Science Questions
Most Recent 15 Questions Answered
Question 1:
I was hoping you could explain what Linux is and the benefits of using it compared to other operating systems to someone who doesn't know all that much about computers.
Answer :
Dear Linux Learner,
This is a really big question but a great one because it deals with a lot of issues in computing technologies that are becoming more and more central to our world. And by our world, QB means a world controlled and managed by automated systems within vast computer networks that communicate through web servers that likely operate through some version of Linux.
Linux, as you’ve rightly identified, is an operating system (OS), which is the magic thing that makes all computer activity possible. You’re probably familiar with the operating system on your personal computer, but these systems also work at the server level for websites and networks used by organizations like businesses and schools. Without operating systems, computers wouldn’t work, and without computers, we’d still have to write stuff down. It would be horrible. Luckily, most operating systems come pre-installed on all computers. Linux, however, needs to be downloaded separately, and there is a very good reason for this.
Linux can be downloaded for free because it is not supported by a corporation but rather a community of volunteers and non-profit organizations that are part of what is known as the open-source movement. The free sharing of code and software became common practice among open source folks, and this practice would provide the foundation for what would later be dubbed as the Open Source movement. Open Source, according to the Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought, is a movement that rejects all claims of copyright, and advocates for the free use and distribution of code and software over the internet. No cost means no restrictions means freedom, is their claim. The idea is that computing improves when more people have free access to it. Copyright, however, places restrictions on the use of intellectual property (i.e. computer code) that, according to open source advocates, hinders progress and creates monopolies. While the philosophy of these copyleftists may seem noble, the application of these ideals within the Linux community actually requires a solid understanding of beyond-basic computing concepts, which, ironically, is in itself a restriction.
For now, let’s step away from the ethics and consider some of the practical differences between Linux and other common operating systems. We know that copyright is what allows corporations like Apple and Microsoft to make billions, but another important factor in their success is user-friendliness. The software applications created by these corporations are designed to allow its users to do what they want without having to think too much about what it is they are doing. This might come in the form of big, bold letters, nice graphics, and easy point-and-click commands. Linux, because it comes free from a community of hyper-literate users, requires a little more effort to reap the noticeable benefits. This is why you will likely see Linux being used by programmers, researchers, or other people who are looking for a customizable experience when working with internet servers or high powered databases. That said, popular versions of Linux actually have a front-end that looks very much like your average Windows or Mac OS. So, unless you really know what you are doing, you are probably not going to notice much of a difference.
But it all depends on you, LL, and what you want to do with your computer. There are a variety of free resources available to you from the library and the internet. If you’re interested in learning more about open source software platforms like Linux, be prepared to spend a lot of time teaching yourself the basics through online community forums and instruction manuals available at the library. If you’re not sure which version of Linux to get started with, take a look at Linux-Chooser.com (http://www.linux-chooser.com), which will help you determine which Linux OS distribution would be most useful. With the apparent onslaught of computer interfaces and digital graphics screaming at you from every which direction, it certainly won’t hurt to challenge yourself by experimenting with new and advanced computing technologies.
This is QB is saying Goodbye, world!
Sources :
"Open Source." Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd, 2007. Credo Reference. Web. 15 April 2012.
"Torvalds, Linus Benedict." Chambers Biographical Dictionary. London: Chambers Harrap, 2007. Credo Reference. Web. 15 April 2012.
Raymond, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. 1998. Retrieved from: Safari Books Online. http://vufind.carli.illinois.edu/vf-uiu/Record/uiu_6674575/Holdings
Wang, Paul S. Mastering Linux. 2011. CRC Press – Taylor & Francis Group. http://vufind.carli.illinois.edu/vf-uiu/Record/uiu_6426895
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
5/16/2012
Question 2:
If a baby is born on a space shuttle, in space, would that baby then be a citizen of Earth or would it be considered an alien?
Answer :
Dear concerned citizen of earth,
Houston, we have question! While QB is pretty firmly tethered to earth and has no chance of actually seeing outer space, QB is still very interested in space. Ignoring the problem of finding a pregnant woman willing to go up into space (QB wonders if NASA has even launched a maternity space suit line yet) or of how a baby would be delivered in zero gravity and pretending the birth went smoothly, QB believes there are two components to your question: the laws of country specific citizenship and defining outer space. 3…2…1….Blastoff to answer!
QB assumes that the parents of this space born baby are human beings and citizens of one of the countries of earth. If so, then the baby might be able to become a citizen of the country of its parents by law. If, for example, both parents were U.S. citizens then the baby could potentially be considered a U.S. citizen by law. QB launched over to the library’s government information portal and explored Proquest Congressional. The United States Code (specifically 8 U.S.C. 1401) covers laws of nationality and states that a person born outside of the United States can be considered a citizen if both parents are U.S. citizens or if even one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of a year.
