Science desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3[edit]

Did been a quantums in a low temperature?[edit]

Did been a mirrors in a mirror glass after it been very colder?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alex is asking whether mirrors continue to reflect images normally when at temperatures low enough that strange quantum effects tend to occur. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May been it a electromagnetic effect?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

парень, кончай троллить. или учи иглиш Asmrulz (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

инглиш, не иглиш 24.5.122.13 (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider doing a double slit experiment with freely floating mirrors behind each slit. If the phton goes through one particular slit, it will be reflected off the mirror behind it, so that mirror will gain some momentum. Nevertheless, you will stil get an inteference pattern, because the width of the wavefunction of the mirror in momentum space under normal circumstances, is much larger than the change in the momentum. The interference pattern will only vanish if the mirror can evolve freely without any interaction from the environment. The wavefucntion of the mirror in ordinary space can then become arbitrily wide so that it can get a momentum that so sharp that it would cointain the which way information about the photons. Count Iblis (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks more. May been a electromagnetic induction always been doing another properties of it in a very cold? That’s why it is been seen always another optical effects! May be it?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If been a conductor in a very cold a electromagnetic induction of it always been done another than it been done without a coldering.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yoy mispelled photon 50.237.188.108 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The myth of endodontic pain[edit]

There is a persistent myth (even communicated to me by my own parents when I was young) that endodontic therapy, commonly known as a root canal, is extremely painful. I find no shortage of sites exclaiming that this myth may have origins in some vague past before modern methods or modern anesthesia rendered the procedure painless (here is one such example). But what I'd like to know is precisely when root canals ceased to be painful as generally practiced in the United States. It's my understanding that anesthesia has been regularly used in dentistry for a very long time, certainly too long for my own parents to have grown up without it (though perhaps they heard horror stories from their own parents or grandparents). Someguy1221 (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had root canal treatement and it certainly was painfull. And very uncomfortable as well as painfull. As any treatment involving drilling teeth often is. Now, sometimes the aneasthetic works well, sometimes it doesn't work well, and sometimes it doesn't work at all. That's because the use of local aneasthetic to deaden teeth is not a simple affair. It depends on which tooth (some are easy to deaden and some are not), it depends on the person - not everybody has the nerves routed in quite the same way, it depends on the skill of the dentist, and it depends on the patience of the dentist. For me, it seems that the maximum amount of pain deadening comes about 20 minutes after the injection, and begins to wear off in about another 20 to 30 minutes. Since root canal treatment can take up to an hour to complete, it is at least damn uncomfortable. I had one dopey dentist once who simply would not wait the initial 20 minutes. General anaesthesia, its cost and its risks, is just not justified in dental surgery, except in very specail cases, e.g., when the patient is mentally retarded and simply will not put up with a bit of pain and discomfort, and won't stay still for the root location process. Local anesthetic for dental surgery is so poor, nor forgetting the "slobbery lips" feeling long after the procedure is finished, that for straitforward filling repair on teeth difficult to deaden, I tell the dentist to forget about the needle and just get on with it. It hurts, but as soon as he's finished, there is no pain, no discomfort, no slobbery lips, and no worries about whether your bite closes properly.

The web site cited by Someguy is somewhat dubious. For instance it claims that root canal work does not kill the tooth. Well, root canal work involves removing all living tissue from the tooth - pulp, blood vessels, nerve, everything. There's nothing left that's alive, only the dead enamel and the filling or crown. It's a bit like saying removing the soft tissues from a finger, replacing them with Araldite, and saying that that doesn't kill the fingernail, which was always dead anyway.

