Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 June 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

< June 1 Science desk archive June 3 >


Contents

[edit] Levitation

Consider the following system:

      _
     | :    X
     | |
     | |
     | |
____ o o ____

The ":" is an electromagnet (solenoid), and the "o o" is a DC power source, which is at or near ground level. The vertical lines are wires. X is a charged object with non-negligible mass which is travelling either into or out of the screen (it doesn't matter which). My theory is that X will travel in a helical path. Is this correct? If I am right, how can the system be altered so that the path is elliptic (or circular) and stable?

I welcome any suggestions. --72.140.146.246 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't make it stable. See Earnshaw's theorem. —Keenan Pepper 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually Earnshaw's theorem only applies to stationary configurations. If you applied an electric field as well you could make something like a Penning trap.
Can you elaborate on "applied an electric field"? Like, where do you apply it and what generates it? And I could settle with almost stable, provided that it seems stable over long time periods. But stable would be preferable. --72.140.146.246 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A pair of charged plates (basically, an open-air capacitor) should work. --Serie 18:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Which would be placed where in my diagram? --72.140.146.246 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought about my previous question, and came up with the answer (the plates would be placed above and below the particle at X), but it leads me to another question. If there are two charged plates (+'s and -'s in diagram), does the particle have to be placed strictly between these plates, or could it be shifted arbitrarily along the line parallel to the plates and still work? Here is a diagrammatic representation of this (+'s and -'s are the plates):
                  +++++++

                     X                     Y

                  -------
Obviously the particle won't move up or down at X, given an appropriate potential difference between the plates, but does the same hold true if it's at Y, or do things get significantly more complicated?--72.140.146.246 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I checked out the Penning trap. It does sound like what I want, but I'm not sure I understood the diagram. Can you help me, please? --72.140.146.246 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some complex ions questions

I'm trying to make some Cu(H2O)62+, how can I make it with some common copper salts or copper metal?

Incidentally, does anyone know the colours of the Al(OH)2+ and Al(OH)4- ions? And I believe I can make some Al(OH)3 by 3NH4OH + Al -> Al(OH)3 + 3NH4+, am I correct?

-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To make Cu(H2O)62+, just get a copper(II) salt whose anion is a weak Lewis base, like copper(II) sulfate, and dissolve it in water. The bright blue color is from Cu(H2O)62+. Other copper(II) solutions have different colors, for example copper(II) chloride is green because the blue Cu(H2O)62+ is mixed with the yellow Cu(Cl)42−.
I don't think you can make aluminum hydroxide with aluminum metal and ammonia. You need to start with a salt of aluminum. If you want to start from aluminum metal, first oxidize it with a strong acid. —Keenan Pepper 03:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that's the reason I'm making these... to show colors using the crystal field theory etc. ;) And yeah it should have been Al3+, not a metal... -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think most aluminum complexes are colorless because aluminum isn't a transition metal, but I'm not sure. Make some and see! —Keenan Pepper 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Most aluminium complexes are colorless, correct. That doesn't necessarily follow from Al not being a transition metal though. --BluePlatypus 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aluminium metal is resistant to attack by most strong acids except HCl. It will, however, disslove very nicely in sodium hydroxide solution, giving the colourless aluminate ion directly. To make the aluminate ion from an aluminium salt in solution, add sodium hydroxide solution until it is present in excess. All aluminium compounds are white (solid) and colourless (solution) because there are no energy levels close enough to absorb photons of visible light. Copper metal will dissolve in a couple of acids - concentrated sulphuric acid and nitric acid - but in all cases the gases given off are not ones you would want to breathe!--88.106.173.138 08:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer repair questions

I have 4 questions for my Computer Repair class which I need help with. The teacher instructed the class to use the internet in any way possible to get answers to these questions, so any help you can give is much appreciated.

1. What program can you use to secure Windows 98 to a forced logon?

2. What operating system should I load first if I want to dual boot between 98, XP, ME and DOS?

3. In XP, for security, besides a password, what is one thing you can do so a user cannot see your file?

4. What are commands to make .pfx and .cer files?

Thanks.

Pckeffer

Using the Internet, scroll up to the very top of this page and read where it says "Do your own homework." --Ginkgo100 03:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
In order: (1) Microsoft TweakUI (I think), (2) DOS is not really an installable operating system. Beyond that, I suggest you install them in the order they came out in - 98, ME, and XP. (3) I believe XP supports primitive access permissions that allow one user to prevent others from seeing his files, and (4) No idea. Raul654 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to prevent misinformation, Dos is most certainly an installable operating system (it wouldn't be called an operating system if it weren't). Aside from that, DYOH and search search search.
I agree, though it works perfectly if you just copy the files instead of using the real installer disks. – b_jonas 11:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
To multi-boot between that set? I'd install each on its own partition, then use Linux to install LILO as a boot manager. --Serie 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. Pckeffer

[edit] Long-distance Music Sharing

Let's just say the person I want to share music with is family, because that way it sounds legal. I wanted to send a fairly large amoung (up to maybe 15 gigs) of music to someone in Phili. What's the best and cheapest way to do this. There is no way i'm uploading all of this to an ftp or anything, bc that takes forever. DVDs? How much could a dvd store if I zipped the stuff i wanted to send? What zipping program reduces size the most? Does zipping really reduce size all that much at all? I'm almost debating sending an ipod and hoping it doesn't get lost along the way and back, but that'd be a bit too risky. Any ideas? Thanks

A standard DVD-R holds about 4.7 gigabytes, and a dual-layer DVD-r holds about 8.5. Two dual-layer DVD's will comfortably fit your data.
If the music is already stored as MP3, WMA, AAC, or another lossy audio compression format, you can't further compress it, it's already compressed. If you're storing your audio uncompressed, you can either convert to a lossy format (with some small loss in audio quality), which will without doubt get your music onto a single DVD, or use a lossless audio compression tool like FLAC to squish your music down by about 30-50%.
But frankly, two to four DVD's doesn't sound too bad to me. --Robert Merkel 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the best option would be to send it online. Sending files through AIM goes pretty fast. Sure, with 15 gigs, it will still take "forever," but then again, putting it all on DVDs and shipping them to Philly takes a few days. And simply writing two to four DVDs takes a long time as well. At 100 kB/s (of course, it all depends on both of your internet connections - can you get that speed?), 15 gigs takes one and a half or two days. Just let it run in the background through the night. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kidney

I think my kidney hurts. Every once in a while I feel a dull pulsing sensation in my lower back region. Its not a back pain, cause I can feel it within my body. So thats what lead me to believe its a kidney. I know this sounds vague. Could it be because I dont drink enough water? Is it a symptom of an STD? Help, I'm uninsured!!!

