I agree with Stu that that this is likely an animal product, probably insect. A jumping bean is a seed that has been parasitized, but the Teasel's seeds would not be yellow, nor round, nor present yet at this time of the season. Those little pockets where the stem joins the leaf can house entire ecosystems, and it would be a likely place for many things to lay eggs. Let us know if you cut one apart, or if you can post a photo :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Another though: are there oak trees nearby? If so, could be jumping oak gall dropping down and getting caught in the leaf crotches. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Jumping oak galls they are. Here's a picture of the oak leaves about 50ft (15m) almost directly above. My microscope with picture capabilities is old enough to use film and I've never actually used it, so I probably won't be getting pictures of individual galls or their contents. Gall wasps never cease to amaze me. Thank you.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be concerned that this level of parasitism might kill the oak tree. In any case, it seems you have your answer, so I'll close the Q. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it true that daily consumption of 200ml red wine decreases the risk of heart disease by 80%?

Zonex shrestha (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC) zonex

Some decrease in heart disease has been reported, although our articles Wine and Health effects of wine don't give any hard numbers on this point. It also probably depends on which red wine you drink. See the last paragraph of Wine#Health_effects.

By the way, please note that we can't give medical advice on this page. Rojomoke (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There have been various studies over time suggesting that red wine may or may not have a protective effect against heart disease (see the 2014 crop) - the latest I heard of said "not as much as claimed". But I've not heard of one with such a massive effect. It's hard to isolate causal factors - countries with a traditional red wine culture often also have other elements of mediterranean cuisine. I've made it a personal policy to only believe red wine studies from Italy, Spain, and France, coffee studies from Italy, olive oil studies from Italy or Greece, and tea studies from India and Japan. Gives me a lot of peace of mind. Oh yes, and chocolate studies from Belgium and Switzerland ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly not 80%. There have been numerous studies, all inconsistent. One study I recall is that drinking one alcoholic drink a day decreases cardiovascular events but increases a chance of a stroke by equal amount thus breaking it even in terms of longevity. Resveratrol found in red wine at one point was thought to have beneficial effect as an antioxidant, not anymore. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh dunnow, buddy <hic> but ah shoor don worry abart them <burp> hearsh atticks much no more Myles325a (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that consuming 400ml per day won't reduce heart attack risk by 160%. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Consuming more than 6 litres per day will reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, strokes, and almost all other diseases by almost 100%. Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read an article not too long ago which basically stated that more recent (2014) in-depth studies indicate that previous studies on the health benefits of taking resveratrol, was flawed in some respect. As the supposed benefits were not replicable, furthermore, any other effects were virtually non-existent. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Botany question - Algae

This question is about algae Taxonomy and Omega 3 fatty acid frequency in Algae in general.

Is it true that generally all Chromalveolata produces DHA? (I ask this because I've read here that 2 types of Algae, which are entirely different taxonomically, the first Crypthecodinium cohnii, and the second Schizochytrium are being used for DHA supplements' production). Thanks for your elaboration. Ben-Natan (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Ben-Natan (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is tough because you're asking people to generalize over the entire group (and if you look up the article you'll see there was some controversy with it, so the first step is to figure out exactly what varieties to survey). Then there's the hunt for DHA production data. I'm thinking the easiest way might be to figure out the gene responsible and do some variants of BLAST searching to see what related organisms have it. But it would take at least hours to answer this one. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 15

Are Chemical Reactions originally derived from solar energy?

This question came about from my “Horses on Mars” query when one poster opined that horses get their energy from the "solar panels" of the grass they eat, and thus the energy they expend is solar energy converted to kinetic energy. I thought about this, and wondered about the nature of chemical reactions. Take this one: Put some potassium in water. Boom!! Now, is this solar energy? No, it is not. Well, where did all that energy come from?

Perhaps chemical energy of this kind is essentially nuclear energy. And in that case, perhaps it is wrong to say that all our energy, as physical organisms, is derived from solar energy. If we could take in potassium and water in a controlled way, we could be supermen, and the energy we would need would be only that miniscule amount we needed to open a new jar of potassium in the morning and swish it down with a glass of Adam's Ale. Myles325a (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow where you are going? It sounds like you don't really have a good fundamental understanding of what energy is... Energy is simply a way to quantify change. If we have a system in two different states of being, energy is just a measure of how different those two states are from each other. Any of the ways we, as humans, classify energy (potential vs. kinetic... work vs. heat... enthalpy vs. entropy...) are just human created classifications which help us to understand how energy works. How you divide energy into different "forms" is only as important as it is useful. If you start with the "it's all solar energy", you sort of right to a point, except some small fraction is actually energy stored inside the earth from its own formation, some kinds of extremophile life is able to tap into this energy, as do humans when we use Geothermal energy. So if I take a potassium salt, and electrolyze potassium from it using energy from a geothermal power plant, I haven't really used any of the sun's energy. If you really want to harness solar energy for yourself, eat some spinach. Because the energy stored in the chemical bonds in the spinach came from the sun. Just remember, however, as you keep trying to work backwards, that since the sun and earth have not existed since forever, its energy had to come from somewhere first; the only antecedent for all energy is the Big Bang. --Jayron32 05:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Put another way: where did you get your potassium? The OP incorrectly dismissed his reaction as one that doesn't derive any energy from the sun - because there is no apparent photochemistry going on - but he forgot to account for the energy in the atoms of the reactants that did derive from the sun many billions of years ago.

