:hmm: That's a thinker! I wish I had read Ancestor's Tale more recently :)

It can't be multicellularity, for the Invertebrates are multicellular. But I can't think of anything that's so fundamental between Cordata and Echinodermata that isn't shared with Arthropoda. Or maybe I'm going in the wrong direction? :crazyeye:

:hmm: That's a thinker! I wish I had read Ancestor's Tale more recently :)

It can't be multicellularity, for the Invertebrates are multicellular. But I can't think of anything that's so fundamental between Cordata and Echinodermata that isn't shared with Arthropoda. Or maybe I'm going in the wrong direction? :crazyeye:
You couldn't tell the difference by looking at the organisms, think developmental.

I'm thinking Starworms had the answer with the spinal chord difference.

My main recollection that the Sea Urchin stirs up is how it was a model for studying development and the idea of 'determinism' in organism development.
But comparing sea urchins to vertebrates, regarding development, I have to think you want something about symmetry. Like bisymmetrical vs. what sea urchins are classed as.

You couldn't tell the difference by looking at the organisms, think developmental.

Echinoderms exhibit radial symmetry. I don't know if all of them show 5 fold radial symmetry, but at least some of them do. Vertebrates are bilaterally symmetric for the most part. For that matter, most invertebrates are, as well.

I was wondering if the developmental difference had more to do with meiosis or some other cellular distinction. But I'm really out of my element here :)

Nothing to do with symmetry.

It's been 72 hours. The answer was that Chordata and Echinodermata are Deutersomes. During development the first opening becomes the anus and the second the mouth, opposite of how other animals develop. Someone else can ask a question now.

Ok, how about a Time Paradox?

If a train is traveling at Relativistic speeds, and enters a tunnel of the same length as the train, what is the order of the following events for 1) an observer in the middle of the train, and for 2) an observer outside of the tunnel, equidistant from the entrance & Exit:

A) Front of the Train Enters Tunnel
B) Back of the Train Enters Tunnel
C) Front of the Train Leaves Tunnel
D) Back of the Train Leaves Tunnel

1 ACBD
2 A B/C D?

I don't know what else might be happening.

1.A, B&C, D
2. How can he be outside the tunnel but equidistant from the entrance and exit of the tunnel and still be able to see them? Is he standing atop a transparent tunnel?

Assuming it is transparent (:p): A, B, C, D

I believe Brighteye was correct. I also believe the question plagiarises a recent thread. :p

Nah, I told people to look at this example for more fun than the one they were doing, but I don't think anyone actually discussed it, so I felt it was safe :) Besides, asking you what arc of your vision is occupied by a star you are traveling toward when moving at 3/4 the speed of light would require too much calculation IMO, but was my preferred question.

And yes, brighteyes is correct. The person in the train sees the tunnel as being Mass Contracted (thus shorter than the train) and the observer outside the train sees the train contracted (thus shorter than the tunnel).

And I think the standard way of stating it is that the second observer is inside the tunnel, but outside the train. So sue me :P

What's the normal arterial pressure in the lungs (value or range is fine)?
I'd prefer mmHg, not KPa.

I'd say 80-100 mmHg.

Nope: that's more like a systemic pressure.

Is it something like 10-20 mmHg or am I going off the wrong end here?

*thinks back to A level biology*

Well the pressure increases in capillaries (I think...) so I'll have a stab at 500mmHg.

Wait no... that makes no sense! It must be lower... erm... 5mmHg?

stickciv has it. 12-16 is the textbook range, although he's closer to the mark with 10-20. I had meant to specify systolic pressure, but since I didn't mean pressure will do.

Sorry to be hijacking, but...
Does that mean you can pump something down to 10mm by sucking on it?

Sorry to be hijacking, but...
Does that mean you can pump something down to 10mm by sucking on it?
Pumping of liquids is limited by the vapour pressure of whatever you're pumping. A vacuum pump can be used to reduce the pressure lower than the vapour pressure.

Anyone that wants it can go ahead and ask

ok:
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2495/1205182862366qq8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
explain!

Since speed is relative, the speed at which you're travelling is rather subjective, and as such it isn't dangerous. Acceleration (it should be m * dv/dt though) is what kills you.

I think the point is that the speed probably won't do you in, no matter how much you accelerate in a normal fall, but the collision in which that speed changes rapidly and converts into a large force on you will kill you.

Acceleration to high velocity (falling) doesn't kill you.

Being subject to a very sudden acceleration kills you (hitting the ground).