I'm sorry, but there's no way we can diagnose your symptoms on the basis of a brief description on the internet. According to our article on water, what matters is your total water intake from all sources (including food and other drinks), not where it comes from, and the belief that you "need to drink eight glasses of water" to remain healthy is a myth.
Beyond that, if this pain persists and bothers you, there really is no alternative to seeing a doctor to get a proper diagnosis. --Robert Merkel 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk to a doctor Man! We can't really help you here. He will probably ask for urine analysis so prepare one before hand. Or at least go to a urinologist with your sample. Kidney sicknesses will be revealed in the urine. --Jondel 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you don't have a high enough water intake (through whatever means available) it could very well have an effect on your health. Drink more (or eat more juicy fruit) and go see a doctor. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Not drinking enough water does not cause pain in the kidneys. Occasional lower back or flank pain not associated with urination does not usually signal kidney disease in a young person. IAAD but there are way too many possible causes to try to diagnose you here. If you are in a city go to a local charity clinic and get a better answer. alteripse 11:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding drinking water -- yes, "drink X amount of water a day" is something of a myth, but if you're prone to kidney stones (which have as a symptom a dull back ache), you really want to be getting a lot of water into yourself; I've read somewhere that drinking enough water so that you pee a half gallon a day reduces the chances of kidney stones by 90%. That's a lot of pee; my mantra (after an unpleasant series of stones) is "If my pee is yellow, I'm not drinking enough water; if I don't have to pee, I'm not drinking enough water." Certainly, go to a doctor if you have unexplainable back pain -- but if it's kidney stones, it will be excruciating (I've heard it described as the closest a man will ever know what it's like to give birth.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What state are you from? Can you afford a trip to Canada? If so, get over here quickly, request "landed immigrant" status, get a government medical insurance card and go to any hospital. The treatment would be absolutely free. If the problem is urgent, the triage nurse will get you treatment IMMEDIATELY, with ZERO waiting time. However, just to warn you, after you've taken care of your urgent medical needs, should you desire some cosmetic surgery or lyposuction, you may have to wait a few months, I know...it sucks to wait for such things, but that's what you have to live with in a country with an "inferior" medical system. Loomis51 06:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That may not work. Ontario, and many (maybe all?) other provinces require a three-month waiting period for Medicare coverage. moink 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. You may actually have to wait a whole three months to be elligible. (Although I can't possibly picture a Canadian hospital turning you away just because you don't have a medicare card). In any case, it kind of makes sense, after all, you're American and haven't been paying taxes here, so it would be kind of unfair to the rest of us to provide costly medical care free of charge to a non-Canadian. Still, if it's that much of a concern, the three month wait may be worth it. Loomis51 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moon

from the days childhood,we know that moon does nt hv its own light.my question is hw does moon takes up the light from sun.i ws wondering first abt kirchoff's law,that first it absorbs light n then emits it,bt actually absorption happens at lower temprature n emission happens at higher..so got nowhere..so plz guide me..

Um, the light from the moon is reflected. --Robert Merkel 05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The visibility of the Moon has nothing to do with Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation. The moon simply scatters the Sun's light like any other opaque object. —Keenan Pepper 05:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Scattering, diffuse reflection, same thing. —Keenan Pepper 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

T lt fr t sn is rflctd. T mn has a lw lbdo bt nuf 4 rflxn 2 gv a strong lt on rf. Grutness...wha? 11:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The moon has a small libido? ;-) Arbitrary username 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, have you ever seen the moon showing any interest in sex? The man in the moon seems to smile a lot, maybe he just "likes to watch", like Chauncey Gardiner. JackofOz 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
My question is: Why is it that so many questioners (who are obviously native English speakers) don't seem to have the patience or the ability, or most likely, the common courtesy to take a couple of minutes out of their oh-so-busy schedule to form complete sentences? (Yes, I'm afraid that includes the vowels too.) Would it kill you to type "not have" rather than "nt hv"? I've really had it with this sort of thing. I strongly urge my fellow RD regulars to refuse to answer questions when they are asked in such a careless, rude, ungrateful and discourteous manner. Loomis51 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
libido = albedo --Abdull 09:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, perhaps he or she was posting from a cell phone? Ardric47 21:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epinephrine/Adrenaline

Hello, I browsed my way into this wonderful site! Thank you! I am quite confused by all the talk re: epinephrine/adrenaline and what to call it in which country, etc...Can someone please respond, (if possible, Keep It Simple Sweetie), as to whether what I learned as fact is perhaps false? Number One: I thought adrenaline was a naturally-occurring hormone released by the adrenal gland, giving one the "fight/flight" feeling, or perhaps anxiety/panic attacks, etc. Number Two: I thought epinephrine was a man/lab produced sort of "synthetic" chemical-ized version of what occurs via the adrenal gland; hence all the medical products that utilize epinephrine for assorted desired results. Also, if you have patience, the reason I am asking those two questions: I would like to teach myself how to perform research using Wiki (I aspire to write great things!). I am "investigating" (1) whether the human body is able to produce the naturally-occurring adrenal-gland-fueled "adrenaline" for a prolonged, continual period (not in a situational need for the hormone, but rather a steady "drip," if you will; (2) what is a prolonged, continual period; (3) what physiological effects of adrenaline coursing through the body over a long-term might a body experience; (4) whether such long-term or excessive adrenaline production could lead to symptoms of or actual illnesses or disorders; and, finally! (5) what might those symptoms, illnesses or disorders be? You were so kind to read this; go ahead, then, answer, or poke fun, or ask why I want to know such inane things; I'm new and trying to see how this works so I hope I have not irritated anyone by my verbosity and lack of chemistry terms....thanks.

