Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 17

Looking for examples for use at WP:YWAB

At WP:YWAB I have a bunch of examples of mainstream and fringe topics such as geology vs. flood geology and Holocaust studies vs. Holocaust denial.

I would like to add a note about topics that are not clearly fringe and not clearly accepted science, such as Ball Lightning or The Hum. I am having trouble thinking of good examples that are familiar to most readers. I was thinking earthquake light but that article is seeing a lot of disruption by a fringe pusher. Can anyone think of any good examples? And what should I call them? Unsolved mysteries? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

For weird stuff see List of unexplained sounds and Bloop. In general Category:Unexplained phenomena covers a lot of phenomena, though some are already explained, like Paulding Light. Things a bit outside science could be Ghost hunting, Cryptozoology. Stuff that is currently in science but I think is dubious: Dark matter, Dark energy, String theory. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Forteana? Or anomalous phenomena perhaps.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Found another: Star jelly.

Bloop is certainly an anomalous phenomena, but unlike earthquake lights we don't have skeptics arguing the the bloop never happened, just scientists wondering what caused it. Should that be what I am looking for when I put together my "somewhere between fringe and mainstream" list? Or should I limit myself to things that might not even exist, like lights generated by earthquakes?

Dark matter is perfect: "an invisible and hypothetical form of matter". Is the evidence for Dark Energy any better? Our articles on the two sure make it look that way.

Ghost hunting and Cryptozoology are pure fringe/pseudoscience. Not what I am looking for.

Has anyone seriously claimed that a String (physics) (or better yet, a Brane) is an actual physical object that we can examine, like we can with a Black hole? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Heinrich Schliemann discovered, or uncovered, and to some extent assembled, the legendary city of Troy, when he dug straight through it, and he unscientifically misidentified "Priam's Treasure" as belonging to King Priam, because he wanted his woo-woo theory to be true. By accident, it was true, except in all the details.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That's some fine sciencing there, Heinrich. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Dark matter and energy are both utterly and absolutely mainstream physics. Even though we can't directly observe them, their existence is considered very well supported by the evidence. Questioning their existence is more likely to be considered fringe by scientists. The meaning of "hypothesis" and "hypothetical" in science is in no way equivalent to "fictional".

String theory and branes are also taken seriously and considered legitimate hypotheses in mainstream physics, even if considered to be backed by less evidence so far than dark matter/energy have. From what I understand, string theory is now considered less likely to be true than it was a decade or two ago, as experiments have ruled out certain versions, but it's in no way fringe.

None of these are pseudoscience. None are considered remotely as questionable by physicists as flood geology is by geologists. They'd be very poor candidates for "we're biased against theories that are contradicted by evidence". -- Avocado (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a long-standing debate whether it is justified to position string theory within the scope of the natural sciences, as it does not follow the paradigm of the scientific method.^[1][2] It is comfortable as a mathematical theory, just like braid theory and sheaf theory. These names use a different sense of the term theory. String theory can also be positioned in the scope of "speculative physics", which is not essentially different from rock-hard science fiction.^[3]  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Quantum field theory is also a theory. And large swaths of modern physics are basically math. That doesn't change the fact that the bulk of real physicists take both QFT and string theory seriously -- including those who don't think string theory is correct. String theory is widely studied in academia. It's published in major, respectable scientific journals. Some of its predictions have been tested empirically at the LHC and certain classes of it ruled out by the scientific method. People get degrees for studying it and spend their lives working on it at highly regarded physics departments of universities around the world.

It's certainly not proven. Intelligent and educated people can believe it to be false without their stance being antiscientific. But it's not something that the vast majority of serious scholars in the broader field it's a part of scoff at as ridiculous or dismiss as unscientific, the way you would get a consensus of geologists that "flood geology" is absurd. It's not at all in the same category as Holocaust denial or Atlantis or astrology or phrenology as something that Wikipedia should be "biased against" because it's contradicted by the evidence. And if you don't believe me (I'm certainly not a physicist myself, just an interested layperson who tries to pay attention to what the actual scientists are saying), I'm sure there's a consensus to be reached one way or another over at WP:Physics. -- Avocado (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Quantum field theory has stood its ground – actually exceptionally well – in making predictions that were experimentally confirmed. Arthur Eddington had a theory about fundamental dimensionless physical constants being algebraic numbers. A theory, perhaps. A scientific theory, not. String theory, as a theory about physical reality, does not have a better track record. The fact that it is studied around the world by respected scientists does not make it more scientific than it is.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You and I are clearly not going to convince one another to change our minds about the status of stringy theory as a theory. But do you really believe it should be bucketed with astrology as something that Wikipedia is "biased against"? -- Avocado (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There is also a range of medical treatments that will span a spectrum from well proven to alternative, to fringe, to totally bogus. Stuff outside science may be in Alternative medicine. Stuff in the unclear area might be aromatherapy, red light therapy, Chiropractic. Some recent treatments for alzheimer's are claimed to be scientific, but are dubious money makers for some drug companies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Good suggestions. In particular, take a look at [ https://www.amazon.com/s?k=red+light+therapy ]. Lots of money being made there -- stringing together a bunch of red LEDs is pretty cheap. Alas, I don't seem to qualify. Looking at Amazon, the treatments seems to only be for scantily clad females... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

