Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 June 11

Science desk
< June 10	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11

Could a dog be trained ...

Could a (police/military) dog be trained to pick out an awake person from a group of asleep people or vice versa?Naraht (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Not reliably -- people don't smell any different when they're awake than when they're asleep, and the one thing on which dogs beat people hands-down is perceiving smells which are undetectable to humans. So if someone is really good at pretending he/she is asleep (like me -- I have very long eyelashes, so I can pretend to have my eyes closed when in fact they're slightly open), then he/she can fool a dog just as easily as a human. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you know if people smell different when they're asleep? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't. And neither do you. But a dog might be able to tell. Dogs have a much better sense of smell than humans do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The above response both assume the person is trying to pretend to be asleep. That's not how I read the Q. Say you want a dog to go into a house, and get the attention of whoever is awake in there, meaning eyes open and maybe even up and about, and bring them out. They should be able to be trained for that, yes. Why would we do that ? Say we have a camera installed in a house where a hostage is being held, and see that the hostage taker has fallen asleep (presumably after a prolonged siege), but see that the hostage is awake. They might be scared to attempt escape on their own, but if we could send in a police dog to pull them out, that might resolve the situation peacefully. StuRat (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OP, could you elaborate on what you mean? If you mean, could a dog tell the difference between someone really asleep and someone only pretending to be asleep, I would think it's possible, but it would probably depend on how well the dog knew the people involved. Your heart rate and breathing patterns would be different, probably other stuff like circulation and other processes, at least some of which would be detectable by a trained dog. The idea that a dog can detect cancer has received a lot more publicity than verifiable research (we have it grouped with other pseudoscientific beliefs), but there's no denying that dogs can be very observant and trained to detect quite minute changes. Matt Deres (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OP here. To make the question more clear, you have 12 people lying on cots, 11 asleep and 1 awake but faking asleep or conversely. 1 asleep or 11 awake but faking asleep.Naraht (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow. From personal experience, it is very difficult to fake sleep to a dog. Just try pretending to be asleep when your dog wants to go out. Can't be done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Jpgordon, the question which arises is, does your dog not engage in the same attention-seeking disruptive behaviour when you are actually sleeping?

@DrChrissy: you're our resident expert on all things veterinary - where do you stand on this one?

@Aspro: From your past posts here, you are clearly owned by a cat. I know the OP is asking about dogs, but for my own curiosity, does your gracious feline master seem to behave differently when you are actually asleep, as opposed to faking sleep? Eliyohub (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eliyohub: Good question. As I am staring at the back of my eyelids in both situations I don't know. If the opportunity arise, I will set the web-cam to record and find out. Gut reaction is that she probably can. Been trying to think of any anecdotal experiences but can think of any worth mentioning. Think, she just views my home as a warm place and a food repository for those times when mousing is hard. How she looks upon the other creatures that inhabit this dwelling and provide her warmth, shelter and food I can not guess at. Ours is not to reason why but simply to obey her. Think however, cats may have a sense that 'others' have sentience which in the same breath means they do to. Cats often sit with their eyes closed but are not asleep, they are probable aware that other creature do the same and probably can tell the difference. Aspro (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this question is that sleep is not an on/off thing. There are stages of awareness between awake and asleep, and different levels of sleep. Zzubnik (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Using numbers to make something more believable