While there has not been a baby born in space yet, there has been a similar situation here on earth, specifically in Antarctica; a baby born in Antarctica is actually not considered a citizen of Antarctica. QB discovered an out of this world newspaper article that mentioned the first baby born in South Antarctica in 1978: Emilio Marcos Palma. Even though Emilio was born in Antarctica he has Argentinian citizenship because both of his parents are Argentinian. Believe it or not, space functions similarly to Antarctica in that it does not recognize territorial claims. In fact, QB happened upon the Outer Space Treaty in the online catalog which states that “the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies…shall be the province of all mankind.” In other words, outer space belongs to no country!
In answer to your question, the baby would most likely be granted citizenship to a specific country instead of just earth in general. However, while the baby would grow up human and look human, it could possibly be considered an alien by the Science in the Early Twentieth Century encyclopedia definition that “extraterrestrial life refers to life originating from somewhere outside the earth.” Since that space shuttle baby would originate somewhere outside the earth, one might be able to consider it an alien. Although QB suspects it would act more like E.T. rather than the Aliens chasing down Sigourney Weaver.
Yours extraterrestially,
QB
Sources :
Extraterrestrial Life. (2005). In Science in the Early Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.library.illinois.edu/proxy/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.credoreference.com/entry/abcscieth/extraterrestrial_life
Aliens and Nationality, 8 USCS § 1401 (2012). Retrieved from http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/congcomp/document?_m=591e6f64026cb8a492113e58fa25d7b3&_docnum=8&wchp=dGLbVzk-zSkSA&_md5=47d5eb8f10cc81d383902b438a05d428
Treaty on outer space hearings. 90th Cong. (1967). Retrieved from HaitiTrust Digital Library: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b643624
Whitefield, M. (1985, December 6). New Colonies Are Changing Antarctica. The Miami Herald, pp. 1A.
For movies that reference life from other planets, check out our catalog: http://bit.ly/JnQdHY
Call Number :
Location :
UIUC Online Reference Collection
Date Answered :
4/25/2012
Question 3:
Why does reality exist in the first place?
Answer :
Dear Inquisitive Inquirer,
QB has been on a bit of an existential kick lately, so your question couldn’t have come at a better time. According to the _Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy_, reality is "how things actually are, in contrast with their mere appearance." But why does it exist, you ask, dear reader? Does it exist to allow Ethan Hawke and Winona Ryder to act in a movie that shows one how much it bites? Does it exist so that one can face it? Does it exist so one can watch bad TV about in on Sunday evenings? These are mysteries of the highest order that naturally require explanations from Quantum Physicists to solve.
In a 2007 article in New Scientist (available through Academic Search Premier), Michael Brooks writes that, "To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we’re looking at it." As QB is not a Quantum Physicist (though nearly as smart), reading further into the article showed that this means that there is "no objective reality beyond what we observe." Or put another way, reality "only exists when we use measurements to prove it. Therefore, humanity is creating reality, rather than participating in it." Thus according to Brooks and his fellow scholars, reality exists because one makes it so. Ask an abstract question and get an abstract answer, it seems!
Beyond thinking about reality reality, as in how things are, there is a reality of a different variety that, wait for it, exists, called Virtual Reality, not to be confused with the Jamiroquai song, Virtual Insanity (a mistake QB admittedly made in researching your question, because who better to turn to than the British hit-maker of the 90s for answers that require nuanced academic explanation)?
Virtual Reality is described by the _Gale Encyclopedia of Science_ as allowing individuals to interact with computer-simulated environments. Also called "Artificial Reality," virtual reality allows individuals to experience a simulated environment in 3-D. However, if something is simulated, is it real? And if it’s real, must it exist? Does it exist if one has measurements to prove it, as Brooks suggests, and does it exist since one creates it? Just some food for thought while you ponder what reality is and why it exists in the first place.
In the end, the reason for reality’s existence may be debated among philosopher and physicist alike for some time to come, and your quest for that reason may lead you down strange paths. So QB leaves you with the words of Rod Serling, creator of "The Twilight Zone":
This highway leads to the shadowy tip of reality: you’re on a through route to the land of the different, the bizarre, the unexplainable…Go as far as you like on this road. Its limits are only those of mind itself. Ladies and Gentleman, you’re entering the wonderous dimension of imagination…Next stop The Twilight Zone."
Reality Exists Because One Wills it To,
-QB
Sources :
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
Brooks, Michael (2007). "Reality Check." _New Scientist_ 194.2609 (30-33). Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
Gale Encyclopedia of Science
goodreads.com
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
3/8/2012
Question 4:
If two astronauts were on the moon and one killed the other with a moon rock, how weird would that be?
