Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 September 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 29 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> October 1 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents


[edit] Singing parrots?

Is the budgerigar the only member of the parrot family that (to human ears) can be described as having a 'song'? All other parrot species I've ever encountered tend to either 'tweet', 'screech' or 'squawk' - nothing melodic there at all. Anyone know of any other 'singing parrots'? --Kurt Shaped Box 00:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The genus name Melopsittacus, or "singing parrot" (melo- as in "melody"), suggests that this is indeed something particular to budgies.  --LambiamTalk 01:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Answering my own question here - but now I come to think of it, I seem to remember reading that the lineolated parakeet has quite a melodic song too. Quite strange little birds, they are - they rarely fly (preferring to walk, climb and swing), hang upside down from their perches like a bat when sleeping and have been described as the 'most even-tempered of all parrots'. Been thiking of getting a linnie for a while now. --Kurt Shaped Box 02:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess it also depends on what you call a song. I personally feel the kakapo's sound is melodic enough [1] to be called a song but some people might not agree... Nil Einne 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The basic rule is, the smaller the bird, the greater need to sing to indicate its presence. I can't think of anything bigger than a currawong that could be said to have a song. A few ground dwelling tropical birds possibly, but not parrots. Still, they're good mimics, so you could teach them.--Shantavira 06:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Parrots tend to pick up swear words when around me. I used to have an african grey parrot that would loudly exclaim "OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!" and "JESUS H. FUCK!" (my catch-all curses for when something goes wrong and I'm letting off steam in private). He was full of expletives when I got him too - my parrot would call me a cunt just about every day... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 10:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've heard Amazon parrots sing -- but they were mimicking human songs. And very off-key, I might add. Has anyone heard a parrot mimick a song with good pitch? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ooh. That sounds quite nice. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
But humming birds don't sing. They hum, which can get annoying after some time. Shoo shoo, little bird.  --LambiamTalk 10:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Completely untrue that parrots cannot sing. I was in a petshop where a very clever parrot was a longtime resident. The lights went off due to a momentary power failure, and the bird sang "Rockabye baby, in the treetop" all the way through. No shit. I expect someone had trained him to do it, but it was quite understandable and tuneful. So this myth is BUSTED.Edison 17:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
But that's not "singing" as in birdsong; that's mimicking humans. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It did answer my question about parrots mimicking song in tune, though. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STAFFING A POLITICAL LEADERS OFFICE

I am forming a new Political Party in my country.

Please advise me of the staff I will need to run my political officeie Personal Assisstant, Researchers, Press Secretary.

The basic responsibilities of the functions will be greatly appreciated

Regards.

I suggest you try the humanities section instead. But bear in mind the kind of question your asking is extremely complicated and I suggest you do a large amount of research before you ask for help. It will also likely vary a lot depending on the laws and political system of your country so I would also recommend you let people know where you from. Personally, I would suggest you get involved in another political party first. The experience you gain will likely be more valuable then all the time you spend researching. Choose one that is most compatible with your values and beliefs. Oh and finally, please don't use all caps, even for the subject line. 03:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
for personal assistant i recommend Monica Lewinsky; for researcher i recommend Al Gore, and for press secretary you can't go past Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Xcomradex 03:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You will need an Instructions Interpreter: someone who can interpret simple instructions to you, such as the one at the top of the page that states: Sign your question. Then you will need a Science Adviser: someone who can explain to you that this question does not belong on a Science reference desk. Further an official Party Historian to document the glorious deeds of the Leader, a Tax Consultant to make sure the money you honestly deserve as a Leader is not greedily taken away, and a Lawyer for explaining why the Tax Consultant's constructions are legal. Then a Ghost Writer for writing your rousing speeches, answering your fan mail, and penning down your autobiography, and ... you're all set! Simple, isn't it? Congratulations on your new career.  --LambiamTalk 14:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farrukh (nursing and heart transplants)

[edit] Answered

When was the nursing system start? when was the first heart trasnplant?

