For various reasons, mainly due to genetics, I grew up essentially without any friends my age, and certainly not any friends of the opposite sex. Although female friendship and intimacy has been a very strong desire since early childhood, I never experienced anything like that until my late 20s or early 30s (and even then, very, very little of it).

However, at some point in my late 20s, there was a period of a week or so in which I did get some physical contact with women my age. Although this was restricted to hugs, it caused huge emotional and physiological effects on me. On the physiological side, I noticed almost constant excessive excretion of Cowper's fluid, to the extent that I needed to change clothes every hour (and each hour could see large amounts of this substance in the clothes), throughout the day. (Even when I was alone, I was obviously thinking about this new kind of physical contact.)

Now, within a day or two, I started experiencing mild pain in the inguinal region on the right side.

I have always believed this to be a consequence of the sudden hyperactivity of my right bulbourethral gland, but I have never researched it properly.

Is this a reasonable hypothesis? I notice that the Wikipedia article on the gland doesn't mention anything about this.

(Please note that I am not seeking medical advice; I'm merely being curious.)

--Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask a urologist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ideal, yes, but I don't know any urologist. And it wouldn't make any sense for me to see a urologist as a patient, since this is merely me being curious in general; I don't experience any clinically significant problem. In fact I very much doubt I would even be allowed to see a urologist if I did go to the vårdcentral, since the Swedish health care system does not have enough resources to see patients just because they want to discuss biology. Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does your health care system get its resources? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tax money Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And do you pay taxes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.

But to the best of my knowledge, the Swedish health care system has not much spare capacity. (Situationen är ansträngd.)

I believe there is a shortage of specialist staff, and too often patients have to wait to see a specialist or perform some examination or medical intervention. Sometimes even suspected cancer patients have to wait a bit longer than medically optimal (and certainly longer than they'd prefer themselves). So if I would insist to see a urologist just to satisfy my curiosity about the possible physiological mechanisms that can make bulbourethral hypersecretion to cause nociception, then I'd take up resources that could have been used for prostate cancer patients.

You don't want to do that. And I am note really that interested, either. Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their shortage of staff is not your fault. If I were in your shoes, I would find a urologist and schedule an appointment. It might be next week, it might be six months. But unless the doc thinks you've got a real problem, it shouldn't take up too much of his/her time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking other people to give opinions on whether your theory about a medical condition you have is correct. In most people's book, that's asking for WP:MEDICAL advice, which you will not get a response to. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of assuming that help won't be forthcoming, the OP anywhere in Sweden can telephone 1177 to contact his commune's family advice service that offers interviews with variously qualified relationship psychologists and sexologists. Website www1177.se describes the service in individual communes. Also, without me presuming anything about the OP's situation, Sweden offers a very sympathetic and confidential counselling service to young adults, details of booking and cost at https://familjeradgivningen.com/samtal-for-unga-vuxna/ . Philvoids (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstood my question. My question is strictly about biology. A relationship psychologist is unlikely to know very much about the ways nociceptors can be triggered by a sudden and prolonged production and excretion from the bulbourethral glands in human males. Sexologists may have some knowledge, but likely not much at the cellular level (if any). I'm also afraid your second comment is even more off-topic. Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I most deliberately deny you a biological answer. That's my response because some lucky psychologist adviser or sexologist whom you prejudge as unqualified can look forward either to learning from your self analysis of your unique and medically educational case, or to saving everyone's time by posing questions or tests that you may not have thought of. Philvoids (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the "Science" Reference desk of Wikipedia was supposed to be a place where you can ask questions about human physiology. But maybe I was wrong. Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article on blue balls?  ​‑‑Lambiam 17:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I don't think I have ever heard of epididymal hypertension (I have been a medical student myself, so it's possible I have heard of it but forgotten it). This condition indeed seems highly related to my observations. But I'm not convinced this is it. The sensation was clearly located on the right side and quite far from the scrotum, but referred pain could maybe account for that. Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Pre-ejaculate cites this study, which includes reports of similar excessive secretion in other young sexually-inactive men. JMCHutchinson (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Although this doesn't say anything about the mechanisms by which bulbourethral hyperactivity can cause mild nociception, it certainly adds some additional evidence that the bulbourethral glands are indeed at the centre of the phenomenon. If I have to guess, I'd suspect that the hyperactivity causes a mechanical (enlargement, swelling) or chemical (waste products, pH etc.) alteration in the vicinity of the gland, triggering some mechanical or chemical nociceptors. Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our internal energy article sez:

It excludes the kinetic energy of motion of the system as a whole and the potential energy of position of the system as a whole, with respect to its surroundings and external force fields. It includes the thermal energy, i.e., the constituent particles' kinetic energies of motion relative to the motion of the system as a whole.

