Science desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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.

April 2[edit]

Angle[edit]

What angle does water make with a capillary tube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.123.209 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Contact angle my friend. Any trouble understanding, please come back here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.250.241 (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killer strangelets[edit]

What the problem with so-called "killer" strangelets here[1]? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that strange matter could convert all normal matter on the Earth into strange matter in a chain reaction, something like Ice-nine. See Strangelet#Dangers. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly does sound unpleasant. :-/ --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll really start to worry when 'they' decide to start exploring the potential military applications of strange matter chain reactions... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you panic, see Safety at the LHC — Kieff | Talk 02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a shout of "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and that's really what the lawsuit is (ostensibly) about—not so much saying it will happen as it is saying that "they said it won't happen, but we think they should take a more thorough look at it." (One could argue, as the CERN people no doubt do, that the lawsuit is just nonsense, and it may be. All I'm saying is, that's what they're saying on the face of it.) The basic argument of CERN is, "if it could have happened, it already would have happened", which is in some ways comforting and some ways not, though for my money I don't think there's going to be a problem. But I am not a physicist. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I get drunk every night and walk home down the white line in the middle of the road at night whilst wearing black - if I was going to get hit by a car, it would've happened by now". ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two solutions - (1) slap a warning label on it: "Caution: Use of this device may result in the destruction of the universe. Handle with care." or (2) Let them run the damn thing, and if it does kill us all then hit them with a class action. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs government think tanks when there's you guys, the think tins. I thank you. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last report I saw quoted the odds as 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Unfortunately I can't link because it's from a now-defunct article in the NZ Herald. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if someone has demonstrated that there *is* a chance that 'Something Very Bad That Cannot Be Undone' might happen when the machine is started up - then why are they still planning to do it? Will this experiment benefit humanity in any real sense - or does it basically boil down to "We want to poke it with a stick and see what it does"? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a careful look at that figure. Consider Orders of magnitude. Note that it is greater that the number of microseconds since the Big Bang. Assume that physicists would not spend billions of Euros on a whim and consider that they might have a reason, rather than giving a knee-jerk anti-science reaction. Consider reading about the Higgs boson and the LHC and the Standard Model. Think about the size of the number again. It's longer than the odds of winning the lottery jackpot five times out of five. I don't think you grasp how vanishingly small the chance is. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to sound 'anti-science'. I know very little of particle physics and my eyes tend to glaze over whenever I attempt to learn more about particle physics - even the links you have provided are scarily complex (heh, they should publish a 'Particle Physics for Dummies' book). I was attempting to question the practical benefits of these experiments - I personally don't believe that a risk (even an infinitesimally tiny risk) to all life on this planet can be justified for the sake of an experiment, if the end result will only be of interest to the practitioners of particle physics experiments themselves and people who read books about particle physics. My question, from a position of ignorance - if they carry this out and it works, what will the new knowledge enable us to do (in a real world sense) that we couldn't do before? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then you're asking science experiments to obey far, far, far stricter conditions than anything else. Just because you can put a number to the risk doesn't mean it's worth worrying about. As for what technological use the results will be, we don't know. Quite likely very little (at a moderately uneducated guess). As for what technological use the process of designing and building the experiment has been, I don't know, but I'm curious (see below). But if the results aren't what's expected then you could argue that particle physics and the Standard Model are broken. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable question. According to the laws of physics as we currently understand them, nothing bad will happen. Even if the LHC uncovers some new and unexpected physics, it is only creating events in a controlled way that happen naturally through cosmic ray interactions anyway, so it is still very unikely that anything bad will happen. However, the LHC will be operating at the boundary of known physics, so there is a very, very, very small chance that something bad will happen. But you can balance this very, very, very small risk against the possibility that a better and more complete understanding of particle physics could eventually lead to solutions to the very much greater dangers of global warming, destroying the ozone layer, running our of fossil fuels or being wiped out by a dinosaur killer. Poking things with sticks is what makes us human. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be a bit more polite than I was above... The UK regulatory body for nuclear power plants sets a limit of <10^-4 public deaths per year for one plant, and a target of 10^-6 (I believe these numbers are "handed down" from IAEA). Assuming 10^10 (10 billion) people on Earth and that the risk of 10^-40 applies for the first year of operation, that's a risk of 10^-30, a factor of 10^24 less than a roughly equivalent target. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you drive a car? I'm going to make a very conservative estimate/lower limit for the number of pedestrians a single car driver can be expected to kill within a year from now in one special way which is hardly avoidable (other than by not driving a car). Chances for getting unconscious without a warning (e. g. some neurological disorder not known to the person in question) within 1 year: 1 in 1 billion. Time spent in the car: 1/100 of the total time (less than 15 minutes a day). Fraction of the driving time when one has to break due to a pedestrian on a zebra crossing: 1/1000. Fraction of the cases of sudden unconsciousness in front of the passing pedestrian where the car actually hits and kill the pedestrian: 1/100. Expected casualties per year: 10^-16. That's more than 10¹⁴ times as much as from the estimate for LHC, and a very conservative estimate for one single well-behaving car driver. Icek (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anthropic principle basically says "the universe had to work out well for creating intelligent life; otherwise we wouldn't be here to discuss it". I hereby proclaim the misanthropic principle: "it doesn't matter if we wipe out all intelligent life, because we won't be here here to discuss it". :) --Sean 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large Hadron Collider#Safety concerns may be of interest Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low-gravity humans?[edit]

