Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 19

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 19

Why will tidal interaction destroy planet's orbits

is Tidal interaction Roche limit? Base on what I've learnt latter scientist believe Earth will be swallowed up because of tidal interaction but I don't know how it works. Yahoo answers said it is because the way sun rotates like if the day is longer than its year it can be tidally interact. Do sun currently have orbital period, sun is a star I wonder if it even orbits. Is Sun and Earth currently interact right now? I hear Moon eventually will get eaten up by Earth [1] before if it even gets toast by sun but I am not sure how it works. Mercury and Venus don't have an moon is it because it is too close to sun or is it possible it may once have moon and got eaten up by the planets. Do being too close to sun have anything to do if planets have a moon or not?--69.233.254.87 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of your question, but the Moon will definitely not be "eaten" by the Earth. In fact, it is actually moving away from Earth at a rate, if I remember correctly, of 5 cm per annum. Being able to retain a moon does not depend on how close to the Sun the planet is. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out why will Earth get swallowed up by sun due to tidal interaction. Is it because of sun's rotation? Is Earth and Sun currently tidally interacted?--69.233.254.87 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Presumably because tidal heating saps the kinetic energy of an orbiting body. However, orbital dynamics are quite complicated, so I'm not going to fathom a guess as to if or when the Earth will be eaten (even ignoring the whole Sun-ballooning-up in 5 billion years). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So tidal interaction comes in different definitions. Is there different types of tidal interactions. I just learnt there is two factors why earth will get eaten up by sun. 1.Weaker solar gases increase frictions 2. Tidal decay (I don't know what is that all about)--69.233.254.87 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The assumption is wrong. The Earth will not be eaten by the Sun because of tidal interactions. If it will be eaten, it will be due the the Sun growing enormously when it leaves the main sequence and turns into a red giant. Tidal interaction between the Earth and the Sun will push the Earth further out a bit. In general, when bodies are not totally rigid, there will be some transfer of rotational energy between orbiting and rotating bodies. Basically, the gravity differential between the near and the far side of the Sun will result in tidal bulges on the sun. Since the sun rotates faster than the Earth orbits it, the Earth-facing bulge will tend to lead the rotation, and hence will exert a force that speeds Earth along in its orbit (a less accurate but more concrete model is that Earth is trying to hold the bulges in place, while the Sun "slips" under them with non-zero "friction"). The effect is fairly small, however. The Roche limit is another effect - it is the boundary where the difference in gravity between the near and far side of the orbiting body is as great as the gravity that holds it together. In that case, a large body will simply disintegrate, because its own gravity can't keep it together. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No it won't - to break it apart, the tidal forces on the body have to be much greater than would be predicted from gravity alone, due to the body's tensile strength. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Roche limit is usually applied to bodies which are held together by gravity, not bodies with significant tensile strength. Your typical astronomical body has plenty of parts that can move independently and take off, from regolith to Dodge Chargers ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait a bit I am confused about Since the sun rotates faster than the Earth orbits it, the Earth-facing bulge will tend to lead the rotation. I heard is the sun will slow down its rotation [2], and Earth gravity will create a large tidal bulge. I don't know what is tidal bulge about. I am not sure what you mean by Earth facing bulge. Is solar wind that much important factor, or solar wind is negligible. I thought solar wind just make planets orbit to move outward. P.S. Actually when the sun reaches its maximum size is 7.6 billion years not 5 billion years.--69.233.254.87 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the Sun rotates approximately once in 30 days (it's a bit more complicated, because the Sun is not a solid body, and different parts rotate at different speeds). The Earth orbits the Sun once every 365.25 days. Now the Earth exerts gravitational attraction on the Sun. But gravity drops with the square of the distance. Thus, the Earth pulls hardest on the part of the Sun that is closest to it, less hard on the middle, and least on the part that is on the opposite side of the Sun. As a result, the near side bulges out towards the Earth, and the far side bulges away from it (because it's pulled less hard than the rest). Check this image - it's of the Earth-Moon system, but the same applies to the Sun-Earth system. Now if the Earth were always overhead the same spot on the Sun, that's all that happens. But the Sun rotates faster, and so it drags the bulge along with it. So the direction of gravity of the sun with respect to the Earth is no longer in the center of the Sun, but a bit offset in the direction of the rotation. This, in term, pulls the Earth along its path, and transfers rotational momentum from the Sun to the Sun-Earth system. So the Sun rotates a little bit slower, and the Earth moves away a little bit farther to compensate. If this continues forever, eventually the rotation of the Sun and the orbit of the Earth would synchronise. But the Sun will die before that happens. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing me right now. The research said when sun becomes a giant it will slow down its rotation quickly. now sun rotates every 30 days, in 7.6 billion years it will only rotate once every 10,000 years which creates a large tidal bulge on sun's surface when sun almost stops rotating.--69.233.254.87 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If Mercury had a substantial atmosphere