May 18

Wine

Why is most wine 12.5% ABV? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Above that, alcohol kills yeast. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. But some wines (only reds?) can be 13% - 15%? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

My answer was overly simple. It's also a function of how much sugar is in the grapes in the first place, and which yeast is being used. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, the vintner can adjust a wine's strength by blending and dilution, and may want to tailor the strength to keep it consistent from year to year, and to target a particular market. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it isn't. Some are 11, but the vast majority of Australian reds I buy are 13-14%. They are mostly shiraz or <late edit cabinet> cabernet from the south, not (in theory) the Murray which is where the volume grapes are grown. In practice many boutique vineyards blend in some of high sugar content grapes, rather like the French used to with Algerian wines. Whites are in the 13-14.5% range, I like heavy chardonnays. If you look for sherry style white wines they can hit 16% with no fortification, such as Montilla, and I think some Australian sherry style finos hit that with no fortification as well. In general the cheap wines tend to have lower ABV so as to keep the shelf price down. Greglocock (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional detail. Maybe more needs to be added at Winemaking#Crushing and primary (alcoholic) fermentation. It currently just says "Alcohol of more than 12% can be achieved by using yeast that can withstand high alcohol. Some yeasts can produce 18% alcohol in the wine however extra sugar is added to produce a high alcohol content." I'm aware that sherry is a very different thing (... and I remember frequenting Yates Wine Lodge in Nottingham...) I wonder how one would discover the proportions of wines at a given ABV across the world? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a decent place to start, though it's not a direct answer to your question. The base data seems to only get down to the white/red split, not the individual breakdowns by ABV segment. Matt Deres (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Greglocock, do you keep your cabinets in the cabernet? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

_{Nah, we're posh. Cardboard box in the garage.} Greglocock (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't like heavy wines. A kilo a litre is plenty. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

OH, got it. corrected Greglocock (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Bless you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Locoweed and Datura

Our article on locoweed claims that it is incorrect to refer to Datura species as locoweed. The claim has a source but the source does not say it is incorrect; instead, it says that Datura is locoweed.

I had always thought of locoweed as referring to Datura. Does anyone have knowledge and sources to clarify the issue? --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I think our article is using the source as an example of incorrect use. Really it is a bad reference as you say. Also it is user generated content, and so classed as unreliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. My question is, is it actually incorrect? I had always thought of locoweed as meaning Datura. --Trovatore (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

For a descriptivist, there is no such thing as "actually" incorrect. The term locoweed is not a term of art. Quoting Datura stramonium § Etymology and common names:

"Common names for Datura stramonium vary by region and include thornapple, [...], locoweed, [...], and devil's cucumber."

Datura ceratocaula is called "torna-loca" ("goes crazy") in Mexico.

In veterinary use, the term locoweed is used primarily in connection with the cause of locoism, livestock gradually getting poisoned by chronically ingesting swainsonine-producing plants. The deliriant effect on livestock from ingesting scopolamine-producing plants such as Datura species is AFAIK not referred to as "locoism".  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The OED gives two meaning for "locoweed". The first is "loco", meaning "Any of several leguminous plants of either of the closely related genera Astragalus and Oxytropis (both of the subfamily Faboideae) found in the western and south-western United States" (which it then associates with loco disease, and the second "Originally and chiefly North American slang.= marijuana". DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

All these senses can be found at Locoweed (disambiguation).  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Not the last one. Matt Deres (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If you mean the "marijuana" one, it's on the dab page as Cannabis. Deor (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

May 20

Zinc acetate decomposition

Hi! I am a very amateur chemist and I've been trying to synthesize zinc acetate by the addition of vinegar to a strip of zinc metal, and evaporating the vinegar by letting it sit in air. I am able to produce white crystals that I believe to be zinc acetate, but after a few days of letting them sit out, they have turned orange. The orange color seems to disappear (or rather become very diluted) upon re-adding vinegar. What could be causing this orange color, and how could I figure out what the product is?

Previous tests indicate the solubility of the orange product is 8 g/100 mL.