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. If you haven't already done so, check out the article on Epinephrine. — TheKMantalk 06:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Epinephrine and adrenaline are different names for the same chemical (see Merriam-Webster]), for instance. My personal observation is that epinephrine tends to be used in medical settings in the US, whereas adrenaline is used in lay settings; as I understand it adrenaline is the preferred medical term in the UK. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think adrenaline is used globally outside the US (at least in english speaking countries) Rockpocket 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In US medical contexts the two terms are used completely interchangeably. I cannot recall ever hearing anyone advocate any distinction in usage. For language wonks, the roots of the two words are identical: ad+renal=on the kidney in latin; epi+nephr=on the kidney in greek. alteripse 11:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pheochromocytoma is a tumor which produces excess catecholamines. --193.172.33.211 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so this is a help desk, but you have maybe unwittingly undertaken a major task - the discoveries that started with looking into adrenaline's action changed the face of all of physiology as we know it. I'll give basic answers, some of which repeat what has been said above, so you can go search for reasons, and come back when stuck, or when you find that you do not agree with our simplifications. As above: adrenaline = epinephrine; you can also search for the term "catecholamine", a name for a more general class of similar substances. Countries where the word epinephrine is (medical literature-wise) preferred are the USA and Japan. In all other English speaking countries adrenaline is the medically used term - specifically and very importantly for labelling the substance for injection. As to man-made-ness the substance was synthesised in 1904, the name has nothing to do with whether it is made in the body or in a lab. The difference is only in the name for the chemical substance itself - note alteripse's etymology. In contrast, it's effects are always described as "adren"-ergic, not "epinephrin"-ergic. The layman's term all over the world is adrenaline. Your research questions 1.) yes 2.) lifetime 3.) look for "adrenaline physiology", look for "alpha effects" "and "beta effects" 4.) longterm keeps you normal, excessive is bad 5.) refer to 3. - see what it does to the heart and circulation, digestive system, breathing, nervous system, immune system, endocrine system, metabolism of fats, sugars, proteins - then exaggerate these and see if you come up with accurate guesses. If you look up the suggested reference to pheochromocytoma, you will see dramatic examples of some of these harmful effects. Note: A critical piece of info which you may initially miss and may cause initial confusion: The only source of adrenaline is the adrenal gland. There is an almost identical substance called nor-adrenaline (or nor-epinephrine. It does not have a methyl group attached to the nitrogen atom)) which is produced by the nervous system, and it is this second one which does most of the "sudden rush" work which you mention - for this you can also look at what it's "alpha" and "beta" effects are, and where and when it is produced. Lastly, do not think of your question as inane, they are indications of an active interest and questioning nature; add to that the willingness to look for answers and you have science as we know it (otherwise we'd be answering questions at the witchcraft help desk). --Seejyb 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simulation of Outer Space

1) Has Zero pressure- Vacuum been simulated and experimented with human biology? (uhh is this cruelty? I hope not) and
2) Are there any documented deaths, injuries related to vacuum/zero space(on earth or outer space)? This question is in relation to possible outer space occurence/injury. Does like your eyes or veins popout? --Jondel 07:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is information (and a link) at the Human adaptation to space article on an accidental human exposure to a vacuum: ""The subject later reported that ... his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil."! Rockpocket 08:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks. --Jondel 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also some info on Vacuum#Effects on humans and animals. Not sure why that and the Human Adaptation article aren't cross-linked to each other... DMacks 16:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There are certainly minor injuries which are known due to application of a partial vacuum to small regions of skin. Chuck 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockets

1) What are the handy fuels that can be used in a home made rockets. 2) How to identify fuels.

Not sure about (1), but as far as (2) is concerned, I dont think you'd use a How to identify them. Mind you, Jack Hargreaves and co were all clever people, so maybe they could have helped you. I don't think they had any rules about doing your own homework like we do here... Grutness...wha? 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
For one, it can be a lot of things. Google it. MIxes with black powder particularly. — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
1) Air and water work pretty well, are freely available, and a good deal safer than most combustible fuels. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
In fairness, neither the air not the water are a fuel in a water rocket. The energy comes from whatever compressed the air in the rocket. Chuck 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi experimentation

Did any hard scientific results come of the Nazi medical experiments conducted in the 40s? Is any modern knowledge, medicine or technique predicated on the 'research' they carried out? FreeMorpheme 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a common question, and it should be in the article really (Nazi human experimentation). Have a look at Talk:Nazi human experimentation#Results and Talk:Nazi human experimentation#Results, again. In general, it seems the answer is "not really". Sum0 12:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I checked the article, but not the talk page. It should go in the article to stop people incessantly asking! FreeMorpheme 12:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Go for it :-) Arbitrary username 13:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart from human research we have Nazi Moon base here ; Ersatz ; Hitlers Bombe ... (try searching Nazi research or Nazi science here). --DLL 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Those aren't "medical experiments". If we were just listing Nazi technological achievements (of which Hitlers Bombe wasn't), the V-2 would be pretty high on the list. --Fastfission 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There was a good review of a recent book on the Nazi experimentation a few weeks ago on H-Net which is available here. According to the reviewer, a lot of the experimental data crept back into mainstream studies years later without acknowledging the source. Look at the last three paragraphs in particular. --Fastfission 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Materal safety data sheet

How to use MSDS fo designing

[edit] single phase pole mounted transformer

Is single phase pole mounted transformer is an auto transformer? And how is it connected? (the primary and secondary). im confused because only one high tension wire goes to the bushing. thanks

I really liked the article on transformer. It's a bit too detailed for me, but perhaps you're smart enough to understand it. --Zeizmic 12:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you'll ever see my answer, but the ground for this transformer is the neutral wire (the one that goes to the buildings). It's also grounded to earth with a wire down the pole. 71.199.123.24 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] men nipples

my question is , female needs nipples to feed there babies, but why men have nipples, any scintific reason?