For nursing, while there have always been "assistants" during various medical endeavors, I would say one of the first modern nurses, concerned with maintaining hygiene in the operating room, was Florence Nightingale. (However, the very first nurses, if you include midwives, may even predate modern humans.) StuRat 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The first heart transplant was performed on December 3, 1967 (South African surgeon Christiaan Barnard conducted the first heart transplant on 53-year-old Louis Washkansky). StuRat 04:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical power

For an educational book on water conservation that I am helping to produce, I have stated that a desalination plant of a particular size will use approximately 25MW/day of electricity. I want to compare this to something meaningful. The booklet is for high school students in south-east Queensland, so something like, "This is comparable to powering the city of ______ [place in Queensland or Australia] for one day" or "powering a town of ______ homes for one day" would be a helpful comparison. BenC7 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, since a megawatt is a unit of power not energy, I would drop the '/day' and say it uses 25 MW continuously. If you think of electric 1kW fires this is equivalent to 25,000 of them running together.--Light current 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As Light current mentions, definitely recheck your power statistic, since a watt is one joule per second, it itself is a rate of energy use; 25 MW/d (or 25 000 000 joules / sec / day) would be a rate of increase (or decrease) of energy use (~acceleration)
One needs to be careful here; as the editors above have noted, the units provided aren't aren't meaningful, and you'll have to go back to check your original references to determine what they should be. The rate of power consumption may be a flat 25 MW, or it may have been meant to be 25 MW·h/day. (Energy usage is often measured in watt-hours and its multiples.)
Once you've got the units figured out, I'll note that this site gives the average quarterly household electricity consumption as 1625 kWh per quarter (6500 kWh per year, or a shade less than 18 kWh per day). That, in turn, would be a continuous average power draw per household of about 750 watts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've double-checked and it appears to be 25MW, not 25MW/d. Given the figure from TenOfAllTrades above (750W per household, on average), I calculate that it would be the equivalent of powering over 33,000 homes! BenC7 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And to make this really meaningfull, you'd then have to add in info on how may households can be serviced by that water plant and, consequently, how big a part of a household's power consumption would be for water production if this was all done with desalination. But why use households? Why not doing it per person? Something like "providing the water for one person through desalination would cost the equivalent amount of power of so many 50W light bulbs" (constantly on, of course). Of course, that's just the production, not the transportation and different production methods will have differnt locations and transportation costs. Also, are you talking about people in the US, Europe or where? The water consumption will be roughly similar, but the power consumption will differ greatly. DirkvdM 07:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Australia. But I think what I have is sufficient for comparitive purposes. BenC7 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] illness

I have heared about this neurological illness in which some of the cappilaries of a persons brain stop working thus making his/her brain weak. Can any one please tell me the Name of that illness.

Stroke -- Mattopaedia 07:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Mattopaedia hit the nail, but your questions sounds a bit that you were not imagining a sudden event but rather a chronic problem. So, also have a look at vascular dementia to see whether this is what you mean. Simon A. 08:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
vascular dementia used to be called multi-infarct dementia, reason being, multple small cerebral infarcts over time knock off the grey matter and tend to preserve the long tracts, whereas, what we typically consider to be a stroke is really an infract on a larger scale, long enough to cause long tract signs, plus or minus cognitive impairment. You could also have a look at transient ischaemic attack. A TIA is a cerebrovascular occlusive event like stroke, or vascular dementia, but it doesn't last long enoght to infarct brain. Mattopaedia 06:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Atherosclerosis (in the arteriolosclerosis form) also comes to mind. It is perhaps the most gradual phenomenon outlined here.--Ramdrake 15:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutritionist

[edit] Answered

Any resources for learning a lot about properties of different kinds of food? Thanks.

Try this site for it's food search capability (upper right corner): [2]. StuRat 11:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

You're quite welcome. StuRat 23:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Turbulence

If aircrafts produce turbulence, then how do fighter planes fly in formation?

