Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 May 20

Science desk
< May 19	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 21 >

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.

May 20

Reservoirs for pumped storage hydroelectricity?

About what proportion of water reservoirs are presently configured for pumped storage hydroelectricity? How many are suitable? Enough to support 100% wind power in most countries? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says there's 21.5 GW worth of capacity in my country -- not nearly enough to support 100% wind power. In any case, nuclear power would be much more reliable, practical and economical than wind power (though wind power could be used to supplement electricity production). 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm more interested in how many reservoirs could be converted to pumped storage during a transition to wind. I think you may be mistaken about the cost of nuclear. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This article was published by Climateprogress.org, which is a self-described progressive environmentalist blog, and was also outspoken in its defense of Al Gore -- so they stand to benefit politically from supporting renewables in the face of all evidence against such policies. Clear conflict of interest, and anyone reading this article should take it with a big grain of salt. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And pretty much bog-all in my country. Pretty much one, in fact. Again, not nearly enough to support "100% wind power". Tonywalton ^Talk 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also Cruachan, Foyers and Ffestiniog in the UK. Loch Lomond/Loch Katrine (via Loch Arklett) could provide around 2.5hrs of average-load for the whole of the UK, for a 10m drop in water level (13km*1km at 300m elevation), however Loch Katrine is the major source of Glasgow's water supply. As for the OP's original question, as long as the tail race discharges into a large enough body of water, of the same salinity, then any conventional storage hydro station could be converted to pump storage. Another way to store electricity is to use giant sub-sea airbags, sodium sulfar batteries or to make hydrogen during windy periods. CS Miller (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pumped storage is more cost-efficient due to economies of scale. It could also be used for conventional hydropower when not being used for energy storage. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See U.S. Electrical Grid Undergoes Massive Transition to Connect to Renewables. An excerpt:

• Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. expects to reduce peak demand by 2014 by about 1,500 megawatts, or more than 20 percent of total peak load. "That's the equivalent of a new nuclear power plant, at a fraction of the cost of building new generation," said Mark Case, senior vice president for strategy and regulatory affairs for the utility, which is preparing to deploy two million smart meters and other energy management devices across its central Maryland territory over the next four years and initiate time-based pricing.

The demand factor on most electrical grids is rather low. That is, at most times, most equipment that could be consuming electricity, is not. On traditional dumb grids, utilities cannot control when customers will decide to switch on their equipment, and most retail customers pay a flat rate for electricity regardless of the spot price of electricity at the moment. This is a recipe for market failure, as utilities are forced to purchase expensive peaking electricity during periods of high demand, and most customers have no price incentive to shift their usage away from peak hours. Smart grids let utilities convert some fraction of demand into dispatchable demand. Having the ability to reschedule some demand is equivalent to having the same capacity in grid energy storage. We can expect further progress with Moore's law to keep making equipment smarter and thus more able to follow the supply of wind and sun by seeking the lowest spot price of electricity. The belief that intermittency must severely constrain the amount of energy we can obtain from wind and sun rests largely on the assumption that power grids will never advance beyond the dumb technology of the 1970s. --Teratornis (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepest manmade pool

Listening to NPR this evening brought a question to mind. They were talking about the Deep Horizon oil spill and how much pressure the human body can take under water. So, my question is what is the deepest manmade pool ever made? By "deepest" I mean from the surface of the water to the deepest point in the pool. And by "pool", I mean any manmade hole or container which was built/dug specifically to contain water. Or a quarry or other such excavation that was later filled/allowed to fill with water. Dismas|^(talk) 04:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nemo 33 holds at least one record. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Another type of record: Lock (water transport)#Very large locks says "the Oskemen Lock on the Irtysh River in Kazakhstan has a drop of 42 m".[1] The reference says it is the deepest lock. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

From Open-pit mining I came across the Big Hole which has been closed since 1914 if I understand the article correctly (and I presume was allowed to fill up with water since then) but has only filled up to a level of 40metres. I don't know if the level is stable or of hundreds of years from now it could be over 200m.

Then there's Adams Mine "the deepest being 183 m (600 ft), placing it below the water table; it is currently half filled with water" so I guess that's ~90m.

Finally I found Berkeley Pit which our article says "is filled to a depth of about 900 feet (270 m) with water" so I guess that's the winner so far. I wouldn't want to swim or dive in it though since our article also says it's "heavily acidic (2.5 pH level). The pit is laden with heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, including arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and sulfuric acid". It may have been higher except "In the 1990s plans were devised for solving the groundwater problem. Water flowing into the pit has been diverted to slow the rise of the water level. Plans have been made for more extensive treatment in the future. The Berkeley Pit has since become one of the largest Superfund sites."

Edit: I also came across Mir mine which I guess is filling with water although I don't know to what depth. [2] appears to show it with water (based on our article and the details mentioned I'm pretty sure it's the same thing even if they say it's in Eastern Serbia when it's actually in Eastern Siberian).

Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you count artificial lakes formed by dams ? Some of the tallest dams are around 300m high, so the lakes behind them are probably of similar depth. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Super-Kamiokande's detector-pool is just over 40m deep. I'm sure either NASA (weightlessness training) or the oil-rig safety companies (dropping a helicopter body into a pool) have deeper ones. CS Miller (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is not an open pit, the former coal mine at Springhill, Nova Scotia has been refilled with ground water at 18 Celsius and is now used as a massive geothermal reservoir. One shaft goes to 1325 metres depth. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "Da" mean?

Link: [3] What does "Da" mean?174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dalton (unit). DMacks (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In what language? use the language ref. desk not science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In every language:) It's a scientific unit of measurement, per the cited context, not an arbitrary word. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it means yes in Russian. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And since (as in "since x, therefore y") in German. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

For readers without an easy way to see SVG diagrams, the relevant link is: File:Formation of tholins in Titan's upper atmosphere.svg. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia search for "Da" is redirected to "DA", a disambiguation page which lists the aforementioned Dalton (unit).

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Da also means yes in romanian.174.3.123.220 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And in Serbo-Croatian. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While interesting, none of this relates to the original question which was correctly answered a few days ago in the first reply. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Spinning Tesla egg and stability

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNBVDCeECg&feature=related Okay, so in this vid, the egg is initially spinning about one axis, but as it rotates faster it its axis of rotation (relative to the body) switches. I was wondering why this happened. I know that an object spinning about a principal axis with a minimum or maximum value for its corresponding moment of inertia will remain stable, but an egg has two moments of inertia that are equal, so I don't know what happens in this case. Thanks. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article Tesla's Egg of Columbus cryptically refers to "gyroscopic action". The whole article is pretty poor; I don't even understand why a rotating magnetic field would cause a copper egg to rotate (does it set up induction currents in the egg that create their own field, and interact with the external one?). Buddy431 (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to mess around with copper and magnets and all that stuff. Just take two regular hens' eggs. Hard-boil one and leave the other raw. Now spin them on their sides as fast as you can. The hard-boiled egg will gradually roll until the pointy-end is pointing straight up...the raw one will remain on it's side and stop spinning rather quickly. SteveBaker (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That the raw egg will stop spinning is pretty clear to me. What I still don't understand is why the other egg will change orientation. I tried something with Euler's equations which I'm not sure is correct, but maybe it will be on the right track. Let the axis that runs through the end of the egg be axis 1, the axis that the egg is initially rotating in be axis 2, and axis 3 be perpendicular to the first two. These three axes will be principal axes, so Euler's equations can be applied:

${\begin{matrix}I_{1}{\dot {\omega }}_{1}+(I_{3}-I_{2})\omega _{2}\omega _{3}&=&0\\I_{2}{\dot {\omega }}_{2}+(I_{1}-I_{3})\omega _{3}\omega _{1}&=&0\\I_{3}{\dot {\omega }}_{3}+(I_{2}-I_{1})\omega _{1}\omega _{2}&=&0\end{matrix}}$

Initially, most of the spin will be in ω₂, but owing to perhaps to some pertubations or whatever, ω₁ and ω₃ are small but non-zero. Because they are small, the second term in the second Euler equation can be ignored, and we get that ω₂ is constant. Likewise, because I₃ = I₂, dω₁/dt=0 and ω₁ remains constant. However, if we differentiate the third equation and substitue the first equation into it, we arrive at the equation

$I_{3}{\ddot {\omega }}_{3}+{\frac {(I_{2}-I_{1})(I_{2}-I_{3})}{I_{1}}}{\omega _{2}}^{2}\omega _{3}=I_{3}{\ddot {\omega }}_{3}=0$

