rationalization of electromagnetic systems

Dear sirs, please excuse my poor english. I would desire on-line references to two sentences about the rationalization of the electromagnetic systems.

I have recovered an old diskette (probably written around 1980) with notes on metrology. It is written in italian and what follows is my translation, but for the part in "" of the first sentence that is in english and seems taken verbatim from the source.

--- 1st sentence

Indeed, in 1890 Oliver Heaviside wrote: "the unnatural suppression of 4pi in the formulas of central force, where it has a right to be, drives it in the blood, there to multiply itself, and afterward break out all over the body of the electromagnetic theory" (EB57:17/879).

I guess that EB57:17/879 means Encyclopedia Britannica, 1957 edition, volume 17, page 879.

--- 2nd sentence

In 1902 Fitzgerald said that [dealing with the unrationalized systems then in general use] the only rule is to consider carefully whether 4pi should be in an equation and, after concluding that it should not, put it in (P60:42).

I guess that P60:42 is page 42 of a book written in 1960 by an author whose name starts by P, probably italian.

Thanks ~2026-53216-61 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The quote can be found in a book by J. R. Partington. However, this book is from 1953 and the page is 677.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, the citation given in that text (FitzGerald 1902, Scientific Writings) is dated after FitzGerald's death. (fugues) (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The first quote is from Heaviside's Electromagnetic theory, first published in 1893. It can be found on pp. 121 of this edition on archive.org. The second quote is more challenging. After some research, it seems very likely to have originated in one of the many letters written between Fitzgerald and Heaviside, collated across various collections such as the Royal Dublin Society Digital Archive; however, I can't find a single primary or secondary source with this particular line, nor which directly states that FitzGerald ever challenged Heaviside on his desire to popularise rationalised units for Maxwell's equations. The subject apparently isn't covered in The Maxwellians by Bruce J. Hunt, which seemed to be the most likely possible source given its coverage of said correspondence, but the only copy I have access to is an early preprint and it seems to have been extensively edited since then. (fugues) (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to all, excellent answers.

So excellent, that I have printed the screen into a pdf. Then I have copied the screen in a file using the mouse to use it in my ASCII files. Finally I have tried the same action with the text appearing in the edit page. But here the mouse does not work. The evidenced text is not recovered inside a terminal. Is this action possible? Thanks again ~2026-53216-61 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

An online OCR service can turn your digital images of a text into digital text. One such service can be accessed here  ​‑‑Lambiam 17:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-53216-61 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Star passing inside Oort cloud

I read on the Internet that it has been predicted that in about 1.3 million years, an extrasolar star will pass within 12 thousand AU of the Sun, going inside the Oort cloud, which will disrupt the orbits of comets in the Oort cloud. Assuming this is true, will it have any effect on the Earth? JIP | Talk 18:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The star is Gliese 710. It will not directly affect Earth, it's still too far away for that (14000 times the distance to the sun). However, the perturbation of the Oort cloud will send a stream of comets to the inner regions of the Solar system hence increasing the number of comets visible from Earth. There are a lot of unknowns and uncertainties in any projection of what will happen. For instance the distance of closest approach is rather uncertain (about 25 per cent or so). And of course we know very little about the structure of the Oort cloud. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

It is possible, based on the number and trajectories of known comets, to make rough estimates of the density distribution of objects in the Oort cloud and use these to make projections. One estimate is that the passage of Gliese 710 will scatter several thousand comets towards the inner solar system. This will unwind over a period of several hundred thousand years, if not much more, so it would mean that the expected number of comets per century increases by a pretty small number. The effects of the disturbance will last for much longer than the passage itself. However, another group calculated an estimate of approximately ten comets per year, lasting for 3 to 4 million years. Clearly, the uncertainty is vast.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

There's a good chance none of us will be around to witness that interesting phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear... --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

If we choose units such that the gravitational acceleration of the Sun on Earth equals one, the gravitational acceleration of Gliese 710 on Earth minus to that of Gliese 710 on the Sun will be around 7·10^-13. What's more, Earth's orbital period is only one year, so the effect will average out a bit. The Earth's orbit won't be significantly affected.