All of the turbulance created by a plane occurs behind it, just like the wake of a boat (this is not technically true, but it is sufficient to think that for the purposes of this explanation). The faster the plane moves, the smaller the cone of turbulance behind it. As long as the planes aren't flying single file (which I doubt you'll ever see anyone try, though don't quote me on that), they won't affect each other's heading.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Check out the article on Wake turbulence, and here's an external site with additional pictures: [Tip Vortices]. 192.168.1.1 9:16, 30 September 2006 (my Birthday!) (PST)
Also, if they fly in v-shaped formation or diagonal formation, the turbulence is much less because the tip vortices of the neighboring wings get cancelled, and the planes act like one larger wing. At low speeds, if speed and aircraft mass it constant, then the larger the wing, the less fuel is needed. That's why migrating geese fly in V-formation. --Wjbeaty 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A variation here, would be Aerotow launch method in gliding, in which an unpowered glider is towed, via a cable, behind a powered light aircraft known as a tug. During the tow, it is risky for he glider pilot to fly directly behind the tug - the disturbed air of its wake can lead to a loss of control. Instead they take a position just above or below the wake. However they must also avoid getting too far above or below the wake, otherwise the cable can start to pull the tailplane of the tug upwards or downwards, forcing the tug into an unplanned dive or climb. -- Solipsist 13:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry Help

Hey guys! Our chemistry teacher gave us a scare by announcing that there is going to be a problem-solving test in Stoichiometry and Gaseous State chapters. He also said that it contains some very tough problems....not exactly tough but very logical...heard that my friends from other batch were not able to solve more than 3-4 questions out of a total of 25! Even though i am pretty confident on Stoichiometry, and since we are preparing for IIT-JEE, the questions are bound to be surprising. So, could you please tell me some really good sites that contains some tough questions WITH answers and also some suggestions for problem-solving. Thanks! (PS: This is my chance to impress my teacher :) )

`Milind

Here's a site for you. [3]. There are a couple of links to quizzes and such, with answers. If you want a hand with something specific, I'm sure people here would be happy to help you. BenC7 01:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble Identifying Cactus

Unknown cactus
Unknown cactus

Hello. I was wondering if any of you botanists out there could tell me what Cactus this picture is portraying? I think it is quite encyclopedic and would add it to the appropriate article, but I don't know which cactus it is in the first place. So far, I think it might be a very large type of Houseleek or Jovibarba. Thanks in advance. NauticaShades(talk) 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Agave parryi? --Shantavira 15:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's actually not a cactus. Cacti are in the family Cactaceae, while agaves are in Agavaceae. I'm not sure if it is Agave parryi though. The picture could be added to Agavaceae, since that article is lacking in pictures of agaves that show more than the flowers. Gary 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that it looks like A. parryi, probably var. truncata. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A plant can not be identified correctly without viewing its flowers, this could be a euphorbia, an aeonium, or one or many different succulents.Hejlotta 02:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simple AC circuit?

What's the simplest way to use a DC cell to generate AC current? Preferably answers that don't involve "pick up a battery with your hand, and spin it at 3 hZ" or something silly like that--162.84.213.178 14:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Inverter (electrical). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose you could just reverse the setup on a rectifier?--162.84.213.178 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You could use an old type doorbell powered by a cell. THese have a coil and an interrupter contact that will give a square wave voltage across the coil. Or did you want a sinewave?--Light current 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Electricity can be dangerous, and even small currents can cause the heart to stop. Experiments with electricity which might create high voltage should be done only by those trained in the safety precautions for dealing with high voltage. That said, a transformer with a winding in series with the doorbell and the battery will have changing current in that winding. This will produced an alternating current in the other winding, although since the doorbell current is an ugly squarish wave, the output current will be a highly distorted ac wave. The turns ratio will determine how high the induced voltage is, so extreme caution is urged to prevent a dangerous shock from the induced voltage. The turns ratio will determine whether the voltage is stepped up, stepped down, or the same as in the primary (the winding in series with the doorbell). It is hard to predict the peak voltage in the output, since the input will be distorted. The resistance and reactance of the transformer windings and doorbell, as well as the turns ratio will effect the efficiency, output voltage, and output current. An interrupter more efficient than the doorbell would convert dc to pulsating dc more efficiently. Vibrators devices were used in former times to chop the dc of a car's 12 volt electrical system so it could be stepped up to high voltage ac then rectified to provide the plate supply for tube type car radios. A motor generator was another approach: a dc motor powered an ac generator. Utilities used single armature rotary convertors for changine megawatts of dc to ac, ac to dc, dc to higher/lower voltage dc, or ac to ac at a different frequency, or single phase to multiphase ac.Edison 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If you only wanted low power ac, you could make a simple square wave (relaxation oscillator) or sinewave oscillator--Light current 22:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't care about efficiency or noise, an electric motor turning an AC generator is pretty simple, and produces a pure AC sinewave. --Serie 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinetic energy's dissipation in vacuum