I suspect the product to be basic zinc acetate but I cannot corroborate this with online sources as they do not provide info on basic zinc acetate's color or solubility.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 15:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like Zincite. Did some iron get involved maybe?  Card Zero  (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably not zincite, as it's a form of zinc oxide which has a much lower solubility. I don't think there's any source of iron so I don't know how it would get there. I also don't know why the color would only appear on prolonged standing if it was iron, leading me to suspect it is a colored zinc compound. Not sure what it would be though, and I'm not sure how I would identify the product.

Regarding the AI response below, all the compounds listed are very insoluble in water, so it can't be any of those.

I'm really regretting not running solubility tests immediately after precipitation... but I can probably isolate more of the white crystals before they decompose and test that.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 22:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

An AI response The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This response with references was given by CoPilot on May 20th 2026 Your orange discoloration is almost certainly iron contamination forming iron(III) acetate or mixed basic iron salts, not a zinc compound. This matches the suggestion in the thread that it “sounds like zincite,” but zincite is ZnO and yellow, not orange — the color points much more strongly to Fe³⁺ compounds.

The fact that the orange color disappears when you add vinegar again is a key diagnostic clue: iron(III) hydroxides/oxides dissolve in acetic acid, forming pale yellow iron(III) acetate complexes.

Why this happens When you dissolve zinc metal in vinegar:

Zn + 2   CH₃COOH → Zn(CH₃COO)₂ + H₂ But unless your zinc is very pure, it usually contains iron impurities. Also, if you used steel tools, a steel container, or even tap water, Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ can enter the solution.

When the solution evaporates, the pH rises and iron(III) precipitates as:

FeO(OH) (yellow–orange)

Fe₂O₃·H₂O (orange–brown)

basic iron(III) acetate (orange)

All of these are orange solids with solubilities in the range of a few g/100 mL — matching your observation of ~8 g/100 mL.

Why adding vinegar removes the color Acetic acid converts the insoluble iron(III) hydroxides/oxides into soluble iron(III) acetate:

FeO(OH) + 3   CH₃COOH → Fe(CH₃COO)₃ + 2   H₂O Iron(III) acetate is pale yellow, so the strong orange color disappears.

Is it basic zinc acetate? Unlikely. Basic zinc acetates are white or colorless, and no known zinc acetate species is orange. The color is diagnostic for iron.

How to confirm experimentally Here are simple, safe tests you can do at home:

1. Magnet test Dry the orange powder and bring a strong magnet near it. If it contains iron oxides/hydroxides, you may see slight attraction.

2. Potassium thiocyanate test (if available) Add a drop of KSCN to a small sample dissolved in vinegar. A blood‑red color confirms Fe³⁺.

3. Ammonia test Add household ammonia to a small amount of the orange solid in water:

Rusty orange precipitate → Fe(OH)₃

White precipitate → Zn(OH)₂

4. Flame test Zinc gives no characteristic flame color. Iron contamination may give a golden spark effect.

References Here are authoritative sources confirming the chemistry:

Iron(III) hydroxide/oxide colors: orange–brown (standard inorganic chemistry texts)

Iron(III) acetate is yellow–brown and forms from Fe³⁺ + acetate Greenwood & Earnshaw, “Chemistry of the Elements,” 2nd ed.

Zinc acetate and basic zinc acetates are white CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics

Iron impurities in zinc metal are common and dissolve during acid attack Vogel’s Qualitative Inorganic Analysis

Is your vinegar pure acetic acid in water? Spirit vinegar or industrially produced acetic acid should be purer than fermented products that may have extra brown coloured content when they dry out. Based on Zinc acetate you may have produced the dihydrate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Store bought white vinegar.

Zinc acetate dihydrate is probably the initial product of course, but there's likely something going on that turns it orange upon aging. I've observed this in multiple samples, and at first I thought it was due to me adding isopropyl alcohol in a futile attempt to extract Zn acetate from the solution, but clearly the same is happening w/o isopropyl alcohol. What impurities in vinegar would cause the discoloration?

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 02:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if the impurities in the vinegar have accidentally created a lake pigment with the zinc cation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

What kinds of impurities would be in my vinegar?

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 16:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Distilled white vinegar is made from fermentation of acetic acid as far as I can tell, often by having large vats filled with wood shavings and bacteria. Polyphenols are sometimes present. (https://www.compoundchem.com/2023/02/20/vinegar/) The best article I could find on a quick search states that distilled vinegars contain "ethyl alcohol, amyl alcohols (C5 alcohol), ethyl acetate, 3-hydroxy-2-butanone (acetoin), and acetic acid". https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf60147a005 -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

May 22

Alternatives to fuel

As we have bikes and buses running on rechargeable large battery, can planes fly without fuel? Big planes like Boeing in future?