If Mercury had a atmosphere like Earth will the planets temperature been alot cooler? When I was younger I would think Mercury is hot because it is close to sun. Is the reason mercury gets 850 F at daytime because there is no atmosphere to protect the extreme temperatures. If Mercury had an atmosphere like Earth how will its surface temperature be like? Daytime temperatures will be alot cooler like equator stay under 500 F, and the poles stay around 200 F? Will nighttime get be much milder with an atmosphere? --69.233.254.87 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what's in that atmosphere. Venus, similar to the earth in size, has an atmosphere, but much of it is acidic gas, and is extremely hot; as Carl Sagan once said, "A thoroughly nasty place." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There are more qualified people to answer this question than I, but in my limited understanding, the distance to the sun matters a lot, atmosphere or no. As Baseball Bugs said, the atmosphere's composition does matter, and one reason Venus is so hot is because it has a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere so it suffers from a pretty dramatic greenhouse effect. Also, I think the atmosphere would insulate against the huge day/night temperature swings. But the non-satisfying answer is that it depends on the atmosphere composition. I'll be interested to see what others have to say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean if Mercury had a clear atmosphere like Earth does.-Earthlike atmosphere.--69.233.254.87 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My gut says the temperature would be more stable, but slightly warmer on average. That's just a guess. (I'm basing this partly on the fact that the moon is the same distance from the sun as the earth, but has a colder temperature on average, with much greater swings...+123C to -153C, I think.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• A key factor here is that Mercury rotates very slowly, and the dark side becomes extremely cold -- our article says around 100K. That isn't cold enough to liquefy nitrogen, but it's easily cold enough to liquefy carbon dioxide. So you would get some heat transfer from the day side to the night side, but working out the parameters would be quite difficult and would depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Looie496 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be difficult for Mercury to maintain an earth-like atmosphere for long anyway. Oxygen reacts with almost everything - and it's only there because we have plant life - without that, the oxygen would probably react with iron in the crust and vanish from the atmosphere. Water vapor is only here because we have liquid oceans - and those can't be on Mercury unless the temperature is low enough so they won't boil and high enough that they won't freeze. CO2 (as someone already pointed out) would freeze solid on the dark side - so there would be no greenhouse effect from that. Mars and the martian atmosphere might be a better model for what Mercury could reasonably have. Also, Mercury is a very tiny planet - much smaller than Earth, Mars or Venus - and only about a third bigger than our moon...it doesn't have enough gravity to hold a dense atmosphere for very long. SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey

Is there a civilian version of the V-22 Osprey in any stage of development? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the AgustaWestland AW609 already exists, so... yes? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically this would be a civilian version of the XV-15 rather than the V-22, but this is close enough for my purposes. Really, I was just thinking whether it would be plausible for Mackinac Lines (a fictional charter freight/air-taxi company that I made up for my book series dealing with air rescue) to acquire a couple of those.  :-) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's technically possible - but if the V-22 is anything to go by, those machines are likely to be horrifically costly to maintain to a reasonable degree of safety. It seems really unlikely that a civilian operation such as you describe would want such a thing rather than some combination of conventional helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. The AW609 is mostly selling to specific search-and-rescue organizations and things like coastal patrol. It would be great in an air rescue role - but I just doubt whether a freight/air-taxi company would buy such a thing. SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The AW609 is still only a prototype and several years from being certified, so it's not actually selling to anyone yet. Roger (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It could come in handy on their Arctic Division (specifically, for ferrying heavy and highly lucrative mining equipment to remote outposts in the tundra), but they'll have to wait for it to be certified. Maybe in some of the later novels, when (and if) it actually goes into series production. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fever

Is increased temperature a byproduct of the immune system working overtime or a reaction to infection that helps the immune system eliminate it?68.36.148.100 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

See Fever#Pathophysiology which discusses the various internal and external things that can cause a fever. --Jayron32 03:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I mean a fever from the flu. Not from hyperthermia. 68.36.148.100 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case, yes. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

