1693: "Oxidation"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1693: "Oxidation"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:36 pm UTC

Something measured in micrometres isn't within the scope of microscopic, you say..?

(Ok, so a microlightyear is about half a light-minute, or I think ~30 times the distance to the Moon.)

Epistemonas
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: 1693: "Oxidation"

Postby Epistemonas » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:13 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Something measured in micrometres isn't within the scope of microscopic, you say..?

(Ok, so a microlightyear is about half a light-minute, or I think ~30 times the distance to the Moon.)

Of course not. Something measured in micrometres is micrometric. Something microscopic is on the order of a microscope, which, obviously, is one millionth of a scope.

JimsMaher
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1693: "Oxidation"

Postby JimsMaher » Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:15 am UTC

My understanding of microscopic was generally <1mm. Atleast that's what I was taught.

I'm not saying there is only one factor here, I'm just trying to highlight the most significant one. I read size as the most well-defined and pronounced factor of demodex remaining unseen. Measurably they exist at the sizable limit, or just beyond, our ability to notice.

Translucency is not a measure that has been clearly documented in a framework that translates easily to our natural vision (neither backlit smears nor electron microscope images offer fair appraisals of visibility to the unaided eye). But for comparison, fingernails are considered transluscent.

As far as their hiding in follicles goes, how much time do they spend hidden and are they completely concealed when they are hiding? It's unclear to me just what kind of presumptions are being made on this point of contention. Traveling at 8-16 mm/hr, they're certainly no cockroaches, if caught with the light turned on.

I suspect they are as large as they are, but no larger, for the same reason they are photophobic and somewhat transluscent ... any more noticeable and their hosts could choose to get rid of them. So, of course they survive by going unnoticed however they can.

As I mentioned before, to my knowledge, they are the largest common, extended-stay residents of our bodies. And, actually, they might also be the least hidiest of our guests. Still no idea were they rank on the transluscency scale of commonplace parasites.
Last edited by JimsMaher on Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:25 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Mikeski
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1693: "Oxidation"

Postby Mikeski » Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:22 am UTC

Epistemonas wrote:Something measured in micrometres is micrometric. Something microscopic is on the order of a microscope, which, obviously, is one millionth of a scope.

The smallest bottle of Scope I could find online was 1.5 fl oz.

That's about 44000 cubic mm.

So a micro-scope would be .044 cubic mm.

Wikipedia gave a max length of 0.4mm for demodex, but no other dimensions. The picture makes them look like they're longer than they are wide, so if we assume they're 0.4mm x 0.1mm x 0.1mm, that's .004 cubic mm.

So they're an order of magnitude smaller than microscopic.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2926
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1693: "Oxidation"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:09 am UTC

Hmm, in the picture they do seem to be roughly the diameter of an eyelash hair, which would put them in the vicinity of 0.1 mm, which is pretty damn small.

But the transparency clearly has a huge impact on visibility. By comparison, tardigrades are positively huge, but they are still extremely difficult to spot without a microscope.

I guess it depends on what "microscopic" means. Like, I wouldn't call hair "microscopic," but maybe if something is smallish and you can't really see it it's microscopic regardless of its exact size. That doesn't feel right though.

JimsMaher
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1693: "Oxidation"

Postby JimsMaher » Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:20 am UTC

Imagine Antman (of the MCU) zaps one of these anthropods and it grows to the size of a house cat. How transparent do you think it would be?

As clear as an aquarium tank; like colorless gelatin; a glass of green tea; or black coffee?

Here's a visual list of larger transluscent animals

Moreover, would it be regular in its opacity? Or would this now-giant and slow-moving anthropod be more contrasted against the background by its varied parts and appear somewhat opaque ... not unlike some transparent, cave-dwelling anthropods?

pscottdv
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

Re: 1693: "Oxidation"

Postby pscottdv » Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:22 am UTC

vodka.cobra wrote:If you heat iron, does it rust faster?


It depends on how you heat it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_and_reducing_flames


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha, Old Bruce, Tom and 79 guests