Gliese 710 will pass within, say, 100 AU of several comets, significantly changing their orbits. Comets at larger distances, like 1000 AU, will still experience a larger gravitational acceleration by Gliese 710 than by the Sun, but as Gliese 710 passes through the Oort Cloud at several AU per year, it can't affect those comets at 1000 AU for long enough to give them a velocity change comparable to their orbital speed around the Sun. So it will affect only a tiny fraction of the comets.

A comet with an aphelion of 12000 AU and a perihelion of far less has an orbital period of around half a million years, so if they reach the inner solar system, the time they need for that is on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, and they won't all come at the same time.

The projected surface area of Earth is 1.8·10^-9 of the surface area of Earth's orbit, so the probability of any particular comet scoring a hole-in-one on Earth (i.e., impacting it) is around one in a billion. If they miss and are on a bound orbit, they can come back for a second try, but this group of comets will have lost coherence and it will simply be the background rate of one big impact in so many millions of years.

A comet could make a close pass to Jupiter – the probability of that happening on any pass through the inner solar system is on the order of 10^-4 – which could turn it into a short period comet, reducing orbital period by a factor of 10⁴ and making it more likely to have a perihelion less than one AU, giving it more opportunities to be seen from or impact on Earth. Impacts by short period comets can be prevented with current technology.

Overall, I wouldn't worry too much. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

full blood transfusion

"By 1980, the rock and roll lifestyle had supposedly altered Lemmy’s DNA. Concerned about his health, he sought a full blood transfusion. After running tests, the doctor reportedly stopped the procedure, claiming that Lemmy’s blood had become so acclimatized to a steady stream of alcohol and amphetamines that “fresh, healthy human blood” would send his system into fatal shock. He was, quite literally, a self-sustaining ecosystem of rock and roll toxicity."

Wait, what? Full blood transfusion, is that a thing? And it's something you make an appointment for, rather than an ER procedure? Like taking your car for an oil change, they replace all your old blood with new(er) blood? Does the old blood get recycled like motor oil? I couldn't find anything about it in the blood transfusion article. Please tell me that this is a legend, thanks. ~2026-55120-59 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Added: ah ok, Lemmy's biographical article also mentions that story. It cites an article saying Keith Richards had already undergone the procedure, heh. This is way better than those lame Chuck Norris jokes. ~2026-55120-59 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

This appears to be a musical version of a Chuck Norris Fact. ~2026-55120-59 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Is this a lake or just part of a swamp?

Recently I've been working on expanding Agu Swamp, a wetlands in Uganda. In the middle of it is Lake Agu (see image), which doesn't seem to be in any sort of geography database. It's not mentioned on List of lakes in Uganda (or the Swahili version), or in GeoNames (note that the Agu stream is a completely different body of water). It's located roughly at 1°28′44″N 33°41′6″E / 1.47889°N 33.68500°E / 1.47889; 33.68500 - OpenStreetMap shows the area as wetlands (no lake) and Google Maps calls it an extension of Lake Kyoga.

That being said, it is named as "Lake Agu" in a few places. The Convention on Biological Diversity names it in this article, as well as this article published in the African Journal of Ecology, and Uganda's Freshwater Biodiversity Portal has an entry for it here.

So, does this actually count as a lake (and thus should be added to the relevant lists)? Personally I don't see why it wouldn't, but I find it incredibly odd no map or geography database has mentioned it yet.

Apologies if this sounds ridiculous (especially since you can see a large body of water right there on the satellite image) - I don't usually edit geography articles so I'm not sure if this is actually a lake that just never got mentioned, or if it's just considered part of the swamp and not its own lake. Tymewalk (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The Banana River is not a river, either, but it's categorized as such. And Cape Cod is not a cape, it's a peninsula. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources do treat it as a lake, specifically one of the Kyoga satellite lakes. Uganda's national freshwater biodiversity portal lists Lake Agu as a waterbody in its own right, and the fisheries summary The fisheries of Lake Victoria names it directly, calling lakes protected from human encroachment "such as Lake Agu (among the Kyoga satellite lakes)" very valuable for biodiversity conservation. That portal is also the source behind the species list already on Agu Swamp.

