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.
I have an old mobile with a LCD screen and a camera. I want to connect the screen to the camera directly without anything else interfering between. 124.253.23.192 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you expect the screen to display a preview from the camera? If not, connect away! But, if you want the device to do something useful, you'll probably need some type of controller that can receive data from the camera, and convert it to preview images that can be sent to the display. You might also want the controller to configure the camera's exposure, at the very least. In other words, you probably need a piece of specialized hardware or software - an image processor - in between these devices. Nimur (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At first I could not understand the question until I realised that the old mobile with LCD screen and the camera are two separate items. The problems will be: finding a cable that will interconnect the two devices, eg. a USB cable, and finding an app for the phone that performs the requested function for the specifc camera. I think you will find it impossible on both counts, especially if the devices are from different manufacturers. Akld guy (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bluetooth or wifi may be an alternative to the cable, leaving you with just the app problem. They are dependent on how far apart you want to site the devices and how good the path is at that distance. Akld guy (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As previous replies indicate, unless both the phone (I'm assuming by "mobile" you mean "mobile phone") and the camera are designed to allow you to connect them together, you're going to have a difficult time. More likely than not you'll have to crack them both open and do a bunch of hardware modifications to allow the two devices to be connected together. And depending on what you want to accomplish you might have to hook them both up to an external computer to translate between them. This will require a good bit of electronics knowledge. If you just want to do it for fun/learning that's great, but if you're trying to accomplish some end goal there's probably a better way to do it. If you can describe what you're trying to accomplish we might be able to give suggestions. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Start reading something like this and see how long it takes you to get confused, and this is just the very basics. Vespine (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a non Nikon DSLR and the right Android smart phone, this may be of use [1]. However this isn't connecting the screen to the camera directly, but relying on the phone's hardware and software (as well as the camera's but I think you realised that). If you have a generic point and shot, I think you'll have far less luck since I'm not sure how many of those are designed to let anything else act as a screen. If you have a webcam, well again with the right Android phone (with USB OTG or host mode support) and the right software, you may be able to use the webcam although again you'll be relying on the phone's hardware and software. Webcams commonly aren't designed for direct connections to screens. If it's a security camera designed for direct connection to a monitor, perhaps with an analog connection, you'll need other stuff entirely. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's helpful to know the structure of an LCD display, you really don't need to know that because the aim is to connect the incoming data from the camera to the phone's LCD driver. The driver already exists in the phone. Your task is to connect the camera to the phone by USB cable (probably impossible if they are of different manufacture and definitely impossible if from the same manufacturer and with incompatible connectors), or by Bluetooth or wifi if the devices can both communicate via one of those means. So, assuming the camera and phone have compatible communication, the next task is to find an app for the phone that processes the camera's data and presents it to the phone's LCD driver. The appropriate app will be available if someone has already done it for that particular phone/camera combo; unlikely, when you consider that there are many, many models sold by each manufacturer; your chance of hitting on exactly the correct model combo is practically nil. If an app is not available, you could write your own, but that would involve research on the protocols used by both the phone and the camera. If the manufacturers do not publish the protocols, the project stops there. Assuming you had a copy of the protocols, it's a fairly trivial task to write the app, believe it or not. I'm guessing that writing an app is beyond the capability of the OP, since he/she wouldn't have asked the question if technically aware to that extent. Akld guy (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry,Akld guy. The OP happens to be quite a master programer,born among Windows but now also doing apps and quite complicated ones at that. But the problem here I have purely hardware one. Actually LCD and the small 2mm camera are on opposite sides of same board. I know any Android or Windows application can do nothing here I was expecting some hardware pro with a simple solution of joining a few wires to few wires, or at most buying some silicon spider.