Meaning that ω₃ will increase at a constant rate. If so, then the pointy end of the egg will begin to rotate, either moving up or down depending on the sign of ω₃. However, there are still some pieces missing: first, for the egg's tip to move up, ω₃ will have to be positive, but Euler's equations seem to imply that it can just as easily be negative;, second, what causes ω₁ to increase; finally, are Euler's equations even applicable here, considering that the principal axes are themselves rotating with respect to the laboratory frame? Actually, I can see that ω₁ would increase to preserve the orientation of the egg's angular momentum, but Euler's equations seem to contradict that (and really, this is just an exercise in applying Euler's equations, so I would like to know why they don't work, or if there's a way to make them work). 173.179.59.66 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference compared to hard-boiled is a good clue--suggests that having the internal material be fluid might be key. Especially important might be that the yolk has a different density and is mobile within the object. DMacks (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get why the raw egg stops spinning. Centrifugal forces push the yolk to the edges of the egg, increasing the egg's moment of inertia, and so on. What remains a mystery (at least to me) is the behaviour of the hard-boiled (or copper) egg. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

ok stevebaker is right about the hardboiled egg (slightly excited person) another - clearly the overall axis of rotation stays the same - so angular conservation of momentum is preserved..

actually the explanation of why this happens is complex - handwaving more handwaving - it seems that instabilities in the rotation of the egg + friction lead to precession maybe not - and eventually the egg stands up (in a circularly symmetrical arragement that is stable with respect to the frictional effects that made it stand up in the first place...) - quite how the friction causes the precession effect is beyond me - perhaps someone else could give a proper explanation...? The two mathematicians were Moffat and Shimomura - perhaps someone on the maths desk has a better handle on this. (It's certainly not trivial to explain - and quite a acchievement to prove - I'm still not sure if this is finished with Critics attacked the paper because... one for the maths desk )

As for the electromagnetic - spinning - yes - it's an induction motor basically - this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgkxAQ3fPzg shows the same effect with a slightly less confusing allen key in the second half - works for most things that conduct basically.

Question - as I understand it the induction motor shouldn't work when the copper egg stands on its end since the egg is circularly symmetrical in the centre of rotation of the field - since the torque requires anisotropy in the field.. Can anyone help me with this - does the egg slow once it's upright - at most the induced electric current would rotate - but since the rotation is about the centre of symmetry of the egg when upright there will be little resistance to it changing - and little or no torque?? (ie would a copper ball spin in the same experiment??) Anyone know??77.86.115.45 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So does my jumble about Euler's equations have any bearing? 173.179.59.66 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance on the maths desk about this - I'm scratching my head - I expect the explanation to be simple - but I'm not sure it is. 77.86.115.45 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The friction between the hard boiled egg and the table is essential for its turning upside down. Spinning an egg on ice will not show the effect. Try first to understand the behaviour of the solutions to a simpler differential equation, say the equation of motion of a damped, unbalanced wheel rotating about a fixed horizontal axis in the gravitational field,

$A{\frac {d^{2}\phi }{dt^{2}}}+B{\frac {d\phi }{dt}}+C\sin \phi =0$

where $\scriptstyle \phi \,$ is the coordinate of angular position, $\scriptstyle \scriptstyle t\,$ is the time coordinate, $\scriptstyle A\,$ is the moment of inertia of the wheel. $\scriptstyle B\,$ is the coefficient of friction, and $\scriptstyle C=mgr\,$ is the torque amplitude, $\scriptstyle m\,$ is the mass of the wheel, $\scriptstyle g\,$ is the acceleration of gravity, and $\scriptstyle r\,$ is the distance of the center of mass from the axis. The constant solution $\scriptstyle \phi =0\mod 2\pi$ is a stable equilibrium while $\scriptstyle \phi =\pi \mod 2\pi$ is an unstable equilibrium. A small perturbation of the stable equilibrium leads to damped harmonic oscillations

$A{\frac {d^{2}\phi }{dt^{2}}}+B{\frac {d\phi }{dt}}+C\phi =0$

while a perturbation of the unstable equilibrium decays at an unpredictable time:

$A{\frac {d^{2}\phi }{dt^{2}}}+B{\frac {d\phi }{dt}}-C\phi =0$

So the motion of the wheel makes a transition from spinning to oscillation before it rests in the state of minimum energy. Without friction the energy is conserved and the transition does not take place. Bo Jacoby (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC).

ps. See also http://www.fysikbasen.dk/English.php?page=Vis&id=79 Bo Jacoby (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC).

Pressure drop in branched pipe flow

I have a Y branch (both 45 degree) entering into a main duct. What is the associated pressure drop of the branch when (1)no fluid is flowing in the main duct (ie the branch is actually a sort of 'entry')? (2)fluid is flowing in the main duct? I would be grateful if anybody could give me either a correlation modelling the flow or the equivalent k factor or a relation in terms of bend loss etc Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.148.2 (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ants

I woke up this morning to find Ants crawling all over my kitchen. I'm not sure how or why they got there as there is nothing for the blighters to eat except perhaps a few crumbs and I live two floors above ground so I'm surprised they made the effort.

Anyway, what's the best way of getting rid of them? My local hardware store has ant powder and also a spray of liquid for ants but which is better and how long will these take to work? They're only ordinary black ants, the type that are very common. GaryReggae (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the UK we have something called Nippon, which is a sort of gel. You put a blob of it where you saw the ants, and they are attracted to the stuff, which they consume and carry back to the nest, which then kills all the ants. It's quite funny watching all these ant drunkards queueing up to get to this stuff, and then staggering about trying to find their way home! It's about the most effective stuff I've found yet. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite funny? Sounds like sadism :P Rimush (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We occasionally get ants in our house, and use a prepackaged solid chemical composition in a plastic container. After a few hours, the ants get attracted to the trap. In a couple of days, you can see the ants are moving slower and diminishing. In a week, they should be completely gone. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most sprays and powders kill ants pretty much in a few minutes - a good idea is to put in where they are getting in - like a minefield.

Other anti-ant products contain a poison that the ants carry back to the nest - thus killing the queen or whatever. These work in the longer term - and usually come in a box with a hole for the ants to get in. This is the type chemicalinterest mentions above

Googling the name of the products will probably get you the answer - the MSDS of each product should be available online - it's fairly likely that many products use the same poison - it will be mentioned in the MSDS.77.86.108.78 (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in the long term, they'll probably keep coming back until you eliminate whatever brought them there in the first place. You know the drill: keep the kitchen clean, keep food in sealed containers (flour, sugar especially), wipe up spills immediately, etc. Buddy431 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have found that putting a line of Raid around wherever they are coming in seems to work pretty well. It kills a bunch of them but presumably not the whole colony. But I don't recall getting repeat business from the same colony. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help folks! I would have bought some 'Nippon' as it is apparently very good and kills the whole colony, however my local hardware shop didn't have any so I got a spray instead which contains 'Cypermethrine'. Spray it on an ant and it kills it almost instantly. I can't figure out where they are coming in but I have sprayed the surfaces around where there seemed to be a lot of ants. I also realised what they were coming in for - I had left an empty bottle on the side with some dregs of fruit juice in - this actually proved a very effective trap - there were literally DOZENS of dead ants in there! Anyway, a couple of hours after spraying and I haven't seen any more ants. Fingers crossed! GaryReggae (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If the ants do not carry it back to the queen, the nest doesn't die though. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

_{If you want to have some fun battling with them, an interesting thing to notice is that ants won't cross a line of black pepper. I have good fun in my house finding where they are getting in and lining it with black pepper and then responding to how they get around it. Not overly effective, but a good way to turn pest control into good fun.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)}

Most of the common ant killer products are just a mix of borax, sugar, edible oil (usually peanut oil) and perhaps something fruity to get their attention. It's often sold premixed in small tins with ant-sized openings just to make extra sure that kids and pets can't get at it. Thanks for the reminder, I've got to do something about a colony in my yard. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

NaI (Tl) temperature effect

hello, it is observed that the light output from thre NaI (Tl) crystal falls with either rise or fall of temperature. can any body help why tis happen. and what is the mechanism that causing the phenmena. 59.90.213.38 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thallium iodide article says that conditions to avoid are heat, so it may decompose into the elements when heated. The thallium iodide article says the NaI crystals are doped with TlI, but the NaI article says that the NaI crystals are doped with Tl (elemental?). --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thallium is probably in the form of Thallium iodide - a description of the background is here [4]

Quote: Bob immediately sent off for some pure sodium iodide, and obtained a quantity of thallium iodide as well from Fort Belvoir, Virginia, where research on crystal counters was being conducted. He placed some NaI together with, as he put it, a "pinch" of thallium iodide in a crucible, and simply torched the powder. When it cooled down, he placed a small amount of the resulting glaze on a photographic plate, together with naphthalene, and repeated the irradiation experiment with the radium source. The response of the NaI(Tl), Bob told me, was tremendous. He knew then that he had found a wonderful scintillation material.

