Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 March 7

Science desk
< March 6	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 7

Movie: X Men, the day of the future past

Has anyone seen this entitled movie?

There is a part where Dr. Xavier communicate with Mystic using a mechanism when she is in the airport.

Q:

1. What is the mechanism called?
2. How would you make someone else understand what Dr. Xavier was doing to Mystic Mystique? The way he is communicating with her,

a) How would you classify the part where he is using the mechanism on another person to communicate with her, e.g., when the lady was talking to her as they were picking up the boarding/passport together?

b) How would you classify when he was trying to get inside her head...using the mechanism?

Regards. -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

I haven't seen that particular X-Men flick, but Dr X generally uses a large spherical room to track and communicate with other mutants. Is that what you mean, or something more portable ? StuRat (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The device in both cases would be Cerebro, and I think that was a more portable version. Other answers should be in there or we might need a Marvel nerd. I'm a DC nerd with a focus on Batman. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 16:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

StuRat, Flinders Petrie: No, not into any of these now, use to when I was young... I do watch cartoon/animation/movie if they do appear... One thing I still haven't seen in animation/movie is the Centurions. I would love to...

I understand it a spherical room, I didn't know. I wrote 'big round room'...

I'll be reading it tomorrow as I'm too tired tonight!

Thank you both! Regards. -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

I am a Marvel nerd. It was Cerebro and the lady's name is Mystique. :) Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Apology, Thanks. -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

I have no real knowledge of the in-world explanation, but often the premise of telepathy is related to Antenna (radio), section "Reciprocity". A radio antenna that broadcasts on a given frequency tends to pick up the same frequency more than others. So, the thinking goes, a telepath might somehow get himself onto the exact frequency you broadcast at, and understand it. Since electroencephalograph signals are detectable, people do broadcast, to a certain degree. The problem of course is that the signal is really weak, reception is really weak (to the point where you won't get meaningful transmission over the airwaves even within the same brain; otherwise the brain wouldn't work at all!) it isn't at one single frequency from one source but from cells all over the brain doing their own thing, people's brains aren't laid out the same way (indeed, brain surgeons have had to paste labels on the cerebral cortex while asking people "is this part of your brain something you'd miss much?" before they start cutting). The underlying pre-scientific principle, which is seen in many contexts in physics but as here with significant limitations, is sympathetic magic. (P.S. My personal opinion is that telepathy, like qualia and other paranormal phenomena, is a manifestation of precognition) Wnt (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I've heard/read of this, I'm not sure to what extend the receiving and collecting information of yours is correct though! I seem to have acknowledged the mechanism(s) is very stable and effective... Beside, I do understand your point of view too, and thank you... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

Hello,

Just to clarify,

1) Cerebro/Cerebra is the mechanism i.e. helmet/nano device only, or helmet/nano device including the spherical room?

2) The words 'communicated telepathically' neither defines nor describe question 2, a and b, how Dr. X communicated with Mystique in the airport. Do you suggest I elaborate the scene for a better understanding using the quoted words?

Does the following make sense (just a rough idea how I wish to use the words; please fill the blank if possible):

Dr. X used the Cerebro, communicated telepathically with Mystique while she was in the airport, tried to get in touch with her cognition/cognitive process, even tried to communicate with her via another person __________________________________________ while they were picking up their belongings, what felt out of their hands after they accidentally budged each other. He also showed her the plane arrival and departure time table monitor using the Cerebro controlling her cognition/cognitive process so that she acknowledges/rethinks about her movements all by herself more than once...

(SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

Laundry

Why is water of a higher temperature used in the washing of whites? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