Your speed doesn't kill you, deceleration upon impact does. That's why a cushion will save you.

brennan wins this one

While standing on a sensitive set of scales, you place your finger in a jug of water that stands on a desk next to you. What happens to the reading on the scales? And why?

It will seem that your lighter because of the upward pressure by the water in the jug?

It'd read you as being lighter, for the same reason that if you put one finger on the scale and the rest of your body in a jug of water, the scales'd show you being lighter. Part of your mass (the part that's displacing the water) is being supported by the water, not the scales. You could look at it in terms of Forces (reaction, etc) if you were that way inclined, I guess. I cba though :p

I dunno, if it is JUST your finger then you are going to have to consider the surface tension pulling on your finger as well as any liquid which your body might absorb. Are you dehydrated at the time? If so you could actually gain more weight osmotically than you displace via bouyant forces I suppose.

Scales, whilst ostensibly measuring 'mass' do nothing of the sort - they measure net downward force. Anything that impacts the net downward force will affect the reading on the scales (using scales in a swimming pool, or in a wind updraft would massively impact it).

In this particular case, the water would indeed provide some buoyancy, and it would therefore be expected that it would affect the scales reading. However, this force would be applied as a torque force around the center of mass of the person, not as a direct force against the body. A torque force would be cause a reactionary force.

Net effect: I doubt it would affect the reading on the scales.

Mise gave the most precise answer, however I think Dutchfire's was good enough and he beat Mise to the punch.

Yes, I have actually done this little experiment btw.

You're up Dutchfire.

If you drop two identical magnets from the same height, one through a coil made of a conducting metal and one through normal air, which one will reach the ground first?

The one dropped through the air.

What Mr ICBM said. The magnet dropped through the conductor will lose a small portion of its Kinetic Energy as it induces a current in the conductor.

IIRC the magnet won't even touch the ground at all, instead oscillating between the top and bottom of the coil (ignoring air resistance). Maybe I'm thinking of something else though...

You need more energy to do that.

IIRC the magnet won't even touch the ground at all, instead oscillating between the top and bottom of the coil (ignoring air resistance). Maybe I'm thinking of something else though...Nope.67890

Okay, well at least now I'm free to wiki what it was that I was thinking about when I said that... :D

The one dropped through the air.

:goodjob: Your turn

And brennan gave the explanation.

I'll pass it to brennan.

I thought of a good one earlier. but now i'm tired and can't remember it, so i'll take a raincheck on it if you don't mind. Someone else can have a go.

I'm strongly suppressing the urge to post a picture of an aeroplane on a treadmill... ;)

Name me either an organ or (physiological) fluid in which you'd expect to find higher than normal concentrations of selenium.
Or even tell me what it does in the body.

:hmm: all sexes: thyroid, males: testicles
there are quite a few seleno-proteins though I have a hard time remembering them. It is essential for thyroxine to tri-iod-thyronine (spelling? - I only know the German name) metabolism, plays a role in spermiogenesis and I believe there are some anti-oxidant proteins that contain Se as well.
Never really got interested in so that is about what I remember from Med School...

Mostly in antioxidant proteins, but specifically in the thymus and testes (and semen). Your question.

ok some genetics then:
for what physiological function do you need the members of the largest gene family (largest in vertebrates that is)?

"What is Immunology?" for a $100.

A.k.a. the immune system, the antibody specificity / epitope recognition, that white-yellow pus-sy stuff.

ok some genetics then:
for what physiological function do you need the members of the largest gene family (largest in vertebrates that is)?

I think I heard somewhere that the olfactory receptors were very diverse, but does that count as a gene family?

"What is Immunology?" for a $100.

A.k.a. the immune system, the antibody specificity / epitope recognition, that white-yellow pus-sy stuff.

actually the epitope recognition is done by surprisingly few genes :) this is accomplished by recombination mechanisms and DNA editing...

I think I heard somewhere that the olfactory receptors were very diverse, but does that count as a gene family?

:yup: the olfactory (smell) receptors make up about 3% of all human genes (there are about 400 genes that are expressed plus about 600 pseudogenes in the human genome).
You are up :)

What are STRs (genetics)? Name two things that their identification can be useful for.

STR---- guessing the TR stand for Terminating Repeats. I forget the S. Maybe Somatic (for somatic cells).