The search temp should be "Sodium iodide thallium effeciency temperature" or similar - this turns up http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73DP-4V3M8DT-X&_user=10&_coverDate=04/15/1982&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5c38b40ce51202ea554194ce49ce42ae which states a positive efficiency gain with temperature, which is explained in terms of emmision of light being related to adjacent thallium ("thallium dimers") in the crystal. (The article is not free on the web unfortuntately). I don't know if this theory is considered broadly correct but assume it is.

For the role of Thallium dimers in the scintillation process the key article appears to be by "Van Sciver" (Name: W. J. Van Sciver) : searching "van sciver thallium dimers" helps here.

This article is typical http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/23/4324068/04324090.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4324090&authDecision=-203

I can't find any free resources on this on the internet. This isn't my subject - hopefully someone more expert will be able to explain more.77.86.115.45 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Karma

Is there any way to disprove the existence of karma? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - at the simplest level : "cause and effect" most scientists would eaily accept it to be broadly true, at more human or abstract levels; such as karma obtained through thoughts or words it is probably too subjective to be scientifically analysed to the level of proof or disproof.77.86.115.45 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good things happen and bad things happen. In the immediate present our actions can result in positive and negative consequences, so if I punch a bouncer at a nightclub, the chances are I'll get beaten up in return. But if the consequence is entirely unrelated to the initial good or bad deed, there is clearly no link to a magical force. It's just two random events colliding with human irrationality (just as some people believe in good luck charms). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Most (if not all) versions of karma allow for the effect to come in a different life than the cause (see reincarnation). To disprove karma we would have to either disprove reincarnation or show that even if reincarnation exists, it doesn't include a concept of karma. Neither of those is falsifiable. --Tango (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't honestly think so. I reckon, point of fact, that it would be easier to make a convincing case for its existence, than to break the same. Immoral people do tend to attract bad outcomes for themselves, from what I have witnessed. Having a reckless disregard for other people's feelings often means you are inattentive to matters that could set you back. Vranak (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Karma simply means that actions have consequences. You don't need to have much life experience to realize that's true. Belief in rebirth, caste, etc is not a prerequisite to appreciating the truth of karma.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably far too broadly defined. To disprove something you need a specific claim. You could disprove specific claims about karma. For example you could take a thousand murderers and a thousand confirmed nice people and have them play games of chance against each other and see if the nice people are more likely to win, but if that shows no proof of Karma, someone who believed karma existed would simply say that it doesn't work like that.

Beyond that, some definitions of Karma are less about mystical forces, and more about the reactions and interactions of the people around you. For those definitions of karma it's actually a real effect caused by human's social instincts.

This sort of thing is why scientists try at all times to be very specific about their definitions. Laymen often interpret it as nit-picking, or trying to wiggle out of making a firm statement, but it's really just an important first step. APL (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to make a very reserved, but testable, claim that captures the overall principle: for example, "people who do nice things for others tend to get rewarded." Now, even this claim has some issues. What counts as a "nice thing"? What counts as a reward? To what extent do we intend to show a correlation? To what extent do outliers discredit the hypothesis? (There are plenty of nice people who have come to tragic ends). But at least this makes a stride towards a falsifiable, testable hypothesis. A scientist can then proceed to test the validity of the hypothesis. Game theory has contributed a significant body of research modeling and estimating peoples' behaviors and rewards. Surely there are also sociological papers that research this effect: The modeling of sharing: Effects associated with vicarious reinforcement, symbolization, age, and generalization. Now, to what extent does this capture the concept of karma? Karma is a vaguely defined semi-philosophical/semi-religious concept with thousands of interpretations. But if you want to restrict the claim to the concept that good behavior statistically yields better outcomes (with numerous caveats and exceptions), then that is a scientific claim with a good deal of evidence to support it. Nimur (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly one could imagine a statistical test for this. However, I suspect that the results would "prove" that Karma exists - in as much as people who do nice things tend to do better in life. But separating out the psychological feeling of well-being you get from doing someone a good turn from some mystical/religious interpretation would be much harder. How would you eliminate this "placebo effect"? There is also the issue of correlation versus causation. Could it be, for example, that people who are doing well in life tend to be nicer towards others? That seems like a reasonable hypothesis. We'd also have to be much more careful about the meaning of the term than is generally accepted. For example, we might try to devise a kind of double-blind study where people perform some act which they think is a good act - but which for reasons they aren't told is actually either "good" or "utterly evil"! If you found that those people that unknowingly were behaving in an evil manner did worse in life than the ones doing actual good in the world - then you'd have a very different conclusion than if they each performed equally. But do the "rules" of Karma say that merely having good intentions is enough to win you the rewards even if your actions are doing horrible things? If so then we can't use that test. SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue the opposite of what most people seem to be saying. Bad things happen to good people. Wars and natural disasters don't spare "good people". Of course then you could argue that good people get a better afterlife or reincarnation, including that makes it completely unfalsifiable. Forgetting the subjectivity of what it means to be "good" to begin with..Vespine (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad things do happen to good people - the question is whether they happen disproportionately to good people versus bad people. But this question isn't about whether Karma is 'real' or not - it's about whether you can test the hypothesis scientifically. Also, the "reincarnation" thing is a red herring - according to the believers, good karma brings rewards in this life as well as future reincarnations. Read Karma for a proper description. Note in particular: "In Eastern beliefs, the karmic effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences."...if that's a true belief, then the effect should be measurable in "this life" and should not require the additional testing of any reincarnation hypotheses. If one were able (for example) to provide strong statistical evidence that karma doesn't work in this life - then you would have disproved the present belief system that surrounds it.

It is of course always possible (indeed probable) that the religious nuts would then back off a bit in a typical "god-of-the-gaps" fashion and say "Well, we're really talking about 'karma-2.0' in which the benefits of the good deeds you do in this life only affect you in subsequent reincarnations". But that would be a significant restatement of their present position - and I would argue, a different kind of karma than the kind they are telling us is guaranteed right now. However, even the 'karma-2.0' definition could (in principle) be testable (although it would be extremely difficult). You could have an entire generation of all of humanity do nothing but good deeds for their entire life - and have their children do nothing but evil their entire lives. Then you could measure the statistical improvement in the lives of the subsequent generations as the do-gooders died off and were reincarnated, then the evil-doers died and reincarnated. If the 'karma-2.0' theory is correct then the graph of newborn babies doing better than expected, then worse than expected should precisely match the graph of the deaths of the do-gooder and do-evil generations. So the hypothesis is falsifiable...but not by any practical experiment. SteveBaker (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to object, but even if you ran that experiment, the believers could simply claim that 'soul', unlike our body, is not bound temporally. That means a soul can be reincarnated at ANY time, past, present or future. I have already heard this view given as a reason why more then one person can be the reincarnation of Julius Cesar or Elvis or whatever. This view would make it impossible to track reincarnation with the passage of time and generations. (Taken to its logical conclusion this means we could all actually be one soul, but that's another kettle of fish. ) Vespine (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Defocus calculation

I have a lens which is focused to 5 feet. There are two points of light, one 3 feet away and another 6 feet away. How would I calculate the defocus blur (like the spread) of those points of light at the film plane given a focal length and aperture? How would I generalise this to work at all focus distances, including infinity? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way to see how to do the calculation is to draw a diagram. Light spreads from the point and hits every part of the lens. All the light that hits the lens gets redirected toward the focal point, so the size of the beam just past the lens starts out at the full size of the aperture and then decreases linearly down to zero between there and the focal point. Past that it grows again at the same rate. Use the formula on the focal length article to find the proper distance of the screen from the lens to get a focused image for the light at 3 feet, and compare that to the actual distance. Rckrone (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There might be a suitable formula in Circle of confusion depending on exactly what info. you needed.77.86.115.45 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

An easier way to see what's going on is to trace rays backwards from the film. All rays from a point on the film are refracted in the lens and reconverge to a point in the focal plane, then diverge beyond that. This traces out a double cone with one base at infinity and the other base at the aperture (and with the aperture's size and shape). Any light source inside that cone (and only those light sources) will make a spot on that point of the film. This is easy to remember and visualize and it tells me what I usually want to know: how much blurring will happen at a given distance, in units of physical length at that distance. It also tells you the behavior at infinity: the angular confusion at infinity is the apex angle of the cone. If you want the size perspective-scaled to a different plane for some reason, then you need to multiply by d/D, where d and D are the distances from the lens to the plane of interest and the plane of the light source, respectively. If d is the film plane, and you want to calculate it from the focal plane distance L and the focal length f, then d = 1 / (1/f − 1/L). Only these more complicated formulas appear in the circle of confusion article, together with more complicated diagrams, making things look much harder than they really are. -- BenRG (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(more complex/accurate method) If you want to know the 'shape' of the defocus blur (ie the distribution of light in the focal plane) - you can do this mathematically - you need a good understanding of vectors/trigonometry/equivalent - (I assume the light points are on the focal axis) - you need to calculate the path of light as it travels from light source, is refracted in the lens, and then the intersection of the ray with the focal plane - this equation needs to be found as a function of angle the light ray makes with the lens axis - then obtaining the distribution (blur spread equation) by integrating over angle from 0 to the angle at which the ray makes with the aperture (at a given f stop)...