If we trace the history farther: where did the sun get its energy? Well, that's an easy, well-formed question with a straightforward answer, based on our scientific knowledge about stellar formation. Our sun got its energy for nuclear fusion from the gravitational collapse of its hydrogen gas.

Where did that hydrogen get its energy... - well, the cloud of gas had gravitational potential energy when it was separated; and it got that energy from the kinetic energy it had when it was formed. That kinetic energy came from an earlier time, when the gas was in a different configuration, and its constituent particles were sub-atomic... And if we keep tracing backwards toward the proverbial "dawn of time," we eventually reach a point where the question must be posed in metaphysical terms.

As scientists, we don't think in terms of "first cause." If anything, we're really only concerned with material cause and effect. As Jayron has described, energy is just one of the ways we speak quantitatively about cause and effect. When we are on Earth, talking about terrestrial processes, it is convenient to summarize almost every process as one whose common denominator is the stellar energy emitted by our sun. The original energy didn't "come from" the sun; but there is a clearly defined historical path that lets us trace the time-evolution of almost any terrestrial process back to the sun. Nimur (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I must quibble with one thing in that excellent answer, I'm not sure energy really deals well with cause and effect. Energy is either a state function or a process function, and even process (or path) functions can be thought of as a bunch of microstates in succession (i.e. a calculus-sorta-thingy). Energy tells how how much something has changed, rather than what caused something to change... --Jayron32 05:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what chemical reactions we are talking about whether they come from the sun. Potassium doesn't come from the sun. Potassium comes only from supernova nucleosynthesis. The energy that was used to electrolyze the potassium from a potassium salt (since potassium is never found as the native metal on Earth) may have come immediately from any of various sources. Many organic chemical compounds on Earth really are generated by plants in photosynthesis, and that is a use of energy that comes from solar fusion. Also, as Jayron32 says, energy is simply a way to quantify change. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

With so many competent contributors here I am not sure my ignorance will be helpful. I do believe though that the OP's question is somewhat misunderstood. He is describing this exothermal, extremely volatile reaction: 2K + 2H2O -> 2KOH + H2. What went into this reaction: (1) X-ray energy during supernova explosion, as one person said, that helped to combine protons and electrons to make potassium along with other elements. At this stage the OP is correct: it is all nuclear fusion. (2) during the eons of that particular potassium travel in space and inside the planets the energy could have been subtracted or added when potassium reacted with some anions to make salts (3) Some chemist extracted pure potassium investing some energy in it. (4) the final reaction of potassium with water came (hydrolysis). --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

First, the nuclear fusion that produced the potassium was not in the sun, but in a star that exploded 4.7 billion years ago, the shell of which passed through the protostellar nebula, possibly causing planet and star formation. The sun has never produced any potassium and never will. Red giant nucleosynthesis doesn't produce elements as heavy as potassium. Second, the potassium probably reacted with anions to form a salt in the primitive solar system, not in space. FThird, the energy used to electrolyze the potassium was of solar origin; it probably came from fossil fuel, which is preserved solar energy. Fourth, while the reaction that AboutFace lists is the first reaction, but not the only one in that sequence, because the hydrogen then catches fire, and the remaining potassium often also catches fire. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful to break down energy sources to their origin:

SOLAR <- sunlight <- nuclear fusion
WIND <- uneven heating of the atmosphere <- sunlight <- nuclear fusion
WAVE <- wind <- uneven heating of the atmosphere <- sunlight <- nuclear fusion
HYDRO <- precipitation <- evaporation + wind <- sunlight <- nuclear fusion
BIOFUELS <- photosynthesis <- sunlight <- nuclear fusion
FOSSIL FUELS <- organic material <- photosynthesis <- sunlight <- nuclear fusion

Here are a couple that aren't from the nuclear fusion of the Sun:

TIDAL <- rotation of Moon around Earth <- uneven distribution of matter in the universe <- Big Bang
NUCLEAR REACTORS <- nuclear fission <- heavy elements created in supernovae

Geothermal energy actually has multiple sources:

GEOTHERMAL <- tidal heating <- rotation of Moon around Earth <- uneven distribution of matter in the universe <- Big Bang
           <- nuclear decay <- nuclear fission <- heavy elements created in supernovae
           <- residual heat from formation of the solar system <- uneven distribution of matter in the universe <- Big Bang

StuRat (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Useful. I will note that the second category of geothermal energy has to do with the decay of uranium and thorium in the Earth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I should add that supernovae are powered by nuclear fusion, so nuclear fission, either in a nuclear reactor or in the Earth, can also be said to be powered by nuclear fusion, although not in the Sun. So, that leaves us with just 2 energy sources, fusion and the uneven distribution of matter in the universe due to the Big Bang. Of course, if matter had been evenly distributed, then there would be no stars and hence no fusion. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 16