I often see big headings that say, "Researchers say..." or "Scientists say..." or mention some kind of percentage or statistical information without really providing any source. It seems to me that the popular impression of science is that science is the ultimate source for knowledge, and nothing beats the scientific knowledge, so if anyone makes a claim appear like a formal scientific finding, then the claim is readily believed. Similarly, in résumé-building workshops, it is advised that the résumé should always use numbers to make the résumé stand out from the rest. Is there any support for the use of numbers as a rhetorical strategy? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You may find this of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In statistics, there are ways to tell if a poll is accurate. You would need to see the actual Q's asked, to make sure they are unbiased, so "Who will you vote for, candidate X or Y ?" vs "Will you vote for the liberal spend-o-crat or the true patriot ?". Where the Q is asked is also important, so no opinion websites, for example, but rather someplace neutral. And the number of people polled is critical, with 1100 being a good minimum to get accurate results. Also, the percentage of people asked who respond is important. If only 1% respond, you may get highly inaccurate results. And to get a high response rate you probably need to pay people (not much, just enough to make it worth their time). StuRat (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In lying, use of numbers is also important, as being able to produce and repeat what appears to be a reasonable number makes it seem as if it's a fact. On the other hand, if the number constantly changes, such as the infamous number for the "list of foreign agents who have infiltrated the US government", that Joseph McCarthy always claimed to have, but could never produce, then the lie isn't so believable. Big, round numbers, such as Trump's claim that 5 million voters voted fraudulently in the US Presidential, are also suspect, as are one-sided numbers, here being his claims that all the fraudulent votes were for Hillary, and none for him. Had he claimed to have proof that 932 fraudulent votes were cast for Hillary and 127 for him, with 13 to other candidates, it certainly would have been a more believable lie. StuRat (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. The cited article discusses the source of the phrase. Blooteuth (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

One of my favorite books of all time is Huff's How to Lie with Statistics. It's a bit old, but is now more applicable than ever. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear reactor

Is it possible to disable an operating nuclear reactor (not like Osirak, which was destroyed before it could be put into operation) without causing a Chernobyl-scale radioactive spill? For example, say that we needed to put Iranian or North Korean reactors out of action -- how could that be done? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

See here for a method to disable nuclear weapons. Count Iblis (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: Great reference! Man, I've been speculating about blowing up nuclear bombs with "neutrino lasers" for a long time, but I never imagined there was actually a paper. That said, well ... the paper is about blowing them up - though perhaps only at 3% fizzle yield - which is not what the OP asked for. (While I'm at it, you wouldn't happen to have seen anything suggesting that there might be vastly more compact and efficient neutrino detectors than is publicly known, allowing real-time mapping of all nuclear weapons...?) Wnt (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear reactors come in many flavors. Draining the water would safely shut down many U.S. reactor as in some designs, the water is needed to increase the probability of neutron collisions with atoms. The question is why? Nuclear reactors can supply material for a bomb but isn't a bomb itself. Centrifuges create the concentrations necessary for a bomb. The best bet is to prevent the reactors that create bombs material from coming online. In the 1980's Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor site in Iraq (see Operation Opera - Iran had previously attempted to bomb the same potential breeder site.) Pre-emptive military or diplomatic intervention that prevent them from being active is likely the only successful means of stopping proliferation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that you have two very different Q's there. If we leave out the last sentence, the answer is yes, an emergency shut-down can be used to disable the reactor. There should be no immediate release of radiation, if done correctly, but there is the need to remove the fuel from the reactor core and store it somewhere safer, eventually. This process is called decommissioning. See [1].

However, when you add in those examples, it's clear you are talking about doing so to an enemy nuclear reactor, of a rogue nation, during a war (or at least a military action). That may well make it impossible to do so without the release of radiation. The nation under attack may even intentionally release radiation, much as Iraq set oil wells on fire when it was under attack, if the winds will then carry the radioactivity into enemy nations. StuRat (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Most reactors are now LWR. It would be very unwise to drain the water from them! Fission may cease but the decay products are still producing heat and lead to a melt down. This is what happened at Fukushima where all three cores of the fueled reactors melted. If the attack also puts the gantry used for de-fueling out of action and rupture the cooling ponds... well I suppose you can guess the rest. Best time to attack a reactor is to wait until it has been completed but not yet fueled. The British did this in WWII. They waited until the massive U-Boat pens had been finished before finishing them off with a just few of Sir Barns Wallace's earthquake bombs. Another option is to inject a worm into their computer control system. That might provide a breathing space for negotiations – Jaw, jaw is better than War, war. Aspro (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Barnes Wallis is the correct spelling of his name. Akld guy (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say that the British waited until the earthquake bombs had been invented, manufactured and tested, which wasn't until June 1944 for Tallboy and March 1945 for Grand Slam. They were used as soon as they were available. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Suppose, though, that we missed the chance to take out the reactors before they were fueled, due to the incompetence or outright collusion with the enemy of past presidents (as is indeed the case in reality) -- are you saying that it is no longer possible to take them out without causing a second Chernobyl? (BTW, I'm not talking about LWR reactors -- these are not well-suited for making plutonium for bombs, so the reactors in question would be either of the heavy-water, graphite-moderated or fast-breeder type.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at our article on Nuclear decommissioning, it would appear that even if, hypothetically, Iran or North Korea agreed to allow the reactor to be scrapped, and co-operated fully, the process could take decades, and cost billions.