For parallel lines (ie point at infinity) you may need to use a slightly different integration (though assuming the light intensity of the parallel rays is constant with distance off axis is a good approximation for all normal lens) - (unless you are good enough at maths to have made your equations so that they don't "go silly" when point source distance = infinity.

You can also use a computer to help you do this (numerical integration) - there are also commercial products that do this - ray tracing or optics design - I don't know of any free ones - but no doubt they exist if you look hard enough (ask...)

Technically you need the forms of the len(s) you are using (ie the equation of the surface of the lens) - but you can simplify by just assuming a simple single lens even if your actual set is complicated and compound.. Ask if you need more..77.86.115.45 (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you after a Depth Of Field Calculator? .. Vespine (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I corrected the displayed name of your link and hope you don't mind. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

particle board desk.

i have a particle board desk. i noticed there is "lip" where the top meets the edge there is a small gap where the veneer is glued. there are small white granules in there that appears to be a glue. is this Urea Formaldehyde? or some other type of glue. some came out and it is sticky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably the glue (aka resin) - Particle_board#Manufacturing suggests a number of possible glues, of which urea-formaldehyde is one likely possibility, I don't know of an easy way to distinguish the different glues.77.86.115.45 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh - if it's the glue holding on the veneer it may not be the same as the glue used to make the board - for wood veneers standard "wood glue" is applicable, for non-wood veneers (ie waterproof type plastic veneers) I don't know what sort of glue they use commercially.77.86.115.45 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For plastic veneers, it's usually some kind of contact-adhesive, I believe. Certainly when you do the job yourself, that's what the DIY stores recommend. SteveBaker (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I've used araldite to mend these - I think (certain in some cases) the plastic veneers are produced with one side already coated with adhesive (and a peel off protective film) (ie like sellotape but much stronger) - this wouldn't be likely to produce any "white granules" - I think they will be from the particle board itself.77.86.115.45 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In some cases the edges are applied with hot-melt adhesives, which are usually white. If you can heat one of the droplets it may turn soft and sticky. Contact adhesives will rarely behave that way. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

i though hot-melt adhesives were clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal with ants and icing sugar?

Inspired by the ant question above. Is it true that ants will refuse/be unable to cross a line of icing sugar poured on the ground/floor upon which they are marching? Never had enough ants in my house to bother trying it, never felt the urge to dick around with the ants outside - but it's a factoid (folk wisdom?) that I've heard various people repeating over and over again down the years. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmh according to [5] it's a line of chalk not sugar - though I would guess they wouldn't cross a sugar line since oncee they found it their journey would be complete ("mission complete.found sugar.return to base.bring friends")...

Another possibility is ants dislike for fine powders .. eg Diatomaceous earth (also Boric acid Borax) - all of which look like sugar - could this be a source of the story??77.86.115.45 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that ants will refuse to eat icing sugar. Boric acid and borax are toxic to ants. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the same subject but something I am curious about relating to ants - would double-sided tape be an effective way of catching them? Would they walk across it? If they refused to cross it then I imagine putting a line of it across where they enter would stop them from coming in.GaryReggae (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly.. depending on the glue used you might even find that they like the taste of it and are eating it..77.86.115.45 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ants live their lives on a different scale to us. I wouldn't like to say for sure whether something that's sticky to us will also be sticky to their tiny feet... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that the point of Flypaper? Kingsfold (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the answers so far, folks. Seems to make sense... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Blood work accuracy

How can you tell if a lab provides accurate blood test results or just randomly spits out numbers ? Are they rated for accuracy in any way ? I'm in Michigan. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There some letters after the name, and stuff listed here Medical_Laboratory_Scientist#Certification_and_licensing - one way to tell if the lab is legit.. 77.86.115.45 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's about whether individual technicians are qualified to do the tests, I'm more asking if the labs actually bother. If nobody outside the lab double-checks them or if there's no consequences for just faking the tests, I'd be worried about the results. My brother does delivers for such a lab, and they don't bother keeping frozen samples frozen, so that makes me wonder about the labs in general. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Um we're referring to the US here, the land of the massive lawsuit. Do you really think there's no consequence for just faking the test? Also if your lab uses certified or licensed medical laboratory scientists then they would surely have some obligation to ensure they don't just 'fake the test' and if they do, are likely to suffer similar penalties that other professionals failing in their professional obligations would. If you want to know if you lab has any such people on staff, you'd best ask them. Forgot to mention that I'm guessing many may also have a pathologist or two or more on staff or perhaps even in charge who is a doctor so of course has the same professional obligations as other doctors.

Edit: I'm presuming of course you've already read the obvious article Medical laboratory which mentions such things as "Accreditation is done by the Joint Commission, AABB, and other state and federal agencies. CLIA 88 or the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments also dictate testing and personnel" and "Now many labs have a compliance officer with mandatory annual meetings about compliance for all employees" (although that appears to be more about defrauding the US governments and insurers and stuff), but still want more info?

Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know about the US but here in the UK as a lab scientist I'm not going to just be churning out random numbers, we churn out the results we get from our experiments. If there are discrepancies in the results, they would be done again. Most labs have individual benchmarks for each test for what is normal, i.e. how much of everything should be in the blood of someone in the condition that's presented to them. I suppose it could be different in the UK because the NHS will have shared generic lab values, but I don't see why it'd be that different in the US. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, knowing "how much of everything should be in the blood of someone in the condition" could easily lead to faking the results, a true blind test would be better, in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The doctors sending samples to that lab would very quickly realise if the results they were getting didn't match the symptoms their patients were presenting with. --Tango (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't trust doctors or accreditation boards, a few bucks under the table will probably shut up any investigations. And this is the US, so I have to assume full regulatory capture of any agency tasked with regulating the labs, meaning they now work to cover up any problems found at the labs, rather than to protect the public. As for lawsuits, it seems to me that it would be impossible to question a lab's results, especially if they destroy the sample, once testing is completed. And they could always claim the doctor gave them the wrong sample. So, how can I personally verify whether a given lab gives accurate results ? Are there websites like, say, "RateMyLab.com", where people can report problems ? StuRat (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't trust doctors, why are you worried about lab tests? Surely you don't use the healthcare system, so don't have any tests run. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have some simple tests done (cholesterol and such), and would rather bypass a doctor entirely, if possible, if I could find a lab that I can actually trust. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that doctors do not get into medical school to cause harm. If a lab scientist sent dodgy results, the doctor would know. If it's the doctor who is changing the lab results, why would they in the first place? Sure it might help some statistics ("oh look everyone in Michigan doesn't have high neutrophil counts" or something) but it would also mean putting your health at risk, and if something were to happen, others would then look at your results and find the discrepancy.