Answer :
Dear Lethal Lunar Landing,
To cut to the chase, dear curious reader, yes, it would be weird if an astronaut killed another astronaut with a moon rock. Exactly how weird it would be would depend on what you consider to be weird. Your question seems to be getting at how possible it would be, so that’s what QB aimed to find out.
(QB feels it must be acknowledged that there are a lot of tragic stories surrounding our foray into the final frontier. Most of them involve unforeseeable technical problems, none of them involve murder.)
As QB sees it, there are three pieces to your question of weirdness/possibility: physics, psychology and the law.
First, physics. Newton’s second law of motion says something along these lines: less gravity means there is less force from gravity, therefore you actually need to apply more of your own force in order to inflict a lethal blow on the moon with a rock that has the same mass on earth as the rock does on the moon. The equation for force (F) looks something like this, assuming you are swinging down: F(sub kill) = F(sub applied) + F(sub gravity). F sub gravity is lower on the moon therefore F sub applied has to go up in order to reach the force needed to kill (F sub kill). Thus, said deranged astronaut would need to exert more force to inflict a lethal blow with a moon rock on the moon. Exactly how much more force is beyond QB’s quantitative reasoning skills, but if there were such a thing as a forensic astrophysicist QB surmises he or she would have the answer.
Now to the psychology: Could an astronaut be prompted to commit a lunar felony? In 2007, astronaut Lisa Nowak was arrested for attempted murder on Earth, spurring a deluge of articles about the kind of stress astronauts are under. It seems that stress is not related to space travel itself, but rather to job security. As of Nowak’s time at NASA, there were 125 astronauts for only a handful of shuttle missions a year, each with room for only seven people. Astronauts are thus being constantly assessed for inclusion on missions, and constantly under pressure to perform. And as you and QB know, stress and pressure lead to bad things, crime included.
If a stressed out astronaut wanted to knock off some competition, would they be charged with murder? The short answer is, no. According to U.S. space law passed in 1981, if an astronaut kills another astronaut in the space shuttle, they can be charged with murder. However, if such an act takes place on the moon or during a space walk, they have not broken the law. Space is often not recognized as a place in legal terms, and the moon is sovereign territory similar to Antarctica, meaning no one country can enforce its laws there. How utterly strange.
QB feels that, to conclude, all of this evidence supports what you astutely point out: it would be pretty weird.
Goodnight, Moon,
QB
Sources :
QB
Guinn, Jim. "Gravity and Gravitation." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science.
Mullins, Justin. “Want to fly with NASA? Better not admit your problems.” New Scientist. 2/17/2007
Law Librarian Michael Robak, for expert legal research help
Jarvis, Robert. “The Space Shuttle Challenger and the Future Law of Outer Space Resources.” 1986
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
2/20/2012
Listen to a Podcast of this Question
Question 5:
How do magnets work? From: The Man
Answer :
Dear Magnetic Man:
Throughout time, your question has been posed by scientists, scholars and--most recently--Juggalos. That's right, Magnetic: Insane Clown Posse also asked this question in their song, "Miracles," which first appeared on their 2009 album, "Bang! Pow! Boom!". A video for the song was released in 2010, and the verse "I see miracles all around me / Stop and look around, it's all astounding / Water, fire, air and dirt / F@$*ing magnets, how do they work?" drew quite a bit of attention, spawning an internet meme, a "Saturday Night Live" spoof and polarizing audiences worldwide. Regardless of the musical relevancy of "Miracles," however, the question still remains: Magnets--how do they work?
QB decided to consult "The Science of Everyday Things," an encyclopedia available in UIUC's online reference collection. According to the entry on magnetism, "When two electric charges are at rest, it appears to the observer that the force between them is merely electric. If the charges are in motion, however--then it appears as though a different sort of force, known as magnetism, exists between them...
"At the atomic level, magnetism is the result of motion by electrons, negatively charged subatomic particles, relative to one another. Rather like planets in a solar system, electrons both revolve around the atom's nucleus and rotate on their own axes. Both types of movement create a magnetic force field between electrons, and as a result the electron takes on the properties of a tiny bar magnet with a north pole and south pole."
This is all well and good, but for a more elementary explanation, QB decided to call upon the ESSL library, particularly, the "S" collection.
In the "All About Science Reader" book on Magnets by Anne Schreiber, QB learned that
Every magnet has two poles (north and south), which are the points where the magnetic force (or magnetism) is strongest
Poles that are the same repel one another, while poles that are opposite attract
Every magnet has a magnetic field, and inside the field is the magnetic force. The closer an object is to a magnet, the stronger the magnetic force is on that object (and vice versa)
There are many types of magnets, such as bar magnets, electromagnets and even planet Earth. They all work differently, but share the same basic principle of charged poles and a magnetic force
So, just as Juggalos are inexplicably drawn to face paint and Faygo, material with magnetic properties (such as iron, steel, cobalt and nickel) will attract magnets with an opposite charge. Miracle or science? QB will leave that decision to you…
Magnetically yours,
QB
Sources :
Insane Clown Posse "Miracles" video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
Insane Clown Posse, "Bang! Pow! Boom!" CD.
