Science desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 18[edit]

elements most similar to iron chemically[edit]

Would ruthenium or nickel be pretty similar chemically? It says that nickel doesnt rust as easily, so maybe not as far as oxygen is concerned—Actually i’m wondering what atoms could accidentally replace iron in hemoglobin if any, and thereby cause health problems.Rich (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could not tell you why neither of those metals are used as oxygen carriers, but the second most common biological oxygen-carrying metal after iron is copper, as in hemocyanin. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In order to functionally take the place of iron in hemoglobin, an element would need to have both a similar atomic radius and a similar coordination number so that it would "fit" into the hole that iron is taking up. In general, the problem is not in iron being replaced in hemoglobin, but rather the oxygen. Carbon monoxide (CO) molecules have similar sizes and shapes, and orbital orientations to dioxygen (O2), and forms stronger bonds to the iron atom than does the O2, so it will tend to block O2 from bonding to the iron; which is how it kills you. --Jayron 32 12:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i don’t think that is relevant.Rich (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt and nickel are pretty close: they are the other two members of the iron triad. And indeed, there is such a thing as coboglobin. Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1021/bk-1986-0321.ch016 is about nickel–hemoglobin. I don't have full access to read it, but it appears to be discussing more physical-chemistry details rather than at the level of possible oxygen-transport ability. DMacks (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1016/S0006-291X(74)80185-3 is about manganese–hemoglobin (Mn is one to the left of Fe, so a bit larger and not part of the iron triad, but still redox-active). And doi:10.1021/bi00447a050 is about ruthenium/iron-hybrid hemoglobins (Ru is one below Fe, so noticably larger and the higher principle quantum number of the valence orbitals likely affects some of its bonding). That ref discusses differences in O2 binding. DMacks (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Very late, but regarding oxygen carriers: Vaska's complex reversibly binds not only O₂, but also H₂. Double sharp (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Bunch of things do bind H2 (not my area of chemistry though). I was going to say "and iridium isn't relevant to hemoglobin either", but turns out iridium–porphyrin enzymes have been engineered (doi:DOI 10.1038/s41557-021-00801-3). DMacks (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life mist from Stephen King[edit]

Inspired by watching The Mist movie and the series of the same name, do you guys think it's possible for the kind of mist seen in Stephen King's novel could happen in real-life in which strolling through the mist is dangerous either because there are monsters in them (as seen in the movie) or the mist itself that would take the life force out of the body (as seen in the series)? Planet Star 08:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Brexit is more likely to "take the life force out of the body" than mist. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My job takes the life force out of my body. But I have coffee before and beer afterwards; that seems to help. --Jayron 32 11:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, sounds great. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC) right on, Jayron. It was the great Jimbo Marx, wasn't it, who said, all those years ago, "Wikipedia is the opium of the masses"?[reply]

How can an adult like PlanetStar be so confused about the nature of fiction, and not know that reality does not include monsters or "life forces"? Was his account hijacked by a troll?--Lgriot (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a troll. I know nothing about PlanetStar but could he/she have kids using the computer? -- Q Chris (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a troll or hacking. See the response from this user on their talk page under the title "Reference desk" about a similar nonsense question posted 3 years ago. Richerman (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the one who keeps asking about SVU episodes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing which Stephen King describes is possible. That's his style: everything in there – even if not obvious from the beginning – is based on something utterly outside human knowledge and experience. The Shining could be a story of psychological disintegration, but King bases it on something supernatural. The Stand could be a post-apocalyptic tale of bioweapons, but it turns into Milton. Misery is perhaps his only novel that has nothing weirder in it than humanity itself. But this means that King's scenarios can't be analysed. You can't look for the cryptozoology of Stephen King when it's impossible by design. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes the great Milton. He could knock out a damn good supernatural horror sofa-gripper. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richerman that I wasn't trolling or being hacked. I'm being cool. I get inspired to ask even an outlandish question and have discussion about it. I'm well aware that such a possibility of that happening is extremely slim, if not zero. If it doesn't happen on Earth, it could happen on another world that have advanced civilization. In the movie The Mist, the military operation went wrong that they opened the interdimensional portal to let monsters along the mist into the main realm. Physicists suspect there are other dimensions, and some believe that another dimension can be accessed through portals (see interdimensional being). There are all sorts of secret military operations going on around the world. Many operations could come with just as many kinds of accident as a result, some could be the kind that could right now be only generally be talked about it in fiction. One example is cloning, which if they did something wrong could result in a monster that could attack or kill people. Planet Star 02:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. In her short seven years, I believe that Dolly exercised a brutal "reign of terror" across the uplands of Midlothian. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strolling through poison gas will take the life force from your body. Monsters aren't likely to survive in it very well either, unless you are willing to accept microbial extremophiles as your monsters.-gadfium 05:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A classic trope in science fiction is the chlorine-breathing alien monster, or even the silicon-based lifeform. They'd both be equally inconvenienced by our levels of oxygen. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only silicon-based lifeform can imaginably exist, but it's scientifically theoretical. Such a lifeform could exist on Saturn's moon Titan (see life on Titan). Planet Star 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washing machines[edit]