Vague recollection: They are random mutations that don't have an effect other than they accumulate in the DNA, and are conserved across generations. And because of the large number of them, a specific set of them helps fashion a 'fingerprint' for an individual.
If I'm recalling the right stuff, they are the basis for genetic fingerprinting of individuals in legal cases. E.g. Paternity tests or identifying perpetrators by DNA in their bodily fluids.

I'd guess it's more likely to be triplet repeats.

Short Tandem Repeats.

DNA identificiation along familial lines.

nonconformist got the definition right. GoodGame got the two uses right.

nonconfomist or GoodGame to post the next question (whoever gets there first).

I bow to Noncomformist as I butchered the acronym. :)

Part of my forensics course :)


Why, if the entropy of formation of glucose combusting to form CO2 and H2O is -ve enough for it to be spontaneous, does glucose not instantly burn on contact with atmosphere?

Because it's too stable. Oxygen can't attack the glucose bonds itself, but needs cofactors.

Nope, it's less to do with specifics, and more with generals.

Because you're talking about total entropy, but that's the sum of a number of stages, and the initial stage requires energy input to get it out of the entropy 'trough' it's in?

Uninformed stab in the dark:

The pressure is too great?

Activation energy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Activation_energy.svg/360px-Activation_energy.svg.png

/\ Isn't that enthalpy rather than entropy?

He means that the activation energy is too high for spontaneous combustion at all temperatures. You need a flame to begin combusting glucose, even if the entropy is negative.

It's actually because the reaction is not kinetically favourable; theoretically it spontaneously forms the products, but it happens at such a slow rate it might as well be 0.

I've been wondering. What does the combustion of glucose have to do with forensics?

I figure its a piece of trivia from a required chemistry course.

Dutchfire was the most close to scoring.

Enzymes help kinetically unfavorable reactions occur by lowering the activation energy of said reactions. The mechanism is presumably by stabilizing the intermediate step (transition state) of the said reactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme

Which is why us organic creatures can spontaneously combust glucose.

"Ummm...Donuts!!!"

It's actually because the reaction is not kinetically favourable; theoretically it spontaneously forms the products, but it happens at such a slow rate it might as well be 0.

So if I put some enzymes on my mars bar it'd blow up? Sweet... (no pun intended)

No, just you like don't when you eat a Mars bar, being in a biological system, heavily dissolved in H20, with the glucose stripped of its electrons (energy).. :cool: The net effect is similar to combustion, but the energy is transfered more gently, thankfully.

So if I put some enzymes on my mars bar it'd blow up? Sweet... (no pun intended)

Post the next question already!

Why are there 7 colours in the 'rainbow' (or spectrum if you prefer)?

There aren't - the spectrum is continuous, but human vision evolved in such a way as to pick out certain brackets of wavelengths preferentially. For instance, we can see more subtler shades of Green than Orange. But, just like with musical notes, the 'color' we call Green is just as arbitrary as the note we assign to 440Hz.

Correct of course, but you need to take the question at face value i'm afraid...

When white light moves from one medium into another, it refracts. The angle at which it refracts is proportional to its wavelength. Since white light is made up of many different wavelengths, the refraction angle is different. However, light typically moves from air to another medium (say, glass), and then back out to air. If the glass's edges are parallel to one another (which they typically are), then all wavelengths of light are parallel when they come out anyway, even if they're not parallel when they're inside the glass. So you only see a spectrum when the edges of the medium aren't parallel, e.g. in a prism or a raindrop. The rainbow is made up of 7 colours cos white light's made up of 7 colours (different wavelengths), and the refractive properties of the raindrop allows you to see them apart from one-another.

hehe you need to take off your scientist cap and put on your historian cap for this one.

'Cause 7 is a cool number (7 days in the week, god took 7 days to create the world, etc.)

Because Newton said so?

hehe you need to take off your scientist cap and put on your historian cap for this one.
cos Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vein?

I've been wondering. What does the combustion of glucose have to do with forensics?

It's thermodynamics, which is quite a big part of forensics.

There aren't - the spectrum is continuous, but human vision evolved in such a way as to pick out certain brackets of wavelengths preferentially. For instance, we can see more subtler shades of Green than Orange. But, just like with musical notes, the 'color' we call Green is just as arbitrary as the note we assign to 440Hz.
Well, I thought about that, but I don't think that we do see separate colours in the spectrum. We have three different light-sensitive cells (responsive to 440, 540 and I think 570 nm wavelength), but we use inputs from each to calculate colour range. I don't think that we see six troughs of low light detection in order to distinguish 7 separate colours.