The absence from GeoNames and OSM looks like a data gap rather than evidence against the lake. GeoNames carries the neighbouring satellite lakes - Lake Nakuwa, Lake Nawampasa and Lake Lemwa - but for Agu only a populated place and a stream, the former within a couple of kilometres of your coordinates. The lake itself was simply never entered.

The lake/wetland overlap is expected in this basin: the Kyoga satellite lakes are shallow and papyrus-fringed, sitting inside larger swamps, so a wetland map shows wetland while a drainage map shows a lake. On the editorial question, if sources of that weight call it a lake, I would list it as one, with a sentence noting it is a satellite lake of the Kyoga system. ~2026-55273-80 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It looks like the situation with those satellite lakes is relatively similar to Lake Agu (particularly Lake Nakuwa, which is mentioned as part of its surrounding wetlands on the page Lake Nakuwa Wetland System). However, I will note that I am the one who added those links to Agu Swamp, and only after expanding the page did I begin questioning whether or not this is actually a lake. Tymewalk (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Short description on Phosphorus

The article's short description displayed on my search results says that it's a "Chemical compound." I want to fix it, but I don't know how the shortdesc is generated. Bayahiu (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It would help if you explained what "my search results" refers to. That could be in Wikipedia. It could be on Google. It could be on Bing. It could be an item on ChatGPT or Gemini. It could be a post-it note left on your desk... ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

My search results in Wikipedia, specifically. Bayahiu (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

For background see Wikipedia:Short description. The phosphorus issue should have been fixed by now. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

(ec) It's the first line of the article: {{Short description|Chemical element}} Just change "Chemical element" to whatever you want the short description to be. I don't think you'll be able to see this line if you are using the Visual Editor. Meters (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That first line was added after the question was posed. It was added to override the earlier, erroneous short description. But where did this earlier description come from, and where was it seen? When I search for "Phosphorus" on a mobile device, I see "Chemical element with atomic number 16 (P)", which, I think, is generated by the transclusion of {{Infobox element}}. This does not correspond to either of the short descriptions mentioned above.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I want to see where that short description came from as well. When the question was asked, I looked at the article, saw no short description, and wondered what the OP was asking about specifically. It seems there is some logic to generate a short description if it is missing. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It's pulled from Wikidata by default. A lot of the Wikidata data seems to be either ill suited for a short description or, um.... questionable. -- Avocado (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that the default comes from Wikidata. Often, the one at the top of the article is the same. If you look at the bottom of articles, you'll see hidden categories like eg "Short description is different from Wikidata": as Phosphorus is now following the recent edit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The Wikidata entry does not and did not contain the words "Chemical compound". It does have the English description "chemical element with symbol P and atomic number 15".  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I went to the Wikidata entry, and also checked its history, it did not contain "Chemical compound". I have checked {{Infobox phosphorus}}, but I couldn't find that text. This makes me wonder. Bayahiu (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It turns out that {{Infobox element}} does have the master for short descriptions of elements, unlike most other articles. The code is<includeonly>{{short description|{{#ifexpr:({{{Z|0}}}>=119)|Theoretical chemical|Chemical}} element with atomic number {{{Z|}}} ({{{symbol|}}})}}</includeonly> Each element artilce includes, at the top of their source code the hidden note <!---Article imports short description from infobox, do not override--->, which as of this recent edit was changed by User:Avocado. In a moment, I'll remove that change and see what happens. I don't think it will revert to "Chemical compound", and I don't know where that came from. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It displays the usual "Chemical element with..." now. Bayahiu (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I think your "Chemical compound" is going to remain a mystery! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that's really weird. I didn't check the article history at the time because I was in a hurry, but at the time I thought someone else had changed it a fraction of a second after I did. Because after my edit the shortdesc did not appear as Chemical element but rather something to the effect of Element with atomic number 15 (P). Something incredibly strange was going on with that short description sourcing and rendering. -- Avocado (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Right. The shortdesc appeared as "Element with atomic number 15 (P)" rather than just "Chemical element" even before Mike removed your shortdesc. Bayahiu (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