But what about bulk rotational kinetic energy? Taken literally that seems to be included in the second sentence. But it doesn't seem thermodynamic at all. If you accelerate an object (without heating it) you don't increase its internal energy, and I would think the same should apply to rotational acceleration (say, of a flywheel). --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you rotate a flywheel (or any other object) fast enough, it will fly apart. That seems to me to suggest that some internal energies might have been generated by the externally applied force. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.123.129 (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an object gets heated or not with respect to time is not relevant. Classically, at any moment in time there is a rotating reference frame for which a system's bulk rotational kinetic energy is simply zero. Then note that its total internal energy, which includes thermal energy and stresses, are equivalent to its total invariant mass. Unlike fictitious forces, its mass is not fictitious, hence its bulk rotational kinetic energy is not part of its internal energy [(with respect to its restmass)], but thermal energy is, of course. Modocc (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But a rotating frame is not an inertial frame. I wouldn't think that would count? In any inertial frame, the bulk rotational kinetic energy is the sum of the particles' kinetic energy (at least, the part based on the rotation) with respect to the center of mass of the system. --Trovatore (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Often, the literature does not respect the universe's absolute rotation and neither does GR's localized frames. When people head west their internal energies increase (eg. onboard clocks), and only if rotation is absent for which local curvature is zero everywhere does one really have something worth talking about as I see things. That said, in the classical setting (v<<c), the KE of non-inertial frames are still worth consideration. Modocc (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think this discussion is not going to get to the point I'm interested in, so let me show the rest of my hand. The question arises from a very old claim, in a fortunately obscure page, that systems at absolute zero have to be "still". I think that's nonsense; an example would be a fast flywheel, which, notwithstanding its high rotational kinetic energy, can still be cooled arbitrarily close to absolute zero. The reason, I think, is that the kinetic energy isn't random and therefore not thermal (this raises interesting questions about the foundations of statistical mechanics which I have still not fully understood, and have not really seen much discussed).

A discussant at that talk page did raise an interesting point that if the object is actually at absolute zero, then you would be in an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, therefore time invariant, which I suppose in the case of the flywheel means you would need to lose all information about the angular position of the flywheel.

There are lots of places we could go from here. I think coherent vibration is also not thermal, though it would thermalize eventually (except maybe in a superfluid or something?) whereas the flywheel's rotation would not.

Anyway, can anyone clarify these issues? --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Maxwellian energy distribution" is a term for kinetic randomness. Following up on what I said before, a gyroscopic instrument with two counter-rotating parts comes to mind with respect to an object that has additional invariant internal energy (and whether it is considered thermal energy depends on ones definition(s)) with respect to any reference frame. Our article on absolute zero states "In the quantum-mechanical description, matter at absolute zero is in its ground state, the point of lowest internal energy." In other words, its energy is not zero. Maybe that helps, maybe not. Modocc (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can also not emphasize enough that internal energy is simply mass [when KE=0] per Invariant mass: "The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system". Thus I am confident you are correct that the systems' velocities are not a factor. But what is unclear to me is what is considered to be "the point of lowest internal energy". Modocc (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's true that internal energy is the same as mass. Internal energy is a specifically thermodynamic concept, and I'm fairly sure only the "random" part counts, whatever that means. A big part of the point of this question is trying to figure out just what it does mean.