1.122.161.156 (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a number of oral surgery procedures regularly use general anesthesia today. On a separate point, variation on reactions to local anesthetics is unlikely to have much to do with variation in innervation of the relevant tissues but rather the patient's metabolic response to the anesthetic employed. Snow talk 08:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding nerve routing vs metabolism - not according to the several dentists I've had over the years. 1.122.161.156 (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if they remove the nerve, where does the pain come from? Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can imagine that it may well hurt WHILE they are removing it. In any case, normal drilling out to get a decay-free interface for the filling to bond to hurts, and they aren't even touching the nerve. It's the drill vibration transmitted through the tooth that hurts. The ultrasonic/high frequency tool they use to get rid of plaque cannot be felt. But I seem to recall than the nerve inside a tooth is not a pain nerve, it's a pressure sensor. The nerve contributes nourishment to the tooth in some way not well understood. The pain nerves are in the surrounding bone and flesh. 1.122.161.156 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible for a absent nervous tissue to contribute to pain, since it is more the complex associations between nerve cells, rather than the properties or state of particular individual cells, from which the sensation of pain arises. Phantom pain is the most obvious case, but there are plenty of other pain phenomena, such as referred pain, wherein pain is perceived in a part of the body where no nocireceptor is actually firing. But that bit about the nerve contributing nourishment in nonsensical; nervous tissue has no mechanism for supplying nutrients to any organ or structure; that is the function of the circulatory system, which is made of quite distinct tissues. You may be thinking of the blood vessels which feed into the dental pulp, which is innervated for pain detection, though the other tissues you mention are involved in this respect as well. Snow talk 02:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the nerve does not contribute to nourishment? Due to us being evolved creatures, our bodies are full of examples where something has been utilised or co-opted to do something diffrent or additional to its original or prime function, sometimes in a way that has been difficult for scientists to identify. For example, the fat around the heart contributes essential metabolytes for heart function - this has only recently (~~10 years or so) been discovered. It used to be thought that estrogen was made only in a woman's ovaries. But it was noticed that removing ovaries usually had little effect on breast cancer (the most tumour common types require estrogen to grow), and breast cancer is usually more serious in fat women. The, from about 40 years ago they thought that body fat stored estrogen. Now it is realised that fat makes estrogen. I googled "function of nerves in teeth". This threw up numerous sites typically saying "the nerve is essential to the growth of teeth" but unfortunately I found no site that said how it is essential. Cells in the deep areas of the brain supply essential metabolytes to outer areas of the brain (eg dopamine). It used to be thought that the heart's function was purely mechanical - pumping blood. Now it's known that it secretes a signalling hormone that increases kidney excretion rates. 1.122.161.156 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without a specific mechanism suggested, it's impractical to try to refute a vague suggestion of a connection, but that doesn't mean we have any evidence for it's existence to begin with. It's also unnecessary: we already know how the tooth gets it's nutrition: blood vessels that enter the pulp through the same structures as the nerves themselves.

Some of the cases which you note above are mischaracterized, but in any event none of them are analogous to the situation suggested wherein a tissue type designed to propagate electrical signals via action potential could achieve the distinctly different function of the fluid-carrying structures of the circulatory system. That would be like attempting to co-opt the wire and circuits of your TV to conduct water to your dishwasher; they are designed for drastically different ends. It is true that the nerve is important to the health of the tooth, as it provides us with necessary feedback as to when to when pressure, temperature or impacts are exceeding healthy limits, or otherwise we'd surely damage them (in the way that those who lack sensation to any area of the body are at drastically increased risk of injury to those areas) or may fail to notice dangerous infection. Elsewise we wouldn't have those nociceptors, thermoreceptors, or mechanoreceptors in the tooth to begin with. Snow talk 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an assertion that something is possible does not make it true. However much of what else you wrote isn't right. My example of deep brain cells making dopamine for higher function brain cells to use is just such an example of something originally evolved to do one thing (sensory/motor signalling) being co-opted to do something else. To use your TV analogy, sure, a TV cannot supply water. But it can supply heat for the comfort of your small pet, if you have one, or help heat the room - that is a better analogy. TV sets are not designed for the pupose of emitting heat, but they do it anyway, and the heat can be usefull. Clearly, the nerves in teeth are there to sense pressure, and they also sense temperature. Those priomary functions do not preclude an additional function, just as fat cells(evolved primarily to store energy) around the heart has evolved to supply certain metabolytes needed by the heart. 1.122.161.156 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is a bit of a non-sequitur., if you'll forgive me saying it. My choice of an electrical appliance and a plumbing process for that analogy was not arbitrary. We are talking about structures with vastly different forms and functions. The problem I am having with your assertions here is that they are quite vague - you're insisting upon a causative link here, but not describing the hypothetical mechanic through which it would be achieved at all, so that leaves little to discuss. I can only tell you how these tissue types operate in general and that I see no way in which peripheral nerves -- basically self-mediating conductors in this context -- can perform the tasks of vascular/circulatory structures in transporting nutrients to other tissues. If you would like to provide the sources which initially caused you believe they served in this role, their wording would be at least something that we could discuss, but as regards physiological mechanisms which have been validated or even just suggested in genuine research, I know of no sources suggesting such a role for maxillary nerves, nor would I expect to learn of one. On another note, it is not uncommon for neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, to be produced by discrete cell types which then utilize it in their own synaptic function or produce it as part of the metabolic pathway for the synthesis of still other neurotransmitters; this latter function seems to be the one you've been referencing (dopamine is a precursor to norepinephrine and epinephrine) but this is not a good example of an extreme adaptation, relevant to the context, since many types of brain cell have similar functions relative to their neurotransmitters. Snow talk 11:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What your dentists are talking about is not "nerve routing" (by which I took you to mean some general principle of interconnectivity); they're talking about the nerve morphology and proximity to the area upon which they will have to work. An oral/maxillofacial surgeon's chief concern with the nerves is avoiding damaging them during surgery on surrounding tissues (or when administering local anesthetic) so as not to impair function and sensation. [1]. Imaging is also helpful in determining whether to advise surgery when considering a problem tooth or other condition that stands to cause an impact upon the nerve. Don't get me wrong, additional innervation means more potential for something to go awry, but it doesn't directly influence the efficacy of the anesthetics or cause certain people more pain, unless there's a blunder. Those types of claims are difficult to validate, when you consider that 1) Pain is hard to empirically quantify in a useful way in studies, with some exception for brain imaging 2) most procedures of this nature have historically not used real-time mapping and most still don't, so the correlation would be hard to establish for someone not set out to do just that. In any event, a local anesthetic should be able to inhibit activity in a good area anyway, and if it's not working to that effect, you still must explain the physiological mechanisms for that fact, regardless of the gross morphology of the nerve. Those effects, that is, the agonism of the pharmaceutical employed, is mostly empirically treated on a much smaller scale. Snow talk 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've had this discussion with a few dentists - they made it clear that the location of nerves varies from person to person. And the article you linked to says the same thing - in the the 2nd para it says "Due to this nerve's variable anatomical location, it may ..." and under the heading ANATOMY OF THE LINGUAL NERVE IN THE THIRD MOLAR REGION it discusses the variability in detail.