Hrm, well you said to dislodge your science brain and aim for History. So I would then assume the TRUE question is "Why is the rainbow defined to have 7 colors?"

So I'll venture that it is due to some ancient society only having 7 varieties of commonly usable dye which they could make? If I have to choose a specific society then I'll wager for... Roman?

I'm so intrigued by this that I broke thread rules and googled several links. Apparently this really is a religious reference (torah/talmud), so I'd suggest this question be voided as it's not really scientific in the modern sense (Though it is interesting in an anthropological/religious sense).

Well I don't know how serious he was but Dutchfire was more or less correct:

When he wasn't blazing the way in what we now consider to be mainstream science Newton also dabbled in Alchemy, and possibly Astrology. He was a very religious man and believed strongly in the significance of the number 7 - there are indeed 7 days in the week, there are also 7 notes in a scale etc. So having started off with just five colours in the spectrum, red, yellow, green, blue and violet; he added two more - orange and indigo, to make it the ideal number 7.

That's very interesting... is he the one who actually came up with the name Orange? Why didn't he pick something that rhymed with at least one other word? :lol:

That's very interesting... is he the one who actually came up with the name Orange? Why didn't he pick something that rhymed with at least one other word? :lol:

*klaxons*.

Well I don't know how serious he was but Dutchfire was more or less correct:

When he wasn't blazing the way in what we now consider to be mainstream science Newton also dabbled in Alchemy, and possibly Astrology. He was a very religious man and believed strongly in the significance of the number 7 - there are indeed 7 days in the week, there are also 7 notes in a scale etc. So having started off with just five colours in the spectrum, red, yellow, green, blue and violet; he added two more - orange and indigo, to make it the ideal number 7.

I'm always serious when I'm right, and joking when I'm wrong :)

I don't have a question right now, so I'll open the floor.

what deficiency in terms of biosynthesis of an essential compound do (most) apes, humans, guinea pigs and bats have in common?

Converting amino nitrogen to urea?

what deficiency in terms of biosynthesis of an essential compound do (most) apes, humans, guinea pigs and bats have in common?

what deficiency in terms of biosynthesis of an essential compound do (most) apes, humans, guinea pigs and bats have in common?
Vitamin C.

Converting amino nitrogen to urea?
actually that sound more like birds - the urea cycle is working quite well in all humans surviving birth :)


Vitamin C.
:yup: you are up :goodjob:

I can't think of anything right now, someone else can ask.

Well, this is a bit on the musical side, but what was the first comapny to make a commercially succesful electric guitar?

I think this question legitimately falls under the 'Technology' heading, so I wouldn't worry about it having to do with music. One could argue it has to do with Electronics, right? :)

My guess: Yamaha.

I seem to always see Yamaha electronic pianos, so maybe they were in the game from the beginning?

Nope, it wasnt Yamaha.

Harmonix Music Systems

Wrong electric guitar Perf ;)

Fender, as in 'Fender Stratocaster'?

Les Paul?

Edit: wrong spelling

Gibson ?

Squire ?

Fender, as in 'Fender Stratocaster'?
You're up
Squire ?
Thats a brand owned by Fender as well. So you were the closest of everyone but brennan.

Lucky guess. :)

I'd like to see if any non-physicists can get a metrology question:

What's the difference between accuracy and precision?

Well I don't know in terms of Metrology, but in general terms accuracy means hitting the goal, and precision means reliably hitting the same target. So I would assume then in Metrology that accuracy is being correct about the weather details and precision is being right about the trend?

Nope.67890

I've got a physics minor and learned it in a class that only physics folks take, am I still eligable?

Is it about a consideration of size? like accuracy being about m and precision for things tinyer than mm?

I've got a physics minor and learned it in a class that only physics folks take, am I still eligable?No :p

Is it about a consideration of size? like accuracy being about m and precision for things tinyer than mm?nope, sorry.

Accuracy deals with the margins of error and precision with the correctness of usage of units.

Close... but no cigar i'm afraid.

I'm taking a Physics A-Level, can I play?

Do you know the answer?

I might have a vague idea of what the answer may or may not be. Although it's probably been adjusted to make it easier, like most things we learn in school science.

Give it a shot then...

Accuracy is to do with how close the result you obtain is to the true result. For example, if you try to measure the boiling point of water, and you get 93 degrees Celsius as your answer, it's not very accurate. So, you've made an accuracy error, which could have been caused by any number of factors in the setup of your equipment (e.g. faulty thermometer).