I'm reminded of this question by the recent news about the Virgle Project: Supposing that Mars is terraformed and permanent human settlements are established, what would be the physiological effect of the planet's low gravity on the generations of humans living there, having been gestated and raised there? Would they become taller and more gracile, as I read in some science fiction book? Would they be unable to walk on Earth? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes to all your theories. The effects of microgravity on physiology are quite real and detrimental to any return to full Earth gravity. Mars' .38g will, naturally, have less impact, but the impact will be nonetheless real. Note, however, that training could probably overcome the last (walk on Earth). — Lomn 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The colonists would certainly need to exercise more than those remained on Earth, to have the same physical strength. --V. Szabolcs (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent three years there on the Virgle pilot project. We were all fine when we came back. Franamax (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Fabric named "armalith" made from (or how its made), and what are the benefits of its use?[edit]

I saw a website that showed a video of some pants made from it with a person sliding on pavement and the "armalith" was very resistant to damage. The website is www.esquad-jeans.com

My google search had very little information and wiki had nothing.Nusaince (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The jeans are made entirely from a fabric called Armalith, which is claimed to be “the most resistant of all textiles” and is blend of cotton and high-tech fiber. The website doesn’t disclose the “high-tech fiber,” but the tag inside the jeans says its polyethylene -- yep, plastic. Probably an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (known as UHMWPE) that is so strong and elastic it has replaced Kevlar in bulletproof vests."[2] DMacks (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right [3] shows in a basixcally unreadable small text the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (known as UHMWPE) as the backbone of the blue denim fibers.--Stone (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the same weight, armalith is more resistant to abrasion than leather. The internet site features a video where we can see a biker falling at a rather high speed. Then when he stands up and displays is jeans to the camera there is barely any damage done to it. There is another video where a 4 tons Hummer is lifted by the jeans. The interesting fact about Armalith is that is looks and feels like plain denim.

Acetone combustion[edit]

What is the combustion equation for acetone in air? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Is this a homework question? The burning of a hydrocarbon or a compound containing only hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen will always produce carbon dioxide and water. [4] The chemical formula of acetone is CH₃COCH₃ and combustion in air always involves oxygen, so finding the equation should be easy. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No not homework, just curious about whether or not it could be used as a camp stove fuel or for that matter as an ICE fuel. 71.100.173.69 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Well, complete combustion will always produce... But incomplete combustion can produce all sorts of weird things (most notably including carbon monoxide).

Atlant (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of using acetone for stove use, as it is very volatile, as the whole stove heats up the acetone will boil rapidly and flames will combust out of control. The acetone will boil over and you will then get a fire ball. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely acetone is not as volatile, as say, propane, which gasifies almost instantly at standard temperature and pressure? In any case, when dealing with fuel, use necessary caution. Nimur (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe - Solar Heating System - for homes[edit]

I want to make a cheap solar heating system for homes using pipes only and a pump motor that circulates the water which is all connected to a geyser. The pipes will be connected in parallel like a big web and sit on the roof. What kind of pipe would be suitable, what kind of plastic? Does it have to be weather proof and high pressure and able to take high temperatures? Is copper pipe better, maybe with a black plastic coating on the outside? What length of pipe would be effective? I want to help the poor who cant afford normal solar panel or tube heating systems and I also want to help combat global warming. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.

--CrypticApple (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confused me when you mentioned a "geyser", so I'll ignore that. I would think clear plastic pipes would be most effective, with some dye added to the water to make it absorb heat from sunlight. You would want the pipes to be flattened so they can absorb as much sunlight as possible. Special outdoor plastic must be used so it won't deteriorate when exposed to UV light. One potential problem is that the water could freeze in cold weather and burst the pipes. Some type of antifreeze would need to be added to prevent this. Since you're concerned about the environment, I'd suggest a nontoxic antifreeze. You still have the problem of how to power the pump. Solar panels could work for this. Another approach is to make the pump child-powered. In Africa they have child-powered water pumps that are hooked up to merry-go-rounds. This allows the excess energy children have to be put to good use. I wouldn't expect the pipes to get to boiling temperature, and there are many plastics that can take those temps and pressures. Copper would be a poor choice on the roof because it would radiate heat. However, it might be a good inside choice, although it's relatively expensive. Some type of sealed radiators could also be used. (They must be sealed as you wouldn't want the antifreeze leaking inside the house.) One big flaw is that there is no sunlight at night when the heat is needed the most, especially in winter. This would require a storage tank to store the heated water until night. The children's merry-go-round could lift the heated water into a water tower at night, then gravity could allow it to flow through the house into a lower tank at night. StuRat (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key characteristics I'd look for in my piping is the ability to resist solar radiation over the years. For example, in the US, "Schedule 40" PVC piping would be an awful choice because it rapidly becomes brittle when exposed to the sun. (Plus, of course, it's white, so maybe if it were painted black...) Clear piping sounds like a poor idea to me as well because clear liquid in clear piping wouldn't absorb much heat. You might want to see our article on solar collectors (although it's pretty scant).