... and "yes" to both cause and effect, or perhaps sometimes one and sometimes the other. Experts don't fully agree on this. Dbfirs 09:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could one of you clarify your answer? Both examples I gave are effects of getting an infection so I don't understand your" cause and effect" reference. Are you saying experts don't know if increased body temperature aides the immune system in fighting infection?68.36.148.100 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fever is an immune reaction to certain infections, a particularly effective on in some cases. We have articles on everything you asked about... as everyone above referenced. You say a "byproduct" but that's the kind of anthropromorphic thinking that predominates a lot of low level science education ("the electron wants to go to the other atom")... it's an awful way to think about these things. Shadowjams (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Shadow, read the question again, there is nothing about which you speak. is the increased temperature beneficial to overcoming the infection or simply a condition of being infected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So as the immune system fights infection, it produces excess heat. The excess heat makes life harder for some kinds of infectious agents. Asking whether the excess heat is a "deliberate" thing or an "accidental" thing is to miss the point. If we believed in "intelligent design" then we might say that the "designer" deliberately wanted the excess heat to fight infection and so made it that way...but we don't (or at least, shouldn't!) believe that - so we have to ask whether the immune system merely evolved with an inefficient biochemical engine that produces a lot of waste heat - or whether it's actively evolved a mechanism that produces that much heat despite the existence of a more efficient, suitable and available biochemical pathway that would be just as effective. That's a tough question to answer - which (I suspect) is why (as User:Dbfirs claims) experts don't agree. Evolution is great at "repurposing" body parts and chemical pathways to do things that they had not previously intended. So it's perfectly possible that we've evolved to optimize the (initially incidental) heat output either to make fighting infection less energy-wasteful or more heat-producing...but evolution is quite capable of adjusting the balance between the two goals dynamically depending on the changing threats facing our bodies over the millenia. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that we're in a delicate perpetual balance between the two reasons you describe...the amount of heat we produce being tweaked from one generation to the next to produce the maximum heat-death in the bugs that ail us for the minimum drain on our bodies' energy supply. SteveBaker (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good answer but the question does not ask about deliberate or accidental it asks if it is beneficial to overcoming the infection or simply a condition of being infected.165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the tone and don't entirely disagree, but I'm puzzled by parts of SB's answer. Inflammatory cytokines like IL-1, IL-6, and TNF alpha - which play important roles separate from what follows - stimulate production of Prostaglandin E2, which in turn stimulates the hypothalamus to raise body temperature by a variety of mechanisms. While the inflammatory cytokines are intrinsic to the immune response, the heat generated does not represent "excess heat" that is a byproduct of an inefficient biochemical pathway such as lymphocyte-mediated killing of virus-infected cells; rather, temperature is raised in a separate pathway (and I think Phil Mackowkiak would say that it has played an important role, in the past at least, in helping us fight infections). -- Scray (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder of a previous discussion on fever in cold-blooded animals [3]. Mikenorton (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bomb shelters

What kinds of structures (other than the Paris Metro) were used as bomb shelters in occupied France during World War 2? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, any type of underground structure, such as a wine cellar, would offer some protection. Mines or caves are safer, but getting large numbers of people into them quickly would be problematic, as they might be far from population centers, with limited openings. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Air-raid_shelter#In_World_War_II. --PlanetEditor (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of information about the subject relating to Britain, but I can't find anything very specific for France. - Anybody?   ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC):~

The folks over at the Humanities Desk are the real experts in historical research, try asking them. Roger (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Force field implementation

How does Dreiding FF compare with Merck Molecular FF (94) for small molecules? Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you expect that there will be a better answer than the source already listed in our article? DREIDING and MM94 are both published. The papers that introduced each one outlined the features, and compared to extant models. Nimur (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for a direct comparisson, not an individual overview of each. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen Peroxide decomposes into water and oxygen in the following reaction:

2 H₂O₂ → 2 H₂O + O₂

Silver is a catalyst for this reaction. Does that mean silver decomposes into ionic silver (in other words: "silver ions") and the silver ions react to produce Ag_s? Cf: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 14#Ozone Silver TarnishCurb Chain (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular use of metallic silver, although, I'm aware that metal ions act in this way. If metallic silver is a catalyst here, then it would not neccessarily be ionised in the reaction. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen peroxide may simply coordinate to the silver surface as part of the reaction. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Plasmic is correct on the second part: The word catalyst means "participates in a chemical reaction, but is not consumed by it". If metallic silver were converted to silver (I) ions, then it wouldn't be a catalyst, it would be a reactant. The silver should act as a heterogeneous catalyst in this case. There's also no need to oxidize the silver, as the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide is a Disproportionation reaction; the hydrogen peroxide (the oxygen specifically) is both the oxidant AND the reductant. Once you balance the reaction, there's no left over electrons so no other elements should change oxidation state. --Jayron32 13:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. A catalyst, by definition, is not consumed in the reaction. (theoretically) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Curb intends to suggest that silver is reversibly oxidised in the reaction, as in: Ag ↔ Ag⁺ e^-. In this case, silver still acts as a catalyst. The question is: is this the key route of catalysis? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not likely. If the silver ionized, it would dissolve into the solution. If it just acts as a surface catalyst, it wouldn't. I'm inclined to think that it does that. --Jayron32 02:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would dissolve into the solution, but the reduced silver would just precipitate out again. So, the metallic silver is just transfered to the bottom of the reaction vessel. Where the metallic silver ends up, is irrelevent, as long as the final amount of silver is equal to the initial amount of silver. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Instead of the bottom of the vessel, lets not forget the possibility of the formation of a colloid. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Originally, my idea was that silver oxidated into one of its oxidation states, be it Ag⁺, Ag²⁺, Ag³⁺, Ag⁴⁺ or others and after the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide, the oxidated silver reacted together on the main mass of the silver (such as an ingot or bullion such as a bullion bar) to form the Ag_s? Am I wrong and how and why?Curb Chain (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the silver ions will definitely not be reduced by the metallic silver. Reduction works by taking electrons from another molecule, hence, if silver ion were to take electrons from metallic silver, then those atoms will become ions in their place. Thus, the only way for the ions to be reduced back to metallic silver, is for them to react with the other agents in the solution. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So Ag⁺, Ag²⁺, Ag³⁺, Ag⁴⁺ or others does not react with Ag_s? Doesn't it work in a way that silver becomes ionic and "sloughs" off, allowing the Ag ions to react with the exposed silver?Curb Chain (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it only Ag⁺ that can exist in solution. It may react, but my point is that it will not have a net result on the quantity of ionised silver. If that quantity is not completely reduced to metallic silver, then silver does not act as a catalyst. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In equation form: Ag + Ag⁺ ↔ Ag⁺ +Ag. Since Ag⁺ + Ag and Ag + Ag⁺ are equivalent, there is no net effect. If silver is to act as a catalyst: X + Ag⁺ → X⁺ + Ag must occur. Since X + Ag⁺ and X⁺ + Ag are not equivalent, the net effect is to restore the original amount of metallic silver. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a viable reducing agent is the dioxidanide ion, otherwise known as the hydroperoxide ion. It may reduce Ag⁺ to Ag, while becoming oxidised in itself to the dioxidanyl radical, otherwise known as the hydroperoxyl radical or hydrogen superoxide. I do believe that hydroperoxyl has a lower activation energy barrier towards decomposition. To get Ag⁺ in the first place, it could be that oxonium ions, from the deprotonation of hydrogen peroxide in water, oxidises Ag to Ag⁺, while in itself becoming reduced to dihydrogen and water. Hydrogen peroxideis a weak acid afterall. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don`t understand this. Can you explain; a mathematical explanation might help.Curb Chain (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical equation? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, you'd have to be more specific about what you don't understand; I've said a lot of things above. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To get Ag⁺ in the first place, it could be that oxonium ions, from the deprotonation of hydrogen peroxide in water, oxidises Ag to Ag⁺, while in itself becoming reduced to dihydrogen and water.

The more useful reaction is the disproportionation to water and atomic oxygen, H₂O₂ → H₂O + O. Atomic oxygen is more reactive than molecular oxygen, O₂. —rybec 02:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How does silver come into that? Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

if hair would grou at the expansion rate of cancer cell

The human hair is made of cells, and created by cells. What would be the rate of hair growth, if the hair was expand as a cancer cell. How many cm of hair would have been growing in a day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.128.88 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

One important factor is that the hair itself is dead, so doesn't grow at all. The hair follicle, in the skin, is what extrudes the hair. So, you can't get an effect of hair cells spawning more hair cells, which spawn more, exponentially. I'd think the growth rate on men's facial hair would be close to the maximum rate, as there doesn't seem to be any reason for our bodies to possess the ability to grow hair faster than they do. What you could get is extremely thick hairs. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hair matrix cell cycle is about 18 hours. [4] As cell cycle explains, this is almost double the time of the intestinal crypt, which intestinal cancer clearly can match. Rat lymph node cells are called in a 1988 paper the fastest known cell cycle of 7.60 hours. for an in vivo replicating tissue. [5] By comparison, I'm finding statements about "fastest growing" cell lines (from small sets) replicating in 14 hours and a claim that Burkitt's lymphoma is that fastest growing tumor with a replication time under 24 hours. So far plain old CHO cells (14 hours) [6] are the best I found, but I don't know for sure.

To put it simply, it appears that hair is evolutionarily optimized to grow fast (though not as fast as some things). Tumors by comparison don't really get much chance to evolve - for them the wonder (the terror) is that they can grow at all when they're not supposed to. So far I haven't found evidence that any tumor can surpass hair growth by much - and of course, that is for irregular, undifferentiated growth, not the sort of systematic elongation and cross-linking that is seen in hair. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the Palacozoic?