As to using military force, you look for a "weak link" - one which is easy to destroy, and hard to rebuild. I'm not sure the reactor itself would be the likeliest target.

Note that possibly the likeliest group to attack an Iranian nuclear reactor, in the short term, may, ironically, be ISIS, to whom Shia Iran is the arch-enemy? (Not sure, don't have a source for this, but note their recent attack on the Iranian Parliament. Fell free to disagree). And they likely won't give a damn if they cause a massive radiation release. Eliyohub (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Anxiety as "the great imitator"

Why is it that anxiety is known as "the great imitator" and often misdiagnosed by clinicians for more serious medical conditions such as heart attacks, anaphylaxis etc. 82.132.237.181 (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Symptoms such as increased pulse rate and blood pressure certainly are shared with a number of other medical conditions. Also, many medical conditions can produce anxiety, so it's not always clear if the anxiety is the cause or just a symptom. StuRat (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought clinicians would be able to tell the difference by running tests though? Or do they simply assume the worst case scenario to be risk averse? 2A02:C7D:B916:4200:30E9:C9CB:A755:FD5 (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Many diseases lack a simple, definitive test. StuRat (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Only patients themselves misdiagnose anxiety as heart conditions. Clinicians never do this. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I was hospitalized about 15 years ago for a significant period, and reported to the nurse I thought I was having a heart attack. They gave me a shot of valium in my IV and it went away. I told the nurse I didn't feel worried, but she said one doesn't need to have a[n explicit] belief to have a panic attack, and that they are much more common than one might think. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tongue-in-cheek scientific studies

Wikipedia has a page on comparing apples to oranges and mentions two "tongue-in-cheek" scientific studies. First of all, what makes a study tongue-in-cheek? What if the authors were really serious about the experiment but the situation is so trivial that it is ludicrous? Is laughter or the expectation of laughter in empathetic individuals the real reason why something is perceived to be tongue-in-cheek? Second of all, are there more studies that are like this? Third, how does a professional scientist find the time to do studies like this when grant-funding relies on how relevant or important the study is? Is such work primarily done in one's spare time on the side, just using the organization's resources or personal resources, or is such work done by a tenured professor who is very secure about his livelihood? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC) I added a wikilink to the subject page. Blooteuth (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The first was published in the Annals of Improbable Research (not to be confused with the Journal of Irreproducible Results), in other words, a comedic forum. The other ... well, it also seems to be in some sort of comic section, but it's a bit more mysterious to me: [2] British Medical Journal is ordinarily serious, and while British journals tend to print remarkable things on April Fools' Day, I don't know why this would come out then. But you can see the next article is no more serious in tone.