Chemical leak

What's the safest way to stop a leak of concentrated sulfuric acid from a ruptured tanker truck? Thanks in advance! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Although this question isn't specified as one that is not allowed (see top of page), any question that giving the wrong answer could result in dead people should not be answered here!  =8^O  :71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ya know, if the emergency responders are looking this up on Misplaced Pages, I think there is some risk of death in any circumstance. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is people giving their own opinions, there is no problem referring to authorative sources or to a Misplaced Pages article on the subject is the query is straightforward to interpret. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not technical advice -- this is for novel research (see my earlier Q's about hazmat cleanup, avalanche debris, etc.) 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of carbohydrate foam, gel or paste that that can be sprayed or slathered on? The dehydrating ability of concentrated sulfuric acid should carbonize the foam, gel or paste, creating a water-tight, acid-resistant seal that should last long enough for the tank to be emptied. In theory, a very sweet dense meringue could work. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe epoxy resin would work? I'm thinking either that, or weld the rupture shut. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How does epoxy resin behave under the circumstances? Welding temperatures will produce toxic sulfur oxides, not sure that is such a practical idea, considering the precautions necessary. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I forgot, sulfuric acid vapour is virtually just as toxic as sulfur oxides, so precautions are needed in either case. However, I don't think that welding is a relatively safe option. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Epoxy will self-polymerize on contact with any sort of acid. As for welding, I agree that it can be dangerous. So epoxy it will be in my scenario. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

First step is to list some incidents to see if there's a state of the art. Searching "sulfuric acid" "tanker truck" "leak" I see lots of stuff like May 8 in Carson Feb 10 in Tulsa Frederick in 1994 Sullivan in 2011 McCool ... it's clear that anyone with a genuine occupational need can get on the horn and quiz them about their procedures. But there should also be publications... Wnt (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

These are small-scale leaks -- I'm thinking something much bigger. The scenario I have in mind is, the truck gets swept off the road and down an incline by an avalanche, hits an aboveground gas pipeline with its downhill end (thus rupturing and igniting it at once), and comes to rest against the now-blazing pipeline with a rupture at the lowest point of the tank. (This is an UGLY scenario -- you have not only a major acid spill, but a gas fire in immediate proximity, which in turn causes large quantities of acid aerosol to spread downwind.) Also in this scenario, the tank will partly melt from the heat, greatly exacerbating the leak and creating the risk of a BLEVE. First order of business in this case is to shut off the gas; but with the tank partly melted and leaking fast, what can be done to stop the leak? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In real life, you would (1) evacuate everybody for several miles around, especially downwind; (2) shut off the pipeline; (3) wait until an airborne tanker can safely fly overhead; (4) dump fire retardant to put out the fire; (5) probably dump a bunch of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to neutralize the acid. No human is going to be allowed near that while there is a big fire and a big acid leak. Looie496 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Dumping baking soda or any other neutralizing agent will cause an exothermic reaction that will create MORE acid aerosol. An adsorbent (like cat litter) would be a better choice -- once the leak is stopped somehow and the spill contained! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Details of some real acid leaks can be seen here at the aptly named sulphuric-acid.com. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read through the entire link, but thus far, I'm yet to find a single example describing the method used to seal a rupture. There is an abundance of examples stating the occurrence of a sealing, but no actual description. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Really, do you then suppose that it is acceptable to let the entire tanker empty out naturally, and tend to the resulting mess afterwards? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That is probably what would be done. Unless the leak is only an inch or so in diameter, it's going to drain in a matter of minutes. Chances are the first responders don't have anything that wouldn't be on a typical fire trucks. Their tools are generally designed to make holes bigger, not smaller. I doubt they would even have a welder on hand. They certainly wouldn't have time to go out and get some epoxy resin or something. They would presumably go by the book. For a gas pipeline incident, the instructions are to not attempt to extinguish the fire, evacuate the area, move upwind, and contact the pipeline operator to shut it off. For fires involving corrosive, water-reactive liquids (like sulfuric acid), recommendations are to consider evacuating a half mile in all directions. Once the pipeline is shut off, if there is still a fire and the acid is still leaking, then large amounts of water would be used to keep the tank cool. Mr.Z-man 15:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good plan, except for one little thing: In my scenario, there will be people who will need some help evacuating the area -- the trucker, who's been ejected from the cab straight into the pool of acid; a mother and daughter, both badly wounded and trapped in a wrecked car dangerously close to both the pipeline and the truck; and several skiers caught in the avalanche and carried across the road into the acid pool. I believe the rescue team should try to get them away from the area as soon as the gas fire is out, and before dealing with the acid spill, even though it may mean taking their chances with the aerosol? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That assumes any of them actually survive the fire. Natural gas can burn really hot. If it's hot enough to partially melt the truck, it's hot enough to cause serious burns to people nearby, in addition to the chemical burns, toxic gases they're inhaling, and physical injuries from the accident itself. The MSDS recommends a water spray to manage vapors. That plus a SCBA system would probably be enough for anyone not lying in a pool of acid. For that they'd need full chemical suits. But those people are probably dead, because lying in a pool of boiling-hot acid is not something people would likely survive. Water over 69 C can cause third-degree burns with 1 second of contact. Mr.Z-man 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