I'm in my 70's and over the years I had to change dentists about every 1o years or so due moving to new towns, the dentist retired, etc. The first time a dentist begins to do a filling on me, he typically goes "I'll give you an injection, so it won't hurt."

I'll say "No don't - I've learnt from experience that anaesthetics don't work well. Just forget the needle and get on with it."

Dentist: "It's easier to work on a patient that is relaxed. I have a newer, better, anaesthetic than your old dentist was using. I'll give you a jab." Prodeeds to inject the anaesthetic. Waits 5 minutes. Asks "Your jaw's numb now isn't it?"

Me: "No". Dentist waits another 5 minutes.

Dentist: "It must be working now." Touches my lip. "Feel that?"

Me: "Barely. Doesn't feel normall."

Dentist: "Ah, it's working now. I'll begin. You can't feel anything." Pokes about inside my mouth. Suddenly there is pain - feels like he poked my jaw with a sharp instrument. It doesn't hurt much, but because it was unexpected, I jump.

Dentist, aside to nurse: "Heck, he can feel that!" Waits another 5 minutes. Repeats poking/jabbing. I jump again. I tell him to stop stuffing about and get on with it. Some dentists are smarter than others. Some do a better job than others. They vary quite a bit.

1.122.161.156 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course the exact nerve morphology varies -- not drastically, but it does -- they are different individuals. That's like saying that individuals have blood vessels (or really any other anatomical feature) of differing sizes; we can take it for a given. But that's not really germane to the distinctions I was making. I'm not saying that you don't feel what you believe you feel, or that local anesthetics of various types don't have lower efficacy for you than the average patient, only that the underlying mechanisms are a little different than what was described. Snow talk 02:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are physics texts often lax with integral notation?[edit]

I've found that not only Wikipedia, but both my physics textbooks, omit the domain of integration and/or limits of integration for integrals such as in Maxwell's equations, a practice I personally find disagreeable. Although there usually is a sentence along the lines of "The integral is taken over..." following, there isn't always. In contrast, my math textbooks are very adamant about being clear about limits of integration, i.e. they would write no such thing as $I=\int r^{2}dm$ but instead $\iiint _{Q}r^{2}dm$ or with one integral sign, $\int _{Q}r^{2}dm$ .--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite normal in maths to leave out all the assumptions in an equation and just leave the important bits. Otherwise sometimes you wouldn't see the important bits easily. Without the limits an integral is called an Indefinite integral and you're expected to stick in your own limits for your particular case. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually part of why I dislike the practice, because an indefinite integral denotes the family of all antiderivatives of a function. Not only does this not apply for functions of more than one variable (there is no notion of a multiple indefinite integral, except perhaps potential functions written like