"Magnetism." Science of Everyday Things. Ed. Neil Schlager. Vol. 2: Real-Life Physics. Detroit: Gale, 2002. 331-339. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. Retreived from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3408600108&v=2.1&u=uiuc_uc&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w
Schreiber, Anne. (2003). Magnets. Grosset & Dunlap: New York, NY.
Call Number :
Insane Clown Posse "Bang! Pow! Boom!": CD In716nu (Florida Ave. Residence Hall)
Magnets: S.538.4 Sch721m
Location :
Date Answered :
1/9/2012
Listen to a Podcast of this Question
Question 6:
What percentage of tornado watches in the United States actually turn into tornadoes?
Answer :
Dear Twisted Up about Twisters,
QB was glad you asked this question because as you may know, QB has spent many a tornado watch helpless and alone in the lower level of the UGL after the last of the library’s staff and patrons made their way into the safety of the tunnel. However, upon starting to research this question QB was thrown into a bit of a tailspin. After much searching in UIUC’s article databases and reference collection without much luck, QB opted to consult an instructor in the UIUC Atmospheric Sciences department, Eric Snodgrass. According to Mr. Snodgrass, a tornado watch occurs when conditions are favorable for the formation of tornadoes. These watches cover very large areas, up to the size of a state! Since the area is so large, there is a high probability that a tornado will develop somewhere in the watch area. Mr. Snodgrass was not sure, but said the probability was likely higher than 50% and recommended that QB contact the SPC (the Storm Prediction Center) for the exact number. QB was able to find an article by Verscio and Thompson from the journal Weather & Forecasting that said around 50% of watches resulted in at least one tornado in the 1990s, which strengthened Mr. Snodgrass’s estimate.
QB did email SPC, but decided to also try to find the data on the SPC website, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/. On their FAQ page, which you can reach by clicking on the ‘SPC FAQ’ link on the lower left-hand side of the page, SPC said that they issue an average of 1,000 tornado watches a year, but that it obviously varies from year to year depending on the weather. It’s important to note that these watches are only for the contiguous United States, because that is all the SPC covers.
QB was also able to compile some data found in the Storm Events Database provided by the National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html) Click on the ‘Research’ link on the left-hand side of the web page and then scroll down to see the link for the ‘U.S. Storm Events Database’ in the center of the page. From 2000 to 2009, the average number of tornadoes per year in the United States was 1,403. Interestingly, this average includes Alaska and Hawaii, unlike the watch data from SPC (even though only 15 tornadoes total occurred in Hawaii and Alaska from 2000 to 2009). Unfortunately, it seems like all that QB can confirm is that not all tornado watches turn into tornadoes. QB recommends that you try and contact the SPC. Maybe you’ll have better luck than QB did!
Forever chasing tornado data,
QB
Sources :
Eric Snodgrass. Instructor / Director of Intro. Courses / Academic Advisor. Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences UIUC.
National Climate Data Center. (Last modified August 20, 2008). Retrieved from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html.
NOAA’s National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center. (Last modified August 31, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.spc.noaa.gov/.
Vescio, M. D., & Thompson, R. L. (2001). Subjective Tornado Probability Forecasts in Severe Weather Watches. Weather & Forecasting, 16(1), 192. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
10/20/2011
Question 7:
If two astronauts were on the moon and one killed the other with a moon rock, how weird would that be?
Answer :
Dear Lethal Lunar Landing,
To cut to the chase, dear curious reader, it would, indeed, be weird if an astronaut killed another astronaut with a moon rock. Exactly how weird it would be depends on what you consider to be weird. Your question seems to be getting at how possible it would be, so that’s what QB aimed to find out.
(QB feels it must be acknowledged that there are a lot of tragic stories surrounding our foray into the final frontier. Most of them involve unforeseeable technical problems, none of them involve murder.)
As QB sees it, there are three pieces to your question of weirdness/possibility: physics, psychology and the law.
First, physics. The moon’s gravity is less than here on Earth, meaning that objects weigh less on the moon. What does this mean for the potentially lethal combination of a moon rock and a deranged astronaut? Newton’s second law of motion says something along these lines: Less gravity means less mass, which means less force needed to accelerate an object. Thus, said deranged astronaut would need to exert less force to inflict a lethal blow with a moon rock on the moon. Exactly how much less force is beyond QB’s quantitative reasoning skills, but if there were such a thing as a forensic astrophysicist QB surmises he or she would have the answer.