With luck, one can survive third-degree burns to even 80% of his/her skin area. But yes, inhalation of acid vapors will significantly worsen prognosis, as will the blunt trauma from the avalanche itself. I'm rethinking the acid immersion -- maybe only the trucker will be immersed (and will die in surgery), but the skiers will be outside the acid spill but inside the toxic vapor cloud? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Called to this likely scenario for a 1970s Disaster film the local police chief realizes the only man who can save the little girl trapped in the tanker is Bamro, a Vietnam veteran who has retreated to a Shaolin Monastery in search of absolution as he is haunted by flashbacks to the burning of a village. By the 3rd reel, Bamro is racing to the scene in his Shelby Mustang pursued by black helicopters (firing RPGs inaccurately) sent by agents of the Venusian mafia intent on accelerating acid rain on Earth until its atmosphere matches their own sulphuric acid atmosphere, preparatory to an invasion of Earth by Venus. Bamro arrives at the disaster scene where the police and firemen take cover from the helicopters that continue to fire (inaccurately) on everyone. The police chief has found out that the "accident" was caused deliberately by Venusians but his calls for air force help are ignored because the helicopters are invisible to radar. Bamro alone risks the fire and shooting to climb into the truck. Seeing the little girl provokes a flashback to when he failed to save a girl in the burning village in Vietnam. The truck's fuel tank explodes, trapping them both in the blazing truck. Outside cowering with the police chief we see an Asian lady collapse in tears, she is the girl's mother. Inside the truck, Bamro releases the red-hot parking brake and the truck begins to roll away from the pipeline, gathers speed and plows into a snowdrift at the bottom of the incline. In the closing scene it is evening, the snow is lit by red and blue flashing lights as rescuers dig out badly burned Bamro (he'll live) and the unharmed little girl, both welcomed by the mother whom Bamro recognizes as the girl he thought died in the village. The little girl asks "Are you my daddy?". 84.209.89.214 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I saw that movie. (spoiler alert!) I think you skipped over the part where the insurance company lawyer insists (against all advice) that the fire truck try to put out the burning truck with a water hose - and performs a perfect Wilhelm scream as he's dissolved down to a skeleton by the resulting spray of boiling acid. I did like the part in the closing scene where Bamro insists on plunging his scorched hand (a rare case of fifth degree burns!) back into the snowdrift to pull out the little girl's Teddy bear. "Can't leave a man behind!" he manages to croak. (Oddly, that's his only line of dialog in the entire movie.) SteveBaker (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not a bad plot for a movie, by contemporary standards. But as for the OP's question, I don't understand. You're asking how to seal a leak in a "partly melted" tank that has been broadly ruptured by an avalanche? I don't think that's happening. I mean, you're talking about essentially underwater welding, only it's under sulfuric acid, of a huge hole, in an unstable tank. Wnt (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really -- the tanker truck is sitting in a shallow pool of acid, which is flowing downhill (and AWAY from the truck) under its own weight. And on second thought, it won't really be "partly melted" like I thought -- the large volume of acid will act as a heat sink to some extent, keeping the metal temperature down to 300 C or so (but also creating the risk of a catastrophic BLEVE). 24.5.122.13 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if sulfuric acid is running through a crack or hole, there's going to be at least a lot of fluid behind it and some pouring through. It still seems like it would be hard to weld it, though I'm no expert. And there's just a huge gap in credulity - why would someone hang out next to this bomb, fooling around trying to plug a hole so acid won't leak out, instead of fleeing and waiting for a remote solution? Sulfuric acid going in a watershed would be bad for the fish, sure, but I don't think many people have that kind of commitment to the ecology. Wnt (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See above, per the OPs story some people near and/or in the sulfuric acid are trapped but alive so need to be rescued. (That said, I agree with Mr.Z-man that it seems difficult to have a story line where the parties are still alive in a crash with an outcome like this. And further, even if they were alive but trapped, it seems difficult to have a scenario where it's necessary to close the hole to rescue them as opposed to very carefully extracting them, a scenario where anyone is laying in concentrated sulphuric acid but alive seems particularly unplausible. Although from some of their questions particularly last year, I'm not sure if the OP is aiming for hyper-realism anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I AM aiming for at least a halfway-plausible scenario -- that's why I'm asking these sorts of questions instead of just writing the first thing that comes to mind. Unlike many of today's writers, I do NOT judge my works by the standards of 1970s disaster films -- I strive to make my work better than those. Which is why I've reconsidered the part about the acid immersion: upon reading your responses, I've decided that any casualties actually immersed in the pool of acid will die, and only those plucked from its path in time will survive. Also note that I did not specify that the hole must be closed in order to save the trapped casualties -- on the contrary, the casualties will be extricated first, and then the hole will be closed with epoxy (NOT welding -- that would be too dangerous, as Plasmic pointed out) to prevent the acid from spreading and endangering other people in the vicinity. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a crane or a helicopter would be the easiest way to extricate the victims from the acid flood. But the conditions necessary for this to happen are pretty seriously contrived. Mending the hole in the tanker isn't going to get rid of the flood of acid that has them trapped anyway. Basically, any hole thats big enough to create a flood of acid that you couldn't easily run away from would be much too big to fix - and in any case, the tanker would be empty long before anyone could figure out a way to fix it and get the necessary equipment in there. Personally, I'd bet you could back a pickup truck through the acid, have the victims hop aboard and then drive slowly out again before the tires were destroyed sufficiently to prevent the truck from moving. Even if it's down to the rims, it would move well enough to get out. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Note as mentioned above, the acid is supposed to be pouring down a hill so possibly shouldn't be too pooled if there is way to stop the leak. (That said, I do agree as I mentioned that there are problems with the scenario in addition to whether it makes any sense to save some one that way even in the scenario.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A helicopter is precisely what I plan to use to extricate the casualties (in any case, the avalanche has blocked the only road, so only a helicopter or a bulldozer can get there anyway). And the hole is pretty small, so the acid is coming out slowly -- but the casualties CAN'T run away because they're too badly hurt (concussions, broken bones, shock, that kind of thing). 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why can't people bring dead people back to life?