I don't know who posted the above nonsense because they didn't sign. Anyone with any experience writing Windows code and apps, or even with a bit of electronics experience, would know that it's not possible to join a few wires from camera to LCD screen and make it work. It's also physically impossible to get in there and detach the relevant terminals of the camera and screen from the existing PC board wiring. The poster is pulling someone's leg, but my leg is unpullable on this issue. And don't insert extraneous characters in my username thank you very much. Akld guy (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was it Trichoptera? Or did they evolve from Lepidoptera? Megaraptor12345 (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cladogram showing Lepidoptera and Trichoptera as sister clades. At a glance, this cladogram from Lepidoptera#Evolution_and_systematics makes it look as though the Lepidoptera and Trichoptera formed from some unnamed clade in the early Triassic. If the graph is correct, then neither group evolved from the other. Rather, they both evolved from some other group. This stuff is difficult, and other current research findings may present slightly different cladograms. See also Evolution_of_butterflies. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, reading the linked article further Amphiesmenoptera is the name of the cladesuperorder that holds both Lepidoptera and Trichoptera, and the Necrotaulidae is the extinct group that both diverged from. No WP article on that, but this paper [2] discusses the fossil record and gives further refs. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But one last thing. Which extant group is the closest to this clade? Megaraptor12345 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that might be above my pay grade :) To clarify, you are asking what extant group is closest to the extinct Necrotaulidae, right? It's a little unclear if anything in Amphiesmonepotera is any "closer" than anything else. But there are basal_(phylogenetics) clades within both Lepidoptera and Trichoptera. So for instance the Agathiphaga are some of the most primitive (i.e. least derived) of the Lepidoptera, but that doesn't help us compare their closeness to Necrotaulidae against say the Annulipalpia , which are I think basal among the Caddisflies. I can't find a good cladogram that includes all the groups of interest here, but I think it could even be the case that the living thing that is most like the Necrotaulidae could be among the scorpionflys. I poked around a bit on the Tree of Life web portal [3] for Endopterygota, but they don't have an entry for Necrotaulidae (I think their focus is on extant groups). The book: D. Grimaldi & M. S. Engel (2005). Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82149-5. is cited in a few of our articles that mention Necrotaulidae, so that would be another resource to check. User:Obsidian Soul may also have some helpful suggestions. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the cladogram SemanticMantis has provided is unrooted, all one can assume from it is that the Trichoptera are an outgroup to the Lepidoptera, not necessarily the sister group as such, even if that is most likely true. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about the cladogram; I was thinking of it as depicting an implied but unnamed root, but that's perhaps not the only viable reading. However Lepidoptera#Phylogeny specifically calls them sister groups, and this is also supported by Amphiesmenoptera and sister group.SemanticMantis (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree they are in fact considered sister groups, and unless one wants to include as yet to be discovered even more primitive stem lepidopterans the issue is moot. The point is that that sort of diagram could also be written with horses, dogs and humans as members of a clade with birds as the outgroup, without implying that aves is the sister group of the Boreotheria. It's technical, but if the topic interests you you should be aware of the difference. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This paper is the one PubMed hit for Necrotauliidae, with some beautiful photographs, and it happens to be published in one of the very few genuinely open access journals PLOS ONE, so I think there is going to be a nicely illustrated article turning up sometime. Wnt (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serotonin reuptake and breakdown inhibitors are common, in the form of SSRIs and MAOIs, these increase serotonin availability. I'm not aware of any drugs that block serotonin production. I'm not any kind of expert but as a reference it's notable that for the prognosis of serotonin syndrome is simply the discontinuation of serotonergic drugs, there does not appear to be a treatment to actively suppress the production of serotonin. Vespine (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fenclonine and p-ethynylphenylalanine, both do it by inhibiting tryptophan hydroxylase. Ssscienccce (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssscienccce, Medeis, and Vespine:OP requests everyone mentioned and everyone else to help in creating wikipedia articles for the inhibitor and the chemicals mentioned by the repliers as OP is using internet.org to access wikipedia and most sites are unavailable in the app, thus OP cannot create article by self
@Mahfuzur rahman shourov:: I just saw your post. It didn't send a message because their was no signature in it, {{reply to|Username}} only works when you have added '~~~~' to your post.