Induction cooker takes lots of time to cook compared to fuel. Will any alternative exist for cooking where one don't need to purchase fuel?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/24/global-oil-crisis-changed-fossil-fuel-industry-for-ever-iea-chief-fatih-birol

https://www.ft.com/content/f3034a00-2ea3-4aa0-aab3-ba0d48af4048?syn-25a6b1a6=1 ~2026-30783-03 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, not really. Small planes that use batteries can fly for an hour or so, but long range is unlikely if you want a decent payload. Greglocock (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You mention bikes. The first aircraft was pedal-powered, built by two bicycle builders. It couldn't fly. They strapped a gas-powered engine to it just to get it to fly a short distance.

Then, you mention buses. Modern commercial aircraft is essentially a bus with wings. That is the point - get as many people from point A to point B as possible with the least amount of resources spent.

Flying without fuel implies you are referring to electric. All-electric vehicles use either a very long power cable or batteries (or both). It is not reasonable to run power lines through the sky for planes to slide on. Batteries are required. From this point, it all about the potential energy. Avoiding the physics notation, let's put it like this: If you had a milk jug full of fuel, you could take off in a small plane, circle, and land, and likely have some fuel left over. To do that with batteries, you would have nearly 100 pounds of batteries, basically a second passenger. For a commercial aircraft, the battery would take up the entire aircraft. There would be no room for passengers or baggage. Yes, batteries are getting smaller and lighter, but this isn't an issue of making them 10% better. We need to make then over 1,000% better. So, that isn't the plan.

The plan that is common is to switch fuels. For example, we could switch to hydrogen fuel. We could use nuclear fuel. It is possible that future aircraft will fly for hours on a pebble-sized fusion fusion fuel source. Or, we might have a massive leap in technology and suddenly people can just teleport anywhere they want to go. Of course, what fuels those teleporters? A Hemi V8? ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Aircraft can also be solar-powered, at least when the sun is out. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 20:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, solar-powered passenger planes cannot be put into commercial operation because the electricity generated by the solar panels is too little relative to their weight. In other words, the energy produced by the solar panels is less than the extra energy required to support their own weight. Stanleykswong (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

There is the solar cooker. The fuel is billions of tons of hydrogen 93 million miles away, but there is no charge. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The first aircraft was pedal-powered, built by two bicycle builders. It couldn't fly. Where on earth did you get this nonsense from? At no point did the Wright brothers ever construct a pedal-powered aircraft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

People would no doubt have figured out how to fly eventually even without the bicycle, but it was the bike that made it happen when it did and made America the birthplace of aviation. “The flying machine problem is liable to be solved by bicycle inventors,” wrote a Binghamton newspaper editor in 1896. Our article finds the Wright brothers already in 1901 pedalling an experimantal bicycle, not yet to fly, but to calibrate the lift of airfoils relative to a flat plate. The Wrights had had an insight that came straight from cycling. They understood that a plane didn’t need to be stable. “Our idea was to secure a machine which, with a little practice, could be balanced and steered semi-automatically, by reflex action, just as a bicycle is.” Wright brothers. Source: [4] eExcerpted with permission from The Mechanical Horse: How the Bicycle Reshaped American Life, by Margaret Guroff (University of Texas Press, 2016). ~2026-21660-55 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that even without the bicycle, the Wrights would have figured out how to test aerofoils: they did after all later construct a wind tunnel. As for the insight regarding stability and control, it's open to question as to whether they actually went too far in the 'stability not needed' direction. Bear in mind that a conventional bicycle actually derives some stability from its geometry, it isn't entirely unstable. The Wrights were of course correct though in regard to learning to fly by 'reflex', hence the efforts they put in with gliders. Most of their contemporaries seemed to think such learning entirely unnecessary. Which on the whole it was, until the Wrights built something actually capable of sustained flight... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-30783-03 Wikipedia has many articles in Category:Electric_aircraft. They use energy from many conventional sources to generate the electricity to charge the batteries when on the ground. To take just one example, see Beta Technologies Alia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a theoretical limit to the energy density of batteries. There's still room for improvement, but not enough for long range flight. Trains are usually electric, electric buses are common, although those on battery power do suffer from high mass, even electric boats exist, but electric aeroplanes for anything more than really short hops seem unlikely. For the record: my bike is still 100% muscle-powered.