In true vacuum - with one object in a space where there are no atoms (perhaps neutrinos or something going about, but that's it) - will any kinetic energy be lost? Thanks in advance, again. 81.93.102.3 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No. After all, according to Newtons first law, an object that feels no force will keep its velocity. And without background matter to cause friction, the object has no force acting upon it, so it won't change. Actually, according to the principle of relativity, it would not even be clear what losing kinetic energy meant. As kinetic energy is defined by relating to a velocity, we need a frame of reference relative to wich the velocity is measured. In case of braking due to friction, this is the inertial frame in which the background gas is at rest. Simon A. 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem not unless the opbject were to encounter some curved space. This would act like a hill or valley in 3d space thus adding to or subtracting from the KE of the object. But this is unlikely, since you specify a true vacuum--Light current 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving charge

To give a particle (with non-zero mass) a push, so that it starts to move, takes some energy which turns into kinetic energy. But if the particle is electrically charged, its movement generates a magnetic field (due to Ampère's law) which is also carries some energy. Does it take more energy to move the charged particle because of this, and how can that be explained? Is it a relativistic effect (the particle is moving, albeit slowly, with respect to the pusher)?

I figure this is the same phenomenon that manifests itself as radiation resistance of an antenna. That is, viewed from the feed point, the antenna looks like a resistance (or at least an impedance with a resistive component) even if it is made of a perfectly conducting material. —Bromskloss 21:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a subtle point here is to distinguish between energy of a field which stays with the particle and a energy that is carried away as electromagnetic radiation. Now, the magnetic field due to Ampere's law arises because of the costant-velocity movement. It satys with the particle, and I wonder whether it's energy can be considered as part of the kinetic energy of the particle. After all, if one taps the magnetic field energy, the particle is breaked (see Lenz's law). On the other hand, in order to accelerate (push) the particle, one needs more energy than to push a uncharged particle of the same mass -- precisely because during acceleration, energy is radiated off, as Bromskloss has pointed out. Note, by the way, also, that the magnetic field of the movig particle vanishes in its own frame of reference, as there, it is resting. Hence, special relativity is involved here, because Ampere's law is, in a way, a genuine relativistic effect, probably even the most important one as it is noticable at low speed. Simon A. 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But radiation resistance would be more like friction, since you can't get the radiated energy back again. Electromagnetic mass is odd because it's not associated with the particle, it's associated with the system (i.e. the electrons in a wire would have a different EM Mass if the wire was coiled versus straight, or if the wire was near a chunk of iron.)--Wjbeaty 04:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the article you pointed to. Unfortunately, it's not very elaborate. Any other suggestions of where I could look (I already read the only reference in the article)? I was hoping that a lively discussion would break out here, but that doesn't seem to have happened. —Bromskloss 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a charged particle has kinetic energy and magnetic field energy when moving, and so it takes "more" energy to accelerate it. Moreover, a moving charge carries an additional electric field due to the changing magnetic field (Faraday), and that has energy too. But is it really that mysterious? If we push a perfectly conductive metal box that, unbeknownst to us, contains a free electron, then after a while we expect interactions with the box to have accelerated the electron, and so there's this "extra" energy taken up to generate the field. But from the outside, all that we can see is that we applied so much energy/force and got yea much velocity. If the velocity is smaller (or the energy larger) than we expected, what do we conclude? Merely that the box is more massive than we thought. In other words, the fact that a moving charge has more than mv2 / 2 energy can be treated as a different m: extra inertia that, in this case, is added to the system by the very act of pushing it. This is hardly surprising: all objects gain inertia when you push on them from special-relativistic concerns. Of course, with a charge we have the added concerns of radiation emitted because of the acceleration (which implies that yet more energy is required to get it moving); at this point your best bet is to go read up on such things as electromagnetic mass, radiation reaction, and the electromagnetic self-force, none of which (lamentably) have very useful articles here. Does this help? --Tardis 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steering trams

