Contents

March 1

Plants and their production of oxygen

I was wondering if it was possible for future moon colonization for the colony's oxygen supply to be totally relient on plants? Could the colonists provide the plants with their carbon dioxide while the plants supplied them with oxygen?

Yes, so long as the whole thing is in air tight containers. The Earth's moon can not be teraformed because its gravity is too low to maintain an atmosphere. WAS 4.250 02:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Closed ecological system --Zeizmic 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In order for a planet/moon to have an atmosphere it has to generate enough gravity to hold the gases to the surface of the planet. Our moon has a very thin atmosphere because of its relatively small mass. There is also the question of sustaining the plants. At the very minimum, plants need water, sugar, and carbon dioxide to live. If the moon cannot provide this, in the right quanities, then plants cannot survive. In actuallity, what you want to do is put plants on the moon to generate oxygen. Though it sounds like a good idea, if it were possible, the moon would be as green as our planet. It would have already gone through this process, which is an interesting read. --Chris 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have another question the moon may not have the gravitational pull strong enough for this process but does Mars? If the temperture could be raised then could plants be grown on the surface, of course this would require the discovery of a water source, but could it be done? The carbon dioxide is already there.

I think there's already a lot of water (frozen) on Mars. The problem comes in "raising the temperature". I don't think it would be possible to live on Mars in the same way we use Earth because the amount of energy required would be difficult to generate so far from the Sun. Not to mention the lower intensity of natural light required for photosynthesis. Unless there are high quantities of quality radioactive materials available, forget it. --Username132 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Mars can be teraformed by crashing into it a large object that has a lot of frozen water. Objects like this are plentiful. There are a lot of interesting details involved, but Mars is do-able, Earth's moon isn't. You do realize we are talking huge amounts of time, right? WAS 4.250 02:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If the caps were melted would the amount of carbon dioxide released be enough to raise the temperture any? Also if the caps were melted then water would be released.

It's difficult to tell, since to this day we still don't know just how much CO2 there is in the martian polar caps. Modelling planetwide climate change is something we can't even do well on our own planet, let alone on a planet we have never been to.
Aside: we have a pretty good article on terraforming. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Degree symbols on Computers

Anybody know why there is not a key for a "degree symbol" on computer keyboards? I frquently have need of one and I'm sure many other people do too.

If you need to use the degree symbol "°" regularly, you may be able to configure your word processing program to assign the degree symbol to a keyboard shortcut. --Robert Merkel 03:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've got it in my GNOME Character Palette. —Keenan Pepper 04:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There's two things here: 1) computer keyboards evolved from Typewriter keyboards. There was no need for a degree sign with typewriters, because you could simply manually move the platen half a row down and type "o" (in otherwords, put a lower case O in superscript), which is all that was needed given the rudimentary font capabilities of typewriters. 2) most computers use a simple key combination to get a degree symbol. I can't recall offhand what it is with PCs, but with Macs "option-shift-8" gives you "°" in most editing and word-processing programs. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are using an Apple Computer, just press option and K. K for Kelvin.
There is no degree symbol on a standard US QWERTY keyboard. The (IMO much improved, but very rare) US-International layout has the ° accessible by SHIFT-ALTGR-: . The German QWERTZ and French AZERTY layouts also have a ° key (either SHIFT-) or SHIFT-^ ). See keyboard layout - the standard US keyboard is one of the least functional of them all, and useless for languages which use diacritic marks, or for inputting all but the most common of symbols.
(first answer written which doesn't even answer the question!) If you're using a French keyboard (probably not, but just in case :)), the ° is on a key just to the right of 0 (press shift + that key). If not, you can get it by using it's ASCII key combination, press and hold down ALT, type 0176 on your numerical keypad, and release ALT. (you can use this method to type pretty much any character, find out the different codes by using the Character Map utility, usually in your start menu under Accessories -> System Tools). — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Planet spinning

Can someone tell me why every thing in the Universe spins? Do all stars, planets etc. spin in the same direction? I can understand that a baseball spins because of the friction between the ball and the throwers hand but I'm not sure this would explain why a star spins. Thanks WSC