The nipples are formed in utero before the sex of the child is determined. There should be more info in the Archives. Anand 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
See also: Male lactation. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This has been asked before. Nipples on males are for sexual purposes. There's a direct link between stimulation of the nipples and arousal of the penis. The effect is more pronounced on some males than others, but it's there. JackofOz 00:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Nipples on males are present because females need them, so all mammalian bodies begin development with the capacity to develop them, even before sex is determined. Saying males have them "for sexual purposes" is like saying we have fingernails "for eating purposes" because you can peel an orange with them. alteripse 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Saying nipples are present on males because females need them is only half an explanation. Last time I checked, men don't have vaginas or ovaries or uteri, so what's the special deal with nipples? The question is capable of more than one interpretation:(a) "why did male nipples develop in the first place?" and (b) "what are they useful for now that we've got them?". Seems you're focussing on (a) but I'm on (b). Male lactation is not unknown but it's hardly the main use to which male nipples can be put.  :--) JackofOz 04:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, evolution and natural selection. Sometimes, Mother Nature is thrifty. Since women need them and they're developmentally inexpensive and harmless in the male, why not? Recall that both men and women have X chromosomes, while the Y chromosome is unique to human men. So there's no easy and unique place to put a nipples gene in the female human's genome. To prevent men from growing nipples, you'd have to shut down the gene(s) that cause nipple development. You'd need repressors, or promotors and a generally complex system. Comes back to why bother? Total aside: male and female humans share a bunch of hormones as well, such as follicle stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone, and luteinizing hormone. Different roles in each sex, but the same hormone, performing a somewhat analogous function. -- Csari 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insect identification

What kind of flying insect is this? (Scale is mm.)The teeny tiny bubbles are a reaction with "Awesome" (a household cleaning product like Fantastic). ...IMHO (Talk) 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A wasp? alteripse 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Possibly but I don't see the stinger. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Only the female wasps have a stinger (according to our article), but it's not a variety of wasp that I recognize. --Shantavira 15:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops! Didn't read far enought. Do you have a table of characteristics in the form of an Excel spread sheet where the top row contains the list of the characteristics of wasps and the left most column contains a list of their names with the body of the table containing the states which relate the wasps to each characteristic? ...IMHO (Talk) 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks very much like a red ant to me. Compare with this and this. It must be flying ant day. TheMadBaron 16:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks very similar except for exact shape of head. ...IMHO (Talk) 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that it's a fire ant queen. Compare with Image:Fire ant queens 3589.JPG. — TheKMantalk 17:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like that might be it to me - no stinger identical parts, shapes, lengths. Only thing that bothers me is that this one was crawling between me and the keyboard when I spotted it. ...IMHO (Talk) 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does that bother you? TheMadBaron 17:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My keyboard and I are inside with all the windows closed and the AC running. Queens are ready to start building their nest right after swarming and mating right. I lived in an old frame house on pillars and one day I woke up with more fire ants than I could count under the covers. The nest was just under the house directly below the bedroom. I still have scars from the tissue damage. ...IMHO (Talk) 18:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel exhaust

Can the exhaust from a diesel engine kill one if exposed in a confined space for a few hours? Are there any reports of accidental deaths from this? DonSiano 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Much quicker than "a few hours". Exhaust gases contain carbon monoxide, a very effective poison. For a horrible application of this, see Gas van. For accidents how about the six deaths from one generator here.
Just some info in case it's of any relevance: in the gas vans the Nazis deliberately reduced the air intake into the truck's engine to give less complete combustion, so producing vastly more CO than would normally be the case for a diesel engine. Arbitrary username 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, that is a gasoline engine--the exhaust is quite different; accidental deaths are common from gasoline engines. I have yet to see any contemporary account in the media of an accidental death from a diesel engine.DonSiano 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Diesel exhaust contains plenty of carbon monoxide, even if less than with gasoline. (OTOH they have 100x larger particle levels which can give severe lung damage and cancer) But plenty of people have been killed by them. This page lists some accidental deaths attributed to diesel. There's also the 900,000 intentional deaths by diesel engines at Treblinka. --BluePlatypus 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Carbon monoxide is _much_ less in diesel exhaust. I went through all of the accounts, but none of them specifically mentioned a diesel engine. They were from open flames and gas engines. One of the incidents mentions the possibility of diesels being responsible for illness at a school, but nobody died, and its source was not definitively traced to diesel. Still not one verified case!DonSiano 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you want a debate or are you asking a question? The page does in fact list a group of fishermen taken to hospital and treated for CO poisoning from their fishing-boat diesel. And the answer to the original question: Can diesel exhaust kill you in a confined space, is a definite yes. If not by CO poisioning, then by asphyxiation. Diesel doesn't produce any less CO2 than gasoline. --BluePlatypus 06:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that it is almost impossible to die from CO from diesels, because the exhaust is so horrible that you run screaming. Here's a random thing from one CO death investigation: "To minimize generation of CO, trucks should be converted to electric or diesel power. While generating less CO, the stronger odor of diesel exhaust also provides better warning properties than does the odor of gasoline exhaust." --Zeizmic 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universe expansion