Atlant (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and that would be why I suggesting adding dye to the water. That way all the heat is generated directly in the water, versus on the outside surface of the pipe, from which only a portion would find it's way inside the pipe, while most would radiate back into the air. This is especially true of plastic pipes, since they don't transfer heat well. That's a good quality once the heat is inside the pipe and you want to keep it there, but it's a bad thing if the heat is outside and you want to let it in. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth reading Solar hot water. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though water is mostly transparent to visible light, it's a pretty good absorber in the medium-wavelength infrared range, which is where much of the sun's energy lies. I don't expect that dye would have much of an effect. jeﬀjon (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read somwhere that in places like Isreal they use ponds with a freah water layer and a salt water layer beneath. The reash water layer acts as insulation while the salt water absorbs heat. Salt might work in place of a die. I know for sure that chromium oxide will. 71.100.173.69 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Well, that might work with several feet of water, but with only a few inches in a pipe you'd need to make it more absorbent of sunlight. Enough dark dye to make it opaque at all frequencies would do the job nicely. StuRat (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exercising while taking human growth hormone supplements[edit]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

You should speak to your pharmacist or the prescribing physician about the effects of any medication or supplement on your health and activities. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreak[edit]

My heart is completely broken and I cannot function because my other half does not want to be with me anymore. We have been together for several years. It feels like I am dying inside and food tastes like sawdust. What, if any at all, are there any benefits for a human to endure this? Is there some sort of biological benefit to this?--Jonasmanohar (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all food tastes like sawdust, then it becomes easier to eat more healthy-yet-tasteless food instead of delicious-yet-nutritionally-vapid food. I'd call that a biological benefit. — Lomn 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious evolutionary advantage occurs to me for the downside of intimate relationships. However you probably can't have the good without putting up with the bad, and the usefulness of a pair bond should be fairly apparent from a biological perspective. Friday (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your somewhat correct except that the downside is part of the evolutionary advantage. The emotional attachment between two people in a relationship is part of what keeps them together in a happy, stable relationship best suited for raising offspring. If they did not form this emotional attachment, or it was somehow possible to form an emotional attachment without feeling bad when it breaks up, it just wouldn't work as well. Either way, there would be far less to hold the relationship together Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your other half is in fact your conjoined twin, we can't give you medical advice beyond saying that you should see a doctor immediately. Ben Carson's good. --Sean 69.134.209.199 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several evolutionary approaches to depression, not that I'm diagnosing you or anything...That page gives a few theories as to why it's not easy to be happy. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are absolutely not permitted to provide any counseling or medical advice at Wikipedia Reference Desk. Anyone seeking counseling would be far better served by consulting his physician. Edison (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the questioner is obviously looking for someone to allow them to say "well, I may be sad but at least there's an evolutionary explanation!" Couldn't the anticipated pain from the severence of a "pair bond" be an additional motivation to maintain such a bond? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are social creatures by nature, which is a fantastic survival trait. Having that social bond broken is distressing, and (speculating here) encourages the individual to find new social bonds. A lone individual in the wild is less likely to survive than one in a group, even a group of two. There's also some studies that animals with higher brain functions are mentally harmed by a lack of interaction with others, such as parrots plucking out their own feathers and other forms of self-mutilation. Without going into medical advice, that's the main evolutionary functions I can think of. -- Kesh (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

analysis of acidic and basic radicals[edit]

i am a student of chemical engineering... is wanted to ask what should be the correct procedure to carry out analysis of acidic and basic radicals??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjay88 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consultancy companies and engineering graduates[edit]

i am a engineering student and aspire to get placed into a good consultancy firm....i wanted to know what is the criteria for selection of engineering graduates in a consultancy firm?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjay88 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have hired graduates in the past, but not for chemical engineering. The basic thing of course is their accademic results in detail. Not just whether they got their degree, but whether they got High Distinctions instead of just scraped passes. The second aspect is interest, whether the applicant is really showing interest in the job (or something like it) or will take any job. Othere important thng will be how well the applicant can write - sounds like it will be relevant for consulting, so have some good examples of your written work. Some referees would be good too, in order to tell how dilligent the worker is, and whether they are punctual, or have emotional problems. Any kind of work history at this point is relevant too, even for some job nothing to do with the new one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]