Something started them spinning a long time ago, and they can't stop because angular momentum is conserved. It would be amazing if the angular momentum randomly happened to be exactly zero. —Keenan Pepper 04:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, something started them moving a while ago. Then all kinds of gravity happened. Venus and some other orbiting bodies, mainly comets, have retrograde rotations. -LambaJan 07:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a simple analogy - water flowing down a drain. In theory, the water could flow straight down the drain without any sort of spin (all that about the draining water spinning the other way in the southern hemisphere is rubbish). But in practice it almost never does, because any slight imbalance (a bit more water on one side, the bowl not being perfectly symmetrical...) will cause the draining water to start spinning.
With stars and other objects it works in a similar way - they are formed when clouds of gas and dusk contract under their own gravity. In theory, the cloud could be perfectly uniform in every direction, and contract perfectly symmetrically. In practice, that's never the case, any small variation will cause the resulting object to start spinning, and in space, as there's no friction, something which starts spinning won't stop.
Because of this, no, not all stars and planets spin the same way, far from it! Their axis and velocity of spin is dependent on how they were formed, and so can be every which way. We have a decent article on axial tilt if you're interested. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Consider a good-sized chunk of plasticine hanging from a string attached to the ceiling. This is going to be our model of a planet being formed. Assume that it starts out stationary. If you give the lump a little kick–say, by throwing another little chunk of plasticine at it–our lump will start moving. If you hit it dead center, the lump moves sideways: no rotation. If you're even a little bit off center, there will be some movement sideways and some rotation. If you just graze the edge of the lump with a tangential hit, you'll get essentially pure rotation.
When any astronomical body forms, billions of little particles smack into it, and very few strike dead center. It's also very unlikely that the off-center impacts will cancel out perfectly. Consequently, everything spins.
Gravity makes it worse. Like the classic example of a figure skater pulling in her arms, as stars and planets pack their material more densely they spin faster. (Conservation of angular momentum.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It may be that the off-centre hits will not cancel each other out perfectly, but with a large number of relatively small hits they will effectively. And they will in time be small because the surviving celestial bodies will be much much bigger than the stuff that hits them. The amount of energy needed to make a planet spin at the speed at which they do would require either a lot of small ones going off-centre on the same side, which would be statistically impossible or a big one, which would either destroy it or knock it so far out of orbit that it will get destroyed in some other way (or flung out into deep space).
I have thought about this too and haven't come up with an answer. It makes me think a bit about the question where structure in the Universe comes from. It can not have formed without already being present before the Big Bang. But we can't explain structure there, so we simply have to accept its existence. Jus like matter and time 'just are' and structure 'just is', maybe rotation is something that simply is. Asking about its origin would be like asking why there is matter.
Now that sounds like a lame answer, so let me try a different one. Maybe it's a matter of starting conditions. Maybe the very first momentum caused by chance will amplify. Chaos theory would probably come in here because we've got am instable system the outcome of which is determined by minute variations in the starting conditions. And I've got a feeling relativity might come in here too, with the initial rotation determining how attracted matter will approach it, but that's no more than a hunch.
I wonder. If one would add up all the rotations in the Universe, would they cancel each other out? DirkvdM 09:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

False Embryo Sketchings?

I've heard some Christians and creationists say that Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryoes, which he claimed to be scientific evidence for evolution, are fake or flawed.Is that true?Bowei 06:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That can be dismissed without addressing the main question. It's a straw man argument, since a drawing isn't scientific evidence of anything, ever. (at least in the context of biology/medicine) --BluePlatypus 07:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Haeckel's sketches are flawed—he gets a bit fanciful with his third row of sketches in the figure at right. Haeckel's Theory of Recapitulation stated that the development of an embryo would follow the evolutionary development of a species. (Often this is condensed down to the catchy slogan 'Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'.)
While Haeckel's theory fails in the strictest sense and his drawings sometimes strayed into wishful thinking, it does provide a useful rule of thumb. In the human embryo, features that evolved early (a backbone, for instance) are formed early in embryogenesis, whereas features that evolved recently (the cerebrum) form last. In whales (which evolved from land mammals) the embryo grows and then loses hair during the course of its development.
Certainly if Haeckel's sketches were the only evidence in support of evolution, they would be poor proof indeed. However, there is a wealth of other evidence that supports evolutionary theory quite well; an error made by a zoologist in 1866 doesn't render the theory any less reliable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, they are flawed in many ways. Embryos aren't two dimensional, to begin with. deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

porn site

Can anyone give me the best porn site in the world?

