Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 July 24

Science desk
< July 23	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 25 >

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.

July 24

Diabetes

Hi, I know that hyperglycemia is a symptom of diabetes, what about hypoglycemia, is it also classified as diabetes, or is there another disease for it? Thanks. 58.153.97.9 01:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypoglycemia#Causes. Someguy1221 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hyperglycemia is the central manifestation of diabetes mellitus, the core pathophysiological condition that distinguishes diabetes from other diseases. Hypoglycemia is a common complication of treatment of diabetes, because insulin and other agents that lower the blood sugar occasionally "overshoot" and bring the blood glucose too low. Whether hypoglycemia is ever a prodromal manifestation of diabetes is unsettled; a few case reports suggest it, but it is uncommon and difficult to prove that the hypoglycemia was an integral part of the process of developing either type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. You might have found the answers in the articles linked, but I suppose asking here is easier. alteripse 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Transsexual

I know that I am not suppose to ask any porno questions, but I want to know that is there a slang for a transsexual man who doesn't have a penis? because his female counterpart is called a shemale because she has a penis.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.55.150 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your question is legitimate and not "porno", According to the Transwoman article the term you are looking for may be post-op. -hydnjo talk 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the appropriate article be transman? grendel|khan 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the article on Buck Angel, a transman pornstar. grendel|khan 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

effect of acid on plant life!

We had many plants around us in our university...it was merely like a forest with grasses, weeds, herbs, shrubs & trees! & everyday atleast a hundred (or even more) people urinate randomly around those plants (all varities)..now i wonder why not even a single plant is getting effected with such continuous urination. We know that human urine was highly acidic& it should definitely affect the plants..but not even a single grass or any big tree is getting affected..can u explain me why? Temuzion 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out some of these links. - hydnjo talk 04:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Most plants prefer a slightly acid environment, preferably to alkaline anyhow. The worst thing urine could do to a plant is if it gets on the leaves directly, eutrophication will allow mildew will grow on them. Bendž|Ť 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Urine can kill grass, especially if it's too concentrated. I've heard this can problem especially with dogs. (Googling shows a lot of people complaining) Not because of of the acidicity or alkalinity of the urine but because of an overdose of nitrogen. This was in the "last word" column of the New Scientist a few months back. BTW urine is not always acidic and pH 6 is not exactly 'highly acidic' Nil Einne 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

extraction of hydrogen from methane

i want tht topic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepikavoona (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Go read the articles on hydrogen and methane, both of which discuss the methane → hydrogen conversion. DMacks 06:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Here is something for you: In extremely high temperatures methane will decompose into Hydrogen and Carbon gas. This happens in stars. When methane burns in oxygen it will form carbon monoxide, steam and hydrogen for a short period, before the hyrdogen is burned up. Steam reforming reacts methane with steam to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Nickel is used as a catalyst. The water gas shift reaction can covert some more of that carbon monoxide to Hydrogen. GB 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that anything short of alchemy can turn carbon monoxide into hydrogen. The water gas shift reaction turns carbon monoxide and water into carbon dioxide and hydrogen. grendel|khan 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

lol...

Do Electrons in an atom slow down in lower temperatures?

Will electrons in orbit in an atom slow down when the temperature is decreased? (I'm guessing no)

--wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Temperature is approximated by the kinetic energy of a group of atoms(/molecules). You have to remember that the electrons don't really orbit, they are defined by a fuzzy probability cloud, they don't really move in a classical way like atoms do (mostly). You can knock electrons to a higher energy level through providing heat energy, but they're normally unstable and will re-emit back down to a lower energy level. I assume that you haven't studied quantum mechanics yet, so i'll leave it at that. Capuchin 08:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, what force makes electrons stay in different energy levels? I mean, just because theres protons and neutrons in the center doesn't mean electrons should stay in orbit... Protons attract electrons, but why don't the electrons stick to the protons? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to explain that without invoking quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics, the electron should radiate energy in the form of electromagnetic waves and continue to get closer and closer to the nucleus. The amount of energy radiated is infinite because the integral of 1/r² diverges as r tends to 0. This is obviously unphysical.