I just see no real, valid reason why labs would need to be tested for authenticity or accuracy. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  01:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had two tests done and the results were the same then you could fairly assume that both labs were ok. If they differed then one (or both) were wrong.. Can't you get home tests for chloresterol etc nowadays anyway?? (I assume you have some faith left in the chemists that produce these? or are they under suspicion too ? :) ! )77.86.115.45 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have slightly more faith in a test which can be done completely at home (versus one you must mail back). The reason is that they could be easily double-checked for accuracy by the consumer. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing the reason to have any mistrust in the labs themselves -- they have absolutely no motive to alter such tests, and they have the best equipment at hand to make sure the results are as accurate as possible. It should be noted that home tests can still provide false negatives and positives, and in any case, no complicated blood work can be conducted at home. The most you can do is check your glucose levels. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  02:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a fundamental difference, you inherently trust everyone until (you become aware that) they have violated that trust, whereas I don't trust anyone or anything until they prove they are trustworthy. I sure hope you don't give your bank account numbers to "rich Nigerian princes" who e-mail you that they want to deposit money in your account. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there any evidence of the accreditation boards actually suspending or revoking lab accreditation for any cause other than lack of payment of dues ? That would help to restore my faith (somewhat). Otherwise, I have about as much faith in them as in financial rating services which provided top notch ratings to failing banks. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me you have a rather large distrust of the entire US health care system. If you don't trust the people who are actively out there each day to save lives and help people, who do you trust? Surely not a bureaucracy or regulatory agency... Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed it when I said it before, so I will repeat it.

1) I would tend to trust consumer ratings over "official" ratings, any day. So, is there a web site where labs are rated by consumers ?

2) I also said that, while I inherently mistrust them, I could be convinced that the "official" agencies are actually doing their jobs if there was some evidence that they do, such as suspensions and revocations of accreditation (for causes other than nonpayment of dues). So, is there any such evidence ? StuRat (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, the vast majority of pathology is done by a small handful of large chain labs, or it might now even be just one: Healthscope, since they purchased Gribbles Pathology a few years ago, which was "the other" big lab. These places would have strict operating procedures and audits and stuff. I really just can't believe a lab would get away with faking tests "wholesale" for very long. What would be their motivation? To save money by just printing off tests instead of really doing them? And doctors and the regulatory organizations would "cover up" their fraud? What would be their motivation for that? The lab is paying them all off? That's just ridiculous. Sure there would be cases of negligence, or even fraud, but to suggest it's "institutionalized", with the participation and support of the WHOLE health community is what I'd call paranoia. Where I WOULD distrust blood tests is if they are provided by a naturopath or some other "alternative health" practice not in a well known accredited lab, in that case I think you have good reason to be sceptical about any blood work you get done. Vespine (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're taking me a bit too literally. I doubt that any labs fake all their results, but perhaps some fake a few, and others just do sloppy work (like the one where my brother works that never bothers to keep samples frozen, even thought they must be for accurate results). But I'm just interested to know if any action is ever taken against bad labs. That is, do they have any incentive to do a good job, or is keeping their costs down their only goal ? StuRat (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A problem I foresee with a "consumer rating" of pathology labs is that consumers on the whole would not at all be qualified to judge the validity of lab results. You would get all the conspiracy nutters who believe in chem trails and the whole big pharma genocide rubbish giving their 2 cents when their doctor give results that doesn't confirm their paranoia. That's kinda why we trust specialists in the 1st place, like doctors, which is kind of a vicious circle. If there are no doctors you trust, maybe you should have considered a career in medicine yourself, or at least find some doctors you might get to know and trust. That's why I look at blogs like science based medicine, because there are doctors there who's opinions I trust. Vespine (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

While individual doctors and lab techs may well be competent and want to do a good job, the management of the company may work against them. For example, if a test requires 10 minutes to perform competently, but their management threatens to fire them if they take more than 5 minutes on each, then they have the choice of rushing each and doing a half-assed job, doing half of them properly and just faking the results on the other half, or being fired and replaced by someone else who will do one of those things. If a company is only concerned with short-term profits, this type of management pressure is a real concern. StuRat (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that individual consumers may well be nut-jobs, but the consensus of the whole should nonetheless be useful info, much like individual purchasers of stocks are often idiots, but nonetheless the stock market, in total, does a good job determining the long term value of companies, perhaps better than professional rating agencies, specifically when the effect of bribery is considered. While any small group can be bribed, or perhaps just cover up a problem that would otherwise "bring disrepute into our field", there's no way a large cross section of consumers can be bribed or act against their own interests. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 77.86: send your blood to two labs (or more, if you really want to be sure) and compare the results against each other. If they match reasonably well, then it's likely that they actually did some sort of test. Buddy431 (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.bloodbook.com/ and click on "ABOUT US". -- Wavelength (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lab statistics

OK, let me ask another way. See chart:

Lab name      % of results within 10%
============  =======================
ABC Lab       93%
Quack Labs    12%
XYZ Labs      98%

Is there a place where I can get results like this ? Better yet would be a break down of how accurate each individual test is when performed at the various labs. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

... Within 10% of what? Presumably, you mean some kind of gold-standard, trustable set of ideal and perfect measurements from a reliable laboratory. But who verified that set of results? (Presumably they are compared against another, "platinum-standard", ultra-trustable laboratory?) As you can see, the problem boils down to a degree of trust and verification. Web of trust describes a decentralized trust model - you can see that the problem has been thought about - but at some level, you must accept somebody on good faith alone - unless you can create and administer every part of the test individually. Nimur (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Within 10% of the actual value. For example, if they are giving an RBC count, there should be an actual correct number of red blood cells. How do you determine what it is ? Taking an average of the lab results from many labs would work, possibly tossing out the values farthest from the average. StuRat (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to reply in different parts of this thread so I'll just post my reply down here.

"Hmmm, knowing "how much of everything should be in the blood of someone in the condition" could easily lead to faking the results, a true blind test would be better, in my opinion."

This simply is not possible. How can you define what is normal with a blind test? You need to establish what is normal based on average test results over time. You can't just take a blood sample and go "ooh looks a bit busy here with respect to leukocytes" -- you have to know how many leukocytes should be in the blood for a person in that condition! Bottom line, you need benchmarks to compare results against, otherwise you're just staring at a number which means nothing!

I completely disagree. The lab should not be given any clues as to what values are expected, they should just report the levels they find, and the doctor and/or patient can then decide if that's normal for them or a cause for concern. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're bypassing the point entirely. How does that doctor know what's normal if the normal lab values haven't been calculated, let alone the patient. It's not possible to be given a figure out of a test and know if it's normal unless you have an average to compare it with. Without the average, you're looking at a meaningless number. It's that simple. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just don't understand your point at all. Going back to the RBC count example, why wouldn't a doctor be able to find out the proper range for a patient based on age and gender ? Why would you think the lab that does the test is the only source of such info ? Any patient with access to the Internet ought to be able to find that out, too, although perhaps relying on their doc is more reliable. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean that the lab is the only source of information; I mean that the labs have to get that information from somewhere. If you don't trust individual labs, why would corruption be any less prevalent higher up? What I'm saying is that if you question the authenticity of data that the labs use, then why would you trust where they get the information from? Every test has a reference range, which are based on literally hundreds or thousands of tests. Every lab will then use that reference range. If you're inherently distrusting the labs, then by definition you're also questioning the people who did the reference range average because that's the only information used in distinguishing patient's conditions based on lab values. All the references ranges are worked out with lots of time and effort, and accuracy! These are then used in the labs by every biomedical scientist. The only way the values given to doctors could be different is if, as you mention below, they are corrupt or murderous and trying to kill or harm the patient. To accuse a lab scientist or doctor of this is no different than questioning, say, a fireman for not putting out a fire because it'd cost too much! It's illogical, sure it might happen, but the chance of it happening is so slim that it doesn't warrant a whole study to analyse lab accuracy--especially when all labs are going to have the SAME accuracy based on those reference ranges. I don't know how else to explain that. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with giving the lab the patient info is that they could then use that to convincing fake the test results, or perhaps it might just weight their test results in the expected direction. Both are undesirable. Test results should not be biased in any way by the expected outcomes. Also, you argued that if a lab was doing something like this, eventually a large number of patients would be harmed and there would be an investigation. While I have no doubt that this is true, I'd like to prevent the large number of patients being harmed by having the oversight in place to catch such labs earlier on in the process, say by occasionally having other labs double check their results. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "the likelihood of them being hell-bent for corruption is very slim", but they don't need to be to give bad results. Let's start with the scenario of the lab management demanding more tests be performed by lab techs than they can do competently in the time allotted. Perhaps one lab tech notices that he could make his quota if he would occasionally skip a quality check phase of the test. Perhaps another lab tech notices and starts doing the same. A third might notice and complain to management, which might not take any action, but continue to give bad reviews to the 3rd tech for not meeting his quotas. Eventually everyone in the lab will be skipping the quality test. Then maybe one of them goes to work in another lab and tells them how the old lab skips the verification phase and never got in any trouble. This lab wants to be able to compete on time and price, so does the same. Eventually skipping the quality control can become the industry standard, in this way. Mechanisms like this can lead to a steady erosion of quality. It's only punishment for such actions that has the ability to stop it, provided the punishment is greater than the benefits of skipping the quality test. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But you're still assuming the problem exists in the first place. So far you've put forward no actual proof that labs are knowingly and purposefully producing inaccurate results to cut costs. I have no doubt there is pressure to cut costs, but I don't think people would sacrifice accuracy of tests for fear of lawsuits (a problem very existent in the US). You're making it sound, with statements like "you'd like to prevent the large number of people being harmed", that lab reports are new and it's your responsibility to make sure they go well. Instead, lab reports have been going for tens of years and no problems have been established as of yet. That time period is long enough to notice any significant inaccuracies, and science and bureaucracy are harsh mistresses: the one that fucks around will get caught out by the other. If bureaucracy cuts costs and forces scientific officials to make inaccurate results, scientists have a tendency to make those pressures very public in order to fix things. If science starts messing around with budgets and wasting money, governments will step in and impose cuts. It's a careful equilibrium and without statistics to back it up, I'm not willing to accept that the labs I've seen first hand are breaking rules and putting people's health at risk. As I'm in the UK there is even more pressure on labs, because finance is something the NHS lacks significantly. There are always targets and cuts in place, but I know for a fact not even the government dares to cut public spending in places where it will harm patients directly. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"We seem to have a fundamental difference, you inherently trust everyone until (you become aware that) they have violated that trust, whereas I don't trust anyone or anything until they prove they are trustworthy. I sure hope you don't give your bank account numbers to "rich Nigerian princes" who e-mail you that they want to deposit money in your account. :-)"