What are your criteria? JackofOz 12:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Because there is no reputable ranking site, I don't think you can say. It all boils down to personal preference. For example, you might like http://mary-kateandashley.com or http://www.hairybearmen.com. Proto||type 14:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
As of a couple of years ago Usenet literally contained more FREE porn of EVERY category (including illegal) than you could view in a lifetime. I haven't been there in years, so I don't know its current status. WAS 4.250 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Our article onit says in one place it currently has a daily volume of "2.00 TB" and in another place says " Commonly omitted from such a newsfeed are foreign-language newsgroups and the alt.binaries hierarchy which largely carries software and erotica and, in the 21st century, accounts for over 99 percent of the article data." So does 2 TB of free porn a day qualify as "best"? WAS 4.250 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but only if you can tell me correctly what the best book ever written and the best movie ever made were (and have *everybody* agree on it). --Robert Merkel 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There is only one book that stands out from all others and that is The Bible. There is no moving picture that stands out above all others so the "best" movie that everyone can agree is the "best" is yet to be made. That's not exactly what you asked, but that's what's available in terms of books and movies. What's available in reality-land is fresh bread with cheese and tomato and sausage topping (pizza) with wine (or beer), and an opposite-sex friend (ask around, find a real life babe, beats anything on the internet); or as someone once put it a loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou. WAS 4.250 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the question was the best site, not the best porn, it's more like asking what is the best library than what is the best book. I think it's fair to say that the site containing the largest amount and largest range would be most likely to be agreed on by the most people as the best site. Your milage may vary.
No no no no no! You're saying that 'best' is defined by quantity. That should be quality. Wikipedia is the best site on the Internet because it's structured (and free). The Internet is a huge collection of info, but what was lacking was an easy way to get the right information. Search engines were one solution, but you still usually have to wade through a lot of stuff you're not interrested in. Even though Wikipedia doesn't quite come near the quantity of what these search engines can access (the whole Internet) it is already an equal competitor (I already often search on Wikipedia before I Google a term). When Wikipedia encompasses all information of some importance (a decade from now?) search engines will be out the window. So the best porn site would have all sorts of types of porn, but it would stand out by making it easy to find what you are looking for. And it would be free. That probably doesn't exist yet. So maybe we should start this? Wikiporn anyone? Of course we'd need to have images under gpl, so we'd have to make them ourselves. I suggest you start asking pretty girls (and guys) in your neighbourhood if they'd want to have their photos taken. All in the name of the open source movement of course. It's for a good cause. :) DirkvdM 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been suggested already. :) I even proposed the "This page is currently softcore. You can help Wikiporn by hardcoring it" template. ;) ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 15:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So the best porn site would have all sorts of types of porn, but it would stand out by making it easy to find what you are looking for. And it would be free. That probably doesn't exist yet. Obviously you haven't bothered to look at either usenet nor any of the myriad ways of accessing it. Usenet is free, volumous, contains high quality by any standards mixed in with high quality by every standard (meaning whatever you want is in there somewhere), AND it is divided up into categories as precise as "alt.binaries.pictures.olsen-twins" (see [1]). To search and sort more thoroughly, you have to find an accessing method (tool, site, provider) that suits your desires/needs whatever that may be. Just cause you don't check something out doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ever hear about the economist who said there is no such thing as a quarter on the ground because someone would have picked it up according to economic theory? By any standard except trying to get you to pay money for what you can get elsewhere for free, usenet is the best. Usenet has been for a decade well known as the best web porn site period. On slashdot it's been compared to trying to get a drink of water from a firehose. Porn sites flood the place with free pics trying to get customers to come to their specialized sites. Enthusiasts share entire collections with one another. It's also spam city. examples of tame usenet from[2]:
  1. alt.binaries.videos.tv.shaggable-babes (sources, sample of binaries)
  2. alt.binaries.multimedia.japanese (sources, FAQ, sample of binaries)
  3. finet.binaries.keskustelu (sources, sample of binaries)
  4. alt.binaries.pictures.autos (sources, sample of binaries)
  5. alt.binaries.pictures.hannigan (sources, sample of binaries)
  6. alt.binaries.pictures.ba (sources, sample of binaries)
  7. alt.binaries.pictures.rail (sources, FAQ, sample of binaries)
  8. alt.multimedia.mpeg (sources)
  9. alt.binaries.e-book.flood (sources, sample of binaries)
  10. alt.binaries.pictures.child.starlets (sources, sample of binaries)
  11. alt.binaries.pictures.kid (sources)
  12. alt.binaries.pictures.suntan (sources, sample of binaries)
  13. alt.binaries.webstars (sources)
  14. alt.binaries.pictures.chelda (sources)
  15. alt.binaries.slack (sources, sample of binaries)
  16. alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking (sources, sample of binaries)
  17. alt.binaries.pictures.animated.gifs (sources, sample of binaries)
  18. alt.binaries.sheet-music (sources, sample of binaries)
  19. alt.binaries.pictures.anime (sources, FAQ, sample of binaries)
  20. alt.binaries.cracks (sources, sample of binaries)
  21. alt.binaries.e-book.fantasy (sources, sample of binaries)WAS 4.250 10:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples of untame usenet from [3]: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.boys alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.breasts