Precision is to do with how many significant figures you've measured your answer to. For example, if your temperature result game to 99.884 degrees Celsius, then you've probably been too precise with your measurement.

How's that?

Looks pretty good. Although you'd be fine giving a very precise answer so long as your equipment was reliable to that degree. Getting 99.884 degrees from a mercury thermometer would be a no-no, but might be okay from a well calibrated thermocouple.

You're up.

(honourable mention to Rik, who may have meant the same thing :))

Fill in the blank:

If a single example of every plant and animal species were placed in a row, every tenth species would be a _______.

Beetle.7890

'n insect?'

1) You aren't allowed to answer. :p

2) It isn't beetle. Every fifth species would be a beetle.

EDIT: Crosspost. That was to brennan. It isn't insect either.

arthropod?

(..)(honourable mention to Rik, who may have meant the same thing :)):nope:
I am not worthy that honourable mention. With precision I meant in regards to units, (like kg m/s^2 etc.). I wasn't thinking at all about significance to the degree of digits.

Not arthropod, no.

Here's a clue: Working from 'beetle', don't get less specific, get more specific.

Another clue: Anyone who watches the British television programme QI should know this.

An Ant?!?!!!!!?!!?!?!!

Beetle larvae?

Cockroach?

Crustacean?

Is it a Louse?

Or could it be a fly?

A kind of beetle.

Yes, thank you, brennan. :shake: You can't answer this one, you did the last one. Go home.

It is a type of beetle, yes. Not one of the creepy-crawlies mentioned so far, though.

Another clue: you might find this little fella hiding in a bag of grain or flour, or maybe on a cotton plant.

Weevil????

Weevil it is! You're up.

That's a lot of weevils... :eek:

Archaelogists have been able to determine what month the construction of Silbury Hill (a neolithic mound in Wiltshire, England) was begun but not what year, why is this?

I'd imagine they were able to find some pollen grains or other seasonal plant markers tied to a specific plant flowering in a particular month.

But I'm guessing :p

No cigar for you...

Some geometric configuration with an equinox or solstice?

I'm a frayed knot...

BTW, the month was August.

Somr other astronomical configuration (stars, etc.)

Their measurements were precise but not very accurate?

EDIT: A more serious guess:
- Would the area have been covered with nettles and thorns and other nasties in any month other than August?
- Was it made from harvest-related crops? E.g. it could have started as a small land-fill site for their food waste (or even a granary-type thing!) and over the years been built up into a big mound?

EDIT2: We need Dr House!

Always read the thread before answering ><


My guess is they found the August copy of playboy in the mound.

None of these are correct.

You don't say??!

Cuz that's when they said they did it?

Well peter grimes and Mise were vaguely on the right track but its nothing to do with plants.

River flooding/drought?

Migratory bird remains?

Again - I'm totally stabbing in the dark :crazyeye:

Migratory bird remains?


Wrong but the closest so far ;)

A clue..

In 1968-70 Professor Richard J. C. Atkinson undertook work at Silbury which was shown on BBC television. This excavation revealed most of the environmental evidence known about the site including ?????? which indicate that Silbury was begun in an August.

Certain insects that are only around during that time? Only thing I can think of thats not birds nor plants.

Certain insects that are only around during that time?

I'm happy to give you this. :goodjob:

The ???? was actually 'the remains of winged ants'

Whoah, thats one helluva guess. And oh, open floor, but not to you Ozbenno ( you just went ;) )

Ok, i take it...

Which test to prove that a diamond is a real one or a fake one (fake one being destroy by the test) was used during centuries and accidentely destroy 90% of the diamond submitted to the test? Chemistry proved later that real diamond were bound to be destroyed (and considered as fake)....

....waits for Mise to answer this question....

Whacking it with a hammer.

nope...don't forget the chemistry part!!!

Hmmm, high temperatures and pressures?

Pour acid on it?

Burning it!

yes, perfection is up

How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie roll pop?

Spam - warned.

Uh yeah, so someone should go...

unfortunately its not practical, but:
who was the first person known to have turned lead into gold?
if no one knows this I'd be content to hear how long ago this dream of alchemists was accomplished :devil:

:hmm: are we talking metaphorical gold, or elemental gold? If metaphorical, then i'd imagine it was some babylonian or egyptian hydrological engineer... if elemental, well, I didn't think we had attained that level of subatomic manipulation yet.

elemental of course only the real stuff is good enough :smug:

Glenn Seaborg, IIRC

Dammit, beaten by Abgar. It indeed was Glenn Seaborg who transmuted lead into gold in 1951.