Our internal energy article says that it's determined only up to an additive constant; only changes in the internal energy are well-defined, not the exact value. That wouldn't be true if it were the same as invariant mass. --Trovatore (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The well-defined changes are time-dependent, however the invariant mass is determined by the system's proper rest frame, for which all KE is zero, for any event. Our article on Thermal energy gives a brief description of internal energy as "the energy contained within a body of matter or radiation..." and note there are other concepts for thermal energy. Modocc (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we aren't talking about invariant mass. We're talking about internal energy. I am not persuaded that they are the same thing. (Note in passing that invariant mass definitely includes the bulk rotational KE, though that's not the point I'm primarily interested in here.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "...the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system." Bulk rotation is an overall motion and I took a look at Rotational energy, but it is silent on the matter. Anyway, the angular velocity of macro-systems is arbitrary and gets more complex at the atomic level. In practice, such as for the Earth's spin contribution to its KE (and not mass), is perhaps ignored, but can be calculated via a classical approximation which I used above in my first reply. Consider curve balls that are thrown different curvatures, k, at different moments in time and ignoring external events there exists local proper reference frames such that the ball's KE scalar, including its spin, is zero. If someone asked me what the ball's intrinsic mass is I would not include its rotational KE for any of its rotational energy when thrown in my calculation. It's not ignored, it's just computed separately. Recently I purchased Schwartz's Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. The Zero-point energy article touches upon QFT and Thermodynamic temperature has a section on internal energy and absolute zero that touches upon your query. P.S. AI's take.... Modocc (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Thermodynamic temperature has more details and it refers to Zero-point energy and I've not read it yet. Modocc (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: not a physicist so take with grain of salt: (also this could stand to be moved to the Science desk if one wants more attention; I will refrain from doing so myself) (edit: ignore I am a dum-dum and can't read)

As I understand it, thermodynamics-wise, temperature is fundamentally defined in terms of entropy. The lower a system's temperature, the less total entropy, and vice versa. Entropy is "randomness": it can be thought of as the total number of possible ways a system's internal state can be arranged, which all produce the same observables. A periodic system, like a flywheel or pendulum, has highly regular, organized, predictable motion—so, that periodic motion contributes little net entropy to the system. Real systems can't truly reach absolute zero, but they can get arbitrarily close.

Going from there into some connected topics: quantum field theory models space as containing various fields, which at every point in space are modeled by quantum harmonic oscillators. QFT models all particles as excited states of these oscillators. If we consider the textbook toy model of the particle in a box, the particle behaves as a periodic oscillator, with various vibrational modes it can have, each representing a different energy level the particle can have. Even in the ground state, the lowest-energy state the system can have, it still has internal energy distributed across its degrees of freedom, which simply can't be "gotten rid of" somehow ever (besides altering the system so it changes into a different system), any more than you can make 2 apples fill you up more than 5 identical apples if you can just somehow "try hard enough".

It helps to understand that the foundational Big Idea of quantum mechanics, is that various natural properties can only inherently have distinct discrete (countable) values or quantities, quanta: they are quantized. This is in direct contradiction to "old-school" classical mechanics, which assumes natural properties are continuous: capable of taking on an infinitely-divisible, smooth and continuous range of possible values, like the real numbers. That applies for instance to our particle in a box: its fundamental degrees of freedom can only have various distinct, countable values. If they all were at their lowest-energy values and the system were in its ground state, they simply have "nowhere else to go but up"; the system can't somehow do a limit break and awaken its latent hidden powers and smash through to achieve the "even lower than ground state" somehow. --Slowking Man (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose the system under consideration contains a steam engine using coal as fuel, with a fully loaded bunker. The system is capable of doing mechanical work, which, I think, in this context can be considered thermodynamical work, and the chemical energy in the fuel is internal energy. Suppose the system is updated; now it contains an electrical engine powered by electric batteries. Again, I think the electrical energy of the batteries is internal energy of the system. Next, the system is upgraded again; these old-fashioned forms of energy storage are replaced by a flywheel. Then, again, its rotational energy is internal energy. A helpful way of thinking about this is:

The total energy of a thermodynamic system can be divided into external and internal energy.^[1] In a formula,