And induction cooking works just fine, assuming your electric service connection was designed for it. Just as responsive and fast as natural gas and without the indoors NOx emission. I switched from natural gas to induction a few years ago; wouldn't want to go back. Other forms of electric cooking are worse though. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

To add a formula (this is the science desk, after all), the range of a battery powered aeroplane is approximately

$R=e\cdot B\cdot \eta \cdot \rho _{L/D}/g$

with $R$ the range, $e$ the specific energy of the batteries, $B$ the fraction of the aeroplane's loaded weight devoted to batteries, $\eta$ the efficiency of the propulsion system, $\rho _{L/D}$ the lift-to-drag ratio and $g$ the acceleration of gravity. You need some more energy to climb, but you get it back on descend. Current electric aeroplanes have a range of a few tens of kilometres. An airliner needs a range of around a thousand kilometres at least, so one has to gain about a factor of 30. $e$ can be improved, but not that much. $B$ and $\eta$ are already a significant fraction of 1 and can't be more than that. $\rho _{L/D}$ is about 16–20 for modern jet airliners and around 60 for gliders, so there's some room for improvement, but only if one accepts small aeroplanes with huge wingspan, cruising well below transonic speed. In other words, too short range for transoceanic flight and too slow to compete against land transport. There may be a role for electric aeroplanes in bush flying and island hopping.

Note that the size of the aeroplane doesn't show up in the formula, other than larger aeroplanes having a tendency to lower $\rho _{L/D}$. This is partly because they may have undersized wings to fit at the gates of an airport, partly because bigger aeroplanes need to go faster and their $\rho _{L/D}$ drops when going transonic. We could build an electric airliner the size of an A320 right now, but it would have a range less than 100 km, which it would cover in 15 minutes or so. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Alia is designed to charge in under an hour, and carry five passengers or cargo for up to 250 nmi (460 km; 290 mi).[5][6] Not all useful aircraft have to have "a range of around a thousand kilometres at least". Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You say "$e$ can be improved, but not that much", but then I compare Lithium-ion battery (Specific energy up to 450 W⋅h/kg) to Lithium–air battery (Specific energy 11,140 W⋅h/kg theoretical). What's up with that?  Card Zero  (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

See Comparison of commercial battery types. Look at the energy density by mass. Our Lithium–air battery article doesn't list energy density by mass for the simple reason that they don't exist except as laboratory curiosities.

BTW, here is an electric aircraft that can stay in the air indefinitely without running out of juice: Petróczy-Kármán-Žurovec#PKZ-1 --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

But if this is about "a theoretical limit to the energy density of batteries", the theoretical room for improvement does appear to be enough for long range flight, using batteries that are full of implementation problems and therefore don't exist, but theoretically could.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Electric stoves and electric ovens are also a thing, and have been since before WWII, independent of induction cooking -- though a lot of cooks don't like the experience of electric cooktops all that much.

The issue with aircraft is that batteries are a lot heavier per unit of energy than carbon-based fuels. That extra weight causes them to need more energy to fly the same distance, which in turn means a bigger, heavier battery. It would take massive advances in battery technology to make them commercially viable. -- Avocado (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

What makes it even worse is that, in contrast to jet fuel, you still have to carry the batteries after they've been depleted. The raw materials are too valuable to just dump them – in addition to the safety and environmental concerns. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Makes me think of some sort of absurd scheme where warehouses are dotted all over the world and they attach the batteries to hang-glider drones that can guide them to warehouses when the flight path passes close enough for the drone to make it to the warehouse with a depleted battery. Wouldn't work so well for really long flights across the Pacific Ocean, unless you detoured close enough to those few scattered islands, though, I suppose. And then you'd need a whole supply chain to ship them back to the major airports. Fun to think about, though! -- Avocado (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Electricity can be transported using these amazing things called wires. Don't need a tanker or drones. NadVolum (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course. But heavy batteries can't be removed from a plane using wires when their electricity is used up the way that jet fuel no longer has to be carried once it's been burned. And if you're proposing we run transoceanic flights off electricity transmitted from ground-based power grids via wires... -- Avocado (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"Hydrogen batteries" might be able to solve this problem. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, an aircraft only generates revenue for a company when it is in flight. Charging a large-capacity battery means an extremely long charging time, which will significantly reduce the utilization rate of the aircraft. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever even visited a house with a gas stove. Are electric ranges really that rare outside the US?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