In Frankenstein, the titular science nerd makes a monster out of dead body parts. It's unclear how he did it, but he did it. Although his scientific methods aren't the main point of the story, what is the difference between life and non-life? 140.254.226.242 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear how he did it because he didn't do it. Remember that that story is fiction. Mary Shelley didn't have to specify how he did it. The genre that we call science fiction hadn't yet been defined (being invented decades later by Jules Verne and H. G. Wells), but she followed the rules of science fiction in not specifying things that she didn't have to specify. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Our article on life points to one definition in the opening paragraph: "Life is a characteristic distinguishing objects having signalling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate". Several other definitions of what constitute "life" are listed under definitions in the same article. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In general, necrosis involves a loss of cell membrane integrity, i.e. the cells physically break down in a way that makes it very difficult to restart them. For example, a neuron with even a small hole in it is not going to be sending any signals, because those are charges on opposite sides of the membrane. Now tissue death does occur over a period of time, and some people are hopeful that current practices in resuscitation can be improved on, but no bolt of lightning is going to unscramble an egg. This leaves the remaining hope that somehow you can "forensically" resurrect a person by some kind of brain scan that tracks every neuron and figures out (somehow) what synapses and long-term potentiation they had, and makes a reasonably accurate duplicate. But whether such a duplicate would be that person, or whether anything but a true tissue printer generated flesh and blood duplicate even could be any person, is philosophically very debatable. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

if you take the time backword and change the corse , it call " the next world " thanks water nosfim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.142.154 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankenstein doesn't hold together for any number of reasons that were not understood when it was written (how about organ rejection in a body sewn together from 30 different cadavers!) - so let's just discount that.

One major problem is the cause of death in the first place. In order for someone to have died, something fairly bad must have happened to their body systems - and repairing that would obviously have to take place before one could even consider reviving them. That said, there has been a recent application for human trials of a technique where severe trauma patients would have all of their blood replaced with chilled saline - stopping all of their life signs completely - and then reviving them after an hour or so once the trauma team have patched up whatever needed fixing. Since the lack of all clinical signs of life means "death", they will (technically) be reviving the recently dead. SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Imagine a volume like a cubic foot filled with water. Then imagine that somehow at the start of the process the water had small areas with higher temperature. Another point is that this volume is absolutely isolated from the outside world. What would happen after a while? The water's heat, thermal energy from areas with higher temperature will flow to the areas with lower energy and soon the whole volume will assume equal temperature. Can this system go back in time and internally recreate the difference in energy across the volume without outside intervention? No, it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The same is with the human/animal body. Any animal body contains billions of cells with membranes with electrical gradient across them. It is maintained by ion pumps that pump sodium out of the cells into the inter-cellar medium and potassium the other way around. Aside from those two ions dozens of other substances are moved across the membranes all the time. When a person dies the pumps stop and the gradients get equalized. Restarting them contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics therefore bringing dead people back to life will never happen. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

you can take back only information , change the corse of the dead one ,it statistic ocar in flaktation , and you can stabilize on the write superposition . thanks water nosfim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.142.154 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818 when the mainstream vitalist notion was that a living organism differs from the non-living in that it posesses a unique "vital spark", associated in Western medicine with Hippocrates' Four temperaments and humours, and called its Élan vital by Bergson in 1901. The pre-Christian Stoic philosopher Posidonius postulated that such a "vital force" emanates from the sun to all living creatures. Shelley built her story on this thinking (that could not be seriously challenged in the scientific world until synthesis in 1828 of Urea CO(NH₂)₂ previously thought to be only a by-product of life) and on the effects of electricity on dissected animals reported by Galvani. While she makes no direct mention of electrical reanimation in the novel Frankenstein, film adaptations typically show electrical laboratory equipment and the monster's awakening is brought about by an electrical storm. The OP is correct that Victor Frankenstein's scientific methods aren't the main point of Shelley's seminal "soft" science fiction story. Its subtitle The Modern Prometheus refers to a Latin myth of Prometheus who makes man from clay and water, like Victor rebelling against the laws of nature (how life is naturally made) and as a result is punished by his creation. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The description of temperature equalizing in a volume of water is a great statement about the laws of thermodynamics - but the analogy is seriously flawed.