Since the rotational energy of the flywheel is obviously not external, it is internal. I think it ultimately comes down to an accounting choice – do we choose to ascribe the energy to the system, viewed as a thermodynamic system, or is this unhelpful. If it is not reasonable, given some system, to account for any bulk rotational kinetic energy as external, it is internal energy. But for a bulky electrical battery located at the South Pole, its bulk rotational kinetic energy at a whopping spin of 1 turn per day should be considered purely external.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the third law of thermodynamics makes the case that matter cannot be cooled to absolute zero. Vacuum fluctuations prevent it too. Modocc (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The article says KE is not included as internal energy (which I had assumed was simply following in the tradition of defining mass as I understood it), but since that is not accurate, how should we revise the article (with references) so internal energy includes a bulk rotational KE ? Modocc (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article repeats the claim but adds a caveat: "Internal energy does not include the energy due to motion or location of a system as a whole. That is to say, it excludes any kinetic or potential energy the body may have because of its motion or location in external gravitational, electrostatic, or electromagnetic fields. It does, however, include the contribution of such a field to the energy due to the coupling of the internal degrees of freedom of the system with the field. In such a case, the field is included in the thermodynamic description of the object in the form of an additional external parameter." It seems to be hedging its description quite a bit... Modocc (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also annoyed, because (KE+PE) is conserved with orbits of any eccentricity and size, thus the so-called external energy that is being excluded has to be, in my view, in some sense internal energy too independent of the potential source(s) and I've always thought that was obvious, but apparently not... Modocc (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the references are lacking in generality and applicability, and better ones are not forthcoming, it stays written "as is". Modocc (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In past people used to use arrows during battles. The Hollywood movies show that they fire arrow in the sky at 45 degree angle and when it reaches enemy soldiers far away the arrows pierce their amours and kill them.

Normally if we throw something when anything is near then the force will be very high but more distance means the speed decreases and it will not have much damage. shooting arrow to someone standing right in front of me can hurt him severely but those who are afar away how will they get hurt. Arrows are also not heavy like spears. 2409:40E1:1075:838A:F867:C146:EE95:3B4A (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe what you see in Hollywood movies, or any other movies. An arrow is designed to travel a significant distance and still inflict damage. See arrow. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arrow article doesn't seem to address anything about effect at distance. Without giving even a hint of credence to anything from movies, Archery#Physics has an interesting note regarding the higher velocity of an arrow vs a spear. That could offset an effect of reduced weight for a fixed distance, or allow at least some damage at a greater distance. Any projectile has an effective range. "Far away" is not a well-defined term. Someone skilled in using a bow and arrow as a weapon would know its range against specific types of targets. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much scholarly research into the use and effects of medieval archery; see English longbow#Use and performance and associated links for details. The main sources for researchers are a large haul of well preserved 16th-century longbows recovered from the Mary Rose and Toxophilus, a contemporary treatise on military archery by Roger Ascham. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a filmmaking perspective, artistry is more important than historical fact. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An arrow can travel way much faster than a thrown object. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an arrow is fired at a 45-degree angle, it converts kinetic energy into potential energy as it ascends, slowing down while gaining height. On the descent, potential energy is converted back into kinetic energy, increasing speed as height decreases. Some energy is also lost to air resistance. --136.56.165.118 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that (ignoring air resistance) the total energy (sum of kinetic and potential energy) remains constant throughout the arrow's flight, demonstrating the principle of conservation of energy. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting is that under ideal conditions (the arrow projected from a fixed-velocity at a level target and air resistance is negligible) a 45-degree angle maximizes the product of the projectile's vertical and horizontal velocity components, resulting in the greatest range. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, arrows fired at a 45 degree angle have the longest range. Technically, a medieval arrow could have a range of 300m or more if fired at a 45 degree angle.  But war is not about how far your arrow can shoot. Your arrows must be fast and accurate enough to penetrate enemy armor. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient wars, archers usually fired arrows directly at enemies about 50 meters away. If the distance exceeds this distance, there will not be enough kinetic energy to penetrate the enemy's armor. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At battles like Agincourt and Crécy, English longbowmen used massed volleys to devastating effect, a precursor to "fire for effect" (FFE).^[2] Thanks to conservation of energy: what goes up, must come down -- with the same energy as when fired, minus only that from air resistance. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise others' responses — (1) Assuming no strong winds and no obstructions requiring specific angles, a 45-degree angle generally produces the maximum range. (2) The farther an arrow goes, the more energy it loses to air resistance, so it can do less and less damage to its target. (3) Not specified by others, but the specific point at which a target is hit can vary the effects significantly — a slow arrow at an unprotected point can do more damage than a fast arrow at a strong point. Consider a passage near the end of the biblical book of I Kings: But a man drew his bow without taking special aim and struck the king of Israel through the joints of his armor. So he said to his charioteer, "Turn around and take me out of the battle, for I am badly wounded!" In this setting, the archer was shooting at a group of enemy soldiers (probably at a long distance, since at a short distance he'd have a better effect if he aimed at a specific soldier), and the king was badly wounded because the arrow happened to hit him at a weak point. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A safe assumption to make: fictional movies, are not documentary depictions of pre-modern combat and how it "really worked". Historian Bret Devereaux on armor and ranged combat: [3] [4] From the latter, initial emphasis mine:

Mike Loades (cited above) claims that there are no scenes of bowmen firing high arcs outside of siege contexts in the whole of medieval art. I certainly have not seen one. Of course, bowmen fire arrows upwards in siege contexts, but the 45-degree maximum-range arc doesn’t appear in artwork featuring battlefield conditions. Now, at Agincourt (1415), the initial English volleys do seem to have been at very long range, but (following Keegan, The Face of Battle (1976), inter alia) these volleys weren’t intended so much to cause damage as to goad the French into a foolish attack (a psychological impact!). The actual killing the longbows did happened once the French began advancing.

In fictional depictions, armor tends to veer towards the completely useless, enough that TVTropes has a page called Armor Is Useless. Well-armored combatants having attacks just glance off their armor doesn't make for very compelling viewing. And, our plucky heroes being slaughtered because they lack the resources to get their hands on effective armor or weapons capable of landing blows against armored foes, is challenging to craft narratives around.

But in reality, armor was incredibly useful, and you wanted to have as much of it as you could manage to get, and people in fact generally did just that. Ranged fire at extended range had little effect aside from psychological—and fire with that in mind was employed sparingly, as ammunition and muscle power to propel the projectiles were things both in limited supply. No belt-fed crew-serviced automatic weapons powered by chemical explosives here I'm afraid. --Slowking Man (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making movies is to present a good story.  Audiences love tragedy and comedy.  It is difficult to make a war scene into a comedy, but it is relatively easy to make it into a tragedy.  A group of brave soldiers, wearing useless armor and carrying crudely designed bows and arrows, fight against the invaders with powerful weapons. From a storytelling perspective, it's a great scene. Stanleykswong (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this video that I saw on Reddit? It appears to show a goffin using a walnut shell as a cup to drink water. Does this count as tool use? 146.90.140.99 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion would likely differ depending on one's definition of 'tool' – if he modifies the shell at all, I would definitely say yes, if not, some might say no. Overall, it seems consistent with the species' behavioral intelligence, which definitely includes tool invention, modification and use. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who use, say, a screwdriver, use it "as is", bought in a store or found in a tool shed, without making any modifications to it. Still, I think almost everyone will agree this is evidence of tool use by Homo sapiens. We have an article on Tool use by non-humans, which documents this and other differences in how scientists define the notion.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Chatterly in her car was driven home by her chauffeur Mellors when the engine made a strained noise and stopped. "Beg pardon ma'am" said Mellors, "but something's amiss with the motor. I'll get out and try to fix it". "What a gallant fellow you are, Mellors" said Her Ladyship and reached for the toolbox, intending to help in any way she could. "Mellors, would you like a screwdriver?". "That's awfully decent of you ma'am but I should fix this engine first". Philvoids (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tools are modified. A screwdriver is a modified item. You can't go out and pick a screwdriver from the screwdriver tree. Walnut shells are not modified. You can easily find a lot of walnut shells in nature. It isn't a matter of who modified it. You can't claim that Bob didn't modify his screwdriver, so it isn't a tool. It is simply a matter of separating things into stuff found in nature and stuff created by some form of intelligence to perform some task. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also, Cow tools. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also think about it from another perspective: most people just go to the hardware store to pick out a suitable screwdriver, which is no different from a bird picking out a suitable walnut shell to drink water.