In the UK it's split about evenly, with electric now being somewhaty more common for ovens and gas still slightly more common for hobs (stove tops); gas used to be more common overall, and older people tend to prefer it because they're so used to it, because it's a little quicker to adjust, and because the flame is actually visible so one can see the adjustment directly. Electric has the advantage of not in itself causing condensation, a significant consideration in colder, damper Britain where houses are often not well ventilated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Electric is rare even in certain parts of the US, fwiw -- especially older cities that were plumbed for gas transmission for heating and light in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I've really only encountered electric in suburbs, though induction is gradually making inroads, especially with new regulations in some places forbidding the installation or replacement of gas stoves. -- Avocado (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Netherlands are a small country sitting on one of the largest gas fields in the world. From the late 1960s until the early 21st century this field provided for almost all cooking and heating in Dutch households. With the uniform composition of the gas, all household burners could be factory tuned for the proper fuel-air ratio, making gas cooking even simpler. Gas piping was mandatory for all new housing. Electric hobs existed, but were pretty rare; electric ovens a bit more common. This changed recently; nowadays new housing is fully electric. It's safer (burns and gas explosions), healthier (NOx emission), reduces dependency on imported fuel (as the Groningen gas field is closed now) and reduces greenhouse gas emission. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

In fact, induction cooker usually cooks food faster than a gas stove because a well-designed induction cooker can transfer nearly 90% of the energy directly to the cookware, while a gas stove can generally only transfer one-third of the heat to the cookware. Stanleykswong (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, battery power is highly impractical for long-haul commercial and large passenger flights. Unlike bicycles and buses, airplanes need to fly, meaning they must overcome gravity, making the weight of the energy system a primary consideration. A major obstacle for battery-powered aircraft is energy density; aviation fuel has an energy density approximately 30 to 43 times that of the best lithium-ion batteries currently available. Stanleykswong (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Historically, it takes about 10 to 15 years for battery energy density to double. A 30 to 43-fold increase in battery energy density means that battery-powered aircraft are still more than 50 years away from becoming a reality. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps: Cyclic regenerative reactions that power heat engines and thermocouples. Modocc (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Also: CRR/urea/build w/ check valves as needed.. Modocc (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

May 25

Is aabec real?

Today I read _The Diary of Adrian Mole, Age 13 3/4_, and got to the part where Adrian is learning words from a dictionary. Adrian writes, for his first new word, aabec: "How interesting it is that Aabec should be an Australian bark used for making sweat." This word appears in some old dictionaries, including one Australian English compendium, but is there any real surviving evidence that the bark and the word were ever really used in Australia, or is this just a ghost word like "esquivalience"? If aabec is real, which species of Australian tree does it come from? ~2026-31003-95 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Well the word is not in the Australian Collins or Macquarie dictionary. The first word is "a" but I suppose that was not new. "aabec" does appear to be used eg see https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/157910185?searchTerm=aabec . But I also see misscans of "aspect", "ashes", "aches". Here it is used to get the first position in the column, and a second entry under EXPLANATION: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110874422?searchTerm=aabec . Trove is a good place to look up old Australian references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

John Shaw Billings thought so: In 1876 what Billings called a “Specimen Fasciculus’ was printed. It was a momentous event—the beginning of an era in medicine. ... This volume was but seventy-two pages and began with AABEC, a bush as useless as its name would suggest — how mysterious. In fact here's that Specimen Fasciculus, where the entry in full is AABEC. See Morton (M. K.) Aabec bush. Med. and Surg. Reporter, Phila., 1875, xxxii, p. 425. (That's the thing Lambiam found, below.)  Card Zero  (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, a 19th-century lexicographer, lamenting his ignorance of words contributed by Australian informers, writes:

For instance—
    “Aabec. An Australian medicinal bark said to promote perspiration.”
I have never heard of it, and my ignorance is shared by the greatest Australian botanist, the Baron von Müller.

There are plenty of (mainly 19th-century) mentions, but here are actual uses:^[7]

I refer to an alcoholic extract of an Australian bark, called the Aabec bush. ... As the captain has no interest in the value of this bark to the profession, any further than the scientific interest any educated person would naturally feel, there are considerable hopes felt in the efficacy of Aabec.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 12:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Also:

NEW DIAPHORETIC. This is the Aabec bark, and is used in the form of fl. ext. or infusion. Of the fluid extract a teaspoonful is given every hour. It is under trial.

The Medical Record: Volume X (p. 536). New York, July 31, 1875.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

A search of Australian newspapers reveals only "Dragoman's Quiz" (syndicated in several newspapers)

Aabec is an Australian bark used medically to produce: (choose one) Blue blood; sweat; delirium; convulsions.|Dragomans Quiz

and a sterling effort in 1977 by a Canberra locksmith to have his advertisement "first in this book". Doug butler (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've found a few tradesmen and small companies calling themselves Aabec in old British newspaper adverts, presumably to get near the top of the Yellow Pages listing. And of course there was Aabec in Antrim County, Michigan. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Pepper mills and microplastics

