Science desk
< May 21	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

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 22

Standard for CR123A batteries

Is there a standard, from any of ISO/DIN/ANSI/JIS, for CR123A batteries? I googled "CR123A battery datasheet" but only manufacturer's own specification turned out, and annoyingly enough they're all slightly different from one another. Is there standard, international or otherwise, that governs the physical dimensions of CR123A batteries? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IEC standard is CR17345, and the ANSI standard is 5018LC. See, for example, this datasheet and this forum thread. Tevildo (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, our article, linked to in the original post. Tevildo (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they (* *) linked in the List of battery sizes article? Bytesock (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most tables on that page include the IEC and ANSI designations, and the "External Links" section contains links to the various datasheets. Feel free to add an explicit link to the CR123A entry if you think it would improve the article. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Tevildo!

Does anyone know where I can find either IEC CR17345 or ANSI 5018LC on the internet? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not legally, I'm afraid. You can buy the IEC standard from their site, here, and the ANSI standard from their site, here, but the prices are positively extortionate. Tevildo (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking for the 'final draft' of either standard. They normally the same as the published standard (although possibly a few minor wording differences), kept available even after the final standard is published, and most importantly, they are free. However, if you need to meet the exact standard, buy it. If it's only for your own elucidation, then feel free to find it. LongHairedFop (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-question FYI for archaic medical terms

Just wanted to share with the reference desk that I stumbled onto the fact that the website known as Rudy's List of Archaic Medical Terms which is located at www.antiquusmorbus.com has changed its URL to www.archaicmedicalterms.com. The old URL apparently still works (for now?) but the webmaster states that no new information will be added to that version of the list. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently by sheer chance you're managed to hit the exact person that would find that information useful. Well done and thank you. I will update the page. Matt Deres (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the article "Medical terminology" a link to that new website.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad thing when someone who calls himself a "webmaster" doesn't know how to create A 301 redirect... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would not consider it a particularly reliable source based on my perusal. Interesting list but largely unreferenced, not a MEDRS. — soupvector (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is why I only used it as an external link for further reading; it's an excellent starting point. Matt Deres (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree - and I do find it interesting. I did not mean to sound argumentative. — soupvector (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those wanting to help clean up, list of all WP pages linking to *.antiquusmorbus.com. DMacks (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of sphygmomanometer

Duplicate question deleted (and existing answer moved). Please post questions to only one desk. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the limit?

If it was possible (as has recently been reported) to induce multiple successive orgasms in a man, how many orgasms could he take before losing conciousness or dying in the act(s)? --178.106.99.31 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a variation on an old traveling salesman joke concerning a milk machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are thinking of the man who broke into a milking parlour and decided to try out one of the machines. After a while, hearing screams of agony, the farmer appeared and reassured the man that the machine would switch off automatically when the container was full. Anyway, thats not the Q.--178.106.99.31 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about humans (have you tried this experiment yourself?) but I recall a story from ca. 2000 about a male guinea pig that got into a pen with 24 females, got it on with all of them, and then slept for two days.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on the Venus 2000, incidentally, and doubtless other products with the same functionality are available. Tevildo (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refractory period (sex) is the relevant article. Why would you expect loss of consciousness or death? I don't think there's some fixed number of orgasms per period of time that one can have. Obviously you could eventually experience exhaustion, but there's no significant difference to exhaustion from other physical activity, and with the wide variation in individuals' physical fitness, genetics, etc. you can't really put a fixed number on it. As the article says, there's debate over whether women have something that can be considered a refractory period, but women don't seem to be keeling over from too many orgasms at once. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the nun teaching health at Paul VI HS in the 1980's, men can only orgasm once a day. I hope I have not been misinformed. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's the recommended minimum, not maximum. these statements have not been verified by a medical professional. I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV. --Jayron 32 02:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You play a doctor on TV? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rather imagine that statement was intended to prevent the girls in the class having unrealistic expectations of their husbands - any boys in the class would have known it was wrong by at least one order of magnitude, so we can deduce that there were none present. Tevildo (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An order of magnitude? Dude, who has time for taking care of business every 2 hours or so? Some of us have things to do! --Jayron 32 03:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we all need to edit Wankypedia every few hours.--178.106.99.31 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnus CRS OA-6 return

What is the status of the Cygnus CRS OA-6 resupply mission to the International Space Station? Our article gives a planned unberthing date of May 20 (a couple of days ago), but I haven't heard news either of it happening or of it being delayed. Orbital ATK's mission page for that mission was last updated back on March 26 when the Cygnus was grappled and berthed. -- ToE 23:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a name like that, it may have fallen into a black hole. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This shows a scheduled mid-June departure for a Cygnus. I think they only dock one at a time. Rmhermen (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was exactly the sort of reference I was looking for. I'd started looking in the very informative NSF forums, which includes lots of info from industry insiders and watchers, but I was looking at the Atlas OA-6 launch thread, not the RNDZ, Berthing and ISS mission thread I should have been looking at. Now that I found it, I see they are saying 14 June, but it's not referenced sufficiently for our purposes. -- ToE 03:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the NASA source for that spaceref article. -- ToE 09:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]