If the universe is expanding and therefore presumably the distances between objects then how about the distances between atoms and molecules of which the objects are made? ...IMHO (Talk) 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so... no. VdSV9•♫ 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, interatomic distances are controlled by a minimum in the electrostatic potential. In order for the expansion to affect the distance between atoms, it would have to either A) affect the magnitude of the electromagnetic force, or B) make the affect of gravity/expansion so large that it was competitive with electromagnetic forces. Some people think the latter might happen in the Big Rip scenario. Dragons flight 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying then that only F changes because r changes and not G the gravitaional constant or any of the other forces as the result of expansion? (F=G*((m1*m2)/r^2)) ...IMHO (Talk) 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the point is, that nothing is changing except distances are being spread out by the expansion. So the way the forces work is all the same, so even if an electron is being pulled (very slightly) outward it gets pulled back immediately by the EM force. Interestingly, there are plenty of objects held together by gravity that are also not being pulled apart: even the Milky Way galaxy is in no danger of being pulled apart at the present rate of expansion/acceleration. -- SCZenz 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
To the extent that dark energy can be approximated as a classical force (which is not a very good approximation), it would be one such that F = D*m*r, where m is the mass of the object being pushed, r is the distance between the object and your point of reference, and D is a proportionality factor that may vary over time. So the amount of classical acceleration that would appear to be associated with expansion of the universe would be a = D*r, which is very small compared to everything except for distances which are a substantial fraction of the size of the universe. Again, not a great approximation, though. Dragons flight 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? I would've expected that to be a very good approximation for less-than-cosmic distances. Why isn't it? -- SCZenz 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well to the extent that it is approximately equal to zero at less than cosmic distances, it is a great approximation.  :-) But my recollection is that if you try to include dark energy as a term for inhomogenous bound systems (e.g. galaxies, solar systems, etc), that you end up with a system whose classical analog is different, in part because those systems aren't expanding in the cosmological sense. However my understanding in this area is somewhat limited. Dragons flight 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if I had to guess, it may be identically 0 for bound systems (assuming constant dark energy per volume), since as an effective pressure the work it can accomplish would depend on the change in volume. For a bound system of fixed size (size being determined primarily by equilibrium among other much larger forces), the absence of any expansion may eliminate the ability for dark energy to do any additional work. But this reasoning may be entirely too classical. Dragons flight 20:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
For starters, the model of the cosmos as a homogeneous fluid is badly inaccurate at anything less than cosmological scales. On a galactic scale, we have lots of inhomogeneity, stars and interstellar vacua and such. So there is no reason to expect cosmological effects to be good approximations at small scales. -lethe talk + 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This question and the previous one (look up on this page!) are both answered in Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology by Ned Wright (Astronomy, UCLA) ---CH 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy tables

Is there a place to find Taxonomy tables (actually tables of characteristics) of insects or other creatures in the form a an Excel spread sheet where the top row contains the list of characteristics and the left most column contains a list of the insects or creatures and the body of the table contains the states which relate the characteristics to each? ...IMHO (Talk) 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] enriched uranium for peaceful purposes

The U.S. wants Iran to forego enriching uranium, to prevent military use. Iran insists it wants peaceful use only but resists a ban on enrichment. What are the advantages (for peaceful uses) of enrichment? --ROJ72.25.96.103 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's used in various types of nuclear reactor for power generation. See Enriched uranium for details. Of course, other countries are somewhat suspicious of Iran using this reason, since they're sitting on top of one of the world's largest oil reserves. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think by "power" what Iran really means (perhaps only subconciously) is political power. ...IMHO (Talk) 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
See also Nuclear program of Iran and Iran and weapons of mass destruction. You might also find some interesting information at Arms Control Wonk. Notably, Iran's enrichment technology is very primitive. If all they wanted was low enriched uranium for a power plant, it would be much cheaper to buy it from existing suppliers whose centrifuges are far more sophisticated and efficient. --Robert Merkel 07:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect vacumn

Since outer space is nearly a perfect vacumn has anyone ever conducted an experiment where a spark was maintained between two electrodes and if so what were the voltages and the distances of separation? ...IMHO (Talk) 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In everyday practice, sparks are associated with the electrical breakdown of air, but cathode rays are associated with the free flow of electrons from one terminal to another in vacuum, and thus might be considered a kind of "spark" in vacuum. Dragons flight 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So then you'll get cathode rays? At what voltages and distance between electrodes? ...IMHO (Talk) 20:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much any distance. As long as the cathode is hot enough to boil off electrons, they'll be attracted to the anode by the field between them. -- EdC 21:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So like we could have a giant TV screen in space the whole would could view at the same time like a world wide drive in theater? Wow! ...IMHO (Talk) 23:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just imagine royalties demanded for showing a movie on that screen! --Serie 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just imagine the size of the speakers needed for that! I mean, no one watches silent movies these days. VdSV9•♫ 19:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cell phone Simulcast ring a bell? (No pun intended.) ...IMHO (Talk) 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Nerve Treatment

I have done some Googling, but not knowing the keywords to search for has been a disadvantage, and I have not found anything helpful. I have heard of a treatment for pain in which nerves are stimulated to radio waves, which has the effect of "putting them to sleep" for 6 months. I don't know more about it than that, I'm afraid. I would be very greatful if anyone here could point me in the right direction. Thank you! Daniel (‽) 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are prsumably referring to "Radiofrequency Rhizotomy". You can also look for "Radiofrequency Neurolysis". It is not a stimulation, it is more like a little low-temperature local microwave nerve cooking. The short duration of effect (3-6 months) reflects the relative little nerve damage being done. Before one gets to such treatments, there is really a protocol you have to follow, from less to more invasive treatments. It can be a beneficial treatment. The problem with some docs and clinics is the old one of: "If all you have is a hammer, then everything becomes a nail" (also paraphrased as "If hammering make money, and glueing doesn't, why glue?"). For myself, I'd request diagnostic nerve blocks before destructive procedures, just to make sure about the diagnosis. You may be thinking about "dorsal column stimulation" or "spinal cord stimulation", but that would not fit in with your "putting to sleep" description. --Seejyb 17:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly it, thank you very much! Daniel (‽) 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lightning rod

My house has a lightning rod and a thick copper wire connecting the rod to the ground. If I tug at the wire where it enters the dirt, it seems pretty loose. So, I am wondering if there is a way I can test how well connected it is to earth ground. I have multimeter - is there some way I could use this to conduct the test? ike9898 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This [1] has something on it. Basically, you want to see if you can pop a 5A auto fuse. --Zeizmic 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
But the requirements for a lightning rod ground are somewhat different than the ground for your home electrical system, aren't they? A lighting strike is a lot of load, for a short duration. The situation described in the article above is sort of the opposite. ike9898 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Think about it. If you can pop a 5 amp fuse (they are usually 125-250v) with 120 volts at 100-200 amps then you have sufficient ground to put 10,000 volts in the ground. What you have to worry about is if the 120 volt 100-200 amp house current won't pop a 5 amp auto fuse. Make sense now? ...IMHO (Talk) 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


What happens to be the concept of using a lower amperage fuse for a large current for a short duration , Is there any mathematical explaination about it?