We can easily heat up the water again and restore the original patchy variations of temperature using appropriate heat sources brought in from outside. All that tells us is that a "sufficiently dead" body cannot simply come back to life by itself (although there are energy stores in fat deposits in a dead body - so even that limited interpretation is not prohibited by thermodynamics). The "rules of the game" here are that we can use any reasonable amount of external input in re-animating the dead. (For example: A handy lightning storm - to follow the OP's line of thinking). So the laws of thermodynamics (which apply only to closed systems) are simply inapplicable here. SteveBaker (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

SteveBaker, I did not expect you to fight for the lost cause. Had a living body had just 10 cells (compartments with temperature and concentration gradients) it would have been one thing, but a human body has billions of such compartments just in the brain. No lightning will ever help you and no energy stored in fat either. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that lightning or fat deposits will do the job - what I *AM* saying is that an argument that the second law of thermodynamics is proof that resuscitation is impossible is nonsense. The second law only covers closed systems and that's not what we're talking about here...and even as a closed system, the body has considerable energy reserves - so a thermodynamic argument simply cannot be employed here. Your bucket of water can return to it's former state if there are heating coils and a fully charged battery.

Don't get me wrong though - I agree that there are hard-to-reverse problems with a dead body that would make it insanely difficult to "fix" it. My only beef is that your "proof" of that by reference to the 2nd law is nonsense - and therefore subtracts from the argument instead of adding to it - which is why I feel the need to correct you. SteveBaker (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Shelley may have been familiar with the 1803 experiment by Professor Giovanni Aldini, Galvani's nephew, who used a powerful battery to produce movements in the dead body of executed murderer George Forster, whose spinal cord had been severed and whose blood had been drained after his hanging. A contemporary account said "On the first application of the process to the face, the jaws of the deceased criminal began to quiver, and the adjoining muscles were horribly contorted, and one eye was actually opened. In the subsequent part of the process the right hand was raised and clenched, and the legs and thighs were set in motion." Edison (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OMFG "one man, Mr Pass, the beadle of the Surgeons' Company, was so shocked that he died shortly after leaving." The salad days of science! But nonetheless, this only works with a fresh corpse where many of the cells are still alive.

As for the thermodynamic argument: it is true that you can unscramble an egg with excess energy input, and some really sophisticated nanotech. I mentioned an approach with a tissue printer, but I suppose there are other ways to try to reform every cell as it was. But if you don't do it precisely as it was, is it the same person? For believers in atman this is an easier question for others, but even then, you have to ask how good it has to be to be a person at all. Which requires understanding of consciousness, which is a paranormal phenomenon. There is no known experiment to show that an arbitrary computational device "really feels something" as opposed to "being programmed to exclaim its discomfort". It is, therefore, necessary to develop a theory of the paranormal in order to answer the question in that case. I've made some comments on this regard in the past here but I fear I may try on the audience's patience to do so again, especially considering it's a Science desk. Wnt (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

People have been bringing people back to life for eons, by burying them in soil. They sprout or hatch, they grow, they eat, they breed and age and die again. Return to life isn't what the bereaved in Pet Sematary, "The Monkey's Paw" or Game of Thrones really want. They want to go back in time, and enjoy the same face/personality they remember. That's the hard part, even within one lifespan.

Frankenstein couldn't have convinced the family of the man he got the monster's heart from that its beating meant he was alive again. Neither the brain donor's, even if the monster remembered private moments. Stitching a face onto a complete living stranger and giving him the backstory would be far more likely to fool us (though hopefully still rather unlikely). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Blood alcohol content

If water doesn't reduce BAC, why is it that downing a glass of water between drinks or even diluting strong alcoholic drinks with water, reduces the effects of alcohol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.70.208 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternating alcoholic drinks with water can reduce your overall intake of alcohol if you take your time drinking the water, so that would indirectly reduce your blood alcohol content (BAC). But otherwise you're right, just very quickly drinking a glass of water between alcoholic drinks won't affect BAC and intoxication (reduced motor skill, slurred speech, etc.). However, alcohol has other effects besides intoxication. Alcohol consumption causes body dehydration, which produces headache, tiredness, etc., usually several hours later. Drinking water between alcoholic drinks helps prevent dehydration and may reduce some of those effects.--Dreamahighway (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

However, drinking a glass of water before using a breathalyser does reduce the reading sometimes. Presumably it flushes some of the alcohol off the surface of the mouth and gullet. Greglocock (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone has had enough alcohol to potentially fail a breathalyzer test, they ought not be driving. Tricking the cops into thinking the driver is sober could have fatal consequences. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This use of water is not a trick. Technically blood alcohol is best measured by blood, yielding a value for what the brain actually experiences. The breathalyzer is merely a surrogate test. Flushing alcohol out of the mouth will, if anything, increase the blood alcohol level; it only removes the spurious contribution of recently consumed alcohol. Now sure you could say that really the cops in a jurisdiction with a .08 ought to run in people who blow .07, .06, .05 just for the principle of the thing - that's how Misplaced Pages admins tend to act, after all - but that is typically regarded as a matter for politics. I see on reading the article that some states have actually made the BrAC levels legally binding ... which must be interesting when someone has only used mouthwash (as the article details) and can prove it with a negative blood test result.

Followup question: what determines the 2100:1 partition ratio the article says is programmed into the machines? I'm seeing a value of 2300 in the literature and a statement that it is acceptable for use in individuals with "normal pulmonary function" . There must be some people getting badly screwed by the testing procedure, but I'm not sure at this point who. Wnt (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, there's nothing in our article suggesting mouth wash will cause a significantly false reading in an evidentary breath test 15 minutes after consumption which as per our article, is evidentally the norm before testing.