TBF, it was a Thursday. -- Avocado (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Fabulon

I have removed this tradename from the article Polychlorinated Biphenyl as needlessly alarmist. The name is currently applied to several consumer products readily available in Australia, namely an aid to ironing of clothes, and a polyurethane floor sealant, neither of which (presumably) contain PCBs. Doug butler (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quick note: the sentence you removed did carry a source that names the product. It cited Rudel, Seryak & Brody (2008), Environmental Health 7:2 (PMID 18201376). That case study says a resident in one home had "used a floor finish called Fabulon on hardwood floors throughout the 1950s and 1960s", and it traces the PCB content to a 1957 Gleason et al. reference listing for a Fabulon floor finish. Two limits come with it: it is a two-home case study, and the authors say they did not confirm that the floors were the source. So the tradename holds as a sourced, attributed example, but not as a general claim that the brand contains PCBs. You are right that the products using the name in Australia today are a different line. Keeping "wood floor finishes" while naming Fabulon only as the reported case would sit well with that source. AudriaVere (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Liver toxins

An acquaintance died of cholangiocarcinoma today. Based on his recent behaviour and mental condition, medical staff had recently told his family that they believed that the cancer had become sufficiently widespread in his liver that the liver was releasing toxins that were reaching the brain.

I find this a bit confusing. Should I understand that these are toxins naturally present in his food that the liver is supposed to remove, and the liver was simply letting them out because the cancer was overwhelming it? (Since it's bile duct cancer, not liver cancer, I don't suppose the tumours were themselves producing toxic quantities, or toxic types, of bile.) Or if not, is it possible to say what likely caused the situation described by the medical staff? Google searches aren't particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hepatic encephalopathy. Abductive (reasoning) 11:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Most and least endemic specific

I'm going to express darkly, but the question is serious.

If aliens were to wipe all life from Madagascar, Dozens and dozens of species would be wiped out in the wild. OTOH, if Aliens were to do the same to the US state of Wisconsin, I don't think that any species would be wiped out. Is there any sort of way to measure most and least "precious" areas in that regards. I am guessing least precious" (large areas with the same species would be Antarctica, north Asia, north central North America, and the Sahara.)Naraht (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Stygobromus putealis is the only species that I know of that solely found in Wisconsin. I am certain there are others, but the issue will be that it is rather simple a lifeform to leave Wisconsin and much more difficult to leave Madagascar. And I didn't even think of plants. There is certainly some plant that is only in Wisconsin. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The Millennium Seed Bank and the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation make it difficult to find a plant ONLY in Wisconsin. Any plant of any kind that is known to only exist in Wisconsin is collected and held outside of Wisconsin for preservation. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

"Any" is a bit much. Our article at Millennium Seed Bank Partnership does not suggest that. The US is a partner and may well have deposited seeds from all species found in Wisconsin, but the MSBP is more UK-centric; its stated goal is to have an exhaustive repository of UK plants, not all plants or all US plants. Matt Deres (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

(ec) :Stygobromus putealis: What are we, chopped liver? (Also subspecies Tamias striatus doorsiensis) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Megadiverse countries seems appropriate. Biodiversity and endemicity levels (?) are not the same thing, but that article points out that "The main criterion for megadiverse countries is endemism..." so it provides a bit of a start. Matt Deres (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Topic discussed at Endemism#Conservation. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:54, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

lb st or lb s.t.

In Greene, Warplanes of WW II, the few jet engines of the time are rated in "lb s.t.".

In other aviation books these engines are rated in "lb st".

Pound-forces to measure the thrust, of course (from where the t), but how the s arose? I guess that were measured in standard conditions, i.e. on a ground-fixed device.