[edit] Pharmacist

When I take a prescription to the pharmacy (in the US), what specifically does pharmacist do? I have to say, as far as I can tell, they're not doing much beyond counting out the pills.(I have read the Pharmacist article and it didn't answer my question) ike9898 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not like it used to be. Mostly thats all they do now a days is put pills in bottles. ...IMHO (Talk)
But jeez, they have to get a pretty rough graduate degree. And then often it takes them quite a while to fill up that bottle! They must be doing something else... ike9898 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well they do have to be sure that the wrong pills don't go in the bottle, but that's about it. ...IMHO (Talk) 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do these guys make $100 K + per year? It seems ridiculous; I'm hoping a real pharmacist will comment. ike9898 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Making sure that the 'wrong' pills don't go in the bottle is actually a much deeper process than it appears at first blush. The pharmacist is your last line of defense against all kinds of potential troubles. Ever notice how a lot of doctors have terrible handwriting? Pharmacists both decrypt that chickenscratch and check it for sanity—does the number, dose, frequency, etc. of prescribed medication make sense? An individual usually fills all of his prescriptions at one pharmacy; a pharmacist can be alert to interactions (sometimes very nasty ones) that can take place between drugs prescribed by different physicians. This comes up a lot with elderly individuals. In addition, a pharmacist will know – and warn – about interactions between your prescription drugs and any over-the-counter medications you might be likely to take. I know that pharmacists in Canada have to have a four-year degree that includes a whole lot of biochemistry and pharmacology. Most pharmacists probably know the drugs better than the doctors who prescribe them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
See this and this. --hydnjo talk 21:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Somebody asked this question about two or three months ago. — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It was me!! --Username132 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
However, there is a legitimate question as to whether a four-year degree is really necessary to be an effective pharmacist, or whether it's just a modern-day guild. Pharmacists often *do* know the drugs they are dispensing better than most doctors; but that knowledge is completely wasted when all they are doing is reading a doc's prescription, getting them off the rack, and giving them to the customer. --Robert Merkel 01:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think in the US, to be a pharmacist requires a graduate degree. ike9898 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your pharmacist not only makes sure that you get the right pills, but that the pills you are getting don't conflict with the pills you've already gotten. They also have to be up on all medications, as they will counsel you about their use and side effects that may result. They're also there to answer your questions about the medications. A pharmacy clerk does the actual counting and dispensing, but they don't have the knowledge of the drugs and their interrelationships. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if you are only taking one medication, what does he do beyond reading messy handwriting? You say the clerk fills the bottles. I take a prescription medication which the pharmacist gives me in a factory sealed bottle of 30 pills - he has no role in assuring what pills are in the bottle. I am beginning to side with the comment above about this being a modern day guild. ike9898 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Still that doesn't answer why there's an automatic 30-minute delay whenever I need to fill a prescription at my local pharmacy (which is located inside a grocery store). I went to the doctor (for example) because I had a chest cold that went on for days and days. Doc diagnosed it as pneumonia, and gave me a 'scrip for antibiotics, and a sedative to help me sleep. Okay, so far so good. I haven't been to the pharmacy in about a year, since I broke my ankle and got a 'scrip for hydrocodone for the pain. So I go get some food & beer at the grocery store, and toss my 'scrip at the "pharmacist" behind the counter. Seeing as it's been over a year since my last transaction, and that the doc is prescribing a mild antibiotic, and a mild pain reliever, why does it take thirty minutes to process? Grab the damn bottle off the shelf, count out so many pills, and give the damn thing to me. Don't even get me started on why the HEPA act prevents them from announcing over the PA system that my prescription is ready and so I have to stand around like a goober for half an hour while they do whatever the hell it is they do before they count out the damn antibiotics and pain pills into the little bottles for me, and I have to keep asking "Is my prescription ready yet?"
Sounds to me as if you have less of a pharmacology issue, and more of a customer service issue. Find a more customer-service oriented pharmacy. --Ginkgo100 05:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hand it in before you do your shopping, do your shopping and then go back to the pharmacy to collect :) --Username132 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I've seen the answers in the prior thread where the pharmacist types said things like "we have to make sure we're dispensing what the doc ordered". So what in hell does that REALLY mean? How can my doc's 'scrip for a pain reliever possibly be misconstrued? Why do I have to wait thirty minutes to get a simple antibiotic and some hydrocodone? Don't tell me you're calling my doc to confirm the 'scrip; she left at five o'clock, and I'm filling my scrip at six-thirty, so there's nobody home at the clinic to even answer the phones, and yet you somehow do manage to fill my 'scrip even though the doc is long gone for the evening.

Hey, stop giving Pharmacists grief. Their pay is determined by supply and demand. It is a boring job with long hours that requires smart committed people, so it has to pay well so there'll be enough good folks wanting to be pharmacists. For a contrast, look at teaching. Everybody wants to be a teacher, that’s why teachers don't get paid much. I love teachers... but why do they need a master’s degree to teach multiplication tables? Even with the educational barriers to entry, everybody still wants to be a teacher, so you don't have to pay much to get one. Or how about being a fire fighter... everybody wants to do that, so they manage supply and demand by making the entry requirements- strength, vision, health, background checks- really strict, that’s why they are all beautiful men with a chiseled muscular look... crap, I think I'm going off-topic...