Actually the time between consumption and testing is likely to be higher, I presume the evidentary breath test machines in the US are like the ones here and are big enough (our article mentions some portable evidentary units but doesn't elaborate they are used and the info would suggest not much if at all) that they are only generally stored in the police station (plus observing the suspect out in the field seems problematic) so unless the suspect is very stupid and secretly drinks mouth wash in the police car on the way to the station, it's probably 25+ minutes (even if the police station is only 5 minutes away it's likely to take 5 minutes at least for processing etc before the suspect is put under observation for the test) before the testing in the mose cases. (There are sometimes mobile units stored in a bus but I don't know what percentage of suspects they process and whether they even follow the same procedure or have extended waiting times.)

Of course this may not help in other cases like belching, but you only mentioned mouth wash.

P.S. Our article suggests most/all? states in the US with evidentary breath tests make it rebutable. In other words if the suspect has a reliable blood alcohol test from the time of the test, it's likely a simple matter of presenting that evidence. It doesn't specifically mention, but I'm presuming in most of the US as in NZ, the blood test is up to the suspect. They can either choose to take the blood test instead of the evidentary breath test or can choose to take the blood test if they fail the evidentary breath test , at the financial expense of the government as with the other tests. This doesn't of course help those who have an extreme fear of needles or whatever that will prevent a blood test. But for the rest, it's probably not even normally a case of needing to present the evidence. If you don't trust the breath test, just choose the blood test, it seems unlikely you'll even be charged if you pass regardless of what happened with the evidentary breath test.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

June 17

free convection of heat transfer fluids

I have designed heat transfer engines using free convection. I have tried commercially available heat transfer fluids and none of those I have tried so far are as good as water in free convection.

I have suggested to manufacturers of these fluids that they grade their fluids according to their free convection properties compared with water. This would be quite easy to do using a vertical cylinder of the fluid with a heat source at the base. They could then rate the efficiency of their heat transfer fluid according to how fast the fluid higher up in the cylinder heats up using water as a standard for comparison.

Does anyone know if this grading of fluids according to the test described above has ever been done? And if it has what would it be called? If this has been done already I would not have to waste a lot of time trying different types of heat transfer fluids and finding in the end they are not as good as water for free convection heat transfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercl14 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure! There's a ton of money in mud engineering! It's a really empirical science; those guys have parameters for everything - fluid density, fluid thermal conductivity; electrostatic characteristics, chemical behavior ... variations of all of the above, with respect to temperature and pressure... you name it! From the Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary entry on temperature gradient , I found a link to High-Pressure, High-Temperature Technologies, a review article of common technologies used to characterize borehole fluids. That paper has an entire reference section, "For more on laboratory testing of fluids, see..." the dozens of references they cite. You might also find references on a variety of downhole heaters.

You can bet that if water was better for the job than commercial mud, production companies couldn't charge as much as they do for all their special chemical formulations! Nimur (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that the test you devised is not testing thermal convection alone, but also conduction, radiation (unless you add dye to the fluid to make it opaque), and thermal capacity. Depending on the parameters of the test (height and diameter of the cylinder, temperature difference, elapsed time), different factors will play more or less or a role in the outcome. So, while water may be the best fluid given your parameters, it may not be for all such parameters. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A Heat pipe is a passive device that offers high thermal conductivity between points whose temperatures correspond respectively to liquid and vapour states of the internal fluid. The vast majority of heat pipes for room temperature applications use ammonia (213–373 K), alcohol (methanol (283–403 K) or ethanol (273–403 K)) or water (298–573 K) as the working fluid and have much higher thermal conductivity than is possible by convection or conduction in a single-phase substance. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What gene (or genes) produces DHA?

Thx. Ben-Natan (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To do this one, I first went to NCBI and chose the "Gene" database option, but the list was all eukaryotes for some reason. There ought to be a way to get the data out (i.e. go to PubMed and look up the papers the right way) but not having the patience I went to KEGG, which fortunately for the moment seems to have risen out of the water again, but is making some plea for funding. Anyway, it sent me straight to which gives the immediate reaction upstream of DHA. This gives me an EC number which represents the reaction catalyzed, which potentially could be more than one homologous gene, but often was evolved just once. Regrettably... that's a red herring; it's palmitoyl hydrolase, present in humans and many other organisms. But clicking on the precursor gets us quickly to (well, at least, in not many clicks... the site is kind of slow) which is a diagram of the biosynthesis of many unsaturated fatty acids. Unfortunately, it turns out it's not providing the details on the precise enzymes doing the desaturation, though it does give an indication of the order in which the bonds are processed. provides no EC number for example. So... looking for the last step, delta-6, quickly turns up in PubMed a paper that says that rats do it . Now I remember that it's actually linolenic acid that is more special as a precursor. So I go back to scratch at PubMed and search "docosahexaenoic acid" "essential" "precursor" (spelling the first one is the challenge of this assignment) and find which says the alpha-linolenic acid is the one that is essential. Looking back at the KEGG figure, this is on it; the linolenic acid is downstream of the delta-15 desaturation. After some flailing around I search "delta15" "docosahexaenoic acid" and get which is one of those too sensible to work ideas of genetically engineering the benefits of omega 3 directly into an animal to improve its health. (This is one of those GMOs I dread, because it sounds like such a great idea, but messing with lipid metabolism has a thousand trickle-down effects that could be unpredictable) Anyway, this paper identifies some of the key genes they used to make the difference. I could go on, but have to pause for now... Wnt (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Normal behavior by a headless cat?