You might say someone designs and manufactures screwdrivers in a factory so people can go to the hardware store and choose the one that best suits your application.  However, by the same logic, you might also think that nature "designed" and "made" a series of walnut shells, and that the bird simply went out and selected the right walnut shell to drink water. Stanleykswong (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy link: Tanimbar corella, aka Goffin's cockatoo. (Until now the only goffin I knew of was Carole King's past partner.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to search for the answer, but any relevant information was undiscoverable amongst political slogans.

On a very basic level, how can a low-lying swamp be drained? Some swamps can be drained by creating a steep-slope artificial river, e.g. the Old Bedford River, but that wouldn't work in a consistently low-lying environment. I grew up on the edge of the former Great Black Swamp, which was converted into productive farmland, but it's extremely low-lying — local rivers flow toward Lake Erie, but in 120km they fall just 100m — so this wouldn't have worked well. As well, drainage was accomplished in the 19th century by local residents, so internal-combustion-powered machinery and huge steam-powered machinery seemingly would have been out of the question. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch use windmills. Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They build a dike around the area and dig a canal (Dutch: ringvaart) surrounding the dike. The canal functions as a reservoir, higher than the drained area, into which water is pumped.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article mentions the (steam-powered) Buckeye Traction Ditcher as expediting the draining of swampy areas.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this can be done very low tech. You can use tile drainage, or just run known irrigation methods backwards, such as a Screw of Archimedes or other pump, human or donkey-powered. Abductive (reasoning) 21:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood what this machine was; I overlooked the record-pace tile laying and figured it was just something to dig ditches, and envisioned them as being only an ancillary aspect of the process. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Brits drained The Fens centuries ago, likewise using windmills. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To this Dutchman 100 metres in 120 kilometres doesn't sound like extremely flat. We have a drop of about 8 metres in 120 kilometres, but it's only in the lower part of the country that pumps are required. They used to be wind powered (starting around 1500), but apart from some small wind pumps for local use, those are now mostly seen as industrial heritage or tourist magnets. There was a switch to steam in the late 19th century (one still in use, some others preserved as industrial heritage), then to a mix of diesel (a few pre-1930 diesels are still operational, but most are from the 60s and 70s) and electric pumps. The power for the electric pumps comes partially from wind turbines, so we're back at wind power.

But you can even drain a swamp without any pumps, making use of the tides. Build some drainage cuts and a dike with a check valve and you can lower ground water level from close to high tide to close to low tide, easily a 2 metre drop. It was already common in the 13th century. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBF, the swamp under discussion is near Lake Erie (whose tides are negligible), not any ocean shore. The fact about the tides is pretty cool regardless, though. -- Avocado (talk) Avocado (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being someone who dislikes plastic bottles I've been trying other figure out how to get products into soda cans (plastic lined I know I know) and recently looked into canning milk. After learning that the primary form of strength in soda cans comes from pressurizing the contents, I found that you can't carbonate milk because CO2 will accelerate its decline but it seems like nitrogen should be a usable gas? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soda cans in use today are extremely thin and it wouldn't surprise me if the internal pressure supplies the bulk of the rigidity, but a) who says the container must be rigid or strong and b) soda cans used to be a great deal stronger. Indeed, milk cans seem plenty sturdy. Matt Deres (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evaporated milk is routinely sold in cans. That article says "Evaporated milk generally contains disodium phosphate (to prevent coagulation) and carrageenan (to prevent solids from settling), as well as added vitamins C and D." HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the various containers produced by Tetra Pak, commonly used in Europe. I regularly buy both orange juice and UHT milk in 1-litre tetra-pak type rectangular containers, and currently have one of custard also: I believe similar containers are used in the USA – see Milk carton. I suspect this is a superior solution to cans, which would otherwise already be in use. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An aluminium sheet does not readily stretch, which means that the application of moderate forces can bend and fold it (including crumpling), but not much else. For a cylindrical aluminium can this means that its volume decreases when it is deformed. Like any liquid, milk is virtually incompressible, which means that a full and well-closed can should be rather rigid. (I have no full cans of any liquid at hand to test whether practice agrees with theory.) A can that is not full is less rigid, because the gas inside is easily compressed.