I've come across a reference to a geological period called the "Palacozoic", but this term does not appear to exist anywhere on Wikipedia (which is really surprising). Let me make it clear the word is not Paleozoic or Palaeozoic (different spelling), which Wiki and Google want to redirect me to, it's "Palacozoic", no mistake. When you search Google with that specific word (rather then just similar words) it does turn up quite a lot of Geology papers using the term (see here), which is why it's even more surprising that it appears to be unknown on Wiki. So if there's any geologists out there, can you explain what the Palacozoic is and why it is not referenced anywhere on Wikipedia? --Hibernian (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A brief check suggests to me that it might be an archaic term (books from the 19th C., etc.) — But it would be nice to find an explanation someplace on WP. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC):~

I'm convinced, especially after looking over the Google search results, that it is in fact an error for "Palaeozoic". Virtually all the cites are either from foreign authors or from Google Books, which uses OCR for transcription. Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is just a typo, "e" and "c" can easily be confused, even more so if OCR is involved. Roger (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding some recent (1980s-90s) publications from the Netherlands / Greenland; wonder if it could be related to re/translating "æ" ~ Perhaps this is a question for the Language desk (?) ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC):~

We may be omitting the possibility this is the geological period of Pollack jokes. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I originally saw the word written on this map of the geology of Ireland: [7], you can clearly see there that is says "Palacozoic" (comes from this website: Irish Base Metal Exploration). But I did another search for similar images and it turned up this map [8], that's a nearly identical map except now the name is changed to "Palaeozoic" (from this site: Conroy Gold and Natural Resources). So I can only conclude that is must just be a spelling mistake. Though if it's a fairly common mistake maybe Wikipedia should have Palacozoic as a redirect to Paleozoic. --Hibernian (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think the word is also spelled correctly on that first map, it's just that it's difficult to distinguish between "e" and "c" in that font at that resolution. If you compare the letter in question to the "e" in the word "Lower", and to the "c" at the end of the word "Palaeozoic", you'll see that the letter in question looks more similar to the "e" than to the "c". Red Act (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

New glasses every two years?

Do the eyes of an adult really get worse within 2 years? I doubt that any change in any organ can be noticed in such a short period. Is that a hoax spread by the glasses industry to sell more glasses? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Two years is enough time to observe a significant change in eye prescription. However, that does not mean that all people with prescription eyewear will undergo such a change, or that someone who had that much change over the prior two years will have that much over the next two as well. Note also that different people have different expectations about how good their eyesight should be. For example, I determine my need for evaluation based on how well I can read highway signage. If I drove for a living, I'd probably be pickier about how good my distance vision needs to be, and so I'd get a new prescription more frequently. — Lomn 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not just about the eyes, it's about the state of the glasses themselves. I've had my current pair about 3 years (picking out new ones next week), and they are in a terrible state, battered and scratched and falling apart - and I only wear them in the evenings after removing my contacts. As it turns out my prescription had changed (by -0.25), but I was planning on getting a new pair anyway. Imagine an item of clothing that you wore all everyday, I would be amazed if it lasted two years--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Shoes might. In any case, getting new glasses does not automatically mean you need a new eye exam, but, in the US, this is a requirement (I think it's an industry agreement, not a government mandate). I was somewhat surprised by this, too. Even if it's a good idea, it seems rather Big-Brotherish for them to require it. It's like if stores refused to sell you another toothbrush until you could prove you had a recent dental exam. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly my eyesight has changed enough over the last year to require a different prescription for the lenses. I can see the improvement from my old glasses to the new ones - so it's not negligable. The real question is no a "yes/no" think - how much do you need perfect eyesight for how much cash expenditure. For some people, like me (I do computer graphics for a living - so eyesight matters), that's 12 months for a $50 health-insurance co-pay. For other people, it's quite possible to go for many years before a slow deterioration of eyesight seems to be worth a $500 uninsured outlay for new glasses. I agree with Jac though - my glasses are so scratched up and dinged after even a year that I need new ones at least that often! SteveBaker (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Effect of Acetone on ABS

It's fairly common knowledge that Acetone will melt ABS plastic. In my experience it turns it into a honey like goo, and the goo hardens again when the acetone evaporates. My question is: what effect does this have on the material properties of the plastic? Does the plastic return to its original state and strength, or will it crystallize with different material properties? Is it different than melting and then cooling the plastic with regular old heat? I've asked Google but haven't found much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it should return to its original strength upon evaporation of acetone. FWiW 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh good. I was hoping to 3D print my own UAV and then put Acetone on it to smooth it out :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't "3D print" a UAV (see below) -- and even if you could, putting acetone on it would ruin it through uncontrolled deformation. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

3D Printing your own UAV - how far are 3D printers from this capability?

You see, any civilian interested in ending the regime of the last Stalinist bastion on Earth may obtain a 3-D printer that can put together parts of a UAV cargo/surveillance drone.