Heres the deal from someone that actually works in a pharmacy. When you goto either a supermarket pharmacy or Save-on, Walgreens, or most other larger pharmacies, the pharmacist and the pharmacy technitions don't care about you. They want you to wait so they can have fun and mess around. I think thats also a policy at some places so you look around and buy stuff. I have Kaiser Permanente insurance, and when I goto their 24 hour pharmacy (they're huge and they have many 10 pharmacists), I see pharmacists with ipods on, and not just one earbud on, its on both ears. They don't really care at all.

Now when you go into a local mom and pop pharmacy, its a little different. They might care more and treat you better if the owner or manager is there. But you need to understand just because your the only customer in the store, your not the only customer whose prescriptions they are working on. I work at a smaller pharmacy and a lot of the times we are working on several things at once like counting pills, dealing with insurance companies, calling, faxing, or talking to doctors, and doing refills for customers that call in. Its not as easy as it looks, and it takes a few minutes to put in and decode a new prescription, especially if you are a new customer (putting insurance in correctly can be difficult sometimes), and if its a new doctor to the pharmacy you need to put in all the doctors info (name, address, DEA #, etc).

And for the person that said that they just hand you a bottle of 30 pills with no counting, heres the deal on that. Most medicines can be ordered in different quantities. Some such as Vicodin or others are usually ordered in big bottles because of high usage, and others such as singular and some others are ordered in bottles of 30 because thats the only way they come. So if it comes in 30, and you need 30, they usually just slap the label on. And about the checking drug interactions thing, it only takes a second, pharmacists know their stuff, or at least the good ones do. And whoever said that they know more than doctors was right, most doctors don't know sh*t, I have doctors calling everyday asking our pharmacist about medicines and dosages. Oh yeah, and about pharmacists pay, lol you should try taking some of the classes that you need to take BEFORE you get into pharmacy school, they're pretty damn hard!

Everything you said was fine, until you got to the pay part. People should be well-paid for doing highly skilled and technical work. People should not be well-paid because they had to take hard classes to get the job unless the classes are really necessary to do the job. Creating unnecessarily strict educational standards in order to limit the number of pharmacists in the marketplace is a great way artificially inflate salaries. Now, I can't say for sure that the average pharmacist is over educated, but I think that I and many other people on this thread get the impression that the job being done by many of the people that are there to "have fun and mess around" (your words) could easily be managed by someone with a lot less education. Dragons flight 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And what would you suggest as the alternative? I schedule my trip to the pharmacy so that I have plenty of other stuff I can get done in case they are backed up for three of four hours and maybe even the next day. Hey there service is caution and care and not to kill me accidentally with some drug. Give pharmacists a break! Beside if they used vending machines thank about all the teenagers that know how to break into them whether with a screwdriver or with a sequence of control commands. As far as expert knowledge you could probably even have gigantic drug classification table that would screen for every possible issue from the current weather to various aspects of your DNA but then we already have enough bus drivers and illegal immigrants don't know how to open child proof medicine bottles in order to do the job. So learn how to schedule your trips or graduate from pharmacy school and fill your own prescriptions for yourself. ...IMHO (Talk) 11:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
On the news, I've seen that automated pharmacies are being tried in a few locations. ike9898 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, the alternative would be to have twice as many pharmacists each having 1/2 the training and receiving 1/2 the pay. The question is whether that would be safe and effective, or whether all that specialized training is actually important to doing the job that the typical pharmacist does each day. Dragons flight 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
On the interactions thing, which is arguably the most knowledge-requiring part of the job...there are lots of other issues with taking many drugs, that a pharmacist can't evaluate. Some drugs are inappropriate for people with high blood pressure, some are never prescribed to women who are sexually active (because they can cause nasty birth defects). I've never had a pharmacist gather the info he would need to determine if any particular drug was right for me.
On the supply of pharmacists determining their pay. Yes, I think the idea that the supply is artificially limited is correct, but not just by the difficulty. If all of a sudden you could make that much money after getting a degree in 'communications', pretty soon there would be a lot more kids pursuing degrees in communications, and more schools offering courses, and soon after that a lot more people in the communications job market. On the other hand, there is a relatively small number of places you can get a pharmacy degree and they limit the number of students they will take. They same university that will try to accommodate everyone who want to pursue communications by booking bigger rooms or opening up more classes will not do this for the pharmacy major. Why? You tell me. Because pharmacy students need individual attention because they are need to have the skills to keep us safe? Well then they should stop teaching mechanical engineering in gigantic lecture halls....I don't want the wheels falling off my car! ike9898 11:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this isn't true in America, but in Britain the pharmacists don't just sell prescription drugs. There are also some products that aren't prescription, but can't be picked off the shelf ('over-the-counter' drugs). You talk to the pharmacist about what is wrong and they tell you what is likely wrong and what you need. They might tell you to go to the doctor, they might recommend a particular product (which you might need them to get, because it is 'over-the-counter'), they might give you general advice. They're like front-line doctors. People talk to them about problems they wouldn't take to the doctor, but which require medical knowledge. For example: If you have light excema and go to the pharmacist, they may be able to give you hydrocortisone cream. They will need to know where your excema is, to make sure you won't be putting it anywhere sensitive (like your face). You cannot get the cream yourself, because you might use it in an inappropriate way. If your eczema is bad, or persistent, they may recommend you see a doctor. They have to know about eczema, and treatments and side-effects, so that they can give sensible advice. Skittle 10:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That is the case to some extent in the US. Some people will ask the pharmacist for a recommendation on over the counter medications, and especially recently, some OTC drugs such as pseudoephedrin are kept behind the counter. ike9898 21:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chickens Without Heads

I had always assumed that the old expression about "walking around like a chicken without a head" was not meant to be taken literally, but just sort of evolved somehow over time either by accident or as a misquote or for some other mysterious reason. Surely a chicken can't walk without a brain to guide it and an inner ear to maintain balance!