Glenn Seaborg, IIRC

:goodjob: you are up :)
Dammit, beaten by Abgar. It indeed was Glenn Seaborg who transmuted lead into gold in 1951.

actually it was 1980 - in 1951 he received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for research with transuranium chemistry...

Okay, what is the term for the maximum size of a population an ecosystem can support?

Carrying capacity?

I'm with stickciv on this one :)

Yeah, stickciv got it.

Alright: what is a bomb calorimeter? How does it function?

A bomb calorimeter is a device for determining the energy content of something - normally the energy released during an exothermic reaction. Basically, you put the reagents in and ignite them. The bomb calorimeter is normally in a water bath, and by measuring the rise in temperature of the water (and the bomb itself), you can work-out the energy released.

Bomb calorimeters are contant volumes measurements, not constant pressure.

Alright: what is a bomb calorimeter? How does it function?
I don't know, but by the name I would guess that is measures energy output. The most strait forward way to do that, would be to measure force exerted by the explosion. I imagine something like a heavy duty spring scale, fixated the bomb, while the bomb is kept in a heavily reinforced enclosure, so that most of the energy goes to the scale. Bomb, explodes, spring compresses proportional to the energy.

EDIT: Ainwood hadn't posted when I started writing my post. But if It takes me 8 minutes to type out an answer, I should probably check to make sure someone hadn't posted in that time.

A bomb calorimeter is a device for determining the energy content of something - normally the energy released during an exothermic reaction. Basically, you put the reagents in and ignite them. The bomb calorimeter is normally in a water bath, and by measuring the rise in temperature of the water (and the bomb itself), you can work-out the energy released.

Bomb calorimeters are contant volumes measurements, not constant pressure.
Correct

I don't know, but by the name I would guess that is measures energy output. The most strait forward way to do that, would be to measure force exerted by the explosion. I imagine something like a heavy duty spring scale, fixated the bomb, while the bomb is kept in a heavily reinforced enclosure, so that most of the energy goes to the scale. Bomb, explodes, spring compresses proportional to the energy.
Not quite, read what Ainwood wrote.

Explain how a heat pump works.

well, it's a thermodynamic system where you transfer heat from a first system (the interior of your fridge) you want to freeze to another system (in general a fluid) that have been artificially frozen and who will pass the heat to a third one (in general the air). All the trick is about the fluid that pass between four transformation playing with volume, temperature and pression: first a diminution of the volume at the same temperature (augmentation of the pression), then a diminution of the pression at the same volume (diminution of the temperature). At this moment, the fluid is colder than the first system (the fridge), so the first system by giving heat to the fluid get colder and the fluid get an augmentation of the temperature at the same pression (augmentation of the volume), then the heat is transfered from the fluid to the third system, so the fluid get a diminution of the temperature at the same volume (diminution of the pression). The heat has been pumped from the fist system to the third...

T= temperature, P=Pression, V= Volume

V<, P>, T=
V=, P<, T<
V>, P=, T>
V=, P<, T<

I think it's something like that. I validate this answer and now will see for me if it's a good one...

It pumps heat.

I think it's something like that. I validate this answer and now will see for me if it's a good one...

Largely correct, but I was also looking for some more info (for example, the efficiency of a heat pump, and an explanation for it).

So I can ask a question?

well, let's get into some science history....

Who were the last two person to get a nobel prize of physics all by themselves (not sharing it with anyone else...)?
Bonus questions: years, nationality and works they were awarded for!!!

Who's going to get that without research?

I'll guess that one of them was Einstein 1915(?) for the Photoelectric effect. He was German at the time. Or was he Austrian?

:lol: I checked. Wrong on pretty much every aspect. :lol:

I think it never happened (that's the only way I'll get the bonus question right).

it happened 47 times....indeed Brennan was very wrong!!!

Raymond Davis? For the neutrinos and stuff.

nope...

By the way, I asked the last two and everyone is giving me only one name. Maybe it's too hard, so let's limit it to the last one. (I will give the two names, just for information).

Glenn Seaborg
Linus Pauling?

So I can ask a question?
What I was looking for was also something along the lines of that the heat rejected = heat extracted plus work done; in comparison to something like a bar heater, where heat rejected = work done.

I thought of Linus Pauling as well, but I'm pretty sure he won for Medicine.

Seaborg is a possibility, but didn't he win for Chemistry? :hmm:

Possibly Niels Bohr then?

nope and nope...