Also note that James E. Barrone, the author of the second study, is listed as surgeon in chief of a hospital and presented something similar at a surgical meeting. You know how bosses love their "icebreakers"; whatever Brahmins do is good and proper by definition. But also notice the date - 2000, which was a whole different era, one where people felt confident and free and didn't think that their existence was a sin against the capitalist order, meant to be remedied by their replacement by a machine, reduction to impoverishment, and eventual self-sacrifice on the altar of Huitzlopochtli, because there can be no remission without blood. There were actually people back then who thought that bullying was not the supreme essence of the social order, and who viewed it as some kind of aberration! Wnt (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Great answer, thanks. Maybe could use a bit less WP:OR about Brahmins etc. Not that I think you're wrong per se, just that it's a bit off-topic. OP may also be interested in how explaining a joke kills it and perhaps our article on tongue-in-cheek (hint: it's the expectation and intention of humor that counts). Part of the idea is that humor is subjective, and it is indeed possible that I might think you are making a tongue-in-cheek joke when you may in fact think you are explaining something very important. Miscommunication happens, certainly much/all of the research linked at NCBI ROFL [3] is both fairly serious to some but fairly silly to others. It's not always clear to the general public what use and function a research program may have, and on what grounds it is justified. E.g. the famous treadmill for a shrimp [4] was commonly mocked by Fox News et al. but it's also good science and important work. See also this NPR piece on the politics of "silly" science [5] SemanticMantis (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• I will just leave this here... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The Ig Nobel Prize may be of interest to the OP. It was originally intended as something of a joke, rewarding real research of an idiosyncratic nature. BUT, some of the winning research turned out to have actual real-world utility. Such as the research on mosquitos being attracted to limburger cheese, which helped develop mosquito zappers. Eliyohub (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the purpose is to hold such research up to ridicule: more a punishment than a "reward". - Nunh-huh 14:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well no, if you read the article, no where does it say there is an intention to ridicule or "punish" the research. The current slogan “honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think.” You'd note no where does it say anything about ridicule. It started as "achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced." Again nothing about ridicule. Perhaps the "should not" could imply that, but cannot definitely doesn't. Perhaps the best evidence is this essay by the creator [6] where he says

It says nothing as to whether a thing is good or bad, commendable or pernicious.

and

Some of these unhappy people are in positions of authority and might be inclined to, say, punish and ridicule someone in their lab who wins a goofy, meaningless prize. Because we know that such people exist, the Ig Nobel Board of Governors consults with scientists who are under strong consideration for an Ig, to ask whether winning might in any way cause them professional difficulties. In cases where there appears to be a genuine risk, the Prize is not awarded to that person, but goes instead to some other, equally worthy soul. To date, this has happened in about six cases.

This article [7] where he talks about his work on improbable research further highlighted the creator's mentality. It's clear he is in no way trying to suggest the research is bad or useless or should be ridiculed at least in a mean way (laughed at sure).

It's true plenty of people misunderstand the point of the IgNoble. That's on them. Clearly many people do not, hence why many people willing spend money to accept them or even beg for them. Note that it isn't even simply the case that the research is unexpectedly useful. Some of the research is clearly likely to have limited but useful applications from the get go. For example the sheep dragging paper "An analysis of the forces required to drag sheep over various surfaces" is a case of that. And there's no reason to think the awarders didn't understand that. Actually I would suggest the opinions of the creator give good reason to think they probably did and weren't in any way trying to suggest the research was useless, simply that it was funny given the title, how specialised it was etc. Yes some of the examples are more tongue in cheek (e.g. the one to Tamagotchi) but that doesn't mean the intention even there was ridicul or punishment.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The stated intentions of the awarder are not to be taken at face value. The clear effect of the Ig Noble awards is ridicule. - Nunh-huh 07:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat

If Miami is south of Huntington and both are in the Northern Hemisphere, then why is Huntington getting hotter weather than Miami? 32ieww (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wind, cool ocean nearby, and solar inputs. Abductive (reasoning) 17:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Huntington where? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Read Köppen climate classification. In short some landscapes have the ability to level out day and night temperature differences and other weather condition differences, some landscapes make weather conditions even worse. Arctic landscapes for example simply reflects huge parts of the sunlight while a Rain forest converts and even preserves it. --Kharon (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Miami, being near the terminal end of a long peninsula, very much takes on the weather from the Atlantic Ocean and possibly from the Gulf of Mexico, when winds blow the weather across Florida towards Miami. Water temperatures rarely exceed 80 degrees F by much, since, when they do, hurricanes spawn which suck down cold air from the stratosphere to cool the water down. So, wind blowing over water below that temperature produces humid, but not terribly hot, air, which then blows across Miami. Of course, there is some solar heating of air directly over Florida, so on days with little wind, the temperature can rise considerably above 80°F, with the record being 100°F. The temperature is also limited on the low end, for the same reason, with the record being 27°F. This type of climate is common to both tropical and subtropical ocean islands, as well, but not arctic and antarctic islands, where the water can freeze in winter, and no longer warm the water that blows over it. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