Supermarkets sell bottles of pepper corns with caps that contain a grinder. The grinder is made of plastic. I worry this can introduce microplastics into our food. Has any scientific research been done on this subject? Thank you. Hevesli (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It will, and people increasingly believe it will harm health. Stanleykswong (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I found one scientific paper and a couple of blogs that are most likely correct:

• Investigating microplastic release from plastic grinder heads during salt grinding
• How FDA-Compliant Pepper Grinders Enhance Tabletop Experience in US Restaurants
• Are Disposable Salt and Pepper Grinders Bad? The Hidden Costs of Convenience

If anyone finds more or better sources, please post them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Zbucki, Ł. and Plażuk, E., 2024. Mechanical grinding of spices in grinders with polymeric burrs and transfer of microplastics to food. Health Problems of Civilization, 18(3), pp.339-353. Available at: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/55790756.pdf

Yang C, Li K, Gowen A, Xu JL. Investigating microplastic release from plastic grinder heads during salt grinding. Sci Total Environ. 2026 Mar 15;1021:181608. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2026.181608. Epub 2026 Feb 24. PMID: 41740354. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41740354/

Schymanski D, Humpf HU, Fürst P. Determination of particle abrasion through milling with five different salt grinders - a preliminary study by micro-Raman spectroscopy with efforts towards improved quality control of the analytical methods. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2020 Aug;37(8):1238-1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2020.1748724. Epub 2020 May 19. PMID: 32428414. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428414/

Yinai Liu, Yu Cao, Huiqi Li, Huanpeng Liu, Liuliu Bi, Qianqian Chen, Renyi Peng, A systematic review of microplastics emissions in kitchens: Understanding the links with diseases in daily life, Environment International, Volume 188, 2024, 108740, ISSN 0160-4120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108740. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202400326X Stanleykswong (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

May 26

Heat armoured car heist

In the movie Heat, after an armoured car is knocked over by a semi truck, the thieves need to force it open. As the armoured truck was already lying on its side, would another semi travelling at full speed along the armoured truck's route and ramming just the armoured truck's windscreen and roof hypothetically suffice to shear the entire roof off, thus not needing any tools? cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 19:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A sequel film Heat 2 has a 77-day shoot planned in Los Angeles this year. The production company might appreciate your idea. ~2026-21660-55 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of videos of trucks hitting a low underpass, resulting in the roof being sheared off,^[8][9][10] so this is within the realm of physical plausibility, probably enough for the suspension of the whole scene also to enable suspension of disbelief. To assist in maintaining belief, the side of the semi in the scenario hitting the overturned truck should be reinforced in advance of the operation; otherwise it would just be sheared off itself first. The semi should also have sufficient momentum to shear off a substantive amount of the roof before the force gets too low, so it must be loaded up with heavy stuff, and the semi must accelerate in advance to reach top speed in time. (It is more believable if the semi decelerates and halts during the operation, before the whole roof is opened up.) The initial impact with the windscreen will tend to deflect the trajectory of the semi, so considerable skill of the driver is required to hit at just the right spot and the right angle, and to keep the semi on track, parallel to the roof, during the actual shearing. Finally a word of caution: do not try this in reality, kids.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Normal cargo trucks have very thin, unreinforced roofs, which is why they peel off so easily in low-bridge strikes. An armored vehicle would likely have a much stronger, reinforced roof, but that roof is designed to resist bullets and blasts, not sideways shearing from hitting a rigid bridge. In that kind of impact, the armor plate itself might stay mostly intact, but the mounting points, welds, or supporting structure could fail. So it’s feasible that a heavily armored roof would be torn off more as a single solid unit than crumpled, even though the vehicle as a whole would still be severely damaged. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel we also have to consider what happens to the semi. Lambian has touched on this but are we sure it will stay upright and actually be able to travel past the armoured truck? If it doesn't it might simply end up blocking the shear-off hole. The point about the driver is another interesting one. Frankly you'd need someone either real crazy or terminal to be willing to be the driver IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AI drives all the cars because why not? AI drives the armored truck. AI drives the semi. Waymo vs Tesla star in "Waymo Money." The problem is it turns out that all the money was in virtual coins and the armored truck was just carrying encrypted thumb drives. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be very hard for the thieves to plan this. It's almost impossible to predict the exact orientation in which the armoured truck comes to rest after it's knocked over, as this depends chaotically on its position, velocity, rotational inertia, the impact point et cetera. Hitting the armoured truck with another vehicle at the right angle to tear off the roof might proof difficult if it's inconveniently oriented. PiusImpavidus (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In other words, because this is an action movie script we are talking about, surprisingly easy. Barely an inconvenience. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cmglee: So maybe, or no, or yes.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The average action movie is obviously a documentary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

May 30

What about the application of the Solomonoff induction to the person to person information exchange?