In quantum mechanics, the ground state is the lowest energy state, and the electron cannot decrease its energy by getting closer to the nucleus. If the wavefunction got smaller, it would have to be more strongly curved, and since the kinetic energy is directly related to the wavefunction, it would go up. The electron cannot get closer to the nucleus without vibrating faster, and the energy cost of the vibration exceeds the potential energy. The ground state wavefunction is a perfect balance between potential energy (distance from the nucleus) and kinetic energy (quantum fluctuation).

Note that this "vibration" can never be directly observed: it's not that the electron moves to one side and then the other; it's that it's always vibrating in all directions in a spherically symmetric manner. —Keenan Pepper 09:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I was having trouble answering. Unless you have studied quantum mechanics, it's very difficult to see these things in a way that is not newtonian motion. When you're talking about electrons, you have to drop most of the assumptions (and lies-to-children) that you have been taught. Electrons are too small to be described by Newton's laws. Capuchin 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the electrons kind of do stick to the protons. In the ground state of hydrogen the electron is not orbiting the proton at all—its orbital angular momentum is zero. Hydrogen in its ground state is basically just an electron superimposed on a proton. The size of the electron cloud is defined by the uncertainty principle, not by an orbital distance.

Starting with boron, at least one electron does orbit the nucleus in the ground state, because of the Pauli exclusion principle and the electron shell filling rules. -- BenRG 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, its a kind of a degenerate orbit, but I don't think the "superimposed" image is a good one, because the expected value of the magnitude of the momentum is not zero. I think a better picture is more like this: Imagine a sort of a "ghost baseball" that's attracted by the Earth's gravity, but otherwise doesn't interact with the Earth's mass -- it just falls straight through to the other side. When it gets to the other side, it falls back again. That's an orbit, of a sort, even though it has zero angular momentum.

Now destroy all your information about what point in the cycle the baseball is currently at, and you have a picture of the electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom. --Trovatore 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Girls vs Boys

Is there any reason for girls (as a trend) to prefer pink while boys prefer blue? Just curious, thanks!

There are extensive discussion on this in Talk:Pink and Talk:Blue. I guess it's a form of stereotyping. Lanfear's Bane

I could have sworn I read that a long time ago, baby girls were given blue and baby boys were given pink. If so, then yes, it's definately some sort of society thing. This site isn't a perfect reference, but it's a start.--Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment brought to mind a Dear Abby piece I'd read two months hither, and, overcoming my profound general contempt for Abby, I would adduce her column of 31 May toward the proposition that, at least in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the societal understanding of the color dichotomy was apparently the reverse of our current understanding. If the Google answers, Talk:Pink, and Talk:Blue pages are of insufficient help, one might also query the humanities reference desk on the issue of the history of baby colors as a social, as against a psychological, construct. Joe 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

hey, I like pink. :( They like what they are told to like, especially boys, who don't want to be thought of by their friends as being like girls.

I like green. What does that make me?? HYENASTE 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Greedy? --Trovatore 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmentally friendly? --SamSim 11:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wirbelwind is right. Until about 1930, blue (the color of the Virgin Mary) was the color designated to colors, while boys were given the more "masculine" pink. The change occurred inexplicably in the 30's, and caught on in the 50's. 24.1.137.20 04:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) if asked, my favourite colour is brown

Tusks

Why do elephants have tusks? What purpose do they serve?

Have you read the Tusks section of our Elephant article? — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood serum vs blood plasma

I am confused with the 2 terms as I don't see their difference, even after I've read the related articles. Thanks.

