Science desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 17

Organ donor transport

After organs are harvested for transplantation, how much time is there to transplant them before they start to decay? (Question inspired partly by Mission 2 in the Rescue Pilot mission pack for Flight Simulator X, "Organ Donor Transport", and several similar FSX missions.) 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of organ, but from 4 to 24 hours without a perfusion pump. Sjö (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Which means that unless the recipient happens to be in the same town where the donor died, air transportation is very much required, right? 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in cases of brain death the body of the deceased can be kept functioning for a while. Both for ethical and medical reasons usually not much more than a day or so, but it can still give the recipient time to travel to the transplant centre. If the distance from the place where the donor died isn't too big a car transport of the organ(s) will do. But in many cases air transport is necessary, especially since the waiting lists are common for a large number of hospitals, even from different countries, which makes for long transports. Sjö (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between the labor and technology

In what are the difference between the labor and technology, if labor and technology was been started at once in early human times?--83.237.202.6 (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Karl Marx been described the labor as technologies in his theory Capital or not?--83.237.202.6 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. I don't think it has anything to do with Science. Perhaps the Humanities desk would be better. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's about Marx, it definitely belongs in the Humanities. I think he may be getting the physics concept of labor confused with Marx's concept. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that any modern labor is always been a technology, so in what the labor against to technology?--85.141.233.142 (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The payment for human work is always been a payment only for used labor or it is always been a payment for used technology too?--85.141.233.142 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Marx belongs on the Humanities desk. However, OP does not have the power to post this question there right now, so we either deal with it here or not. Or I suppose I could move the whole thing there, but then OP couldn't respond to clarify what he's interested in. My point is that criticizing the location of a question isn't very helpful when the more proper place is not accessible. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the term labor is always been against to the term technology in it's meaning?--85.141.233.142 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since a cost of technology is always been much than a cost of labor, so that technologies are always been a main producing force and basic tool of economic reproduction in economy.--85.141.237.154 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If low costs are been customary to exclude from economy, did a cost of labor be exclude from economy, if it is been low than a cost of technologies?--83.237.194.129 (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR was always exclude only a much costs from its economy, but in economy of the USSR a cost of labor was always been considered as much than a cost of technologies, because in economy of the USSR a cost of labor was always been a cost of capital (a cost of soviet ruble).--85.141.237.78 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is do the progress in economic development as the progress of humanity a technologies (tools) or labor?--83.237.201.149 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a professionalism of labor is been a way for professionalism of labor movement – professional laborism which is been a way for socialism, but is professionalism of technologies (professionalism of tools) been a way for socialism too?--83.237.198.99 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the USSR was been considered that in capitalism all labor movements are always been declassed.--83.237.198.99 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the USSR was always been considered that only labor is being creating a margin (a cost of capital), but not technologies (tools) being doing it, because a theory of Marxism-Leninism always been told us that only labor is a source of wealth.--83.237.196.9 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the labor always been only a physical and mental (mindly) human work and nothing more?--83.237.202.6 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Physical and mental" covers pretty much anything to do with life on earth, that does not make the question any clearer. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understanding had be a professionalism to any labor or not?--83.237.202.6 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you're using translation software? Sorry, but the questions are still very unclear. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thinking if any labor had a knowledge (science) base it always been professional, is it right?--83.237.202.6 (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on how one defines a profession. Farming and stonemasonry require scientific knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why in early human times the labor of first human did not be a technology, so did not be a professionally labor?--83.237.202.6 (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our relevant articles are Primitive communism and The Origin of the Family (Engels). This would probably be better on RD/H, as others have mentioned. Tevildo (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also perhaps the larger concepts of labor and technology. We do commonly think of them as fairly different today, but I suspect the distinction hasn't always been so clear. "