\int \mathbf {F} (\mathbf {x} )\cdot d\mathbf {x}

for use with the gradient theorem), but in nearly all cases where the limit is omitted, with the notable exception of potential energy and other potential functions, a definite Riemann sum is implied.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so you have an argument for why you feel a different approach should be taken, but you clearly understand the reasoning of the parties who do otherwise as to why they do it, which makes the question in the header (the only question you've asked) purposeless, and thus this seems like more an effort at stating a particular perspective and debating the merits, which is not really our purpose here. If to any extent you were genuinely confused on the matter, I think you've got about as clear an explanation as is available from Dmcq and Count Iblis, so we should avoid turning this into an endlessly recursive discussion about the benefits of one approach over the other as we're not a forum. No offense intended! Snow talk 02:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm pretty sure Dmcq is not completely correct in the assertion that lack of a limit of integration means an indefinite integral, so that can't be the reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is part of a much more widespread habit of those outside the field being more lax when using info from that field. For example, you would expect a survey conducted by a polling organization to include all the details, like the standard deviations, while what gets reported in the media often lacks any such details. StuRat (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a formal setting, where the integration region is arbitrary anyway, you don't need to specify it. You just need to introduce a convention at the start that you choose not to do so. And it can be argued that being sloppy/lazy is better than being precise with the notation.

In physics you want to focus on the physics and not on the mathematical details. While these details are important, you don't want these to obscure the text. In old books from the 19th century you sometimes find Maxwell's equation written out explicitely in x,y,and z coordinates, while in modern notation we would use the div, nabla etc. operators. Einstein invented the summation over repeated indices convention (a.k.a. Einstein convention) to get rid of all summation signs in tensor equations to make the equations better readable.

Dirac needed a modified definition for the derivative of the logarithm and he chose to violate the mathematical rule for this by inventing the Dirac Delta function, which isn't a bona fide function. It was much later that this was put on a rigorous footing by mathematicions who developed the theory of distributions.

In more advanced physics courses things will only get worse. In quantum mechancis it is customary to write an integration sign even if it can mean a summation (you don't want to be bothered about the distinction between a continuous spectrum and a discrete spectrum if they can be captured in the same setting). Also, you typically don't use the mathematical notation for distributions, you use them as if they are ordinary functions.

When doing perturbation theory, you won't be bothered too much about the fact that the perturbation series actually doesn't converge. As George F. Carrier has pointed out, that's usually not a bad thing: "Divergent series converge faster than convergent series because they don't have to converge." Count Iblis (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad somebody raised this issue. I wish people were more careful with such notations which might be easy for regulars but difficult when you try to comprehend a subject that is way out of your field. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matlab[edit]

Hi What is the options of taylortool and taylor modulation in MATLAB?محسن قنبرنژاد (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you move this to the Math Desk. StuRat (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the documentation for the Taylortool at http://www.mathworks.com/help/symbolic/taylortool.html. I have never seen the term "Taylor modulation", and I don't think it means anything. Looie496 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

caffeine in shampoo[edit]

I recently saw an advert on TV for shampoo containing caffeine. Is caffeine absorbed through the skin? My guess in answer to this question would be 'no' or 'very poorly'. Even if caffeine is absorbed through the skin, is caffeine good for one's hair? My guess again would be 'no!'. And even if caffeine is absorbed through the skin and it is good for one's hair, (making it shinier or stronger or whatever) is absorbing caffeine through the skin proven to be better for hair than obtaining caffeine through more conventional means, i.e. drinking it? My guess again would be 'no!' Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichYPE (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read these articles: This one and this one come from popular science blogs, and This one comes from a peer-reviewed journal of the British Pharmacological Society so is probably as reliable as you can get, and discusses research into not just that caffeine is absorbed by skin (it is), but also how it gets into the blood through the skin. --Jayron32 18:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m thinking, should be bestly for a skin a protein shampoo or a placent shampoo, it they would been more powerful than another!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they may not be going for an effect on the hair. Since many people shampoo in the morning, they might appreciate the wake up effect of a dose of caffeine. They might market it as "refreshing", etc. Of course, those who shampoo before bed may not appreciate the caffeine. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know but, may been a caffeine is been a tranquilizer or a antidepressant?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine is a stimulant. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I been know well, it had been a variations.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ritalin is a stimulant, and has the opposite effect in kids with ADHD, but I'm not aware the same is true of caffeine. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a blog post (2002) from someone who tried Shower Shock™ caffeinated soap and found no effect. —Tamfang (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Что хуже?[edit]