It says on the disambiguation page serum that blood serum is "Blood plasma, with clotting factors removed". This would seem to explain the difference quite well. The clotting factors being Fibrinogen. Capuchin 12:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fibrinogen is just one of many clotting factors, but you've got the right idea. --David Iberri (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RepHresh

Does anyone know what are the ingredients in the product RepHresh? How does it normalize the pH balance in the vagina? --WonderFran 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

From the first hit on google (an Internet search engine):

INGREDIENTS: RepHresh Vaginal Gel contains purified water USP, Glycerin, Polycarbophil, Carbomer 934P, Ethylparaben Sodium, Methylparaben Sodium, Propylparaben Sodium.

Our patented vaginal gel is made of two polymers, polycarbophil and carbomer. Polycarbophil is an acidic molecule that adheres to the vaginal epithelial cells until they turnover (3-5 days) and buffers vaginal secretions near the natural physiologic level. This restores the vaginal pH to its optimum balance of 4.5 and helps to maintain good vaginal health.

--TotoBaggins 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify on that, the gel is a buffer solution; it can change from an acid solution to a salt solution; adding more acid causes the buffer to turn back into a salt, so it counteracts changes in pH. Technically, polycarbophil is actually a salt, not an acid; the acid is carbomer, which confusingly is not a carbomer, but is another name for poly(acrylic acid); if the secretions become more acidic, the acrylic acid turns into polycarbophil, reducing the overall pH and maintaining balance. Laïka 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

coal crisis

Hi. I'm just wondering, what would happen to global temperatures, if we burned 98% of the oil, 95% of the natural gas, and 70% of the coal we had? I mean, what would happen if we burned all these, not counting any of the global warming that would occur anyway without the consumption of fossil fuels? I've heard somewhere that if we burned all the coal we had, we'd have a climate like venus. Is this true? The main part of my question is regarding the temperature rise globally solely based on the burning of these amounts of fossil fuels. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No. In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world. Models trump measurements, National Post, July 7, 2007 Saturday National Edition. - MSTCrow 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Segalstad's facts are coprrect, but his conclusions are misleading. Take a look at this diagram of the carbon cycle, which accompanies our carbon cycle article. The deep ocean carbon reservoir does indeed hold about 50 times as much carbon as the atmosphere - 38,100 billion tonnes versus 750 billion tonnes. But look at the annual rates of exchange - the figures in purple. They are much smaller numbers. So if atmospheric CO2 doubled, it would take many years before the deep oceans reached equilibrium with the atmosphere. And if atmospheric CO2 is being continually increased by burning fossil fuels, then the system is being forced away from equilibrium. So an argument based on a hypothetical equilibrium state that is never reached is fallacious - it is like saying you cannot run a hot shower unless you switch off your fridge first. Gandalf61 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Synonym of "potential"

I'd like to compare two materials X and Y, saying that X has the same potential as Y for doing this-and-this. However, it is in a discussion about corrosion properties. Since I do not want the reader to be confused with the electric potential, I would like to use a synonym for "potential". The word "possibilities" popped into my mind, but this may be not "strong" enough for saying what I want to say. Is there anyone with suggestions, please? In return, I promise to write something about the extrusion of metals on wikipedia after I've finished my report. SietskeEN 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

ability, aptitude, capability, capacity, potentiality.... [1] aptitude would be my preference. Philc 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll take that one! The link is in my bookmarks now. SietskeEN 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree! Aptitude is something people have. "Capacity" makes much more sense. --Anonymous, July 24, 2007, 23:25 (UTC).

Whole wheat and multi-grain

Why, ceteris paribus, does a product made with multi-grain have slightly more calories than whole wheat? - MSTCrow 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As a wild guess, it's possible that some of the other grains are oilier (soy, for example); fat is about twice as energy-dense as carbohydrate, so grains containing more fat and less carbohydrate will contain more energy per unit mass. Just a guess, though. grendel|khan 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is that you're comparing against that phoney sort of "whole wheat bread" that feels and tastes like white bread with a little brown food coloring. Appalling stuff, just horrible. It may just have less bread in it than your typical multi-grain.