How do you steer a tram?

I know they go on rails but sometimes the number 3 goes left and the number 5 right at the same place, if you haven't got a fancy pants gps computer points thing (like they didn't have in the 40s, how do you make it go they right way)

Do I get points for answering this one? --Light current 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In St Petersburg, I saw a tram stop at a points, the driver got out, used a rod to change them, got back in, and drove on. When I remarked that I felt sorry for the driver having to get out to do that (this was in early Feb at -15C), the American friend I was with noted that typically even in more technically advanced systems, the driver still gets out to change them in order to ensure they don't get blood clots from sitting down for too long. --Mnemeson 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
They also used have a second set of points, I think called a frog, which is attached to the wires. These force the trolley to travel along the correct path (there's nothing worse than the tram going left and the trolley going right!), but now that pantographs have taken over from trolleys, they don't normally exist anymore. Laïka 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Railroad switch is the article you want. Amazingly, switching seems not to be mentioned in the tram article, and trams are barely mentioned in the railroad switch article. Switches on modern tram systems are usually computer controlled of course.--Shantavira 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Switches for streetcars (trams) are not necessarily exactly the same as those for trains. In a railway switch, the actual moving part -- the point or blade -- must be provided on both sides, because it has to be able to take the weight of the train. But one design of streetcar track has a metal "groove" attached to the rail on one side, that the wheel flange runs in. At a switch, the groove can be made heavy so that it can take the weight of the streetcar. This allows the rail itself to be interrupted and the wheels will run on their flanges instead of the normal running surface. This in turn allows the switch to have just one point (the moving part), so that only the wheels on one side are actually steered; the other ones just follow along. That's what the Toronto streetcar system uses.
In Toronto, many switches that aren't used in normal operation -- for example, at turnback loops provided in case the service is disturbed -- are manual, as described above for Russia. The rod is called a "switch iron" and is used as a lever to push the point directly into the other position. In some cases the switch is "self-restoring", which means that when the car has passed it, it triggers a sensor that activates a one-way motor that returns the switch to the normal position. Other switches are fully manual.
Switches that are regularly used, as in the example in the question, have motors that move the point in either direction. In Toronto this is not controlled by computer as suggested above, but by a button which the driver presses when approaching the switch to go one way, or does not press to go the other way. Formerly this used a special connection through the trolley pole (separate from the power connection) that operated a sensor on the overhead wire; now it uses some sort of coded radio signal.
The older way of controlling a motorized switch also involved a sensor on the overhead wire, but one that detected whether the streetcar was drawing power or not. To go one way the driver would coast past the sensor, the other way he would step on the power. It could be hard to do the right thing if there was traffic around, so the system described in the previous paragraph was adopted instead. It is called "necessary action" (NA) because it is necessary for the driver to operate the control button, in contrast to the power-sensing system where the switch could be operated accidentally.
--Anonymous, 09:00 UTC, October 8, 2006

