Fanghur

I just finished reading a really good book called 'Beneath the Dark Ice' by Greig Beck, which incidentally I highly recommend, as it's amazing. At any rate, one idea that was in the book that I found quite interesting was a type of advanced military rifle that literally fires super-compressed 'balls' of air that have the same effect as bullets within 200 feet of the shooter. I'm not talking about air-filled pellets, or air-propelled projectiles, I'm talking about a gun that literally fires compressed balls made of nothing but air that can kill in the same way a bullet kills. Now, there's no doubt in my mind that even if such a weapon is theoretically possible it would be ridiculously impractical, unless perhaps it was used in a vacuum. But is such a weapon possible in any stretch of the imagination? If I'm not mistaken, if you compress air enough it will effectively become solid, but...?

Actually, Silversphinx, tigers are slightly bigger and stronger than lions, if not quite as experienced in fighting.

In my Systematic Bacteriology lab, my partner and I have managed to isolate a very interesting (and frustrating) bacterium from a local pond/fountain and we are absolutely baffled as to what exactly it is. Because while it does seem to grow on R2A and TSA agar, it is proving incredibly difficult to grow in anything else; including the common identification tests for Gram-negative rods. What we do know is that its colonies are a reddish colour on R2A and TSA and they are very, VERY sticky; whenever we try to get a loopful of them we end up having to try a half-dozen times because we end up peeling off all the growth in a small area whenever we try. I can only assume that it's a capsule that is responsible, but we still do not know what it could be. We thought maybe it could be Serratia marcescens, since it's well known to form red, and I think sticky, colonies. But I'm not sure. If anyone has any suggestions as to what genus this might be I would be very grateful, because this is really starting to drive my partner and I up the wall. What we do know: -Catalase positive -Gram-negative rods -Isolated from an outdoor fountain/pond -Tween 80 negative

You're saying that you'd rather be twiddling your thumbs for months at a time in a cramped spaceship as it rockets towards the outer solar system? Frankly if I had the choice I'd much rather just go to 'sleep' at Earth and 'wake up' at Jupiter than be bored out of my mind for 6 months, assuming I hadn't literally gone mad from the cramped quarters. Regardless of the fact that I'd still be aging. And what about the idea of using microshocks to stimulate the person's muscles to keep them from atrophying? Is that currently possible?

I was just reading a pretty good science fiction novel called 'Beneath', by Jeremy Robinson the other day that involves a manned mission to Europa. One of the things about it that interested me about it was that the astronauts were put into sedation for the duration of the flight and kept alive via intravenous nutrients, as well as microshocks to prevent their muscles from atrophying. I was just wondering; would anything like that be possible using current technology? I mean I've heard of people being sedated for long periods of time, and coma-patients are usually kept alive by intravenous nutrients (I assume), so would something like this be possible now or in the near future?

In the review section of my textbook (not for marks, don't worry. In my class marks come only from the midterm and final exam) there's a question which I'm not entirely sure how to calculate; namely because it sounds like a trick question. The first part was fairly easy: If someone with the genotype aa mates with someone with a genotype that's 0.5 Aa/0.5 AA, what is the probability that their first child will be affected (i.e. have the genotype aa). (This question is about a rare autosomal recessive allele). This is the calculation (I think): P(aa) = 0.5Aa x 1.0aa x 0.5(aa) = 0.25 aa. But the next part is what has me a little bit confused, because it asks what the probability that their first child would be phenotypically normal (i.e. Aa or AA). Now, logically I would think that since there's a 25% chance of their first child being affected, then by definition there would be a 75% chance of them being unaffected. Am I missing something here? Because it really sounds like it's some sort of trick question.

Does anyone know whether there's any reason why a karyotype either couldn't be done at all on, or else would not be practical to perform on, nerve cells? If I'm not mistaken any cell with a nucleus should be able to at least in theory be karyotyped. I strongly suspect that this review question has a typo in it somewhere.

As far as I know there's no real reason that hydrogen can't be extinguished using water, at least in theory. The problem is that as hydrogen is a gas it would be burning in the air, rather than burning ON something, which would make using water on it extremely impractical.

I was watching the movie '28 Days Later' the other day (no pun intended) and I couldn't help but wonder whether anything like the Rage Virus was possible even in theory. Now please don't think I'm an idiot for even asking this. I am a microbiology student and know full well that the behaviour of the virus in the movie is absolute nonsense; there is no way that any virus could not only enter the cell, but also replicate to such a massive extent as to cause any sort of disease over the course of ~10-20 seconds as portrayed in the film, even the fastest viruses know to man take at least an 20 minutes to replicate in their host. That part is just a bunch of Hollywood BS. But aside from the Rage Virus's replication time, which as I said above is absolutely ridiculous, is it possible for a virus to cause effects at all similar to the Rage Virus; i.e. uncontrollable rage, violence, constant adrenaline being released and giving the infected enhanced strength, etc? I mean there is obviously the Rabies virus, which can cause increased aggression in animals, but it doesn't completely deprive them of their free will. Is it possible even in principle for a virus to reduce a human being to little more than a mindless killing machine, in any amount of time? P.S. the virus doesn't have to be natural; it could also be engineered, as in the film.

Does anyone know whether is would be possible to use an ELISA test to detect the presence of certain polyphenols (such as catechins, epicatechins, etc) in milk and serum samples? I'm not sure whether antibodies against them are commercially available. If it is possible, if anyone knows any articles regarding it, please tell me.

Can anyone who has seen/read "Angels and Demons" tell me whether flying the antimatter high above Vatican City in a helicopter should have made any difference whatsoever, assuming the helicopter could even get that high that fast? I mean, wouldn't the shock wave from an antimatter explosion shatter everything for miles around, including buildings? Not to mention the fact that anyone anywhere near the 'blast' would most likely get fried by a massive flux of high-energy gamma rays rivaling a solar flare in intensity. Did Dan Brown just hugely drop the ball on this one? Or am I missing something?