Now to the psychology: Could an astronaut be prompted to commit a lunar felony? In 2007, astronaut Lisa Nowak was arrested for attempted murder on Earth, spurring a deluge of articles about the kind of stress astronauts are under. It seems that stress is not related to space travel itself, but rather to job security. As of Nowak’s time at NASA, there were 125 astronauts for only a handful of shuttle missions a year, each with room for only seven people. Astronauts are thus being constantly assessed for inclusion on missions, and constantly under pressure to perform. And as you and QB know, stress and pressure lead to bad things, crime included.
If a stressed out astronaut wanted to knock off some competition, would they be charged with murder? The short answer is, no. According to U.S. space law passed in 1981, if an astronaut kills another astronaut in the space shuttle, they can be charged with murder. However, if such an act takes place on the moon or during a space walk, they have not broken the law. Space is often not recognized as a place in legal terms, and the moon is sovereign territory similar to Antarctica, meaning no one country can enforce its laws there. How utterly strange.
QB feels that, to conclude, all of this evidence supports what you astutely point out: it would be pretty weird.
Goodnight, Moon,
QB
Sources :
Guinn, Jim. "Gravity and Gravitation." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science.
Mullins, Justin. “Want to fly with NASA? Better not admit your problems.” New Scientist. 2/17/2007
Law Librarian Michael Robak for expert legal research help
Jarvis, Robert. “The Space Shuttle Challenger and the Future Law of Outer Space Resources.” 1986
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
4/19/2011
Question 8:
Why do monkeys throw their poop?
Answer :
Dear Monkey Business,
As QB has had the occasion to visit the zoo many times and has also observed this phenomenon you are wondering about, QB doesn’t feel like a monkey’s uncle. While primates certainly like to monkey around and have fun, there may be more fundamental reasons as to why they fling feces.
Westergaard has done a series of studies on the capuchin monkey that reveal why monkeys participate in aimed throwing. In a 1994 article, he cites Calvin (1993) who hypothesizes that aimed throwing emerged from unaimed flailing of objects similar to that which occurs among wild chimpanzees. Furthermore, Calvin postulates that hominids initially may have thrown objects to chase away herds of animals from scarce resources. In a more recent article from 2003, Westergaard examined how monkeys throw stones. He found that primates modified their throwing technique to include modified stone tools that were capable of inflicting fatal injury when thrown correctly. So, according to Westergaard’s studies, monkeys perform aimed throwing (of any object) as a means of aggressive dominance; either to frighten away others from their area or as a means of marking their territory.
An encyclopedia entry on primates also backs up the theory that monkeys may throw feces to mark their territory. It notes that monkeys are dependent on their sense of smell and that this emphasis on the sense of smell is reflected in the ways in which primates communicate, which involves a great deal of scent marking though urine, feces, and exudations produced by specialized glands.
So, in answer to your question, it seems that the most likely reason monkeys throw feces is to mark their territory. Luckily, humans have developed less smelly ways of marking territory, so you should only expect this behavior from monkeys (hopefully).
Yours even when you go bananas,
QB
Sources :
Primates. (1999). In Encyclopedia of Palentology. Retrieved from http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/routpaleont/primates
Westergaard G.C., et al. "Throwing behavior and mass distribution of stone selection in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)." American Journal of Primatology 61.4 (2003): 159-172.
Westergaard GC, Suomi SJ. “Aimed throwing of stones by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella).” Human Evolution 9.4 (1994): 323–329.
Call Number :
Location :
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Online Reference Collection
Date Answered :
4/17/2011
Question 9:
I know a ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of bricks (obviously) but what’s the difference in volume? i.e. What’s the volume of a ton of feathers? Of bricks?
Answer :
Dear Weights and Measures,
Alas, QB has not yet begun a PhD in Chemistry, and therefore had to consult several elementary resources to find the solution to your intriguing question. QB first visited every inquirers favorite website, Google, then the Math Library to consult their resources, and finally chatted with a fellow scholar of mathematics.
QB suggests you examine the density of each ton. As you noted the weight of a ton of bricks is the same as a ton of feathers, which means the mass of each is also the same because weight equals mass times gravity, and the gravity is constant. The only factor which will determine the volume of each is the density, which will be different, since the density of a ton of feathers is less than the density of a ton of bricks. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Weights, Measures and Units, density is "the amount of some quantity per unit volume, notably of mass per unit volume." The more mass an object contains in a given space, the denser it is.
The equation for determining density:
Density = mass/volume
Or volume= mass/density
A typical brick has a mass of 2,268 g and occupies a volume of 1,230 cm3.
The density of the brick is therefore: 2,268 g/1,230 cm3 = 1.84 g/cm3
The volume of 1 ton of bricks equals 907184.74 g divided by the density of 1 brick which is 1.84 g/cm3.