Do washing machines typically revolve clockwise or anti-clockwise? Or does this depend on whether you're in the Southern or Northern hemisphere? 86.187.233.217 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, neither. To prevent the laundry from tangling spirally on itself, the rotation direction alternates every few rounds. I once had a drier that was engineered by some half-wits that didn't used this tried-and-true method. It tangled bedsheets to the point I had to throw them away. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that in this big world different designs of washing machine are likely to be common in different parts. In particular some places have strong preference for the more efficient front-loading design (which may have glass in the door so you can see how it rotates) but in North America the simpler top-loading design is also common (and I've never seen one with glass in the lid, but if you open it during the spin cycle, you can see which way it's turning). Likewise, in some places the same machine is commonly both a washer and a dryer. I can say that (unlike the preference of אילן שמעוני) I've never owned a tumble dryer, or seen one in a laundromat, that did not turn in a single direction. My current dryer, and my current top-loading washing machine, both turn clockwise as seen by a person using the machine. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. Now the only culprit I could think of is refuted. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article link: Washing machine. Our top-loader has a glass lid. It's a newer model without an agitator, so just the bucket spins, and it does all kinds of fancy wiggling back and forth. Really great machine; I highly recommend it. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, top loaders have all sorts of advantages:

1) Simpler design, less prone to failure.

2) No large flexible rubber gasket required to prevent leaks out a front door. These tend to trap dirty water, which then turns foul.

3) Less likely to leak on floor.

4) More flexible in terms of adding and removing clothes without draining water. Useful when you discover you forgot something a few minutes in.

5) Safer for toddlers, as they can't get locked inside while playing with them. Even if they can get to the top door, it's only held shut by gravity, and isn't air tight.

6) Can be better for those with bad backs, as less bending is required. (Or the front-loader can be put up on a base, but that's rarely done, as it could fall off. You'd need to bolt it to the base, and bolt the base to the floor.) SinisterLefty (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if you have a top-loader, you can't stack the washer and dryer, which is an extremely popular thing to do in the UK. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although maybe not at night time? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Toploader refers to the way ammunition is loaded into a 7.62mm heavy machine gun used by the British Army." (not from a reliable source) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, what a let down. So they're not named after a washing machine.... unlike that other famous rock musician Jimi Bendox. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That machine actually has an electrically-operated door lock that locks it during the cycle. I think it's because the drum can rotate at high speeds, and water splashes quite a bit when it's running, which is likely necessary because it's a High Efficiency machine without an agitator. You can open it during a cycle, but you have to pause it using the controls. There is a child lock feature to prevent children from operating the controls, and the machine has a weight sensor, but the manual does still warn children can get trapped in the machine. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the LG 5.2 cu. ft. Mega Capacity Top Load Washer with TurboWash® Technology, unit, which is now discontinued anyway? I guess the original question here really applies only to the final spin - and for upright machines, the choice is still between clockwise and anti-clockwise (when viewed from above)? How and why do manufacturers decide? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civil engineering accidents[edit]