So, pretty much the same reasons why Arkangel is colder than Murmansk, but in reverse? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of StuRat's response captures the essence. (Unfortunately much of the rest is mistaken, especially the stuff about hurricanes pulling cold air down from the stratosphere.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Homework exercise: (1) Begin with a parcel having a typical temperature for the stratosphere (it doesn't particularly matter what point in the stratosphere you choose). For convenience here is a plot of the standard atmosphere profile, including the stratosphere. (2) Bring the parcel down to sea level. (3) Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of 9.8 C / km, compute the final temperature of the parcel at sea level. Convert to Fahrenheit if this aids with interpretation. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A cross section diagram of a mature hurricane, with arrows indicating air flow in and around the eye. Blue = cold, sinking air. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Diffusion potentials are created by the diffusion of 'very few ions'? meaning

I was reading that: "Diffusion potentials are created by the diffusion of very few ions and, therefore, do not result in changes in concentration of the diffusing ions.". What does it mean by "very few ions"? it means to denote the quantity or the types of the ions? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If the context is the 70 mV membrane potential in human nerve and muscle cells, they mean relatively few ions. In other words, the ions that are being pumped or diffused represent a tiny, almost immeasurable fraction of the total ions present. Abductive (reasoning) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Then it refers to the quantity. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help identify my pine tree from photos. It looks like a White pine

Please help identify my pine tree from photos. It looks like a White pine. At other web sites, the male cones match my specimen, but on the Wkikipedia White Pine page the male cones are much smaller. Tree shape, needles, bark, female cones, and tree shape all appear to match.

Male Pine cone

18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Miriamkilmer (talk) This is supposed to be a question, but the question link leads me here.

The British tree-spotters bible, Field Guide to the Trees of Britain and Northern Europe by Alan Mitchell, says for Pinus strobus:

Flowers and cone: Male flowers small 6mm ovoids, whitish, tipped bright cerise, on basal 3 cm of new shoot.

Foliage: Leaves in fives, 8-12 cm staying close together in bundles.

It looks to me as though it fits the bill, but its not a tree I'm really familiar with. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. That description looks definitive, but I guess I should go back to the tree and count the needles within the clusters. Miriamkilmer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between an ant colony, bee colony, and a human society?

From a newbie's perspective, they look the same. But are they? Or is that impossible to find out because everything is written from a human perspective, and it's just a matter of humans finding empathy in nonhuman things? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, ants, bees and wasps are all members of the order Hymenoptera and are quite similar behaviorly. For example, the fact that male Hymenopterans are produced by unfertilized eggs has a profound effect on the social structure of nests/hives. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

We have articles on ant colony, beehive, and human society. The OP may find our article at Eusociality helpful. Matt Deres (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Many philosophers and economists tried and still try to argue Division of labour as an "natural ant colony" like concept adapted by humanity. Some even claim this to be a science. See Taylorism as example. These are simplifications ofcourse that in some cases greatly support an "ant colony" impression but every individal knows how far away he really is from being a drone, bee or ant, and thus how wrong these simplifications are. Such concepts are apriori far away from any empathy and therefor they can hardly promote empathy for ants, bees or other nonhuman beings. --Kharon (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What's a "snow fruit"?

This page about Pitcairn Island [8] mentions a "snow fruit". What is that, botanically speaking? Equinox ◑ 23:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Confirm from a 1951 L.A. Times article this was grown on the island and was an export at the time, as well as much later obviously in your photo. Alas, I'm not finding the phrase in www.pfaf.org , nor the most obvious sections of www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (they claim lots of hits everywhere, but always "quoted phrase not found" when I go to PubMed, Books, Gene etc. I'll admit I didn't try them all. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried a Google Books search on the phrase "snow fruit" together with the word Pitcairn. I found two sources that say it means a soursop: one in an issue of Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics (the available snippet did not identify the author) and one called Pitcairnese: A Report 30 Years After Moverley, Concentrating on the Vocabulary by Anders Källgård. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; that seems to agree with the (low-res) pic and the description of cobwebby texture. 109.147.106.251 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)