The cargo bay would drop supplies, many also 3D-printed themselves, intended to help dissidents rebel against the government and end the 60+ years of brutal madness:

• Guns prepackaged with suppressors, ammunition, and instructions to shoot a lone soldier, hide the body, and take the uniform and their armaments, as there wouldn't be enough ammo for purposes beyond this.

• Extra silencers for AK-47s and other firearms known to be carried by their goose-stepping henchmen, in order to suppress the weapons the dissidents pick up off of their oppressors.

• Bibles/other religious texts (from the religiously-inclined.)

• Parts for larger 3D printers

• Entire 3D printers, operated by solar, wind, or manual power (foot pedal or hand crank) as electricity is scarce otherwise, instructions for assembly / use thereof

• MREs

• Packs of seeds to grow food.

But the hardest part may be to print your own UAV. Obtaining one otherwise is even harder as there isn't much of a market to buy one, and 3D-printing a UAV may be cheaper anyway.

1. Solar panels for the top of the wings - would power the craft indefinitely. What hurdles would need to be crossed in order to start 3D-printing solar panels?
2. Weight and strength matters, to carry as much cargo as needed, and especially to withstand wind. What materials would be light and strong, and fairly 3D-printable?
3. Besides gasoline, which may not be most ideal to fuel UAVs, what easily obtainable "backup fuel" can be used for when not enough solar energy is present?
4. How printable is the engine for said backup fuel?
5. How much of a detriment would it be to install said backup engine?
6. Can a mini wind turbine be added somewhere so that a good wind can keep the plane powered in order to supplement (and sometimes take over) the solar energy?
7. Will DefCAD.com provide blueprints for stealth, civilian-operated UAVs so that no "Average Joe" would need to design one themselves?
8. What is the closest civilian-accessible American territory to that most contentious rogue nation on Earth? How easy is it to get there with a 3D printer?
9. Are there satellite frequencies accessible to civilians that one could use to operate the UAV?
10. If no such frequency is accessible, how else can civilians operate UAVs from hundreds, even thousands of miles away?
11. How easily 3D-printable are countermeasures against radar- and heat-seeking missiles?
12. How are all the needed raw materials obtained for the 3D printer in the first place, and how easily-obtainable are they?
13. How much might a good 3D printer cost by 2015, extrapolating for trends in 3D printer costs?
14. How much $ in raw materials would it take to print a fully-working recon/cargo UAV, in current prices?
15. How many other such cargo UAVs and cargo-drops could it take to help break the Stalinist government's iron-fisted hold on its people?
16. What are the cities and regions known to be least loyal to their regime?

When 3D printing becomes more accessible to civilians anywhere, they can certainly change the world and overthrow the most oppressive regimes. Of course though, that particular regime is going to need outside help. Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer is very far. So no, don't get your hopes up again about going to work for the FSA as a UAV pilot (or if you resurrected your plans to work for the South Korean military them too). Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Do 3D printers print electronic components?

Is that a peer-to-peer guerrilla plan?

do you have some millions to do that? Otherwise you won't gather the mass of bibles, guns, and whatever, to make a difference.OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

3D printers are not replicators. As I understand it, they currently use one material to make the end product. That's not going to get you a functioning UAV (or anything else), just a big blob in the shape of one. An expensive decoy, but not much else. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

However, there are Gun parts made on 3D printer (BBC) (which may have inspired this query?). ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC):~

Wow. Where to start... First off, most 3D printers are either really expensive to purchase and operate, or only print plastic. Get a fancy one, and you can print 2 kinds of plastic at the same time. Also, the build volume for said printers is going to be much smaller than a UAV. Printing anything over 6 inches tall is often a problem. You may, however, be able to print pieces for a UAV: body, wings, flaps, etc. You won't be able to print the engine (the plastic would melt if you tried burning any fuel; same problem with guns), you wouldn't be able to print the electronics (metal problem again, plus you can't print computer chips), or the servos to control the flaps, etc. Also, 3D printed objects (using the extrusion process) are structurally weak, because they basically a big pile of plastic spaghetti, and whatever you print is likely to sheer in half if stressed.