Can anyone who has seen/read "Angels and Demons" tell me whether flying the antimatter high above Vatican City in a helicopter should have made any difference whatsoever, assuming the helicopter could even get that high that fast? I mean, wouldn't the shock wave from an antimatter explosion shatter everything for miles around, including buildings? Not to mention the fact that anyone anywhere near the 'blast' would most likely get fried by a massive flux of high-energy gamma rays rivaling a solar flare in intensity. Did Dan Brown just hugely drop the ball on this one? Or am I missing something?

Yes, thank you SMF, I understand that's the general practice for extracting peripheral proteins. But what I don't understand is why detergents couldn't be used as well, since they effectively destroy the structure of the membrane, presumably they could also remove the peripheral proteins as well, right?

I'm confused about something; my lecture notes say (or at least that's how they sound) that if a detergent or phospholipase can remove a protein from the cell membrane, then that protein must be integral. Now, I can understand why detergents and phospholipases can extract transmembrane and lipid-anchored proteins (i.e. integral membrane proteins), but wouldn't they also disrupt the hydrogen bonds and salt bridges of, and thus extract peripheral membrane proteins as well? At least detergents, I'm not sure about phospholipases. I find it strange that detergents wouldn't also remove peripheral proteins from the membrane in addition to integral proteins, since logically if you disrupt the membrane, you'll also disrupt what is on the surface of the membrane. Can someone clarify this for me?

Can someone tell be exactly what the difference is between glycolysis and glycogen breakdown? I mean, they both involve the catabolism of glycogen, so aren't they pretty much the same?

Can somebody tell me what the scientific definition of the term 'nitrogen removal' is? It is something in the context of nitrification, ammonia oxidation, etc. I really need this question answered, because my exam is on Saturday and I've already read a half-dozen articles, none of them had an actual "nitrogen removal is defined as..." section, and I'm about ready to kick something. Also, if anyone, and I mean anyone can tell me why there is speculation that marine group I crenarchaeota share similar biogeochemical roles with planctomycetes, I would be even more grateful.

Does anyone know why most cyanobacteria are not able to grow in acidic conditions, but algae such as Dunaliella spp. are? They both use chlorophyll, which if I am not mistaken, is acid-labile.

OK; since it's only a matter of time before one of you guesses it, I'll just come right out and reveal my solution. Her third wish should be "I wish you will not grant me this wish or any other wish." As this will effectively trap the djinn in an endless loop; the only way to grant the wish is to NOT grant it, but by not granting it he in fact WOULD be granting it, which means that he couldn't have granted it, which is impossible because that would be granting it...ad infinitum. I would have thought my reference to the card paradox would be a dead give-away. lol.

Farmboy, you're on the right track. The solution obviously requires, then, that the wish leave absolutely no room for malevolent interpretation. The rules of the riddle are these: 1) the woman has no choice but to make the wish. 2) no wish which is directed directly against the djinn can harm it. 3) the djinn has no choice but to grant the wish, whether it wants to or not. And one more hint; it can be assumed that the djinn does not grant the wishes in 0 time; in other words he requires a short but finite amount of time to grant each wish, and during that time he can do nothing else.

The riddle asks what "wish" would render the djinn powerless; which by definition excludes simply not making the wish, and as anyone who's actually seen Wishmaster would know, that isn't an option anyway.

I came up with a clever riddle that is based on Wes Craven's Wishmaster, so far nobody's been able to guess the answer; although I'm sre there are solutions which I haven't thought of. One day a woman finds an ancient fire opal, out of which emerges an evil demon called the djinn, who demands that she make three wishes. Upon the granting of the third wish, the djinn's brethren shall be released from hell to wreak havoc upon the Earth. He tells her that he must grant anything she wishes; limited only by her imagination. Frantic to save the Earth, the woman's first wish is that the djinn should kill itself; thus the djinn conjures a pistol and shoots itself in the head, which promptly heals, proving that the djinn is indestructible, while at the same time proving that the djinn is able to interpret her wishes in ways which she did not intend. Next, the woman wishes for the djinn to return from whence it came from; thus the djinn returns to hell, and promptly reappears before the woman. By now the woman has realized that the djinn can neither be killed, or rendered powerless by any wish she may direct directly at the djinn. Knowing this, as well as the djinn's freedom to interpret wishes, what can she wish that will leave the djinn helpless forever? P.S. here's a hint: what is written on the back of this card is false. What is written on the front of this card is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_sCQ-0R7iw Around 12 minutes into it.

I guess you're right, but even the tiger eventually did decide it wasn't worth the effort and ran away, there's no way in hell the dogs would escape absolutely unscathed, as they did in the movie. They would likely have gotten eviscerated by its claws as it was fleeing. Zoology 101; a cornered animal is the most dangerous type of animal.

Are you out of your mind? I doubt even 10 chiuawas could even take on a house cat, never mind a tiger. Get real.

I was just watching that old movie 'Swiss Family Robinson' and quite frankly, during the scene where the two great danes managed to scare off a fully grown tiger, I actually laughed out loud at first. I'd be absolutely astonished if the dogs could take on a tiger and live to bark the tale, but I'm not a Zoologist so I don't know for sure. The tiger might just decide that it's not worth the trouble and flee, but I'm just curious: is there any realistic chance that were a pair of fully grown great danes to viciously attack a tiger to defend their owners, that they would stand any kind of chance of winning? Or even of scaring the tiger away (which is what happened in the movie). Personally, I think they'd get ripped to shreds.