So, 907184.74 g/1.84 g/cm3 = Volume [cm3]
If you prefer to skip these equations, the Google search also turned up a website named Visionlearning, funded by the National Science Foundation, which explains under the definition of density that a metric ton of feathers will occupy a volume of almost 400 million cm3 (about the size of four tractor trailer trucks), while a metric ton of bricks will occupy only one-half million cm3 (about the size of a large-screen TV).
Densely yours (in measurement terms),
QB
Sources :
Day, M. and Carpi, A. (2002). Density. Visionlearning, vol. SCI-1 (4). Retrieved from http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=37
Fenna, D. (2002). Dictionary of Weights, Measures and Units. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
4/11/2011
Listen to a Podcast of this Question
Question 10:
Why do fish swim?
Answer :
Dear Fish Wish,
What an interesting question! Many scientific reference sources and textbooks narrate the process of how fish swim, but not why. Looking into the area of animal cognition and motivation yields no enlightening results on this matter because it is quite challenging to get a fish to talk about why they did something. Unless it is a Disney fish, it is not spilling the beans about anything.
Being an avid opera fan, QB remembered this key line from Porgy and Bess: “Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly.” This gave QB an idea: fish have the parts to swim from birth, which is why they “just gotta swim.” However, it would be especially pertinent to know when these parts (such as a tail or fins) evolved as a response to the need to swim.
QB then swam on over to the University’s Online Reference collection and had a whale of a time searching for the topic of fish evolution. The findings, which related to prehistoric times, are quite interesting. To achieve strong forward movement, an actively swimming animal requires a source of power behind its centre of mass, hence swimmers have developed some form of tail. This tail evolved from the need to breathe. The reptile-like Ichthyosaurs had tails which were the reverse shape to those of sharks; the ventral lobe was greater in area than the dorsal one. In these animals, which were air breathing, the problem was one of floating to the surface. Their tail shape was an adaptation to provide a downward thrust, enabling the animal to move more easily below the water surface.
You can now take a breath of relief at having your question answered, dear reader.
Yours from the bottom of the sea,
QB
Sources :
Fish. (2008). In Philip’s Encyclopedia 2008. Retrieved from http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/philipency/fish
Types of tails. (2004). In Guide to the Oceans. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/philipsoceans/types_of_tails
Call Number :
Location :
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Online Reference Collection
Date Answered :
10/22/2010
Question 11:
How do water towers work? Why are they so tall?
Answer :
Dear Water Storage Extraordinaire,
As QB has traveled across the United States, QB has also wondered at the many water towers that dot the vast landscape. According to Marshall Brain, creator of How Stuff Works, water towers are designed to provide an adequate daily amount of water for an entire community. Large towns may have multiple water towers to sustain community water usage. Water towers are supplied with water from treatment facilities so that the water is potable (i.e. it won't give you the trot or the runs, if you know what QB means). From the treatment facility, water is pumped into the tower, and as people turn on their faucets or flush the toilet, water is released via pipes into people's homes. Water towers are as large as the average amount of water needed by the community during the day. During times of peak usage (e.g. morning or during the commercials of a football game), water towers pump more water out. They then refill during periods of low water usage so that the community always has enough water.
Now, you may still be wondering, why are water towers so tall? According to Brain, water towers are tall so that they can provide sufficient water pressure for the entire community. Each foot of height adds 0.43 PSI (pounds per square inch) of pressure. A typical city's water supply runs at 50-100 PSI. In flat places, water tanks must be built on high stilts to provide adequate pressure, but in hill regions, tanks are typically on the ground on a hill somewhere higher than the community. In large cities where most buildings are taller than the typical water tower, buildings will have individual tanks on the roof.
To learn more about water storage, all of QBs readers may want to consult the handy encyclopedia, Water: Science and Issues located in the UGL's reference collection.
Hope you're doing swimmingly,
QB
Sources :
HowStuffWorks http://www.howstuffworks.com/water.htm and
Water: Science and Issues
Call Number :
Q 553.703
Location :
Undergrad Reference
Date Answered :
9/20/2010
Question 12:
Could the April 2008 Illinois eathquake, with its epicenter in southern Illinois, have caused either (1) a crack to a house foundation or (2) an exsisting foundational crack to worsen, with regard to a home located in a northern Chicago suburb?
Answer :
Dear Geological Disruption Investigator,
As the rumblings of the earthquakes that shook the state at 4:37 am on April 18, 2008 could be felt even in the undergrad, QB was eager to scrutinize the subject. QB started with pulling up some of the facts of the series of earthquakes in question on the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) website. The earthquake occurred in the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone, not the more well known New Madrid region. The main quake registered 5.2 on the Richter scale, with a serious of aftershocks recorded over the next few hours and days, the most noticeable occurring at 10:14 later that same day and measured at 4.6.