That said... you can construct a drone for relatively cheap with some work and money. Check out diydrones.com for information on how to do that with an arduino microcontroller that can actually autopilot the plane (using built in GPS, compass, gyros, acceleration sensors, altitude sensors, etc.) and perform real missions. I'll bet you could design and 3D print some of the parts you'd need for a small airplane, though probably not big enough to drop a significant amount of supplies. And it'd put you out a couple thousand dollars. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What if, you use a coloidal nanometal ink, and use a laser to vapourise the continuous medium and sinter the nanometal into bulk material? Why has no one thought of that? It seems so simple. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably someone other than you has, or some near equivalent. However, for metal products, Numerically Controlled Machines (computer controlled machine tools) are well established, and have been in use for decades, and are now in such common use than even hobbyists/model makers are using them. They have always been accurate, work well with common steels and non-ferous alloys, and are cost effective - none of which would apply to your idea. Plus your idea would suffer from the same limittation as 3D printing has in plastic: it would necessitate removal of support elements, and also could not do cavities. If a sintered product is acceptable (for most mechanical products it is not suitable, but it does have its' niche) then conventional powder metalurgy using molds can be used. Wickwack 120.145.34.201 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by cavities, but I must stress that this modified process sinters as it prints, not afterward; also note that nanometal sinters more densely and at lower temperatures than micrometal. What about this idea then: using dual constructive interfering UV lasers in a CVD process, so that only where the beams intersect is metal deposited? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It would have the same geometric limitations as using scanning lasers to selectively solidify a liquid polymer - an early form of 3D printing. These can furnish a cavity that has a constant cross section projected in from a surface, or a cavity with sides sloped outwards, but not a cavity of arbitary axis with inwards sloped sides or a cavity of non-constant cross section, as the material solidified early can block the beam(s). Your idea has indeed been thought of before - see the wikipedia article Selective Laser Sintering. 3D printers based on the guided laying down of a plastic feed-wire are now getting quite common, even though they are only good for small plastic parts whre the application is verey non critical, and for "test feeling"/"hold in your hand" checking before committing to conventional manufacturing. I'd never seen nor heard of SLS until I decided to check Wikipedia just now. There's a place for everything. For instance, metal parts that are essentially a shaft having several diameters and a thread or two, copying capstan lathes, which work under hydralic control guided by a plate prototype are in my experince still the fastest way in small quantities - technology of the 1920's. Wickwack 121.215.31.187 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(un-indent) If you're really serious about trying to overthrow the North Korean government in the foreseeable future, then why not ditch the UAV part and try bringing in weapons, ammo, rations, propaganda, and whatever else your resistance movement needs by boat instead? This sounds a lot easier than having to make literally thousands of homebuilt UAVs to carry supplies. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What silliness. At least the one who wanted to bomb aliens in 4000AD had a decent question about space travel. If you want cheap UAVs just get some radio controlled aircraft and fit them with a camera, GPS and computer. I'd guess people have already done this sort of thing. Hopefiully the NK soldiers will shoot them down if you're just trying to encourage more people to kill each other, though of course in America freedom equals having lots of people killed by guns so I suppose that's logical if you want them to be free. Why can't you just send pictures of well fed people having a good time instead or Lassie Come Home videos for the children? That would do far more good and perhaps they could eventually get to having a little freedom and prosperity like China which would be a huge leap forward. Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How much is the North Korean KGB paying you for this anti-American commie propaganda, Dmcq?! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I'd say you can have good food and happy children instead of marching around chanting the praises of your leader and being hungry? They have enough guns, they don't need more and it would just confirm their ideas about the west being a load of decadent warmongers who most certainly don't have their best interests at heart. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You said, quote, "in America freedom equals having lots of people killed by guns so I suppose that's logical if you want them to be free" -- how's THAT not anti-American propaganda?! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess you are familiar with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? And you agree with the National Rifle Association that any restriction on guns is an infringement on civil rights and freedom, and that the way to deal with having so many people being killed by guns is to have yet more people have guns and carry them around ready to use? Basically as far as I see it Americans believe having lots of people being killed is a price worth paying because carrying around guns is so important to freedom. What I'm saying is that North Koreans need to be shown something better to aspire to rather than be given yet more guns and encouraged to kill each other. They have enough guns, giving them more won't work and it will just confirm their worst suspicions. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not that much has really changed. If the recipient had a well-equipped machine shop full of manual tools and sufficient raw materials, then a set of printed instructions is (in principle) sufficient to allow them to make anything you can describe to them that can be made with the materials that the tools are able to work. All a 3D printer does is to somewhat reduce the number of tools you need and somewhat reduce the skill level needed by the operator. However, it doesn't reduce the skill level to zero - and it certainly doesn't waive the requirement to have the right materials and a tool that can work that material.

A typical $500 3D printer cannot:

• Make things that require materials other than plastic.
• Make things more than a few inches across.
• Make anything remotely interesting in less than several hours.
• Make things with large overhangs that are not self-supporting during manufacture.
• Make things that are very top-heavy that would fall over during fabrication.
• Make things like links in a chain that have to be topologically linked but not physically touching.
• Assemble the resulting parts into a useful multi-part object.
• Allow someone who doesn't know anything about 3D printing to make things just by pushing a button.

That's not so different from the restrictions of a screwdriver, a chop saw and a drill press. The restrictions aren't the same, the skill levels are a bit different - but both systems have limits and each is applicable to a different domain. If you asked me to make (say) a 6" box with a detachable lid - I bet I could to it faster with those tools than with a 3D printer - but if you wanted me to make a 6" action figure for a kid to play with, then I'd stand no chance with the chop-saw and drill press!