The difference is that these rich Nigerian princes are people who lack any credentials whatsoever _{and usually have Yahoo! mail accounts!} The doctors and lab scientists are trained and are there in your best interest for the most part. To inherently distrust them seems silly when 99.999% of the time they're working with your best interest at heart.

99.999% ? Really ? You only think maybe 1 in 100,000 people would ever take a short cut that's not in the best interest of the customer ? I believe more than that many will be actual murderers, based on statistics and my assumption that lab techs are just as susceptible to human failings as any other person. I'd guess at least 1 in 10 would take occasional shortcuts. Your estimate seems absurdly low. I sure wish there was a way we could tell for sure, but that's rather the whole point of my question, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that number wasn't literal. The problem is you're treating doctors like shopkeepers. In the US your doctors are funded by patient treatment costs recuperated by the insurers. Why would they cut corners? It's an incredibly illogical assumption because all these doctors and lab assistants are trying to help, and even if they are in it for the money, getting a correct lab value is still in their best interest. 1) It makes them less liable in a lawsuit should the situation of the patient become worse, or they die. 2) It allows for correct diagnosis of the problem: if they are well, they are discharged and no more money is spent. If they are ill, more expensive treatments are conducted and everyone still gets paid by the insurers or the government. You are yet to produce a logical reason to mistrust these officials, all I can see here is a trust issue. Mentioning that these lab assistants and doctors are murders is way more absurd that my natural trust of them! I very much doubt 1 in 100,000 doctors/lab assistants are murderers, and if you're going to make that sort of claim then it needs to be backed up. You mention statistics, but I see nothing but a little table you made up figures for. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article where a former insurance company exec admits to many of the unethical practices they used to cut costs: [6] (I saw an even better TV documentary where a female exec admitted to denying legit claims, knowing it would cause deaths). With those in mind, do you really think it's completely impossible that such a company would also put so much financial pressure on the labs to do the tests cheaply that the labs would need to cut corners to meet those targets ? Then there's my brother's lab which obviously takes a shortcut that adversely affect test results, in not keeping samples frozen which are clearly marked "MUST BE KEPT FROZEN". As for the murder rate being above 1 in 100,000, it generally runs around 1 in 10,000 for all people. What makes you think that doctors and lab techs are somehow immune to having the same human nature as everyone else ? A medical degree or a certification doesn't make you into a perfect machine, as you seem to be arguing. More generally, the argument that "they are the professionals, so we shouldn't question them" has caused severe problems in many other fields, from trusting bankers to self-regulate our financial institutions and oil companies to self-regulate off-shore oil drilling, that the idea of blind trust in "experts" has been thoroughly discredited. Greed often causes them to do risky things which later result in disaster. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Human beings are indeed corrupt, sometimes. I'm not saying that every single medical practitioner is heaven-sent because that clearly isn't true, but I am saying that the likelihood of them being hell-bent for corruption is very slim. If you inherently distrust these officials, do you also distrust police officers, who have been known to be corrupt from time to time (dare I say more often than healthcare officials) ? Yes, corruption happens, but to assume it's happening is a different thing altogether. Any accuracy problems in labs would be brought to light under investigations when significant numbers of patients are affected. If the lab hasn't been brought under questioning, the chances are that it's not cutting corners, or at least not sufficiently to damage the main purpose: saving patients lives. If you know of specific examples, like your brother's lab, then the lab should be reported so the problem can be brought to light and fixed. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do mistrust police officers, and firemen, too. I have a healthy mistrust of anyone in authority. There should be oversight of all such people and organizations. It's the lack of oversight which causes corruption. Moving back to the financial institutions example, the credit card companies were basically honest until Providian started cheating people right and left, and suffered no serious consequences while making money hand over fist. This then inspired the rest of the credit card companies to cheat people too. Had Providian been smacked down early and hard, many of the abuses of the credit card industry could have been avoided. Instead they weren't punished for years, during which time the other credit card companies replicated all of their worst practices. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But Providian were a publicly held company, an actively for-profit company who clearly has no intention of helping people. Whilst the labs in the US may be owned publicly, too, I doubt they're willing to undergo many a lawsuit for inaccuracy in labs (which they would, if the problem existed, because people would die!) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your little chart is that the chances are all of those labs are using very similar, if not identical, procedures, and so assuming fully competent lab scientists, they're all going to be around the high 98-99% range. ALL TESTS have a degree of error, it's called the standard error, but the vast majority of tests in hospitals have such a small degree of error involved that the results are almost always perfect. I'd venture to say you are probably in a small minority for distrusting inherently these officials, and I doubt there are any statistics on specific lab accuracy because they're all going to be roughly the same. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If all the labs come out with about the same accuracy, that would still be valuable info that I'd love to see. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

[Cyclonenim, please see wikt:inherit and wikt:inherent. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)]

Argh, sorry. I'm usually such a pedant for vocabulary and grammar, too. Blame the 40 hours without sleep. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search for blood test accuracy, and found HowStuffWorks Videos "Accuracy in Blood Test Data" (14:02) by World Business Review on the topic "Blood Test Data Management". Wikipedia does not yet have an article specifically about blood test data management, but that expression can be useful in further searches on the World Wide Web. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Breathing in Helium

Why does breathing in helium cause the human voice to become squeakier? I've gone through some websites on the matter, and they all say that it's because the speed of sound in helium is greater than in air, but I'm a little unsatisfied with this. It's not really an explanation; I still can't "see" why helium produces this effect. I figure that there are specific resonance frequencies in our voice box, and that changing the speed of sound in the voice box will change the resonance frequencies, but I'm at a loss as to why the frequencies will be shifted upwards with an increase in the speed of sound. Can anyone give a better description of what's happening? 173.179.59.66 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The shape of the larynx determines the wavelength of the sound. The vibrations aren't produced by the tissue in the larynx itself vibrating (as in a guitar string), but rather by allowing the air to vibrate within the space it creates (as in an organ pipe). That's why you won't get any vibration without air flow. Higher speed of sound with the same wavelength means higher frequency. Rckrone (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What I said seems to be contradicted by the vocal folds article, so to be honest I'm a bit confused about this myself. The resonant frequency of the vocal folds should not depend on the type of gas that's next to them. Rckrone (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, here's a nice thing on speed-of-sound calculations and the Straight Dope relevant article. Taking in helium puts some of the gas in your vocal tract which does mean the speed of sound is faster. However, the difference in pitch should come about more when the sound leaves your mouth (which may be why, and I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON ACOUSTICS, you don't hear yourself with a high voice as much as others do). Your vocal cords vibrate with the same frequency and the energy of the wave should stay the same which gives it a longer wavelength, so when it transitions to the slower speed of normal air, that's when the frequency of the sound wave increases, resulting in an overall higher pitch. This is what I think occurs.