Какая болезнь более опасна -- сонная или кессонная? ;-) 24.5.122.13 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the prognosis sections in the two articles suggest that the first is much more dangerous (despite the fact that the second is much more painful). 24.5.122.13 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it been real a protoplasm electric transformer[edit]

Is it been, a real that would been a science project of a protoplasm electric transformer which been powerful transform a powerful electric volts?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to get "protoplasm" in a legit topic on electrical engineering using machine translation. Russian and English are not THAT disjoint. Now you're just plain f**g with everybody. If this is some attempt at dada, you're 90 years too late. Asmrulz (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP Plasma disambiguation page list both protoplasm and plasma (physics), so confusion of the two is not that implausible. --catslash (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that, it's... everything. I actually chuckled at "powerful electric volts", it sounds too much like something straight out of Borat. The OP is pulling our leg and he makes Mother Russia look bad. Asmrulz (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I still daydream of modifying the stacked membranes of the electric organ for isotopic enrichment. :) Wnt (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Google Translate lists the top two possible meanings of "протоплазма" as "protoplasm" and "plasma". Furthermore, a "plasma transformer" is a "quest item" in the game Fallout 2 [2], so the OP appears to be a perfectly legitimate question as to whether plasma transformers exist in real life. Red Act (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are also been telephone links to consider. How does one wind up with "bestly"? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be kindness for me. Is it been a electromagnetic induction always is been a works body of a protoplasm electric transformer?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like it might actually be possible to construct a transformer of sorts using plasma as the conductor. A plasma is indeed electrically conductive, and a variation in the flow of current through a plasma would indeed produce an electromagnetic force in a nearby conductor (perhaps also a plasma) via electromagnetic induction. However, I don't know if anyone has worked on constructing such a device, and it's not clear to me what usefulness such a device might have. I think the phrase was just made up as a fictitious device for a game. Red Act (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bird song identification, Baltimore MD[edit]

For the last week or so, there's been a recurrent bird call in my neighborhood. My google-fu is hopelessly inept. So, I turn to you. It's a three note song, each note sustained with no warbling for about a second. I found a virtual piano app online (at virtualpiano.net), and to my ear, the notes are C-49, E-53, D-51. My girlfriend and I would love to know who's making this noise. Thanks. 76.21.157.67 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't quite fit your description, but possibly a whippoorwill? Our article includes an audio sample of their song, for comparison. Looie496 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... the tones of a piano seem so different from those of a bird, I can't really get a fix on it. A somewhat similar sound is the Eastern Towhee's "drink-your-tea" song [3] but this is a long shot. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this tool can help. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sound is it? Is there a musical instrument is sounds similar to or does it perhaps sound more like words? Could you approximate it (or some of it) in script? Matt Deres (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist thus far. I found the site Inedible pointed to before I posted, but since I didn't have any idea how to narrow my search the prospect of going through each individually was daunting. The song is three single notes, whistled straight with no trill. The second note is two steps up from the first, and the third is one step down from the second. It's not the Towhee.2601:A:1480:314:E410:5E00:DE3F:56E4 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just click the blue headers ("Sound or song consists of three or more notes"), then use the drop down menu when you're narrow enough. But I'll admit, it didn't help me find my mystery bird, either. I think I need a subsection here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song Identification, Northern Ontario[edit]

Not trying to hijack here, priority goes to 76. But I have a longtime bird neighbour who slowly goes E-E-C#, the last note as long as the first two, then four "nyuks", like Curly Howard. It sounds like a jeering taunt, like you sometimes hear in sports. I only hear him in the early morning (5-9). Who knows this guy? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is your neighbor only present in the late spring and summer, or does he winter over in northern Ontario as well? Pardon me for asking for more details on your location, but where are you, and what's the terrain around you? Kenora District, or Thunder Bay District, or Cochrane District, or somewhere a little south of there; and taiga or something else? I've only seen a few bird books, but they all depict bird ranges that vary from place to place in such a large area. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Ontario. Not the Sudbury chunk. Surrounded by conifers, but a fair bit of field. The bird comes out in the warm season, when dawn starts around 5. Haven't heard him yet this year. That's all the clues I can give. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]