Genuine wheat bread should be dense enough to stand up to genuine peanut butter, which is the kind you have to put in the refrigerator to keep it from separating. Whether that phoney plastic peanut butter that you don't have to keep refrigerated was invented so you could spread it on the phoney bread, or whether the phoney bread was enabled by the phoney peanut butter, I'm not sure. --Trovatore 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about E=mc^2

According to E=mc^2, as an object goes faster (gets more energy) its mass will increase. I'm wondering if that means that the objects volume increases or its density.

If you are watching an object go faster and faster, it will shrink along it's direction of travel by the Lorentz contraction, so in fact the apparent volume will decrease. No other dimensional changes occur. As for the mass, each and every particle making up the object becomes more massive. Protons, neutrons, electrons...all will be more massive than they were when the object was stationary relative to you. 151.152.101.44 18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on exactly what you mean by "mass." Popular writing on relativity often describes mass increasing as you get closer to the speed of light, and asymptotically approaching infinity at exactly v=c. According to this definition, the mass of any object depends on the reference frame you're viewing it from. This mass is just m=E/c^2. However, that's not what physicists usually mean by "mass" in a relativistic context. Instead, we usually talk about invariant mass, or rest mass. It's defined by m^2 = E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2, and it has the useful property that it comes out the same in all inertial reference frames. This means that different observers can agree on the invariant mass of an object. I think this is a more useful concept of mass. Using this definition, the volume decreases (Lorentz contraction), mass stays the same, mass density goes up, and energy density goes up more. You can read all about it in the article Mass_in_special_relativity. --Reuben 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, is there a speed at which a particle will be fast enough and short enough to create a black hole with an event horizon beyond it's contracted length? What particle would be able to do that? --Tbeatty 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's a perfect point particle, then you can calculate its event horizon even at zero speed. Otherwise, you need to take into account the entire stress-energy-momentum tensor, and something that's a black hole in one frame of reference will be a black hole in any frame of reference. That means its speed doesn't matter. --Reuben 06:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's my question. Does adding energy in the form of momentum increase mass with decreasing volume (i.e. increase density) and could the end result be a black hole that's brought into existence? It seems that even if a black holes are frame invariant, their event horizon would depend on their relative velocity as the momentum is part of the tensor equation you mention above. take the earth, accelerate it at 1G until the Lorentz contraction makes its combined energy/restmass and length within it's event horizon. Possible? --Tbeatty 07:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, no, if it's a black hole in one frame of reference, then it's a black hole in any frame of reference. Since the Earth isn't a black hole in its own rest frame, it also won't be a black hole in a frame of reference where the Earth is moving at 99.999999999% of the speed of light. --Reuben 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Centre of mass of the universe

Is there of a centre of mass of the universe, and if so is there anyting other significant about it. Would it be the basis of some special frame of reference, it being the centre of the universe? Thanks Stanstaple 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know, there's no center or center of mass of the universe. On large enough scales, all parts of the universe are pretty much equivalent. However, there is a special frame of reference, defined by the cosmic microwave background. It's actually one special frame of reference for each location in the universe, and you can stitch together all these local frames to make a global coordinate system. You can read about it in comoving distance. --Reuben 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But assuming there is a finite amount of matter (and hence mass?) in the universe, and that matter doesn't extend indefinetly in any direction, then surely there is a centre of mass. I only studied physics to secondary school level so anything beyond classical physics is beyond my ken. The question dawned on me when i read that the earth and moon were revolving around their common centre of mass and likewise the sun and earth and so on. I had started to believe there was no priveleged frame of reference when I (thought) realized that there was no place in the universe you could take to be more at rest or central than any other. Is there something I'm missing, or this there a centre to the universe? Thanks for the link Reuben, but it didn't seem to shed any light on what i was wondering. Stanstaple 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it isn't known whether there's only a finite amount of matter in the universe. But if there is, and if its distribution is uniform throughout the universe, then that implies that the global topology of the universe is a compact manifold (like, say, a 3-sphere). Well, "implies" might be too strong, but I can't think of another obvious possibility.