\tau \epsilon \chi \nu \eta

" meant skill or cunning of hand, and could have been applied to a stonemason. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So about the gathering of first human in early human times, it is be a labor or it is be a technology?--85.141.233.142 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry for my logical mistake, so about the picking of first human in early human times, it is be a labor or it is be a technology?--85.141.233.142 (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that may be the picking of first human in early human times is a labor without technology in what I been not agreed sure.--83.237.216.141 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At any case, if been used a tool it is always been a technology, so of course the picking of first human in early human times which been used a tool is always been a technology.--83.237.216.141 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis, I think τεχνη looks more natural. —Tamfang (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP who uses IP 83.237.202.6 and correspondent IP users 85.141.233.142, 83.237.202.6 and 83.237.216.141 all geolocate to Moscow, Russia and they assert unclear but similar question(s) in broken English. Two different word definitions apply: LABOR n. exertion of the body, TECHNOLOGY n. the practical application of science to commerce or industry. The two links give a variety of alternative dictionary definitions. The Science Reference Desk will not engage in a political debate about human ownership rights. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most labor (if not all labor) applies technology, as it applies tools. Is labor a tool? —Tamfang (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And at the end, is the tool of production been a labor or technology?--85.141.236.71 (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making a philosophical point about the "frozen labor" in each artifact? —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a frozen labor, is it a broken labor?--83.237.198.99 (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a no. —Tamfang (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what century were been started an engineering technologies and architectural technologies, did they were been started at once?--83.237.199.166 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering, architecture and associated technologies are older than recorded history. —Tamfang (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what century was been started a linguistic as oral and written communication between first humans? I being interesting in technologies (tools) of vocal apparatus development of first human, at first l being interesting in speaking technologies (tools) of first human.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drainage

What are the benefits of prostate drainage?--178.110.105.135 (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no scientifically proven benefits and vigorous massage can dangerous and even be fatal see: http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/prostate-massage/ Richerman (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the ten most prominent diseases in men older than 50 years. Surgical intervention such as TURP to relieve this painful condition is itself so costly and daunting that an industry of alternative treatments has arisen. Prostate milking is not sanctioned in western medicine for the treatment of any medical disorder, it risks serious injury but it is also a profitable theme in Internet pornography (Warning: NSFW links abound]) and for marketers of pseudo-medical devices e.g.Wise-Andersen Protocol Wand and alleged cures. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by "prostate drainage". There is some tentative evidence that regular ejaculation may decrease a man's risk of developing prostate cancer. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Series

So if I want 6v and I have two 3v batteries, I can put them in series and get 6v. How do I get 6v with two 3v AC adapters? I tried them in series and it didn't work. Help me, mate. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.58.2 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they produce AC and contain no rectifying circuitry to produce DC, it should be possible to connect them in series as you have done. You may have inadvertently connected them in opposing phase, causing the voltages to cancel. You had a 50:50 chance of getting it right. Try reversing the output of one adapter. Akld guy (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That also assumes both output leads are floating compared to the input (for example, the secondary of a transformer that is isolated from the primary, rather than a switch-mode or other configuration with a common neutral). If you have a neutral from the plug connect to the neutral of the 3V output, then if you connect them "in-phase", you are merely shorting out one of them and the overall output is just the non-shorted one:) DMacks (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very unusual to connect neutral to the low voltage output. There are too many outlets with hot and neutral reversed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP links to the article AC adapter which primarily describes units that contain a rectifying circuit to produce DC and have a two-pole mains plug. Absence of an earth pole indicates the DC output is floating; if this is true then the outputs of two adapters can be connected in series the same way as batteries. However an adapter with the proper output voltage, current capability and connector for a given application is probably available inexpensively and should be preferred. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, I have built many electronic circuits and as a rule of thumb I would not make a habit of connecting the outputs of different power supplies together. It's too easy to make an incorrect assumption and at best blow a fuse at worst catastrophically short something out or electrocute yourself. That's very unlikely to happen with a 3v adapter, but do it now with a 3v and then next time you might be tempted to try with a 12v. After a very brief search I have found 6v 1A power adapter for less than $10, I would go with that. Vespine (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice. To expand a bit on the above, there is also the possibility that a series connection of two cheap switching power supplies could cause one or both to go unstable while trying to drive the resulting nonlinear load. If you are lucky, this will cause a shutdown, but if your luck runs out you could damage one of the supplies or you might even see a much larger than expected output voltage. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]