Yet once at a farm I had the rather unpleasant opportunity to witness a chicken being slaughtered. Its head was basically chopped off. Then, lo and behold, the headless chicken actually began to walk around in a rather aimless fashion. The expression was actually based on reality!

How in the world is this possible? It goes against everything I ever thought I knew about basic animal physiology. I could understand if the animal would twitch and jerk around erratically, as that can be explained as being caused by the autonomous nervous system (or something like that, science is certainly not my field, so please bear with my perhaps innacurate terminolgy).

But walking is a rather complex thing to do, relatively speaking, despite the fact that most of us simply take it for granted and rarely give it a second thought. It requires a significantly sophisticated brain to precisely guide the motion of the limbs, as well as that "inner ear" which enables the animal/person to sense when it is off balance, and send signals to the brain to help it to determine whatever minute changes are required to be sent to the limbs to regain balance.

Just think of technology. We've discovered ways of designing machines that can process and hold mind-boggling volumes of data and perform calculations at mind-boggling speeds, yet to date no one has really been able to design a robot that can simply walk decently. Yes some robots can walk in an extremely awkward and clumsy fashion, but throw them off balance by the slightest bit and it's simply beyond their capacity to compensate. Put a headless chicken beside the most sophisticated robot programmed with the most sophisticated possible walking programme and the headless chicken will still demonstrate a capability of walking that, by comparison, would put the super-robot to shame.

Can anyone explain to me how in the world it is possible for a headless chicken to walk? Loomis51 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, in the case of Mike the Headless Chicken, a bit of brain stem was left behind. Perhaps walking is reflex action in chickens? It's not like they have a lot of brain in the first place. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If it was a reflex action, he wouldn't need the brain stem to walk, reflexes only pass through the grey matter of the spinal chord. Philc TECI 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also consider the phenomenal capability of various insects to even FLY and compare the size of their brains with what could probably be left over from the misplaced blow of an axe. (also there is an article and pictures somewhere of a teenager who was shot in the head and lost so much of his brain the prosthesis they ended up making for him was larger than a grapefruit). The brain is like the common adage about real estate: what counts is location, location, location although size probably helps. ...IMHO (Talk) 11:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


I live on a farm and we use clippers to cut our chickens heads off. I can assure you that we leave very little neck. While it is best to hang a chicken upside down if you dont they will run around for quite awhile with no head spurting blood like a fountain. I dont know why they can walk without a brain, I guess its not very important to them :)

I really appreciate you guys sending me these interesting anecdotes, by all means, keep'em coming! But the fact is that I'm no closer to getting an actual answer to my question. Is there a biologist or a veteranarian or some sort of expert in the field that can give me some sort of definite explanation for this highly unusual phenomenon? The more that I think about it, the more I realize that for some reason it only seems to apply to chickens, and probably many other species I'm not aware of, but apparently not to animals with more sophisticated brains. For example, if during the French Revolution the nobility got into the habit of taking a stroll after having been decapitated by the Guillotine, we would surely have heard of such instances! Loomis51 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to animal rights activists or those of a sensitive nature - do not read the following. Working in the field of medical research using animals, i occasionally have the rather grim task of having to decapitate 1 to 10 day old mouse pups for certain experiments. For various technical and legal reasons, we have to do the technique on conscious animals. When you snip the head off a baby mouse, both its mouth keeps working (it makes high pitched squeals) and all four limbs keep 'crawling' for a good 5 seconds after decapitation. If the body falls in the right way, the headless mouse can actually crawl a short distance. Its pretty freaky.
I have never looked into it in an academic way, but it appears to me that it happens due to local interneurons giving patterned feeback to the muscles driving the repetitive motion. Mouse crawling doesn't require constant signals from the brain to maintain it, its pretty innate, so there appears to be a level of semi-autonomy involved. It might also be part of a local sympathetic fight-or-flight response in chickens and mice. When the spinal cord is severed, the animal's system responds by trying to run, which it manages for a short time, but then when it looks for control from the brain after the initial flight response the system breaks down and stops. Anyway, just figured i would share my thoughts on the matter. Rockpocket 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Rockpocket, that was a bit more of the kind of answer I was looking for. I just feel now that I have to point out that my curiousity is not due to the fact that I'm some sort of perverse, cold-hearted sadist. I was actually quite disturbed when I saw the headless chicken walking around. However my curiousity got the better of me (as it always does) and despite the disturbing nature of the subject, I just had to know how this phenomenon could possibly operate. Loomis51 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. And i understand what you mean. It utterly fascinates and revulses me in equal measure everytime i decapitate one of the pups and see it crawl away. Perhaps i'll see if the headless body will respond to a stimuli (like a pin prick) next time. Rockpocket 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the French Revolution and the guillotine, I have heard a story about some scientist who was to be beheaded and agreed with his friend that after his head was chopped off, he would blink continuously as long as he was still conscious enough to do so. The friend counted a bunch of blinks, like 30 seconds worth. Lemme see if I can figure out who it was. -lethe talk + 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Guillotine#Living_heads, there are many such stories, but none scientifically verified. -lethe talk + 03:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
this article claims there is medical consensus for 13 seconds for human heads after decapitation. -lethe talk + 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Lethe, that's indeed very interesting. However it's a lot more understandable that the eyes would be able to continue blinking after decapitation, as they're still connected to the brain. (I honestly never thought in my life I'd actually initiate a discussion of such a gory subject!) It's however a lot more difficult to understand how an animal can manage to walk without one! Loomis51 03:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And just a note on walking - it isn't necessarily that complicated. Although there are some robots that used complicated walking systems that require constant changes, most current progress on walking robots tends to focus on very simple systems that require little to no processing. Walking is basically controlled falling! And I would imagine, as has been said, that local signals continue to be sent for a while after the brain is removed, and they are likely to use the flight reflex given the trauma just experienced. All this is basically why I decided a long time ago that I don't want to die by beheading! Complete, immediate destruction of the brain or death while painlessly unconscious please! Skittle 10:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)