   Pictures of mammalian protruberances

...pictures.erotica.breasts.large ...pictures.erotica.breasts.natural ...pictures.erotica.breasts.saggy ...pictures.erotica.breasts.small

   More than a handful is too much

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.british

   A binaries group devoted to British glamour girls

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.brunette

   Erotic pictures of brunettes

...erotica.brunettes-short-hair.reposts

   Reposts of erotic photos of brunettes with short hair (on their head!), corrected

...pictures.erotica.bulgarians.female

   Erotic pictures of women of fractional or full Bulgarian ancestry or close enough

...pictures.erotica.buttnuggets alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.butts

   Erotic butts come into view

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cancel alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cartoons WAS 4.250 10:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. This page is not to be taken seriously :). Thanx for your time and patience.

energy change

what is the energy change in a pendulum?

Just take the energy change outside the pendulum and subtract! Seriously, check out pendulum, and work it from there.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does the EM energy go when the Poynting vector is zero?

I hope you've guessed that I'm talking about an electromagnetic wave. According to the electromagnetic wave equation, the phase difference between the E and B fields is zero, so the Poynting vector, which is their cross-product, is a cos-squared function of time. This means that the energy in a wavefront oscillates between zero and some value. Where does nature put the energy while the Poynting vector is zero, so that it can magically produce it a quarter-cycle later? I'm not trying to be controversial: I just want to know how I have misunderstood the equations. This stems from a question that someone asked me on my Talk page about why the E and M components in the light-wave.png image are in-phase. --Heron 14:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It means that the energy of the EM wave is zero at that particular point of the wave - however, the wave must have some spatial extent in the longitudinal direction, and the E & H fields are not zero as you move away from the crossing point. So the answer is, the energy is stored in other parts of the wave, and as it propogates, the zero-energy points move along with the rest of it. If you integrate the energy for the whole wave-packet, you'll see that it is conserved as you expect.
Note that this isn't just a mathematical fiction - if you create an EM standing wave, you get no effect from the wave at the nodes (since there is no E or H field there), which can cause unwanted effects in lasers. --Bob Mellish 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, that makes sense. --Heron 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

telephone usage

Excluding mobiles which country has the most telphones per head of population? 15:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)~

You will want an anomoly - extremely small population with high telephone usage. My best guess would be Palau. They have 6,600 wired telephones and 20,000 people. That is 30% of the population with a wired telephone (assuming 1 phone per person and not one person with 6,000 phones). So, look at the micro-nations and look for high telephone use and low population. The Vatican may be a good one. --Kainaw (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) much appreciated 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)~

I'd be willing to bet it's the Vatican City - population about 900, but employing a couple of thousand non-resident workers, and in the heart of Western Europe. I can't see them having less than the 300 phones needed to beat Palau's 30%. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The Netherlands had 8 million connections in 1995 (if that figure includes mobiles it won't be too many). In 1997 that was 8,8 million (different source). Mobiles will have slowed the increase of wired connections, but if we assume 10 million now, on a population of 16 million that would be 60%. That said, the Netherlands is said to be the most 'connected' country in the world in different respects (highest Internet usage, for one). The main causes for that are probably high GDP combined with socialism (everyone gets to share in the wealth) and a high population density (there is no 'outback' in the Netherlands). Scandinavian countries have the former but not the latter (except maybe Denmark). But indeed smaller countries may score better. Maybe Luxemburg, Hong Kong or Singapore? DirkvdM 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's for a radio quiz & it's been going for 8 days now & it's not Vatican City because someone tried that last night - before I got chance to ring in. Belgium, Liechtenstein, France, Guernsey, Jersey, Hong Kong, Singapore, Norway, Sweden, England, Luxemburg, Malta, Republic of Ireland, Spain, Andorra, Afghanistan, New Zealand, Australia, US, Canada, Vatican City, Falkland Islands, Taiwan, Holland, Japan & Korea are the answers given so far. It's just driving me nuts now! Tonight I'm hoping to get on there & try Palua which was Kainaw's guess. Failing that it's back to banging the head on the desk! Will keep eveyone informed 82.46.54.254