High temperatures are more effective at removing dirt. The question should actually be why hot water is not used for washing colors: the reason is that hot water is effective in removing dyes for the same reason it is effective in removing dirt, i.e., hot water can cause colors to fade. For whites, fading of colors is actually a plus. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hot water also causes elastic to give way, so that's another reason to avoid it. On the pro side, it will tend to liquify fats/oils, allowing them to float away and down the drain. Hot water might also kill dust mites and has the potential to kill molds, fungi, bacteria, and viruses, although the hot water temps in most washing machines are insufficient for this. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Surface_tension#Influence_of_temperature points out that the surface tension of water reduces with temperature. The water literally becomes 'wetter' as it gets warmer. That allows it to get deeper into the fibres of the cloths and float dirt and other contaminants away. The main reason we use detergents when washing things is to reduce the surface tension...so using hotter water clearly helps. Chemical reactions also (generally) run faster at higher temperatures, and in washing detergents that employ oxidizers to bleach stains and enzymes to 'digest' them, higher temperatures will usually make those reactions happen faster - reducing wash times. For colored cloth, the concern is that the higher temperatures will facilitate the dissolving and oxidization of dyes in the cloth - which results in fading and color transfer between clothing. Hence the choice of temperature and ingredients in the detergent will depend on the nature of the cloth you're washing. SteveBaker (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Money laundering

If paper money is made of cotton, can you wash it with the laundry? --Llaanngg (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've left paper money in my clothes with the laundry, and it survived OK, but there's always the chance one end will get stuck under the agitator and be torn. However, one could come up with a safe way to launder money, say for germophobes, although, just like with clothes, if you laundered them often they wouldn't last as long. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To sanitize paper money, a clothes iron is another option. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, but there you have the potential to scorch it. Same with a microwave or conventional oven. And I can't help thinking of Felix Ungar as the type of person to do such things. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've straightened wrinkled paper by ironing many times; I've never scorched any of it. I'd say it's pretty forgiving in that regard. (There are, however, other potential issues. Some paper may shrink and do so unevenly. Printer/copier toner may melt and smear. You can mitigate the latter problem by sandwiching the paper to be straightened between 2 blank sheets of paper.) --173.49.18.106 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea that money (being made of cotton) launders just like cloth, is plainly false. Money is made from shredded cotton fibres, not woven from twisted fibres like cloth. The wood fibre in conventional paper comes apart when laundered because the binders that hold those fibres in place fails - not because the fibres themselves fail. There are no guarantees that cotton fibres won't come apart in much the same way. So the question is more about the binders used in making money than on the fibres that are bound into it.

I'd also point out that money around the world is made in a variety of different ways - some are made of various plastics, and doubtless some are made of actual wood-pulp paper. There is likely to be a wide variety of binders in use too. Furthermore, there are a wide variety of exotic inks and other materials built into the surface and bulk of the bank note - and how those might behave under a variety of cleaning methods would be hard to predict in advance. So while our earlier respondents may have found it safe to iron or wash their particular local currency - that doesn't tell you much about how safe it would be to employ those techniques on older banknotes - or banknotes from other countries in the world. SteveBaker (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not the OP. The related question about cleaning old paper money is from me, not from the OP. The OP only asked about washing paper money, but made no mention of doing it in the context of conservation-restoration. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See Money laundering first. The paper is more resistant than other paper, but a damage – minor or total – will occur. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That link is to the wrong type of money laundering (the type that makes it figuratively, rather than physically, "clean"). StuRat (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The question might be based on a slightly false premise. US Money is made (largely) from cotton, but it's cotton paper not cotton cloth. Cloth is made from fibers spun into thread and then woven together, making it quite strong. Paper is made from fibers that are blended and pulped, and then pressed into a sheet. Paper is easier to make, but it's not nearly as strong or long-lasting as cloth. APL (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning old paper money

Do collectors and conservationists have safe methods for cleaning old paper money, e.g. to remove dirt or stains? If so, how do they do it? --173.49.18.106 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

eHow is sometimes crap, but it has a plan. I tried to link it, but it's blacklisted here, possibly for being sometimes crap. Search for "How to Restore Paper Money", should see it (and others). Probably best to start with a one, just in case. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Found a few interesting articles on cleaning collectible paper money/documents at the website. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Terminology of laundering