The relevant equation, by the way, is c=f*L, or the speed of sound equals frequency times wavelength, and E~c*f, or energy is proportional to speed of sound times frequency. When energy stays equal but the speed of sound drops between helium and air, the frequency must increase (energy is conserved). SamuelRiv (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

... so if you listened in helium, everyone speaking in air would have a deep voice? The "Straight Dope" article sounds confused to me. I think they mean that helium doesn't change the wavelength of the sound, but I'm not an expert on acoustics either, so I'm confused too! Does anyone know the truth? Dbfirs 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't hear wavelength, you hear frequency. (At least, assuming you don't have helium in your cochlea; not sure offhand how that would affect things.) When sound of a given frequency crosses the air/helium interface, its frequency stays the same but its wavelength changes.

On the other hand, you generate sound of a given wavelength, because it's related to the geometry of the resonating chamber. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the article says the cochlea is "filled with a watery fluid". If that were replaced by helium, my guess is that you would go totally deaf, and the question would be moot. --Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

... I was questioning the change in frequency at a boundary between gases, so helium in middle ear would be adequate to test SamuelRiv's theory. Dbfirs 00:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, let me state this clearly then: The frequency does not change at a boundary between gases. Well, barring some nonlinear effects such as second-harmonic generation, which I feel comfortable in saying have nothing to do with the effect of helium on your voice. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was hoping someone would say with authority (and you did say it above, but thanks for emphasising it). Dbfirs 11:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So my understanding is that the wavelength of emitted sound doesn't change when breathing in helium, meaning that the frequency emitted is higher. But then why isn't the pitch of the sound affected? 173.179.59.66 (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The pitch is effected... your voice sounds higher! The speed of a wave equals it's frequency times it's wavelength. Since the wavelength remains the same, and clearly the speed remains the same, then it must be the frequency that changes (a.k.a. the pitch?) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  02:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that most articles that I've read suggest that it is the timbre of the sound which is affected, rather than the pitch. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's quite clearly not timbre in it's official definition. Timbre is just the quality a specific note has, so if you play a guitar you can play the same note on the fifth fret of the A string and the twelfth fret of the D string, and the pitch is the same, it just sounds ever so slightly different. Pitch is another thing entirely and relates to the distance between the peaks in a wave, and is responsible for different notes. When you inhale helium, it's not just the quality of the sound you produce that changes, it's the pitch/notes you produce. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  03:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the speed remains the same, not exactly the same anyway. We probably have an article on the speed of sound that explains what determines it. If I remember correctly, the effect of the mass density cancels out, but there's a difference between monatomic and diatomic media. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't get confused by timbre. You have to remember that the sound produced by any natural source will normally be a combination of more than one simple frequency. A change in frequency/wavelength (whatever we decided it was) will certainly affect the timbre. But the more obvious change will be in the pitch (which is just the frequency most prominent in our hearing of the tone).--Jabberwalkee (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that the pitch will change? That seems to contradict the Straight Dope article listed above, the author of which was fairly adamant that pitch is unaltered (he has several audio files to support his claims, although admittedly I thought the pitch did change). Likewise, Wikipedia's article on helium states that pitch is unaffected. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that is guaranteed to (almost) stay constant is energy, as I stated before, and the sources I linked did not address this fact directly. The frequency with which your vocal folds vibrate determines the base frequency with which sound is emitted, and the associated energy can be used to determine the wavelength given the speed of sound. So if, as we know, energy stays the same but the medium of the sound wave changes to one with a lower propagation speed (speed of sound in air is about 1/3 of that in helium), then either wavelength must decrease or frequency must increase or both. In all except the most controlled thermodynamic environments, both will occur, and more detailed calculations can predict the ratio with which they change - it certainly depends on the interface between going from air with a lot of helium to air with virtually zero helium. Point is that frequency definitely increases, so pitch increases. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No no no. Energy isn't going to help you. Energy gets dissipated; energy gets reflected from the interface. Energy is absolutely not the right thing to consider here.

The important things to think about are frequency and wavelength. The relationship between frequency and wavelength is controlled by the speed of sound in the medium, in an obvious way (the wavelength is the distance along one full cycle; the frequency is the reciprocal of the time that one full cycle takes; work it out from there). Energy is a distraction; you might be able to rephrase things in terms of energy somehow, but I don't see the point.

As I said above, what you hear is frequency, not wavelength. So the question is, which, if either, remains constant when you do the same thing with your vocal apparatus with a breath of air, as opposed to helium.

As someone said above, the vocal folds, which drive the whole thing, should not be affected much by the helium — they should put out the same spectrum of frequencies (not wavelengths) in either environment.

However, the way your resonating cavity responds to the driving from the vocal folds, is controlled by wavelength. It's a question of which wavelengths fit nicely into the cavity. So if the vocal folds drive the resonance with a noisy spectrum, some of the frequencies will be selected and some will not, and this depends on their wavelengths. --Trovatore (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the same wavelengths get "selected" regardless of medium the sound is propagating in, because the resonance wavelengths are dependent on the geometry of the vocal tract alone. Then, if the speed of sound is greater helium, by the relationship f = c/λ the frequency must increase as well, resulting in a higher pitch. However, several sources have stated that pitch doesn't change, but personally, based on the reasoning given above as well as my own experiences with helium, I would have to disagree with their assessment. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore is on the right track. The human vocal tract has four major resonance spaces of different dimensions. Assuming your larnyx remains in its usual place and you form the usual vowel shapes with your mouth, tongue, and soft palate then they will resonate at normal their wavelengths (or higher frequencies), but the pressure sawtooth wave pulse train generated by the opening and closing of the vocal folds will be at a fundamental frequency that is close to normal. The harmonic series of overtones above that fundamental will be at near normal frequencies, but the specific harmonics that resonate in each of the cavities will be those close to the (now temporarily higher) natural frequency of those cavities. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I didn't really understand your explanation. Here's what I got from it: 1) the resonant wavelenghts of sound in the vocal tract will be the same; and 2)The frequency of the sound produced from the vocal flaps will be roughly the same. The rest about the harmonics confused me a bit. My (apparently flawed) understanding of what was happening was something like this: air produced from the lungs travels through the vocal folds, producing sound waves at a variety of frequencies. These sound waves then entered the vocal tract, where certain wavelengths (and hence certain frequencies) were selected by resonance, depending on what sound the speaker wished to make. My impression from what you said is that the sound from the vocal tract and from the vocal folds independly contribute to the final sound quality, but I'm not sure. Maybe if you showed me where my picture is wrong I would be able to finally understand what's going on. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone with appropriate facilities please test the conflicting theories by filling an organ pipe with helium, and playing a stringed instrument in helium? Surely someone, somewhere in the world, has tried this? We could test out the frequency versus timbre argument if someone could record themselves saying the same thing in air & in helium, then we could examine and compare the waveforms. I still think that "Straight Dope" is wrong. Dbfirs 00:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I can summarize what LeadSongDog is saying, which may also clear up Dbfirs' question. I'm assuming he's correct that the driving is via a sawtooth function, one that looks like

          /|   /|   /|   /
         / |  / |  / |  /
        /  | /  | /  | /
       /   |/   |/   |/

where what's being graphed here is pressure agaist time, or rather the pressure wave that the vocal folds would generate if they were not in the resonant chamber.

According to our article, the Fourier series of this function falls off as 1/k, where k is frequency. So maybe its Fourier transform looks something like this:

      *
      *
      *
      *        *     
      *        *       *
      *        *       *      *

where the horizontal axis is now frequency rather than time. This means that the signal breaks up into a collection of discrete frequencies, weighted by different amounts.

Now, when you add the resonant chamber, some frequencies produce constructive interference and are enhanced; some produce destructive interference and are diminished. So maybe in air, the Fourier transform now looks like this instead:

               *
               *
               *     
      *        *       *
      *        *       *      *

because maybe the second frequency is close to the natural frequency of the resonating chamber.

Now suppose you're breathing a light gas instead, some heliox mixture, and the speed of sound is higher, lets say twice as fast. That means the wavelength of the third harmonic (the fourth column) is now the same as the wavelength that the second column had in the above picture, and therefore it's the one favored, whereas the others are diminished. So now maybe it looks like:

                              *
                              * 
               *       *      *
      *        *       *      *

or something like that.

Note that the component frequencies have not changed; only the proportions with which they are mixed has changed. The fundamental frequency is the same, which may be what Unca Cecil meant. However the peak frequency, the one with the greatest amplitude, is now twice as high, so if you consider that to be the "real" pitch, then you'll say it's higher. But if you go by pitch equals fundamental frequency, then indeed the pitch has not changed, only the timbre.