If it is a radio contest, the answer they want is most likely wrong. They read obscure news articles that they don't understand, grab a fact that uses words they don't understand, and then turn it into a questions loosely based on the fact. Your best bet is searching Google News for articles about telephone usage as that is where the question came from. --Kainaw (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Searched Google News... A recent new article claims Monaco has the most telephones per capita (199.4%). --Kainaw (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kainaw you've been ever so helpful. I'm new to all this so I do appreciate it :) Only worked out yesterday how to get a user name rather than a number!Devononlyknows

Have you tried using the CIA The World Factbook? However, it doesn't seem to have per capital figure, and you may have to divide the list of number of telephones with population. The Monaco's figure given above seems difficult to beat. Interestingly, the Pitcairn Islands has only one telephone, i wonder if they complain about long-distance charges. --Vsion 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I will check that link now thank you Vsion. I wonder if the Pitcairn Islanders do complain about phone charges! Must be a pain in the neck if they need an engineer because the phone isn't working!Devononlyknows

And the answer is....Monaco! It has 1707 telephones per 1000 people. I didn't get through to give the answer. But well you never know when someone may need this information! :o)Devononlyknows 12:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why haven't I ever even SEEN a B Battery?

I've seen and used AAA, AA, A, C, D, 9V, and other sizes of batteries, but why haven't I even seen a "B" battery? Why aren't they made? --Shultz III 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it appears that they are made: [4] [5]. Put the second one appears to be "hand-made". KILO-LIMA 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You just weren't looking in the right place. --LarryMac 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, however, C battery (vacuum tubes) is not the same as the consumer C battery originally referenced, so I wouldn't call B battery (vacuum tubes) "the right place". Duracell only lists yours above as "common" (though I've also seen AAAA), so Bs certainly appear to be long gone. I'll keep poking around. — Lomn Talk 19:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did show him a B battery, even if it came from the wrong family. There is amazingly little to be found on the web about the consumer style. The ANSI standard (referenced below) is C18.1, but NEMA wants $79 to see it. --LarryMac 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a quick note on A and B being part of the 1920s ANSI standard for battery sizes (noting simply that those extant today are the ones that caught on commercially) and a chart of standard battery sizes (A is included, but B appears not to be). — Lomn Talk 19:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A related question - is it just my imagination, or did Britain used to have the same betteries but with completely different names? ISTR U-11 batteries as a young kid. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

They did used to. I can't remember the names either though. I remember figuring out what the equivalents were. 67.40.249.122 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The codes are of the form LR06 = AAA, LR6 = AA, LR20 = D, 6LF22 = 9V, etc., and are still printed on batteries here in the UK. Ojw 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Not the codes I'm thinking of - these were definitely U-number, as in U-11, U-5 (I think) and U-22. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Good quote from Dan's data on the AAAA cells - "no matter whether you're at the bottom of a five-mile cave system, performing extra-vehicular activity on the International Space Station, or lost in the middle of the Gobi Desert, you at least know you're no further away from a place that sells AAAA cells than you'd be if you were standing in your local shopping centre.". Ojw 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I added them as A battery (vacuum tubes), B battery (vacuum tubes), and C battery (vacuum tubes) specifically to avoid confusion with the modern A battery and C battery as the letters used in the vacuum tube batteries refered to usage not specific sizes/packages (all three came in many different sizes/packages). The modern A and C cells are battery sizes/packages. -- RTC 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Found this, which says that U11 is an alternative code for C batteries. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

websites

What is the estimation of current number of WWW. sites?

By www site, do you mean a unique site or a domain name. Many sites have multiple names all pointing to the same site. Also, some sites have many subsites (like aol.com and all the user pages under the aol.com domain). So, using "site" is very vague. But, an estimate can be made. Assume 5% of the computers in the world are web servers hosting a web site. If you think that is low, then consider that some web servers host multiple sites. If you think that is high, then use a different percentage. Now, take into account that there are currently around 4 billion IP Addresses in use - meaning there are around 4 billions computers connected to the Internet. Many are printers, switches, and the like. But, we only consider 5% of them to be web servers. So, 5% of 4 billion is... 200 million. That may sound high, but I think it is rather low. Google claims to have indexed well over 9 billion pages. They don't even touch all the "Hi. I learned to make my own webpage!" pages. So, either a lot more of the computers on the Internet are web servers or the web servers are hosting a lot more than one site on average. --Kainaw (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The February 2006 Netcraft survey received responses from 76 184 000 sites, so there are at least 76 million websites out there. --Bowlhover 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

DRUG HAIR TEST

WHAT WILL CAUSE HAIR TO TEST POSITIVE FOR COCAINE, IF A PERSON NEVER USED DRUGS BEFORE.