So by analogy, consider the surface of the Earth, and suppose it were completely covered by people at a uniform density. Then ask yourself where the center of population would be. --Trovatore 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The centre (as in the core)? [I'm being slightly sarcastic] Are you saying that the universe is curved, in the sense that if you head head in a literaly straight forward direction through space you could end up here? I can't believe i'm a flat universer, I should know better ;)

Well, again, this isn't known. That's the simplest possibility if the global curvature of the universe is positive. But it could also be negative (in which case the simplest model has infinite extent in all directions) or zero (in which case the universe is asymptotically flat, and again the simplest model is infinite in all directions). --Trovatore 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply but I don't really understand it. My limeted mental model of the universe is in 3 dimensions. Could you point me in the direction of how i could understand positive -v- negative global curvature. I would have thought, given big bang theory (and my simple understanding of) that there was a definite extent to which matter extended.

Well, this is the kind of thing for which direct observation is not available, but if we assume that the universe is pretty much the same wherever you are in it (I think this is called uniformitarianism; haven't looked at that link and don't know if it's helpful), then it's wrong to think of the big bang as a little dot that blew up into (pre-existing) empty space. If the inflaton was a little dot, then so, at that time, was the whole universe. On the other hand, if the universe is infinite (and uniformitarianism is correct), then it must contain infinitely much matter, and (presumably; I'm a little out of my depth here) the inflaton itself had infinite extent. --Trovatore 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a two dimensional model; a flat sheet universe. Has a center, if it's not infinite. However, imagine that flat sheet is actually the skin of a balloon. The "center" is not actually "within" the universe; and furthermore, as the balloon inflates, the universe expands, evenly, without being able to find a center to the expansion within the universe. Gzuckier 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lightning/sand/glass

Can a lightning strike generate sufficient heat to fuse sand into glass? DuncanHill 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're a reader of xkcd too? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but the X-Files are on TV, and Mulder says lightning can't do it. Struck me as an interesting question.DuncanHill 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yes—lightning can indeed fuse sand into glass; see fulgurite. Small ones are available for purchase from a number of web sources. (This is the first I ran across; it has some pretty pictures.) (after edit conflict) It looks like Mulder is full of it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Magnificent - thank you TenOfAllTrades. Mulder should use Wikipedia. DuncanHill 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're watching the same episode of X-files that I'm thinking of (had some kid receiving binary code through the TV), Mulder says that because the fused sand he notices doesn't resemble the spires of fulgurite, but is more of a solid mass. HYENASTE 23:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really watching, had it on in the background as I edited and cooked. The Brandenburg Concerto was involved at one point, as was a lake called something like obikenobe (I may have misheard that bit). DuncanHill 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the same one. Coincidentally, its the only episode I've seen in years. HYENASTE 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Boston Museum of Science has (had?) a very nice, quite large piece of fulgerite on display in their Thompson Electrical Theatre, right near the 2 megavolt Van de Graaff generator.

Atlant 11:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't this also happen in Planet of the Apes? Somehow I trust Planet of the Apes to be more scientifically accurate than X-files.

Lithium ion battery

What happens when I put an AA Li-ion battery (3.7volts each) into a camera designed for 1.2v AA Ni-MH battery? AA Li-ions aren't enormously popular, but available. I want to know what happens in practice: does it work, and are there any side effects (eg a battery explosion or depleted life).81.168.125.154 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you use a 3.7 volt battery in something designed for a 1.2 volt battery, you may well knacker the camera, and certainly invalidate your warranty. DuncanHill 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you have something claiming to be an AA battery, that's supplying 3.7 volts? That sounds like a tremendously bad idea for someone to have manufactured, and it really shouldn't be called an AA battery. --Steve Summit (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got one, but the web is swimming in them if you look - see, for example, http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1336. The reading around I did on it seemed to suggest that there used to be many safety hurdles which needed to be passed before they could be made at AA size. To me, it looks as though we're approaching that point. $3.30 is rather expensive for only one, but if they are relatively new technology, and Lions were always expensive anyway. 82.153.73.50 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Shows what I know. (I stand by my point that it was a tremendously bad idea, but alas, no one asked me. :-) )

