Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2022 September 23

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

September 23

Ethylene gas absorbers for the fridge

Do ethylene gas absorbers for the fridge keep fruit and vegetables fresher for a longer period of time? Or is this the equivalent to the ultrasound insect repellent?

I wonder if people get the feeling that it works since they do not keep track exactly of how long the produce last. Or, that it actually works, but it's more expensive to absorb the gas than to manage how much produce there's in the fridge and replace it if needed. Bumptump (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This 9-y-o article concluded they work somewhat but their likely costs versus savings wouldn't be significant for most households. Obviously one can obviate any need for them by sensible fridge-content management, mainly by not over-buying, by eating produce before it becomes overripe or whatever, and by not being over-fastidious. Items that have become less palatable in raw form can usually be incorporated into stews or other cooked dishes. Anything that has become actually inedible probably wouldn't have been helped by the presence of such an absorber. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.227.236 (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Those things are just kitty litter sewn into layers of fabric, and they only make economic sense at a grocery store or larger business. You drape them over the fruit displays at night, and take the outside to air them out (or heat them) during the day to drive off the ethylene. Abductive (reasoning) 06:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Look at climacteric and non-climacteric fruit. Climacteric fruit continue to breathe in O2, produce ethylene gas, and mature after being plucked off the plant. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC).

Looking for a term here...

If a person has two X chromosomes in all their cells there are <term here> female. If a person has one X and one Y in all of their cells they are <term here> male. The best world I can come up with is "Karotypically", is that correct? "Genetically" seems too broad as someone with "one X and one Y" and chromosomally created Complete Androgen insensitivity syndrome would physically present as female and as such would be "Genetically" female? (I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on terminology here)Naraht (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

See also Klinefelter syndrome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I realize that there are many discovered chromosome combinations beyond XX and XY including Klinefelter and Turner. I realize that they complicate things, but I'm looking for a term that would be used...Naraht (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I had always heard XX individuals described as "genetically female", but I like your term better. Note however, that it is properly spelled "karyotypically". But both are somewat incomplete terms as they don't account for XO or XXX individuals. And similar problems occur with using the tems to describe males. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• If a person has XX chromosomes, they should be described as having XX chromosomes. If I want to know whether or not they are female, I'll ask them. --Jayron32 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sensitive metal detection

Metal detectors in places like airports are intended to alert on pieces of metal big enough to be usable as weapons. They usually won't trigger on smaller amounts like zippers, coins in your pocket, etc.

Is that simply to avoid false positives from harmless items? Would it be technically much harder to make a detector that triggers on everything? There is currently big drama in the chess world, over the possibility of players having tiny concealed radio receivers that communicate computer moves to them during chess games. This would take just a fraction of a gram of metal, I think. Could that be detected without subjecting the player to e.g. harmful amounts of x-rays? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:5265 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If you shop around online, you'll find a wide variety of products for specific or general applications (often variable). Yes, it is possible to discriminate small objects, even subcutaneous (below skin). Some even have AI "learning mode". I don't want to add spam link, but searching 'adamsinc.com' will find one such provider. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

X-rays are used because they can be used to find explosives whereas metal detector can't. People aren't normally subjected to x-rays. Metal detectors can quite easily detect quite minute amounts of metal but as you point out that could just be the screws in glasses for instance, it would get much more intrusive. There are other machines which are better for the purpose which send a signal and listen for any resonance echo from an electronic device, these are used to sweep rooms for bugs. NadVolum (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. The bug sweeping method is interesting and I've heard of ways to sweep for nonlinear junctions (semiconductors). But I think an offensive countermeasure might be to just short out any such devices before the sweep, and undo the short circuit afterwards. The sweeps can only really be done just when the person enters the room. People are not monitored very closely after entering. The on-premises restrooms are a traditional place for shenanigans and they are cleaned/inspected regularly, but the users don't get checked on each use. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:5265 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

An alternative to preventive detection is to block the reception of signals by electromagnetic shielding of the game room.  --Lambiam 06:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Would that make it a Faraday Cage Match? CodeTalker (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

A big faraday cage for matches like that sounds like something hotels could advertise for other tournments like bridge and poker too I guess. And game shows like who wants to be a milionaire! Delaying telling the world the moves by five minutes would also do the trick probably. NadVolum (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• In case someone is not aware, the original post refers to the Carlsen-Niemann controversy.

Any suggestions to fix the problem would probably need to state clearly their threat model. In the case where the cheating player has an accomplice with a smartphone in the same room, EM shielding from the outside world (assuming it is technically feasible, which I doubt) does not solve the problem. Receiving information from the accomplice can also be done without any electronics (see 39th_Chess_Olympiad#Controversies).

Really, FIDE should have the equivalent of a bug bounty. Have a yearly tournament with invitation criteria based on mentalism rather than chess ability. Pay a couple of GMs to play honestly in the tournament, and ask the other players to do their worst. If your final standing is above that of the GMs (control group), you reveal your method and get prize money proportional to some scoring of how easy to use / efficient your method is (basically the equivalent of CVSS). Debrief the methods, fix the vulnerabilities, rinse and repeat the next year. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)