Is km/h, knots, or something else used for wind speeds, to define the strength of South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclones? More details and sources at Talk:Tropical cyclone intensity scales#South-West Indian Ocean, Very intense tropical cyclone definition. -- Jeandré, 2025-01-12t14:19z

Something that seems hard to find online is how many % of Earth's land area's older than each Phanerozoic period+Cenozoic epoch on those maps of which period/epoch is the top layer. Google AI dumbass says 88% Precambrian which is clearly just how much of the yrs the acres isn't 88% craton shield. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMG, I've been deciphering (and sometimes answering) your queries since you started here (since I've been here longer), and I know a little bit about geology, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking with this semi-incoherent stream-of-consciousness.

Can I suggest that you think more about your question, re-write it one step at a time, without irrelevant asides about AI, and re-read it (or get someone else to) before re-posting to ensure it makes sense to the rest of us? {The poster formerly known as 87.871.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I re-write: How many % of Earth's land km² pre-date various geologic time divisions? The question's way simpler than you fear. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now. I don't know the answer; I could probably work it out with anything from an hour to a day of concentrated research (see last paragraph), but this evening I'm meeting a friend who is a professional geologist and planetologist, so I'll ask her if she wants to answer.

(I am assuming that answers are not available via simple websearch queries, since of course you will already have tried that.)

You ask with reference to "various geologic time divisions". Those could be Eons (of which there are 4), Eras (10), Periods (22), Epochs (37), or Ages (96), so her or anyone's answer will depend on how much effort they want to expend. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Geology 2nd Edition from BC Open Textbooks and An Introduction to Geology from Salt Lake Community College don't seem to say either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dua's layer is sourced mostly to the paper in which it was announced, and to other publications from around the same time (2013). The latest-published source is from 2015. Has the subject been addressed in 2020s publications? Just looking for scholarly journals, of course. Nyttend (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2021&q=%22dua%27s+layer%22: there seem to be 187 results on Scholar since 2021. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Anyone know if these things are any good for pumping water, i.e. from a lower container to a higher one (opposite of siphoning), with energy input by squeezing the bulb over and over? If I can have two or three feet of lift and transfer 1 gallon of water in a few minutes without my hand getting too tired, I'm satisfied. Even 1 foot of lift is ok really. I could buy one and try it but would rather avoid a useless purchase if it's not suitable. I know there are fancier ones[2][3] but this one is very lightweight and simple and ISTM that not much can go wrong with it. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:5FED (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the Harbor Freight pages you can see hundreds of reviews by customers who have bought the things and used them. Generally you get just what you pay for. Philvoids (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 1202 reviews, 237 (almost one fifth) gave a 1-star review, the lowest rating possible. Many of those are titled "Junk", "Doesn't work", or "Waste of money". The other review titles are mostly variants, such as "Trash", "Defective", and "Not worth buying". There appears to be a no-return policy.