Little help: the fact you get quite far in the past prove that the works of the guy was very important and getting the nobel alone was a real achievement. Really, it's much closer than that.

The question seems very hard, so maybe people want me to give the answer and get a more accessible question, even if the 72h hasn't passed...

Mendeleev? - or was that chemistry again?

Nope, but you gave me an idea for my next question...

Quick, everyone research Mendeleev!

If you give the date, someone might know the name...

Enrico Fermi?

Rutherford?

nope and nope...

Hey, I find a very hard question!!! I hope people still find it in the spirit of the Quizz...

Alfred Nobel?

Name more recent people ferchrissakes or we'll be here till 2009. :mad:

Hawking? :help:

Name more recent people ferchrissakes or we'll be here till 2009. :mad:
Lets hope whoever wins that one does it solo.

Sagan ?

Kamerlingh Onnes ?

Feynman ?

nope...

Allright, it's already been 48H...
I think I'm gonna give the answer and the new question this afternoon (Paris time) since tomorrow, i will have my bachelor party...

OK guys, it was definitely too hard...

Pierre-gilles de Genes in 1991 (for discovering that methods developed for studying order phenomena in simple systems can be generalized to more complex forms of matter, in particular to liquid crystals and polymers) and Georges Charpak in 1992 (for his invention and development of particle detectors, in particular the multiwire proportional chamber) were the two french (yay!! Go France!!) physician i was waiting for...

Pierre-Gilles de Genes was awarded of the title of "Isaac Newton of our time" by the Science Royal Academy of Sweden... His work is now used in so many applications it would be too long to make the list (among others: plasma television...)

Next Question, easier:

All scientist are playing tag in the scientist paradise and it's Einstein turn to catch the others. While Einstein count, every others run except Newton who is tracing something on the floor. When Einstein stopped counting, he goes to Newton, standing on a 1 meterside square. Einstein easily touch Newton: "you're tag". "Nope" answer Isaac "I'm a Newton on 1 meter square"

Who's the tag?

If it isn't a valid question, i may reformulate it into another form, but i find it funnier in this way!!!

Pascal has been tagged.

Nice. I like.

Joule, i think :)

Pascal indeed...
because 1 Pa = 1 N/m²...

Thanks to the humour subforum!!!

Catharsis is up!!!

I can't think of anything good, so here's a mathematics question. Find the next word in the sequence:

Addition, multiplication, exponentiation, ____________

Interesting... factorialisation?

Would the steps be:
multiplication is repeated addition e.g. 3x2 = 3+3
exponentiation is repeated multiplication e.g. 3^2 = 3*3
________ is repeated exponentiation e.g. 3^(2^2) = 3^4 = 81
?

If I were to invent a word for that, I'd call it Superexponentiation. Or HYPERexponentiation! :D

Would the steps be:
multiplication is repeated addition e.g. 3x2 = 3+3
exponentiation is repeated multiplication e.g. 3^2 = 3*3
________ is repeated exponentiation e.g. 3^(2^2) = 3^4 = 81
?

If I were to invent a word for that, I'd call it Superexponentiation. Or HYPERexponentiation! :D

You've got the right link (well, -ish... it's more 3^3). There is a word for repeated exponentiation, though, so I'll wait to see if anyone knows it. :D

Is it tetration?

It is tetration! SS18-ICBM is up.

(e.g. 43 = 3333)

Let's try something easy. Describe the two states of the lac operon.

What do you mean by 'states'? On and off?

In the presence of lactose, the lacI repressor binds to the lactose. LacZYA is transcribed, enabling the synthesis of lactose channel proteins, which go to the cell membrane, so the lactose can be uptaken into the cell and digested. Without lactose, lacI stays bound to the operator, preventing transcription of lacZYA.

You're up. :)

What is PCR and what is it used for? Name 5 of the components needed.

polymerase chain reaction - used to amplify nucleic acid chains, usually DNA, needed:
DNA-polymerase (e.g. Taq-Polymerase, i.e. heat stable)
Nucleotides (dNTPs [DNA])
oligonucleotide primers to start the reaction (either gene specific or random)
DNA sample to amplify
reaction buffer (usually some Mg-ions)

also you need a thermocycler or if you are old fashioned you need a few waterbaths and quick hands :mischief:

Correct, your turn now.

ok name an antidote for methanol poisoning :rolleyes: and how does it work?