Also, you shouldn't fixate on 3D printing just because mainstream media has "noticed" the technology. It's only one of many technologies that allow "rapid fabrication" (a misnomer indeed for 3D printing - which is slow as all hell!) - consider also "subtractive" methods such as CNC milling. A cheap CNC milling machine can be made for about the same as a 3D printer - and it uses the exact same data as it's source. It has different limitations as regards overhangs and such - but it can work on wood, metal and plastic. A laser cutter can produce completely arbitary shapes from sheet material - very rapidly and with vastly more precision than a 3D printer - it's also easy to make them large enough to make things that are several feet across, and they can work on a wider variety of materials. There is even a machine called a "Cricut" that you can pick up in most craft stores for a couple of hundred bucks that can cut arbitary shapes from paper, card and thin plastic.

Taken to the limit, you can make very complex 3D objects from simple materials (paper) using Origami and no tools whatever. Sure, there are still restrictions on what you can make...but the instructions can be passed from person to person and the skill levels required are relatively small. There are things you can make with Origami that a 3D printer can't possibly make.

The thing that has truly changed is the perception that people can once again make things for themselves - and that the Internet can deliver the instructions for doing so. This "maker movement" is what produced 3D printers that cost $500, laser cutters at $2,000 and CNC machines at $800...each of which used to cost over $30,000 before that happened.

This set of societal changes is the "disruptive technology" - not just 3D printing - and it's slowly changing the world.

Consider my recent history: Starting with nothing but an old computer and an internet connection, my g/f and I now have a $120,000 per year business with zero debt. Here is how that happened:

• Using Linux (an OpenSourced operating system), I was able to download GIMP, Audacity, LiVES, Inkscape and Blender (all sophisticated design tools - each costing $0.00 to obtain).
• Using free online resources, I was able to learn how to use those tools.
• Using pictures from WikiCommons, I gathered a bunch of pictures of medieval buildings.
• Using Inkscape, I made some designs for small wooden models of those buildings, intended to be cut from sheet plywood - and at a scale suitable for Dungeons & Dragons players to use in their games.
• Using blender, I was able to visualize the fit of the parts to be sure they'd all assemble correctly and make some concept models in 3D graphics.
• Visiting my local "hackerspace" group (a collective of like-minded geeks with cheap access to a well-equipped workshop), I was able to use their laser cutter to make prototypes of those models from scrap plywood.
• Setting up a website on my computer (using Apache - another OpenSource package) - and learning how from W3Schools (another free website) - I was able to set up our own website.
• Using the camera on my android phone (more OpenSource software) I took photos of the product and tweaked them using GIMP (an open-sourced image processing tool).
• Using Audacity and LiVES (more open source software for audio and video editing) I made a pitch video...using some copyright-free renaissance music downloaded for free from WikiCommons.
• Posting pictures of our work, my g/f and I were able to surf some public bulletin boards (phpBB - another Opensourced package) and get some likely customers interested in our work - which got everyone excited about buying our models. We ran a contest to name one of the models - giving away my prototype models as a prize.
• Now we have close to 1000 people interested in our stuff and opted-in to our mailing list.
• Using MediaWiki, I was able to set up a Wiki for my web site containing product pictures, assembly instructions, etc.
• Using phpBB, I was able to set up a forum where potential customers discussed what they'd like me to change or add in the set of kits we were thinking of making. We got lots of useful input and made new prototypes accordingly.
• Using Kickstarter (a "crowd-funding site"), we were able to get 250 people to pledge $42,000 in 30 days (three times what we needed) - in return for making them a bunch of Medieval building kits.
• That money purchased a really good laser cutter kit (a "lasersaur" - an open-hardware and open-sourced software system that was also launched as a kickstarter - which uses the "Arduino" and "Rasberry Pi" computers - both big "maker" projects).
• It also bought us a big pile of plywood and enough boxes and postage stamps to get everything shipped.
• With help from free advice given on mailing lists (more open-sourced software) and more forums, I was able to assemble it and get it all working.
• With some significant effort, my g/f has so far made all of the building kits and shipped them out to about 80% of our customers in just a couple of months.
• Repeating this process roughly every four months produces a business income of $120,000 per year of which about $80,000 is profit...my g/f earns $50 an hour, working from home - and now owns her own company ("Renaissance Miniatures").

Net result, we now have a thriving business that started from absolutely nothing - every single thing we needed (well, except for the phone and the computer) were free.

This is what's changed...and it's not just 3D printers.

Obviously, it's possible to use this stuff for good and for ill...but that can be said of just about every technological advance since the invention of the stone arrowhead.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)