base, while the rest of the world is sending literally billions of signals for nothing more than idle chat. Of course, there might be probs with having voice activated recordings. Well, that doesn’t mean, one simply slams the book on that idea. Let’s find a way around it. Myles325a ( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. How much “public money” has been spent in sending dozens of big planes, helicopters and ships, and hundreds of engineers and searchers in the Malaysia 370 case? And what about the billions lost in compensation, and replacement aircraft. You factored in this in petty cash, did you? And since when is flight recorder money “public money”? Who pays for the current installation and operation of Flight Recorders? Social Security? I don’t think so. What are you blathering on, about?
See, this is typical of reactionaries I’ve faced on any site where progress must be made. I’m no techie, and I don’t wanna be, but I DO know that voice-operated recordings COULD easily mark the time whenever a voice activated them. And there could be OTHER recorders for non-voice sounds. I mean, don’t just say “It can’t be done”. Like, as if 50 years from now we are going to have the same system we have now. If it was up to you, we would still be taking canaries in cages down mines. As for “a presumption” being made that pilots are unprofessional, that is no more true than that security measures in banks are “presumptions” that customers are all crooks. Myles325a ( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Is realistic permanent prosthetic skin available to injured people instead of grafts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 ( talk) 08:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of a special effects prosthetic skin but realistic and porous and permanent, or semi-permanent, that can be laid over the patient's missing or damaged skin after their wounds are effectively healed. Is that an option? Since it's much more simple than making skin out of spider silk or shark cartilage I would think this was a better surgical solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 ( talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If it takes 4 weeks- 3 months for antigen and antibodies to develop for HIV tests, why do sexual health clinics recommend being tested 2 weeks after exposure? Wouldn't it save them money and false results, if they just test everyone at 4 weeks? 2.221.71.95 ( talk) 08:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think all matter is made of photons- the energy or light particle. Because electrons can accept or emit photons. They are still electrons disregarding they are exited or in ground state. And another reason is gamma radiation. In this case photons are emmitted from nucleus. So it seems that proton, neutron, and electrons are all big clumps of photons. So a photon should also have some mass. (Black hole attracting light supports this). Am I correct or not?-- G.Kiruthikan ( talk) 10:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The majority of the "rest mass" of your body is kinetic energy. Of course the total mass and energy of the universe is zero, so any mass you might see around you is just a rounding error. Hcobb ( talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
So gauge bosons are the energy particles? If I was incorrect why does Einstein's equation say E=mc2? Doesn't that mean that all matter can be converted into energy and vise versa? And another equation say that wavelength= Plank's constant/ (velocity*mass). It is applicable to electrons and all matter. If we apply it to EM radiation, we get a mass to photon. And if we combine this equation with E=ch/wavelength, then we get E=muc. Doesn't all these say that photons have mass and they may be the only elementary particle? -- G.Kiruthikan ( talk) 06:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
On an earthworks mass haul diagram, is the average haul distance simply the length of the line between the balance line and the free haul line? Clover345 ( talk) 15:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading a research article. It says "we observed a notable additional seven-fold increase in specificity upon further decreasing transfected DNA from 9.0 × 10^11 to 1.8 × 10^11 nmol/cell (50 ng to 10 ng plasmid; Fig. 4c)."
Since a mole is 6.02214129(27)×10^23, does that mean there are about 10^11 plasmids? That's a lot of plasmids! -- 129.215.47.59 ( talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)