This is an off-the-cuff example and I don't know if the quantitative parts are realistic. But I gather this is the general idea. --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okat I think I get it. So basically, the human ear measures pitch by the harmonics involved, not by their relative strength (which is what produces timbre), right? 173.179.59.66 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Like a violin sounds "higher" than a bassoon when they are playing the same note? Also, are you saying that a stringed instrument will sound exactly the same if played in helium, but an organ pipe will sound squeaky because of high harmonics? Dbfirs 11:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A solid-body electric guitar will sound the same in helium or air, as gas plays no part in its sound production. A hollow body, such as a cello, will sound different, taking on a timbre more like that of a violin in air. An organ pipe is not harmonically rich, it simply resonates at its fundamental pitch. It would sound higher in helium simply because of the change in that fundamental pitch. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Natural undersea oil spills

The oil leak in the Gulf is apparently a major ecological disaster, resulting from a relatively tiny opening to the seafloor from an oil deposit below the sea. Are these oil deposits immune to natural processes which could create an opening, such as an earthquake creating a fracture which allows flow up into the ocean, or a volcano which fractures the thick rock dome above the oil? Do geologists find evidence that there has ever been a significant natural undersea oil leak? Even in ancient times, people found natural seeps on dry land. Wouldn't there be similar underwater oil seeps of varying flow rates? Edison (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Oil does ooze naturally from shallow deposits as this article discusses - and it doesn't take a volcano or even an earthquake to make that happen. There are plenty of places up on dry land where this happens too (See La Brea Tar Pits, for example) - humans have been scooping the stuff up and using it for thousands of years (See Oil_industry#Early_history). Although the magnitude of this seepage is tiny because the pressures are so small. In the gulf right now, you have to understand that the drilling rig had bored down through 18,000 feet of rock below the 5,000 feet of water. So the likelyhood of oil coming through all that rock in that area naturally is pretty slim! But the weight of 18,000 feet of rock pushing down on the oil - means that it is squirting upwards with tremendous pressure. Our article on the oil spill points out that the total oil reserves at that site are 50 million barrels...but if it's really coming out at 100,000 barrels a day - as some are estimating - that reserve is shrinking noticably! SteveBaker (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See Tarball (oil) - some of the refs mak it clear that these are found naturally as well as man made

eg http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1225/ (unfortunately searching for "tarball" in the oil sense is difficult - due to computer usage of the term.) I've heard of them before and believe them to be well known to beachcombers.77.86.115.45 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)See also Asphalt volcano for an example of a past natural underwater oil seep. People involved with exploring for hydrocarbons make use of satellite photos to identify natural oil slicks from such underwater seeps to show that there is a working source rock down there. They have to do repeat surveys, of course, to try and remove the unnatural ones (ships cleaning tanks etc.). Mikenorton (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

newtonian fluids

Is Mercury a newtonian fluid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.241.168 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

on the whole yes [7] 77.86.115.45 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Biomedical control systems

hello i am searching for an application of the control systems in the biomedical field but i'm stuck and i cannot get all what i want, it must have block diagram and meaningful description,,,,,any one could help me?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.197.43 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to be a little more specific. Manufactoring control systems, or control systems pertaining to regulations? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Publishing scientific literature.

I just have a few questions about publishing research.

1. ) How is it decided what journal any piece of scientific research will get published in? Does the research team just pick one they think is the most suitable? I've heard reference to top tier, and 2nd and 3rd tier journals.
2. ) Is there a process to decide which tier they will try to be published in? Surely no one says "my research is pretty dodgy, I'll try to publish in 3rd tier"?
3. ) What happens if a paper is not accepted for publishing? Are there costs involved in submitting a paper to a journal if it is rejected?
4. ) Can you just keep trying less and less reputable journals until you hit one that will publish your research?
5. ) Is there some place where these kind of introductory questions to this subject are addressed? I've read the Academic publishing and Scientific literature but they don't really cover these "idiots guide to publishing scientific literature" kinds of questions. Vespine (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The researchers (or institution) submits a paper to the journal of their choice - in general they will pick one that is applicable, some are more prestigious than others, some are more "technical" than "theoretical" etc. The submitted paper is reviewed before publishing by the publisher, and other researchers. Peer review is key here. I'm not aware of charges for submission of papers - most journals publish the rules of submission online eg [8]. Yes you can keep trying until someone accepts it...(better if you know your limits at the start) Last question - probably a good way would be to pick a journal, and look up their submittence method online - should give a good idea of the method if not the practice.. Another good way would be to ask here :) I anticipate many other people will be able to give much more insight into the process here. (oh.. you often need a referee to support your submittal of a paper to a journal - usually someone old and well respected in the field etc ... or at least the department you work in will exert some control over what you put forward for publishing - they don't want you submitting any old tat and giving them a bad name .. etc .. this probably varies a lot from place to place) 77.86.115.45 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

eg here are some of the info pages for Angewandte Chemie specifically to do with how referees judge the article and decide if it's recommended for acceptance [9] . I'm not sure about tiers - (don't think they are 'official') - but see Impact factor . Was there any field you were thinking of in particular? 77.86.115.45 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In general: 1. when you are in a field, you know what kind of article will work with what kind of journal. You know which articles of yours are worth sending off to Nature and you learn which ones go in Proceedings of a Very Limited Subfield of My Discipline. Tiers generally reference the size of the audience and likelihood of future citation ("impact factor")—Nature and Science are at the top because basically all scientists read them and cite them. 2. It's less of a "my research is dodgy" calculation than a "will these editors be interested in my paper" calculation. "Is this paper sufficiently interesting/important to get into the biggest and best?" is the sort of calculation made. The comment above regarding some journals being more specialized in different ways or for different audiences (e.g. more theoretical, more technical, etc.) is correct as well. 3. There are no costs to being rejected born by the submitters other than time. There are costs in terms of time of reviewers. There are a number of ways you can be rejected—from flat out rejection to "revise and resubmit" requests. 4. Yes, but it does take time to submit things, and getting a reputation for this sort of thing is probably not ideal. 5. Advisors, generally speaking. An advisor (at a university) in a given field usually knows the landscape of that particular field and tells their students how it works. It is slightly different for every particular field (they have their own norms, their own idea of which journals accept which types of articles, etc.). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that if you submit research in a given field, the number of experts able to review it is limited, and, by the birthday paradox, there is a good chance that the same reviewer will get your paper again. In that case it should really show that you took his previous comments into account, or your reputation will suffer. I've put together a number of workshop programs and journal issues, and I once had a comment from a reviewer that yes, he can review a certain paper easily, as he already had rejected it 4 times. This is not good for the chances of the paper or the author... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not generally the case that the reviewer will "hold a grudge" against a paper he has reviewed before for the same (or a different) journal. More than once I reviewed a manuscript for a journal and cited the shortcomings in the research (such as potential confounds) or its presentation (such as alternative explanations for the results). The researcher did additional experiments(to rule out confounds), and added additional explanations of procedural details to remove ambiguity, and then I recommended acceptance of the manuscript. In the end, the work became a much-cited article. The funny part is that the writer may be an important, distinguished and well known figure in the field, and the anonymous reviewer may be a lowly grad student, yet the researcher has to jump through hoops to satisfy the reviewer's objections. The researcher will typically try again with the more important journal, correcting the flaws (or pointing out the idiocy of the objections) rather than shopping the manuscript to lesser journals, since the prestige of the journal is important in getting tenure or getting a grant renewed. This is probably different from a writer of a piece of fiction, since the fiction writer might have an "artistic vision" which he would not want to compromise, just as a painter might not want to add paint to his canvas to satisfy a critic and get into a particular exhibition. Edison (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are generally no monetary costs for submitting to most scientific journals. (Some do charge for the paper to be published, open-access journals for example.) The main cost when submitting a paper for publication is temporal. Getting it reviewed, fixing/touching up/totally redoing what reviewers point out might take a lot of time. Also, flat out rejection means you have to try for another journal (Note: you can not submit the same paper to multiple journals at the same time) trying for another journal is starting over time-wise. Most researchers don't want to waste time doing this, so they generally submit to the "best" journal that is appropriate that they also except to have a good probability of being accepted. --Rajah (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Even distinguished journals commonly have "page charges" and may charge to print an article sooner. Going down the pecking order to non prestigious journals, there are those which are vanity press and print any paper that is submitted, for a large fee. Edison (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)