Fomepizole or Ethanol can be used. They inhibit the enzyme that breaks down methanol (competitive inhibitor is what its called I think), resulting in the majority of methanol and the antidote being excreted through the kidneys instead of being broken down.

Also, I dunno if this has been answered, but we can ask friends/relative, right? As long as they dont google or wiki it themselves that is.

Fomepizole or Ethanol can be used. They inhibit the enzyme that breaks down methanol (competitive inhibitor is what its called I think), resulting in the majority of methanol and the antidote being excreted through the kidneys instead of being broken down.

:goodjob: your turn :)

Anyone can go ahead and ask.

Here's a visual one, to brighten up the dullness of all these words ;)


A question in 4 parts:
http://xs226.xs.to/xs226/08146/2003_1596772.jpg (http://xs.to)
What?
When?
Where?
Why?

Fomepizole or Ethanol can be used. They inhibit the enzyme that breaks down methanol (competitive inhibitor is what its called I think), resulting in the majority of methanol and the antidote being excreted through the kidneys instead of being broken down.

Also, I dunno if this has been answered, but we can ask friends/relative, right? As long as they dont google or wiki it themselves that is.

Using alcohol as an antidote, that's a great idea :beer:

What?
When?
Where?
Why?

Would that happen to be some primitive radar in England, pre WW2?

@ dutchfire - not exactly. Remember - this question is in four parts :)

Here's a visual one, to brighten up the dullness of all these words ;)


A question in 4 parts:
http://xs226.xs.to/xs226/08146/2003_1596772.jpg (http://xs.to)
What?
When?
Where?
Why?

South coast of Britain, concave amplifying listening posts to hear German aircraft aproaching, circa 1939 I think.

Rat-a-tat, Nonconformist got it :)

These curious devices were not confined to the south coast of Britain, tho - they were also employed on the east coast.

I only learned of these last year, when a colleague of mine was married near one. I find it fascinating, this case of an acoustical-mechanical device being supplanted by an electro-magnetic device (radar).

Nonconformist is up!

I learned about them here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229120&highlight=speed+sound&page=33 post #654 and onwards. (But the images are now gone :cry:)

If non-conformist isn't offering a question, the floor is open :hammer:

Using average (or at least reasonable) values for the relevant figures, how long would it take someone to use all the oxygen in his lungs if he held his breath?

No, don't tell me he'd pass out before he managed it. Let's ignore that.

Are we allowed to look up the relevant figures, or do we have to guesstimate based on prior knowledge?

Well, it's basically asking you what average total lung volume is along with average O2 consumption. If you look them up then you only have some simple calculations to do.

So no, try to guess.

6 minutes? But I might be thinking of the capacity of the lung, which may be 6 litres.

Edit:

*Takes deep breath and duct tapes mouth*

10 minutes?

If you metabolise some percentage of the oxygen each 'breath' -say 3 or 4 seconds- then the amount of oxygen used will decrease asymptotically towards zero.

6 minutes? But I might be thinking of the capacity of the lung, which may be 6 litres.

Edit:

*Takes deep breath and duct tapes mouth*

You win!
Average values are pretty much 6 litres for the lungs and 0.2 l/min O2 consumption. Since there's about 20% oxygen in the air, that's close to 6 minutes.

The world record is, apparently, over 8 minutes for a breath hold.

Surely your absorbtion of oxygen is related to the partial pressure though, which is going to drop significantly?

Crikey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4964488.stm) (did a quick google)

Only at very low partial pressures will it matter, and even then it's likely that there'll be oxygen transfer.
Diffusion across the lungs into the blood is not a rate-limiting process even at high altitude (at rest).

I can't think of a question right now, so the floor is open...

Alright, a relatively simple question then: What is the triple point?

Its a the temperature & pressure at which a pure substance exists in three states (solid, liquid, vapour).

Its a the temperature & pressure at which a pure substance exists in three states (solid, liquid, vapour).

Dammit ainwood, you need to start giving other people a chance ;)
I should also note, its where a substance exists in the 3 primary states in equilibrium. More info: Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram)

Oh yes, you're up ainwood.

Thermodynamics questions I know.... Others I generally don't. :ack:

What is a wobbe index, what is it used for, and why is it important.

Well damn, I know the answer to this one. Too bad I cant go as that would be against the rules.

I've heard the Wobbe index being used for gas for cooking. More details I do not have.

It defines the direction of the movement of this:
http://blog.rac.me.uk/photos/weeble.gif

EDIT: did I win? did I win? I surely must have...