Little bit of trivia, the mass spectrometers they use for those tests are so sensitive that if you've used cocaine any time in the last 6 months you'll test positive, so if you've haven't done anything recently it doesn't mean that it's a false positive, just a very sensitive spectrometer--205.188.116.74 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop yelling. Turn off your caps lock. The logic of your dillemma there is obviously flawwed. If a person has never used drugs, then the person should pass the test, assuming the test was done correctly. Is there a specific person involved? Is it yourself? Did this actually happen or is it a theoretical question? More information is needed. In the mean time, you can take a look at our article on hair drug testing. It might help you out. --Chris 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In a test, the Mythbusters showed consumption of poppy seeds could cause you to test positive for opiates, but for such things to show up in a hair test, that would require massive amounts of the stuff. - Mgm|(talk) 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Few tests are so good that they have NO false positives - what is the accuracy of this test?
  • Actually, there are no false positives, it's the same machine they use to sequence proteins, and is more than capable of telling the difference between cocaine and coca flavored shampoo, LOL--152.163.100.74 05:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how, given that coca-flavored shampoo would actually contain cocaine. --Trovatore 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if you were to use an herbal shampoo containing coca leaf, it could mess you up this way. I've never heard of any such shampoo, but you never know. --Trovatore 03:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is, it depends. If you have been in the presence of other individuals using cocaine (smoking large amounts of crack, in particular), then it is possible for some cocaine to become attached to your hair. Hair testing protocols call for fairly extensive washing of the hair sample to remove drug that may have been absorbed from the air, but there are studies which suggest that this process may not be 100% effective. Dark-haired individuals may be particularly vulnerable, as there is evidence to suggest that melanin (a pigment in dark hair) can effectively bind cocaine. Modern hair-testing labs should be testing the hair for both cocaine and for its metabolites: compounds like benzoylecgonine. The presence of such compounds is usually taken to be indicative that the drug was ingested, since they are produced as the body processes the drug. (If a lab cuts corners or offers cheap tests, they may not be testing for metabolites.) There is also an off chance that someone screwed up sample handling or labelling somewhere along the line; if someone else's hair was tested in place of yours, then you're going to get incorrect results. I am operating under the assumption that the lab is using a GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) system to run these tests. Such equipment–used properly–is pretty much the gold standard. Other testing protocols may be more prone to false positives. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am actually pretty sure I saw in Scientific American that it is possible to detect certain drug usage, and how much a person has been using after they've had enough time to grow their hair out. I don't remember any details, maybe it was crack they talked about. -- Mac Davis ☢ ญƛ. 10:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You might get a positive result if the lab is sloppy. If they have cocaine around, the dust can contaminate the room so that test samples could pick up cocaine from air or surfaces. The FBI whistleblowers made just that claim about the FBI labs. They had a lot of cocaine around. I have read that money counted out near drugs will pick up particles of drug. As that money gets passed around, it rubs off on other money in the money drawer. Thus I read that a large percentage of money has detectable drug residue, and could be confiscated under USA forfeiture laws, if the police decide to test YOUR money. GangofOne 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is Schrondinger's Equation The Way It Is?

This question might be asking something that isn't very answerable by anyone, or at least answerable without recourse to talking about 11 dimensions and Hilbert Spaces, but why is Schrodinger's Equation what it is? I'm in Intro QM at Uni, and was talking to a friend, trying to describe what wave functions are. I was explaining the infinite-square well potential, and she asked why it was that the stationary states were all sinusoidal. The answer, of course, is that time-independent equation becomes a differential equation for a simple harmonic oscillator in the infinite-square well case, and the rest is boundary conditions. But she wanted to know why the time-independent eq. (and by extension the general eq.) worked out to a harmonic oscillator. I had no answer, was wondering if one existed. A simpler question might be, how did Schrodinger come up with the equation in the first place? It hardly seems as intuitive as f=ma and the like.