No information is being asked for. Instead, we are being asked to respond to nonsensical and almost incomprehensible posts based on spurious assumptions. Such discussions do not belong here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, according to long-established Wikipedia policies. Closing per WP:NOTFORUM The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems it adds some principial boottleneck to the human to human communications. You have to guess what the other person mean.

More details here in russian: https://transitional-writes.dreamwidth.org/41031.html It seems it is proof of the famous Mises calculation argument theorem. The only mean to circumvent this bottleneck is to use physically preserve money like gold, uran, platinum.

Can we discuss this topic at least? It is totally related to the natural science methodology. ~2026-32197-56 (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Mises calculation argument: Economic calculation problem

Solomonoff induction: Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference

human to human communications: Human communication

Google Translate of Russian source:

Well, yes—Galois theory applied to state governance. If we set aside decentralized governance—the kind based on a currency whose value is preserved by the laws of physics: gold, platinum, uranium—

It becomes a special case of Mises's theorem applied to a vertical structure. "The Battle for the Bloody Bridge"—that, I believe, is how the Anglo-Saxons described it, drawing on their experience in the Anglo-Boer War. Then all that remains is the vertical hierarchy of power.

1. Kolmogorov complexity and *a priori* triangles used to compress a bitstream representing *N* actions with parameters X, Y, and Z (something like this: [website: research.swtch.com/zip]. Whether for a lieutenant or for Comrade Stalin, this complexity is bounded—and roughly equal.

2. Moving vertically upward through the hierarchy, a game of "telephone" ensues due to the inherent difficulty in interpreting signals—a difficulty stemming from [wikipedia: Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference]

3. Ultimately, everything hinges on the actions of the lieutenants—those who understand the specific local conditions — and on the actions of Comrade Stalin, who knows nothing of the specific local parameters, yet possesses knowledge of fundamental *a priori* principles. Or perhaps he does not. The intermediate links in the chain are merely gambling at the casino.

The author appears to not understand currency, economics, information theory, or human communication. Decentralized governance has very little overlap with currency. Ancient China had an extremely centralized government and used copper coins as the main currency, to take one example. See Metallism and Fiat money.

The author also appears to be using Solomonoff's theory and Galois theory as hand waving -- claiming that his political and economic claims are based upon those theories without explain how. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for you answer.

Could we discuss this topic step by step?

1. First question is the inductive bottleneck in the human to human communications caused by the

properties of the inductive inference and perception per se.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference

If we apply this theory to the "bitstream" that is seen by the peers in the human communccation

we can infer that there is fundamental uncertainty that we get all information right from the peer.

2. The second question is the application of the first step to the problem of the economic calculation.

If we can not trust peers we have to use something that we can trust.

Some primitives of the decentralized control that could be trust like gold. ~2026-32197-56 (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the first question is the variation if the frequency of a cat's purr caused by the diamagnetic properties of subduction zones on the sea floor. Then we can apply this theory to the melting point of candlewax as the first step to the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture as it relates to Cockcroft–Walton generators.

You can pick your unrelated subjects that you try to tie together with no explanation as to why you think they are related, and I will pick mine. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

[NB: Also posted on the Mathematics Reference desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)]

That will be fun to watch. I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a reference desk. And given that no reliable source is likely to have ever discussed 'the application of the Solomonoff induction to the person to person information exchange', we aren't going to be able to give any response appropriate to a reference desk, rather than a forum. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

But anyway. It seems this is totally correct question.

There is no obstacles to discuss this topic.

And there is no obstacles to apply the results to other problems like economic calculation argument.

So we see open and correct scientific topic.

What can we do with that?

Assuming this is one of the most important problems for the humanity. ~2026-32028-60 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No, we are under no obligation to assume that this is 'one of the most important problems for the humanity'. Or even that it is a rational question at all, given that it has been posted by someone who seems to think (amongst other things) that 'value' is a physical property of matter, rather than a social construct. If you want to engage in facile debate about gibberish, you will have to find somewhere else to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see the box at the top of this page. A reference desk just looks up things in a library and tries to point you to a suitable reference if they can find one. It doesn't engage in opinions or predictions or debates or original research about even the most important problems for humanity. Perhaps X or Reddit do that, I've never used them but I hear they host lots of debates. NadVolum (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to defend myself: at least everyone knows now that this question wasn't discussed anywhere.

How can I get this information without the question to the reference desk?

So my question is justified.

Also I think the wikipedia Talk page may be the correct place to discuss such things.

Even it is the original research it may lead to the formally acceptable outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference ~2026-32028-60 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)