The Jerome Lettvin article states that the neurologist found that a headless cat could walk on a treadmill, scratch an itch, and maintain its balance to avoid falling over. It cites a textbook as a reference, "Neurons and Networks Second Edition, John Dowling, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2001, page 307, Figure 13.5" as a ref but the relevant page is not viewable online. Presumably the body was connected to a source of oxygenated blood. I removed as vandalism the last sentence, added long after the rest, which stated that the cat later made a full recovery and led a happy life. The article says that unidentified Russian scientists replicated the experiment. There has long been a supposed film of Russian scientists having a disembodied but responsive dog's head connected to a source of oxygenated blood, which some have said is crude trick photography. I have certainly seen decapitated chickens run around flapping their wings for perhaps a minute, but I question whether higher vertebrates such as cats (or humans for that matter) have the decentralized nerve centers needed for walking, for instance, or maintaining balance even for a minute after decapitation. Does anyone have access to the book in question to confirm what it states about Lettvin's work? Edison (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source either, but I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Very few scientific studies have used cats that were actually headless, but there were quite a number of studies (in the "old days") that used cats that were spinalized -- in other words, the spinal cord was cut in a way that disconnected the head from the rest of the body. It's possible to get spinalized cats to walk on a treadmill by holding the body in place over a running treadmill -- see for example PMID 2357538. Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I found the page in question online but it has a cat with surgical transection of the brain stem and electrical stimulation causes walking apparently due to spinal reflexes. However it lists several scientists as doing an original 1911 experiment and a Russian/Swedish team as doing a followup, with no apparent mention of Lettvin. Thus it was not quite a "headless cat" and Lettvin does not appear to be involved, but i would still appreciate confirmation that he is not referenced anywhere else in the book cited, before removing mention of the cat studies from his bio article. Would a human with a severed spinal cord be able to walk on a moving treadmill, or would carefully timed electrical stimulation at the spine suffice? Or would electrodes have to be on the limbs which were to move? Edison (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Paralyzed humans don't walk reflexively in the way cats and some other quadrupeds do. It's pretty clear that eliciting walking with spinal cord stimulation is feasible in principle, but the technology isn't yet mature enough for use with humans -- PMID 24549394 is the closest thing I know about. I'd be surprised if devices to do that don't exist 10 years from now. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it extremely likely that VR headsets used for gaming will cause serious eye problems for the users?

I can't imagine that the human eye will be looking near, further, farthest and moving around as much as it should when the user is basically just watching TV screens that are too close to their face. I'm thinking we'll have a lot of people with lazy eyes pretty soon. And that's the least bad thing that could happen IMO. I'm also thinking that moving your head to look around will be damaging to the eyes. I think that you can't fool the eyes and all of the false data they will get from the game will cause the eyes to change to adapt to that environment, and when you remove the headset and go back to the real world your eyes will be altered just a bit after each use until you have a serious problem. Just a couple hours of that thing per day would be changing your eyes to adapt to that environment and get used to looking at those screens. So won't this cause permanent damage over time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8051:4D60:918B:EBE3:685C:C84C (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, most of those things are wrong. For example, the headsets will contain lenses that alter the focal plane, so as far as the eyes are concerned the object viewed can appear to be an arbitrary distance away. And how in the world can moving your head to look at things be damaging to the eyes, when all of us do that constantly all through the day? Anyway, there's a reasonable chance that early versions will cause eye-strain if used too long at a time -- but reading books or staring at a computer monitor can also cause eye strain. Looie496 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think what he was getting at was if the image is always straight ahead of the eyes, then you won't move your eyes around much, and your vision might suffer. Presumably the VR device the OP has in mind would pan or tilt the image displayed straight ahead of the eyes, based on head movements. I think Google Glass might work like this, for example, although there you an also see the real world, too. In any case, wearing VR goggles all day long probably would cause vision problems, but, as you've noted, so do current technologies. However, current technologies don't completely block out the real world, so your eyes do get some eye exercise when you look at your coffee cup, keyboard, etc. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Detleff Neumann-Neurode

Why is the article about Detleff Neuman-Neurode still in question ??? Why does it say in the beginning: NEEDS ADDITIONAL CITATION FOR VERIFICATION ??? Dr.Reinhard Ganz wrote his dissertation about D. N-N. and Mrs. Dehn opened a D. N-N Clinic in London, England. What more verification is needed??? I am D.Neumann-Neurode's granddaughter and wrote my memoirs about my childhood which I have spent at my grandparents home with my two sisters and my mother. (Title of the book: ONE LIFE MANY CHAPTERS) I am Margrit von Kleist. Please remove the note at the beginning of my grandfather's article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.181.93 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:Detleff Neumann-Neurode, but anyway: The problem is not that anyone doubts your grandfather's existence (though Misplaced Pages has had some remarkable hoaxes over the years), but that the typical reader has no idea where most of the information in the article came from – and thus of its reliability. —Tamfang (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)