There are also (more) reviews by satisfied customers, so it may be the case that most of the units sold are fine, but roughly 20% is defective. More likely, though, many of the dissatisfied buyers wanted to transfer a liquid from a lower container to a higher one. One happy buyer opines in their review, "I think the negative comments come from people who don't know how to use the pump properly." Their advice: "Once you see the hose filling up with fluid, insert it into the container and let gravity take over and it works like a BOSS." This advice presumes the pump is used for siphoning.  --Lambiam 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might opt for one of the fancier ones then. A high defect rate is discouraging since a simple thing like this would seem almost foolproof. Some tubing, and a squeeze bulb with a flap valve at each end. Oh well. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:5FED (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added: my current idea is to give up on pumps and just use a large syringe.[4] I want something lightweight and foolproof more than I'm concerned with speed. 1 atmosphere = 15 psi = 32 feet of water and the cross sectional area of that syringe is roughly 10 sq inches, so to lift the water 3.2 feet I would need 15 pounds of pulling force, right? I think I can manage that. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:5FED (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric pressure is not involved as long as your containers are not sealed, which would obviate siphoning. A syringe used to lift water is a force multiplier comparable to a hydraulic lever. If the syringe piston area is ten times the cross section area of the input then 0.1 gram force would lift 1 cc water volume. However the friction of the syringe piston seal must first be overcome by a force of many grams that can be found by experiment and is usually greater in a dry syringe than one whose inside wall is wet. Your water lifting project requires you to deliver by hand an amount of work {1 gallon X (water density) X 3.2 feet} plus whatever energy your procedure wastes. If you are patient as you say, you may minimise your force exerted by using a small syringe....or consider a teaspoon? Philvoids (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not especially trying to minimize work, and patience here means I don't mind spending a few minutes on what might otherwise take seconds. I just want something simple that I can operate with normal physical strength without a lot of huffing and puffing, and without spending all day. If I use that 0.5 liter syringe then 1 gallon is 7 or 8 transfers that might take a half minute each, which is fine for my purposes. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:512B (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I put a towel on a radiator, will the room be cooler, and/or will the heating of the room be less efficient? Thanks. 2A00:23C7:518:7B00:AC19:4850:B9D:6299 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without actually running numbers, just going by experience . . . the room will be marginally cooler until the towel dries (because a little of the heat will be evaporating the water rather than heating the air and room surfaces), but by so little that it wouldn't be perceptible.

However, the humidity of the room's air will be increased, which may well be perceptible depending on the size and content of the room – the smaller the room, the more humid it will be, and a 'non-absorbant' room with tiled walls etc., like a bathroom, will likely show condensation, whereas a room with (dry) furniture, carpets and curtains will be able to absorb a fair bit of moisture.

Increasing the humidity will likely make the room feel warmer, because it reduces the rate that one's sweat can evaporate to cool one's body. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a towel over a radiator reduces its effective surface area. Radiators are designed to maximize the contact between air molecules and the hot surface, which helps transfer heat from the radiator to the surrounding air. By limiting this heat transfer, the radiator's efficiency is decreased. --136.56.165.118 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not disagree that some of the heat will be taken by the water molecules during evaporation, the rest of the heat will go into the room. The net heat to the room is positive, heating up the room. So, the room will not be cooler, but the effect of the radiator on the room will temporarily be reduced. Of course, all that energy absorbed for evaporation will be released on condensation. Assuming it condenses in the room, a substantial amount of the heat will remain in the room. But, everything eventually becomes heat. This is related to a question I saw here many eons ago which asked what type of light bulbs produce a higher ratio of light to heat and all of the answers were that light becomes heat, so all bulbs produce 100% heat. So, it is possible to get stupidly pedantic. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May not a bulb shed light on a Solar cell? Philvoids (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair (if pedantic), compared to a fluorescent or LED that produces the same amount of visible light, an incandescent does release a lot of heat that doesn't become (visible) light, so overall the incandescent does have a lower ratio of light to heat even if it does eventually all become heat. -- Avocado (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Clarification: I assumed when answering above that the room has already reached a stable temperature before placement of the towel, so that some of the heat maintaining this equilibrium will be diverted to evaporating the water in the towel. I agree that if the towel is placed while the room is still warming up, it will do so a little more slowly until the towel is dry.

Strictly, I also assumed that the towel is wet, though the OP did not explicitly stipulate this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)][reply]

The towel, radiator, and room, if left long enough, will all eventually reach their new thermodynamic equilibrium state with each other. Thermodynamics 101: heat flows, hot → cold. The radiator "system" (whatever is feeding heat into the radiator to keep it at a set temperature) will have to work slightly harder to keep the room at a set temperature, as you are decreasing the effective surface area of the radiator and thus its rate of heat transfer into the room. (If the radiator just runs "always on" and has no thermostat control, the room will become slightly colder, ceteris paribus, since the room's rate of heat loss to the outside remains the same.)

There's also the separate issue that this is not necessarily the safest thing to do. Depending on what kind of towel it is you might start melting the material (e.g. polyester) and/or approaching its autoignition temperature, or that of something else in the room which could come into contact with the heated towel. If dry winter air is bothering you, get a humidifier. --Slowking Man (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]