Around 1980, when one went on a trip outside the United States, it was usually necessary to carry traveler's checks, which were signed once at purchase and then had to be countersigned when cashing, and were readily convertible into local currency. American Express guaranteed to replace them if lost, stolen, or damaged. (There are now easier ways to convert dollars into local currency. In Europe, an American ATM card can be used at a European ATM to withdraw Euros, at the free market rate, from a dollar checking account.) In any case, I had returned from a trip to Mexico, and had unused traveler's checks in my pocket. However, there had been snow, and, in digging my car out at the airport parking lot, my pants became wet. On returning home, my wife and I changed our clothes into dry clothes and threw our wet clothes into the washing machine. We then discovered that we had destroyed the unused traveler's checks. The next day, I had to go to American Express to request replacement. However, describing what had happened was awkward and required complicated language. The obvious, that I had laundered them, refers to a type of unethical activity, as noted. If I had said that I had washed them, that refers to a different type of activity involving securities, a wash sale, which is also questionable. I said that I had put them in the washing machine in my pants pocket. I did get them replaced. It just illustrates the complexities of words. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Automotive lighting

Simplified circuit diagram of european automotive lighting system

Simplified circuit diagram of american automotive lighting system

Last November, in the article Automotive lighting a contibution of two simplified diagrams with imagemaps to explain what the items are and what the technical basics are, were removed. The diagrams were made based on several service manuals to give a basic understanding the way it works with links to the Wikipedia articles of displayed components. It also is a way to bring sourced information into the article. Why do they need to remove this information from the article? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As I'm 100% sure you're aware, the discussion at Talk:Automotive_lighting#Selfish_revert_of_reasonable_edit? explained why. I agree, 100% with the removal reasons. Those diagrams are outdated and far from universal - and hard to follow by a typical reader. For example, in my car, everything is fed with 12volts and connected to the computer through a common data bus - your diagrams are completely obsolete for cars like that.

The article's "discussion" page is the one true place to discuss this - and I'd caution you that "Forum Shopping" (which is what you're doing by attempting to create a duplicate discussion here) is strongly frowned upon here at Wikipedia. SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback. Really not all vehicles use bus system, some still use the old technology. The argument of removal was WP:UGH, non scientific one. The IP editor has reverted all my contribs which is behindediting. Wikipedia is made and known for free knowledge. As the article was left I had the last word with question. Historical vehicles still use this as well. A history section is in many articles. (And what about the Mini you own?) "Forum Shopping" (which is what you're doing by attempting to create a duplicate discussion here) is strongly frowned upon here at Wikipedia." is no nice answer and seems to skip the question of a historical section. Would you contibute more actual information about databus systems in this article? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that the diagrams are _wrong_, rather than merely obsolete - I've never seen a car with the brake lights or indicators on the KL30 rather than the KL15. Tevildo (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The modern MINI has used the bus system since around 2001 - so it's not like this is some kind of new-fangled idea that's too exotic to be worth considering. On the other hand, my 1963 classic Mini has only two fuses for the entire car (one for everything that should be turned on *only* when the ignition switch is turned on - and one for everything that should still work with the ignition turned off. It has no hazard light switch and no dashboard tell-tales for the headlights. It's so different from either of your diagrams, I hardly know where to start.

But no matter what - this is simply not the place to discuss it. It belongs on the article talk page - where the discussion is already in progress.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tevildo, this is typical for VW and Audi 80 least in European version. Brake lights work whenever the foot is on the brake even when key is out. Further like wire colors is based on GM. @SteveBaker, do have some sources for me to start? After archiving this section, I will link to it on the article talk page. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the article will want wiring diagrams for all gazillion kinds of cars over every year of production! All I'm attempting to convey is the futility of such wild generalizations. FWIW: Classic Mini wiring diagram: http://www.minifinity.com/images/techteam/MFTechWiki/Electrical-ColourWiringDiagram.jpg - the diagram for the modern MINI goes on for dozens of pages in the service manual I have - they are very boring though - nearly every one shows a device or devices connected to power and ground via fuses - and to the computer via the car-wide data bus.

The idea of having some kind of 'generic' wiring diagram(s) in the article is a terrible one because cars over time and across manufacturers vary WILDLY - and the idea of having diagrams for every variation would produce an insanely long and impossibly incomplete/un-reliably-sourced set. So you wind up with a randomly spotty collection that is simply not useful. Hence, the decision by the other editors of that article to remove them. Take a hint! SteveBaker (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Traces of water

Are there any traces of water on the surface of an ice cube?--79.119.212.9 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If the ambient temperature is above the freezing point of water, your ice cube is melting, there will be water on its surface. At the freezing point, water and ice can coexist. Below the freezing point, water usually exists as solid. Since you're talking about an ice cube, I don't think any surface water can remain supercooled. If your water contains impurities and has a lower freezing point than pure water, it can coexist at the same temperature as ice. --173.49.18.106 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a liquid-like layer of water molecules on the surface of ice (and other solids), even below the equilibrium temperature. See Ice#Slipperiness and Melting Below zero. -84user (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (Edited to remove "water" as that only applies to water ice. -84user (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

Are the mostly basic chemicals been the most stable in nature?