Thanks. ~2026-56087-11 (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

"S" means "Static" for "Static Thrust." ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks ~2026-56087-11 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Biology, Chemistry, and Physics being taught in High Schools, but not Astronomy

Why are school subjects, like biology, chemistry, and physics, always taught in high schools, but not other types of science, such as astronomy, ecology, geology, oceanography, and zoology?

I remember this in high school in 2019, when enroll in classes for the first time, it was that I discovered that the subjects that are taught in science, are only 3 of them. I was wondering that if more additional sciences are in the educational curriculum. Furthermore, what I have learned in science classes, could add more subjects, such as applied, material, and political sciences. Plus, attending high school is only for 4 years, and I graduated after this. ~2026-56457-42 (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I think you can theoretically argue that astronomy is an extension (or specialization) of physics, while ecology, geology, oceanography and zoology being specialized fields of biochemistry. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 06:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

To say this another way: in order to understand astronomy one first needs to understand basic physics, to systematically explore living beings across different biospheres one first need to know about how animals and plants work.

An interesting note is that in Mainland China, geography is part of the junior highschool curriculum. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 07:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Astronomy is part of physics, ecology and zoology are part of biology, geology and oceanography are part of geography (at least for school purposes). Physics, biology and geography are normal school subjects in most countries. I don't know about your country though; you didn't mention where you are. School systems vary widely. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Why is poetry not a class? Because it's not the base field. Also, qualified astronomy high school teachers don't grow on trees. (Mind you, my sister's high school science teacher told her that friction was perpendicular to the direction of motion.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

From a practical point of view, a lack of basic understanding of biology, chemistry, or physics might kill you. The same is unlikely to be true of astronomy. Which is not to say that some astronomy should not be taught in schools, but it may help explain priorities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to teach "history of science and pseudoscience" in school, then. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, though I suspect any such proposal would run into a great deal of opposition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

...Good that we have Wikipedia as a fallback. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Also the law of supply and demand applies. It's hard enough to get students to take general science classes. One that provides even less future job potential just isn't going to draw them in. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

High school covers more general topics. In college / university, you get more specifics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

High school is not only general, but highly limited. There is an old representation of that that has been copied many times (everyone claims they came up with it). Make a tiny dot on a piece of paper. If the paper is all possible knowledge, that tiny dot is what you learn in high school. Draw a tight circle around it. That is the knowledge you gain in a four-year college degree. Make a smudge next to the dot. That is a specialization focus for a masters degree. Now, draw a line all the way to the edge of the paper. That point where it touches the edge and a few bits of graphite hang off the edge... that's the PhD. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Within that first dot are microdots, which are the things you learn in elementary school and middle school. It's all a "layering" process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Physics and chemistry serve as the foundation for other scientific disciplines, providing the universal principles that govern how matter, energy, atoms, and forces function. Without these fundamentals, it would be impossible to gain a deep understanding of the mechanisms at work in more advanced scientific fields. Stanleykswong (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Measurement of a light wavelength

How was it possible to measure a wavelength of light in the visible spectrum for the first time? Malypaet (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Newton's rings provide a means of determining the wavelength and were known in 1665 - so perhaps the first method. catslash (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

But it seems that nobody actually calculated the wavelength until Young did so in 1801 (which seems like quite a lot later). catslash (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, Young admits that he did indeed obtain these first experimental values for optical lengths without carrying out a single experiment. He even invites his readers to place all the more confidence in his results precisely because they were deduced from experiments that were neither conceived, nor carried out, within the framework of his own theory. It is actually well known that in his Opticks, Newton extensively described and analysed the coloured rings...

— Morizot, Olivier (2026). "The wavelength of light as Thomas Young invented it". Archive for History of Exact Sciences. 80 (1).

so consider yourself correct for both. fiveby(zero) 23:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Young's observations, in particular his double-slit experiment, presented in the same 1801 paper as his explanation of Newton's rings in terms of wave interference, heralded the beginning of the end of the corpuscular theory of light, which until then had been dominant. Eighteenth-century scientists mostly did not believe light wavelengths were a thing, or else might not want to damage their careers by appearing to be adherents of a fringe theory.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Presumably an interference fringe theory... Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2026 (UTC)