[edit] How much sleep

I usually sleep for 9-10 hours and then wake up on my own (i.e. without alarm clocks), but I'm usually unable to get out of bed for another 2 hours or so, unless I really have to get up. Anyway, I was wondering if, the time I sleep before I wake up on my own, is that the amount of sleep I personally need (as requirements differ from person to person), or is my excessive tiredness following my waking up indicating that I should sleep longer? Jack Daw 22:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My experience is that the more I sleep the more tired (and sick) I become. The more I excercise, the more awake I am. --Kainaw (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
They were saying on QI that 4-7 hours sleep is best; those who slept longer had a short life expectancy. However, always remember with this sort of data that correlation DOES NOT imply causation; maybe people who sleep longer tend to be the people who exercise less, for example. Laïka 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know how old you are, but I heard (at least 15 years ago), that adults need around 8 hours of sleep. Personally, when I stay in too long, I tend to stretch it out longer and stay tired for the rest of the day. With the comments so far, it may pay to get an alarm clock and try to cut down an hour or two. - Mgm|(talk) 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If you sleep more than you need to, its bad for you!--Light current 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Not being able to get out of bed after you wake up sounds strange to me. You might want to mention this to your doctor. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I always feel/felt like that. Its not unusual-- is it ?--Light current 00:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have researched sleep a little and found that we don't really have any clue about recommended hours of sleep per night. You really need to sleep however you want, your body will tell you. Taking it easy getting out of bed is normal, as far as I know, the majority of people do it if they don't have an appointment, or don't like to wake up extra early. I do it so that I can fall in and out of sleep frequently to increase my memorable lucid dream count. Everytime I get out of bed without the two buffer hours I am lethargic for half and hour or so unless I do physical activity to wake myself up. If you are a marathon runner you might want and need to sleep a bit more than if you are a computer programmer, so that needs to be taken into consideration too. I casually only do four or six hours of sleep per night because I have finally gotten sedentary (woo hoo!). Back to requirements, what is interesting, is that the more segments you break your sleep up into, the less sleep you actually need to stay cognitively functional—polyphasic sleep is more efficient than monophasic. As a disclaimer, long term health effects are unknown, and uncharted. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)08:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Mac Davis, it seems that we don't have much actual scientific evidence about recommended hours of sleep. I hate it when people show hypothesis as if they were theories. I have never been able to sleep more than eight continuous hours a night, but anyway, I feel much better now that I sleep 6 hours or less per night and take some power naps. Probably it also depends on the person. --GTubio 09:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valium + caffeine: Why does it make me feel like Jesus' son?

Prescribed valium, 5mg every four hours. It makes me feel dopey, so I've started drinking loads of very strong coffee to keep me awake. For some reason, this combination makes me feel supercharged - euphoric, happy, like I could do anything that I put my mind to, like all's right with with the world, like I love everyone I talk to. Not tired/sick at all - just, well *great*.

Anyone know what's going on here? --84.66.184.76 23:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your doctor probably could tell you. I recommend contacting him or her as soon as possible. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
How does Jesus's sun feel? I hope that stuff doesn't make you feel nonexistant. Or worse, debatably nonexistant. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a Velvet Underground lyric. My unprofessional opinion is that if you feel weird it's because you're full of drugs - don't drink so much coffee and tell your doctor you think the dose is making you dopey. Rentwa 12:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice feeling. --Proficient 02:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I Am Not A Doctor, and this is not medical advice, but, essentially, Diazepam (Valium) is a sedative and anti-anxiety medication (amongst other effects like relaxing muscles), and caffiene is a stimulant. Put those two effects together and you've got, well, a combination of effects not unlike what you describe.
I once read a book by a former GP in which he explained that the original 'Mother's Little Helpers' used to treat people who were 'down' were actually a combination of benzodiazepine and amphetamine. The benzos relax/calm you, the speed peps you up and allows you to go about your business without feeling doped - I guess that lots and lots of coffee might have a similar effect (limitless energy and no worries). Supposedly works really well for a time - until some sort of 'brick wall' is hit by the patient. Anyone able to elaborate on this further? It's literally been years since I read about it... --Kurt Shaped Box 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Like Rentwa said, self-medication is a bad idea, and if the side effects of your medication are bothering you, consult your doctor. --Robert Merkel 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Caffiene is also a seritonin stimulator.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_archive_Science_2006_September_30_0dcf.html"