In any case, DuncanHill is right, definitely don't use such a battery in a device designed for use with normal, 1.2 to 1.5 volt AA batteries. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: There are AA batteries that use some sort of lithium chemistry but still put out about the usual 1.6 volts. They apparently have greater capacity and lighter weight than ordinary "alkaline" batteries.

Atlant 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will check that out. Surely a 1.6v battery in a camera designed for 1.5 will make little difference. Are they rechargeable (and therefore, probably Lion?82.152.199.26 12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

can't find any atlant. Can you give the link to an example?82.152.199.26 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Google query "lithium AA battery" fairly quickly yielded http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx . I'm pretty sure this is the brand that came with my Apple wireless Mighty Mouse.

Atlant 15:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

YIKES! This does seem like an extraordinarily dumb battery design. They could have made it just a bit fatter or shorter or longer so that people wouldn't screw up their delicate electronics! But AA cells of different technologies have always been around that work between 1.2v and 1.6v and most devices are happy to work over that range without problems. The only device I've ever had trouble with was my Lego Mindstorms computer that didn't like me using six 1.2v NiCd's instead of six 1.5v alkalines - it worked fined with NiMH's. It mostly worked but was kinda intermittant. But as others have said - you DEFINITELY don't want to go sticking anything much over 1.6v per cell into a camera or anything else that's designed for a regular AA. SteveBaker 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't Panic! As I said, I think the battery chemistry was chosen to work out to a voltage compatible with the typical 1.6V alkaline battery.

Atlant 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Helps if you search for "lithium" rather than assuming all lithium based batteries are lions. That said, making them a slightly different size would actually have worked very well for safety... because no-one would be using them, given that nothing currently comes in double A and a bit size. Other than that, my question has been well and truely answered: not quite adviseable. Anyway, given that we are dealing with a camera (did I mention that?), which is a high drain device, I would expect it to cope better than some devices going A LITTLE over the limit.81.5.171.223 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that "lion" is an animal, as Li-ion would have two is. If you've been searching for "lion", you might want to try changing it to "li ion" or something. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I abbrev. bcos i cnt b bothrd 2 type it al out. Would something like this [2] go ok - I mean, are batteries like that supposed to replace two AA Alkalines or NiMH? I expect, even if it were 3.7v, it should go ok because if a 2x 1.6v batteries would be alright, it's not far behind a 3.7. The battery in question is a lithium ion, and not a lion or tiger, just to be sure :-) 81.5.171.223 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Um that battery is designed to replace a CR-V3 battery. It is similar to two AA batteries side by side but only certain camera's are capable of using CR-V3 batteries (usually in addition to AA). If you're camera is not designed to accepted CR-V3 batteries, they're unlikely to work (assuming it even fits, there's the issues of polarity and whether the contacts will even work with a CR-V3). However if your camera is designed to take CR-V3 batteries then RCR-V3 should work. BTW, you do realise excessive abbreviation is incredibly annoying and also hard to read right? I nearly didn't bother to reply because I couldn't be bothered to read your message. Generally speaking, if you are expecting help you should try and make your question easy to understand and read, not be lazy and expect others to do more work. Also, if you have been searching for lion because you're too lazy to type out li ion then be aware that you're unlikely to have much success Nil Einne 16:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I insulted, though I would rather not let this spiral into a dispute, which is nothing to do with the wikipedia reference desk anyway never mind batteries. But in my defense, I should say that "lion" was only one abbreviation, that in my response was simply a pun. Most of what I wrote has come with an effort in spelling, and so on. I am sure that reading the majority of my comments wasn't much more of an inconvenience than other peoples.--82.153.72.216 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)