An advantage of packaging in a nitrogen atmosphere is that it keeps the lipids in the milk from oxidizing.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any downside to using nitrogen in milk packaging. After all, 80% of the air is nitrogen, so we only need to remove the oxygen in the air. The removed oxygen can also be sold separately to subsidize the packaging cost. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual purpose is to weigh a human who has trouble standing on a scale. Idea is put one scale under each bed leg and add up the 4 readings to get the weight of the bed. Then do the same when the human lays down on the bed, and subtract. this work? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:55E8 (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reset the scale to zero after placing it under the bed legs? By doing this, you simply add the four readings together. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bed would be too heavy even for four normal bathroom scales. Better to use a plank of wood and two scales. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The weight of the IKEA NEIDEN bed frame is 14.89 kg and the weight of the LUROY slatted bed frame is 8.51 kg.  The bed itself doesn't add much weight compared to the 600-pound weight limit. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Just make sure the centre of mass doesn't move between the four readings, or the weight may be redistributed over the scales. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redistribution shouldn't affect either total, though, should it? -- Avocado (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the weight distribution between the bed legs should not affect the total weight. Stanleykswong (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four is a bad number to use. The problem is if they're all load bearing it might not be stable; weight might shift between corners due to the slightest of shifts, or even due to the scales opposing each other. If you can find a way to use three it should be much more stable. You could place two at corners but a third in the middle of the opposite edge.

This also helps with another problem that bathroom scales are often only approximate. Taking readings off three or four will multiply this error by three or four. No easy fix for this except take readings more than once. Perhaps weigh the bed before and after your human is on it, and if the discrepancy is large also re-weigh your human and average the results. --2A04:4A43:909F:FB44:28A1:3B73:AC99:CE94 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your car is likely on four wheels as well, does it have the stability issues you describe?  All four wheels are load-bearing and I believe it is very stable.

I agree with you that most bathroom scales are inaccurate, especially when you compare it to the scales used in hospitals or clinics.   But the typical deviation is only 0.05 to 0.15 kg^[1]. Stanleykswong (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A car doesn't have the problem I describe but a car is a highly engineered device with particular attention paid to balancing load between wheels, keeping all four wheels on the ground as much as is possible, using its suspension.

Many of us have had to deal with a piece of furniture with four legs that doesn't sit stably on all four. Maybe the floor surface is uneven, or its legs. A wooden chair/table on a rustic tiled floor e.g. Typically two opposite legs are always in contact but only one of the other two is at a time, as it wobbles between them. Put springs under both of them and it might oscillate, and that's effectively what you are doing with scales. A three legged item doesn't have this problem, can be stably placed on even a very uneven surface. --2A04:4A43:909F:FB44:24EA:EF2B:7143:1443 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the four scales are identical and the bed is not already wobbly on a flat floor, I don't expect this to be a problem. The relation between the downward force and the vertical displacement of the surfaces of the scales supporting the weight is not linear. If the centre of mass of bed + patient is over the centre of the rectangle formed by the scales, the potential energy is minimized when the springs of all four scales are compressed equally. Even if the bed is wobbly, just use one or two shims under the shorter legs.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having the weight on 4 scales instead of 3 leaves one degree of freedom: how much of the weight is on the legs of one diagonal combined and how much is on the legs of the other diagonal combined. It shouldn't change too much under shifts in the centre of mass, but this could be a problem for beds with inconvenient elastic properties. For example, if it's bistable under torsion deformations. Allowing for some elastic deformation of the bed, the distribution gets more equal. If the bed wobbles, the legs in intermittent contact with the ground never carry more than a tiny fraction of the weight.

What could be a serious problem with more than 3 scales is elastic deformation of the floor. When the person taking a reading walks to one of the scales, the floor locally bends down, redistributing the weight away from that scale, leading to a measurement that's too low. This could be an issue if the elastic deformation of the floor is significant compared to that of the scales and the bed. That is, on a wooden floor.