Worldwide, is it common for individual civil engineers to be sentenced to prison when people die or bare injured as a result of engineering related accidents? 90.194.57.188 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were you including blocks of flats with flammable exterior cladding? In such cases it seems to be more likely that the "Tenant Management Organisation" might be held to be criminally responsible, i.e. not even the local Authority, let alone the civil engineers who built the property. Sorry to focus on such a specific example. I guess many bridges fall down. Many buildings collapse. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel there were three such cases that reached headlines. A bridge under construction that collapsed on the motorway killing 3. A pedestrian bridge that crumbled under the feet of athletes, killing 4, and the collapse of a dance floor that killed 23. In all cases the engineers that ratified the work plans were sentenced to several years in prison, as well as compensating the families. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very old legal concept known as gross negligence (see also negligent homicide), which is related to the concept duty of care. Basically, if you know that what you are doing could kill someone if you screw it up, and you fail to take reasonable measures to prevent that, you could be in a whole heap of trouble. Even Hammurabi's code contained laws regarding the liability of a builder to the victims of a collapsed building. In modern jurisprudence, though it of course varies by location, the negligence is really key. The fact that someone died or was injured is a component of the crime, but guilt hinges on how reckless the responsible person was. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t it be the case that in many situations, it would have been a system failure or pressure from the company management though? Clover345 (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In two of the cases I described it was sheer neglect. The engineer has a duty, by law, to oversee the construction and force it to be as planned, In the pedestrian bridge collapse the engineer didn't do that. The overpass disaster was, just as you said, due to constructors rushing the work, bringing pre-built sections that had not enough time to fully cure, plus planning on the assumption that the support beams would only suffer vertical load. The last case, the dance floor collapse, went far deeper than that. An engineer pushed his own invention technology into the market, hailing it as cheaper , faster to build an just-as-safe. It turned out his patent documents were heavily edited to cover basic flows. This became a problem because all of a sudden it turned out hundreds of buildings are to be promptly evacuated and condemned. This was beyond negligence. אילן שמעוני (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To go further, it depends on the relationship between the construction and the engineer. If an engineer is hired to design or plan a construction, but his job is done before it even breaks ground, his duty of care may end at taking appropriate measures to ensure the plan is safe. He might bear no responsibility for a separate contractor entity messing things up. However, if an engineering firm is hired to manage the construction as well as plan it, then even if they subcontract the construction work itself, they owe some degree of duty to their client and to bystanders to actually monitor the work that is being done. You can arrive at a situation where several people are civilly or criminally liable despite playing different roles in a multiple-failure scenario. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in the former who was to blame? Clover345 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases projects and leading Experts are insured and naturally the insurance will try hard to blame anyone they can to avoid having to pay for damage. "Independent" Experts will be used to survey the case and put the blame on someone, so it often ends up in a complicated settlement or goes on until one party gives up. --Kharon (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Who is to blame in any given case could depend on the wording of the contract. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another opinion:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could, yes. If the contract dictates whose responsibility it is to check for this, that or the other thing, certainly. But mostly that will impact the determination of whether a defendant should have known of a given danger. However, if it is not in dispute that the defendant did know of a given danger, it may not matter whether it was his job to know. The contract might impact liability of one contracting party to another in that case, but you cannot indemnify a business partner from liability where either statute or common law establishes a duty of care regarding known and foreseeable danger. For example, if you sign a contract that states your employer accepts all liability for your own behavior, even if reckless, you cannot use that contract to stop criminal or civil proceedings against yourself arising from your own recklessness. "But it wasn't my job to warn anyone" could get rejected by a court, especially if you are a member of a professional organization bound by a code of ethics. You might be able to use that contract to recover from your employer any penalties you are forced to pay, although that contract provision may be declared unenforceable by a court as against the public interest. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]