What are the chemicals in nature are always been the most resistant to chemical reaction - decomposition (splitting), are it been a simple chemicals which always had like as water or oxygen, carbon a simple valence (simple valence charge) or are it been a complex chemicals which always had like as carboned steel a complex valence (complex valence charge)?--83.237.196.48 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The 'Noble gasses' - helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr) and xenon (Xe) are essentially unreactive - they don't participate in normal chemical reactions at all and are probably completely unchanged since they were formed in the heart of a star a very long time ago. radon (Rn) is also a noble gas - but it's radioactive, so it spontaneously changes into other elements that do react. SteveBaker (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Xenon is a little reactive, when suitably persuaded - see Noble gas compound. Mikenorton (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Much thanks! I’m be sure that simple chemicals which was always had a simple valence charge are always been the mostly stable in nature, because they are always been a simple natural of nature.--83.237.196.48 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m thinking that in nature the mostly simple (basic) chemicals are always been a complex chemicals, because they are always been uniquely simple.--83.237.196.48 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Also consider native element minerals, some of these elements are fairly unreactive. Nitrogen gas is also fairly long lived in the atmosphere. Although it does undergo the Nitrogen cycle. In nature you will likely find that xenon never formed the xenon compounds made by humans. However there is a good chance that the protonated rare gases would have existed, eg protonated helium. And even helium in suitable conditions can form dihelium. So don't expect any atom in nature to be completely virgin and unaffected by union with another atom. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Some precious metals are also fairly nonreactive, like platinum, and, to a lesser extent, gold. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Can animals parent different animals?

Non‐human animals can practise adoption, correct? Are there examples of non‐human animals raising different animals? (I’m especially interested in hominids parenting others.) --66.190.99.112 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll probably be able to find loads of examples of cats raising puppies and dogs raising kittens - or things like a goat raising lambs, just by using Google, so I won't bother with those. Check this out though - very cool. Or I think so, being a gull enthusiast. Something that I've been meaning to discuss on here for a while anyway... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Try Boy raised by apes discovered in Malaysia and Bello And John - The Boys Who Were Raised By Primates. Alansplodge (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not the best of titles, as a good 99.999997% of boys are raised by primates, with carnivores second and (I think) even-toed ungulates a distant third... Tevildo (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I get the carnivore reference, but can you elucidate the ungulate? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.13.204 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See Feral child#Documented or alleged cases. Wolves and apes are the most common, but there are a few cases of children allegedly being raised by sheep, goats, and gazelles, and one case (which I must admit places rather too great a strain on my credibliity) of a boy raised by ostriches. Tevildo (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Amalthea perhaps —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be afraid to leave boys alone with primates. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because, as the bishop said to the actress, they raise their boys up to waist level and stop there? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain})

• I suspect the OP is asking whether interspecies gestation is possible, not interspecies breast feeding. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The OP is actually asking both questions. Obviously, some different species can produce viable offspring. And animals have been known to at least bond with other species, though I can't say for sure about literally raising them. Various bird eggs can be hatched by nesting chickens, though I'm not sure that counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Are they? The OP specifically uses the words "adoption" and "parenting" neither of which refer to gestation. Richerman (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's why I said suspect. When someone says A happens. I wonder if B happens. I especially wonder if C happens, then I usually take A and C to be in some way contrasting. He's already said adoption happens, so I assume he must mean something else by parenting. Otherwise it's like saying We know people buy things. I am interested if they shop, and especially if they can purchase things. The OP will have to clarify. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I was replying to Baseball Bugs who says unequivocally "The OP is actually asking both questions". Richerman (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the contrast there is between adoption within the species (e.g. penguins adopting an abandoned penguin chick), and adoption of a member of another species. MChesterMC (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense! μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)