QB found this all to be very interesting, but decided to do more research to find out what these numbers meant. Turning to "The Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanoes," QB looked first into what made one earthquake the main shock, and what determined which shakes were merely "foreshocks" and "aftershocks." The answer? After a serious of quakes have finished, the strongest is declared to be the main earthquake, and any that occurred before are "foreshocks," while those that occur after are, you guessed it, "aftershocks." "The Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanoes" also provided some interesting tidbits into the nature of the Richer scale, which is used to measure how severe an earthquake is. It is a measure of the energy released at the earthquake’s epicenter (the central point of the earthquake - again it is often determined only after the quake). The scale takes several statistics into account and churns them through a logarithm to produce the final number. Therefore, each number on the Richter scale is separated by a magnitude of ten. That means, for people who were not as studious as QB is in math, that a magnitude 5 quake is ten times stronger than a magnitude 4 and ten times smaller than a magnitude 6.
All these figures had QB quaking in her boots, but nevertheless, she turned her attention the meat of your question. What does that mean for your foundation crack located north of Chicago? First, QB would like to make it clear that she is not an expert and is only making an inference based on evidence. But evidence suggests that while you felt the quake there (indeed, reports of feeling the quake came in from as far away as 1000km), it is unlikely to have caused measurable damage. As the USGS explains in their report of the earthquake, earthquakes can be felt for a further distances east of the Rockies as compared to those on the West Coast. The bedrock is older here, and more brittle, meaning that it conducts the energy of the quake over a large distance. And while a 5.0 earthquake can be felt hundreds of kilometers away, damage is only typical within about a 40km radius. It seems that very little damage was reported even around the Champaign-Urbana area. That makes it unlikely that your foundation north of Chicago would have to have been cracked by this quake. Again, QB can’t know this for sure, but suggests if you are looking for a geological reason to report the crack for insurance, QB suggests looking closer to home for the cause, such as the settling or erosion of soil under your house.
Seismically yours,
QB
Sources :
United States Geological Survey http://www.usgs.gov/
"Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanoes"
Q. 551.203 R51e2001
Undergrad Reference
Call Number :
see above
Location :
see above
Date Answered :
8/3/2010
Listen to a Podcast of this Question
Question 13:
What will humans do when the Sun burns out?
Answer :
Dear Apocalyptic Astronomer,
The short answer would be not much, since most likely since all human life would have been eradicated by that point. But just for kicks, QB took it upon himself to discover the inner-workings of stellar evolution to see what exactly would occur to our fair planet when our wonderful Sun decides to pack it in.
Through the encyclopedic sources provided on the Background Info page of the UGL website, QB discovered that the Sun is a main-sequence, medium-sized star, making it about 330,000 times larger than the Earth. It has temperatures that range from 11,200 degrees (at the surface) to 27 million degrees (at its core). It generates all that heat from nuclear fusion where it turns hydrogen into helium. It was formed about 4.5 billion years ago along with the rest of the solar system and has roughly 5 billion years left. QB took this knowledge about our middle aged star and began to use it to see what exactly will occur when the Sun decided to get out of the shining business.
Using the search term "Stellar Evolution," QB discovered that, as a "main-sequence" star, the sun creates its energy through the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. The Sun’s life is directly related to the level hydrogen fuel still remaining in the star. Once the sun’s core reaches about 10 percent hydrogen remaining the core will shrink from its current size, half the Sun’s mass, to about the size of the Earth, while the radiating surface will expand to encompass roughly what is currently the radius of Mercury’s orbit (about 36 million more miles). At this point, the sun will enter what is known as "Red Giant" phase and will be 1000 times brighter than it is today. In this phase the Sun will produce most of its energy through the burning of the helium previously created during its main-sequence nuclear fusion. When the helium sufficiently burns itself out, the expanding gas of the outer surface area of the "Red Giant" will float off into space in what are known as planetary nebulae. Exposed, the gases of the core would begin to cool and pack themselves into the highest densities allowed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle. During this time, the Sun would enter is final "White Dwarf" phase were it would ultimately cool off until it became a stellar cinder. Whew. (QB believes he has packed his explanation of the demise of a heavenly body into the highest density allowed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle.) For those more visually inclined, QB has included a graph depicting this phenomenon.
What would all of this mean for our planet and ultimately humans? Well considering that human life has only been around for approximately 200,000 years, which is .004% of the life of the Sun, it seems highly unlikely that the planet will still even be inhabitable by humans in another 5 billion years. However, even if it human still existed once the Sun expands to the Red Giant phase the atmosphere of the planet would disintegrate and the surface would turn something similar to what is seen on Mercury; that is completely uninhabitable by humans or any other life currently on this planet. And on that note, QB will let you float away like planetary nebulae.