These are not medicines, Fenclonine has been tried as experimental treatment for carcinoid syndrome, but the side-effects were too severe to be useful. I assume p-ethynylphenylalanine is worse, has not been considered for humans it seems. They are used in research on lab animals, to study the role of serotonine in the brain. The fenclonine article exists and I don't see much more that can be added. About p-ethynylphenylalanine there is even less information, only a few abstracts of animal experiments. Too little to make more than a stub, in my opinion. Any reason why you want to make an article about specifically these substances? Ssscienccce (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) When a supernova occurs What happens to gravity, since its an energy?
a) Does it move with the supernova? If so at what level does the gravity stay of a neutron star and a black hole?
b) Since Type la Supernova creates a 'shell-like' remanant, gravity should exist, in the shell like remanant? True/False?
2) If dark matter was created due to/during the matter combination process after the Big Bang, how did dark energy came into existance?
2.1) If dark energy was there from before we know it, and mixed itself, shouldn't gravity do the same? - 'Gravity' and 'dark energy', weren't they suppose to work like the 'force' motion; pull and push...?
Firstly, gravity is a force which is NOT the same thing as energy. Gravity can be viewed as a property of mass/energy.
1) I'm not sure what you mean by "what happens to gravity"? A supernova isn't a "thing", it's an event, it's something that happens TO a star.
a)Again sorry but I can't quite work out what you mean by "If so at what level does the gravity stay of a neutron star and a black hole?" Neutron stars and black holes are what's left behind after a supernova, they are typically very massive and therefore have large gravity. :b) Gravity exists everywhere mass exists.
2)We have articles on dark matter and dark energy, quite a lot is still not known about both of them.
2.1)What do you mean by dark energy "mixed itself"? We really don't know much about abut dark energy apart from that we're pretty sure it exists. I'm not sure you can really draw any strong comparisons with gravity, or anything really. Vespine (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vespine: About dark matter and energy: I'm confused with the thought i.e. if scientist can think that dark matter formed after the primodial atom explosion, why did they not think the same about dark energy?
About gravity: I've read in one of our article(s) which I can't recall now that, scientists are capable/could be capable of creating laser communicative methods which won't get distorted in space. Therefore I'm wondering, can the force 'gravity' and 'dark energy' get distorted by a supernova event?
I'm just an enthusiast so really not familiar once you start getting into minute details. "if scientist can think that dark matter formed after the primodial atom explosion" Again, dark matter and dark energy are INFERRED, we've never really detected either directly, i don't believe we know how or when either formed. Anything you hear about specifics is just hypothesis at this stage, apart from the EFFECT they have on visible matter.
"scientists are capable/could be capable of creating laser communicative methods which won't get distorted in space." That sounds implausible to me. Regardless, I really don't know what you mean by a supernova distorting the force of gravity. A star has mass, an exploding star still has mass, that mass has a property called gravity, what do you mean is it "distorted" do you mean like light is distorted by gravity, is gravity distorted by a supernova? I don't think so, I think it would be like saying does the rock you throw in the pond distort the ripples it creates in the water? well, the ripples ARE the distortion in the first place. Vespine (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement/example gives me the understanding of dark energy as being present from before the primodial atom explosion. I just can't put my finger on the 'gravity' yet.
Ignore everything else you did not understand, let me learn a bit more. And sorry if I come across as a speculator or someone who's busy with the minute details. Thanks and take care -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of unfortunate that "dark matter" and "dark energy" have such similar names. They have not much more in common than the word "dark". Well, that plus the fact that we don't know what they are and infer their existence from astronomical observation. But that's really where it ends.
The effects of dark matter are observable at close range, at the scale of our own galaxy. It's really really clear that there's something there. We don't know exactly what it is, but we can clearly map the distribution of mass-energy that has to be there to explain the orbits of stars. There are no reasonable alternative explanations. Moreover, it's not that difficult to understand why we don't observe it directly, because if the leading explanation (weakly interacting massive particles or WIMPs) is correct, well, we really wouldn't. And that explanation fits well with existing particle physics.
Dark energy is much more tentative and speculative. If it exists (no one would say "if it exists" about dark matter), the effects of dark energy are inferred from observations at a much larger scale, a cosmological rather than merely galactic scale. There is no good candidate for what it would be in terms of existing particle physics if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure someone will correct me. And its interpretation as "energy" in the first place is perhaps somewhat arguable; it could be taken instead as just a term in the field equations for spacetime, with no specific material interpretation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-- Space Ghost (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)