The deviation of the scales would most likely be a systematic error, so taking the same measurement twice won't help. Worse, if all scales are from the same batch, you can expect them to have the same error, so that really adds up. On the other hand, the weight of a person fluctuates over the course of a day by several hectogrammes, so outside special contexts where such factors affecting weight are properly taken into account, measuring a person's weight to an accuracy better than 5 hg is rarely useful.

Alternatively, you could build scales large enough for the entire bed. Something like Sir Bedevere's largest scales will do. Or a weighbridge. My municipal waste dump has one; they weigh your car before and after dumping and charge for the difference.

PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Worse, if all scales are from the same batch, you can expect them to have the same error, so that really adds up." True, thus I would simply weigh myself on a known accurate scale, before plopping on an unknown one. It works every time. :-) Modocc (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"What could be a serious problem with more than 3 scales is elastic deformation of the floor.". There could be a number of triggers, for them to find a new stable state. The person on the bed could move, or even depending how sensitive things are just breathe. And unless you have some way of reading them all at once such a shift could completely ruin the readings. Don't forget the ones that might change together are on opposite corners. If you take readings of them in order there could be several seconds during which a shift happens undetected while you are looking at one of the ones that does not change. --2A04:4A43:909F:FB44:683A:7FEE:BE65:E75 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Yes, if you want a person's accurate weight, you have to take readings from different scales at the same time. This can be done by using scales with USB, RS485 or wireless connection and connecting them to the same mobile app or computer program. I don't know if there are any home scales with this kind of connectivity. If not, then you may need to use industrial scales. In this case, rather than purchasing three or four industrial scales, it may be cheaper and easier to simply use a large bed scale, such as Marsden M-955^[2]. They're actually a bed with a weight sensor on each of its four legs. Stanleykswong (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no doubt that a three-legged bed won’t wobble. This can and often is done with beds with four legs, as it is impossible to keep all four legs even. However, this can happen regardless of whether there are scales underneath it.  So, technically, if the bed doesn't wobble without scales underneath it, it won't wobble if the four scales are identical or nearly identical. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the action in this 1986 Australian film involves a truck with a very "army surplus" appearance, that I, a non-enthusiast, have been unable to identify. My copy of the film is of poor quality, possibly ex-VCR, but the vehicle has several distinguishing features: it has one rear axle, so is probably 4x4. The engine hood is shaped from flat surfaces, reminiscent of some GM WWII trucks, and the logo above the radiator appears to be three letters of similar size: most likely ATO or ATC, but the "T" might be a "Y". Notably, it is a cab over design; the driver's door is directly over the front wheel and part of the engine cowling is forward of the front wheels. In the YouTube copy it is first seen at 43:33 and intermittently thereafter.

As the film appears to be based on the documentary The Back of Beyond, it is surprising that the producers did not use an AEC Badger as driven by Tom Kruse, unless these "army surplus" vehicles were more readily available.

IMDb says "The truck seen was actually a 1965 Army Truck. Three trucks were utilized for the production. One of the trucks took six weeks to build due to the number of modifications. One of the trucks had to be converted to diesel so it could drive through water for the river crossing sequences." Doug butler (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Truck, Cargo, 2.5 ton GS International No.I Mk III perhaps?

Film makers before the 1990s, esecially if on a low budget, were not very fussy about vehicle accuracy and tended to use what was available as long as it looked about right. A notable example is the use of undisguised US-built postwar tanks standing in for German panzers in Patton (1970). [5] Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there can be any doubt. The underlying similarities are overwhelming, and the descriptions tally well with the IMDb entry. Thanks Alan. Doug butler (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a side view of one of the trucks, modified for the film shoot. The protruding bonnet may have been one of the modifications.  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That poster is a great find. I don't know how you do it. Thanks Lambiam. Doug butler (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Our article on Orthohantavirus notes that most species cause chronic, asymptomatic infections in their rodent hosts, and they only produce symptoms upon transmission to humans. Are there any reverse-zoonotic pathogens of any sort that do this, i.e. their natural reservoir is humans, and they don't cause any illness in us, but they can spread to some other species and cause an illness? Reverse zoonosis only covers human illnesses. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]