A gigantic nuclear furnace of research,
QB
Sources :
"Stellar Evolution." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Eds. Brenda Lerner and K. Lerner. Vol. 5. 4th ed. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2008. 4147-4151.
Stellar evolution. (2004). In McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/conscitech/stellar_evolution
sun. (2005). In The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/hmsciencedict/sun
"The Life and Death of Planet Earth" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
5/9/2010
Question 14:
What is the top speed of a hippopotamus underwater?
Answer :
Dear Promising Zoologist,
QB also wondered how fast Hippopotamuses (Hippos) could run, being one of the largest creatures on earth. However, to QB’s surprise, this rotund, barrel-shaped creature with short legs and a large head can run far faster than a human being.
According to Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, which is available online among other encyclopedias on the Undergraduate Library web page (http://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/find/ereference.html), the Hippo is a mammal with its eyes, ears, and nostrils placed high on its face. The hippo lives in ponds, lakes, and rivers during the day, while at night it stays in grasslands and forests. Generally, a male hippo weighs more than a female and is much taller (Weight: female 500–3,000 lb; male 600–4,000 lb; length: female 58–106 in; male 60–106 in).
According to Eltringham's (1999), young Hippos swim and run fasters than adult Hippos. Adult hippos cannot swim or float well in water. When in deep water, adults usually propel themselves by leaps, pushing off from the bottom. They move at speeds up to 8 km/h (5 mph) in water. However, young hippos can float and more often move by swimming—propelling themselves with kicks of their hind legs. Adult hippos typically resurface to breathe every 3–5 minutes while the young ones have to breathe every 2-3 minutes. The process of surfacing and breathing is automatic, and even a hippo sleeping underwater will rise and breathe without waking. A hippo closes its nostrils when it submerges.
Even though they are bulky animals, hippos can run faster than humans on land. Estimates of their running speed vary from 30 km/h (18 mph) to 40 km/h (25 mph), or even up to 50 km/h (30 mph). The hippo can maintain these higher speeds for only a few hundred meters.
Yours, QB
Sources :
1. Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia. Eds. Michael Hutchins, Dennis A. Thoney, and Melissa C. McDade. Vol. 15: Mammals IV. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2004. p301-312. 17 vols.
2. Eltringham, S.K. (1999). Hippos : natural history and conservation. Princeton University Press, NJ.
Call Number :
Online
599.635 E51R 1999
Location :
Undergraduate Library web page I-Share
Date Answered :
2/8/2010
Listen to a Podcast of this Question
Question 15:
What is with all the spinning; the spinning of planets, the Sun and the galaxies? What caused them to spin in the first place?
Answer :
Dear Celestial-Thinker,
QB always welcomes questions that involve looking out and above Undergraduate Library. Afterall, watching college students is interesting but occasionally QB likes to look beyond the basement of the library to the rest of the universe.
In order to start researching your question, QB began by getting some background information from the online encyclopedia, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, available on the Undergrad Library's website. Here, QB found that the spinning you refer to is actually called rotational motion. This type of motion occurs when all particles of an object rotate around the same axis or point in space. And, planetary motion, such as the spinning you mentioned, is an excellent example of rotational motion.
But, of course, you didn't ask about the scientific word for spinning. You asked why do planets and other extraterrestrial bodies rotate. To find the answer, QB turned to the space experts: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or more commonly known as NASA. NASA's website not only gives updates of their space missions but also contains a plethora of information about and research on the cosmos. There is even a section for students. Here, QB found a number of articles regarding your question. QB discovered that planets and other cosmic bodies (such as stars) rotate due to their formation process. Before the Solar System existed as we know it today, it was just a cloud of gas and dust. This early cloud began to collapse and spin faster. This is called the conservation of angular momentum. As something contracts, it spins faster. Think about ice skaters performing spins on the ice. As they bring their arms in closer to their bodies (essentially making themselves smaller), they spin faster. Likewise, as the swirling cloud of the early Solar System collapsed, it began to rotate faster. And as it rotated faster, a rotating star (aka our Sun) formed at the center. Other particles in the condensing cloud collided to form the spinning planets we see today. And, another quick peek at the Encyclopedia of Science & Technology shows that rotational motion also plays a role in gravity, helping keep you from floating off into space.
So, Space Explorer, hopefully this begins to answer your questions on the Solar System without making your head spin. And, as always, for more information check out any of the resources used to answer this question.
Dizzily yours,
QB
Sources :
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology :
Carl E. Howe, R. J. Stephenson, "Rotational motion", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.594400
Helmut Moritz, "Earth, gravity field of", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.208930
www.nasa.gov :
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/phonedrmarc/2003_march.shtml
Call Number :
Location :
Date Answered :
12/22/2009
University
of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLibrary Gateway
Comments/Questions?
This file last modified 5/22/2008 dw