Science desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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 14

Animal beers?

From Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch):

Budweiser and Bud Light are vegan beers, in that their ingredients and conditioning do not use animal by-products.

One simple question: How and why a beer brewer would use animal ingredients in their beers? -- Toytoy 02:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finings are added to beer to clarify it. Finings can be made from animal by-products, such as fish bladders, (which show up in the list of ingredients as isinglass), and most include animal proteins. Vegetarian beers use other fining agents, such as Irish moss. Animal oils are sometimes used as lubricants in beer manufacture. Honey is sometimes used as a sweetener or source of fermentable sugar. You can find a list of vegetarian beers here - Nunh-huh 03:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beeradvocate has a list of animal products possibly found in beer (the ones mentioned by Nunh-huh, plus a few more, such as coloring agents, anti-foaming and heading agents as well as sugar-whiteners) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had several beers that tasted like fish bladders, now I know why. :-) StuRat 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tick Beer. anonymous6494 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered why beer tastes like fish xx( --Lerdthenerd 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health exam

What is the name of the "turn your head back and cough" test in a health examination? I read it before and now I forget. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hernia exam ? StuRat 03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It checks for hernias and tumors, but was it called a hernia exam? ~~Hmm, I've forgotten myself.~~ Appearently, it is a hernia exam. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone Levels

If you have two people of the same age, and one is more hairy all around the body and has thicker and darker hairs, does that mean he probably has higher testosterone levels?

Also, does an enlarged prostate only occur in older men with high testosterone levels or can it also occur in older men with low testosterone levels also? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.136.84 (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding the first question, it is not possible to say for sure - because there are so many other factors that could have an effect on ones' level of hirsuitism. However, all other things being equal, higher testosterone levels would probably result in more, thicker body hair.

Regarding your second question, its is thought that prostate enlargement (or benign prostatic hyperplasia) is more influenced by oestrogen levels that testosterone levels. See here for more details. Rockpocket 04:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin turning black and scaly?

I was wondering, which diseases causes skin to turn black and scaly? --Shines8 05:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frostbite and gangrene? Nimur 06:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Shines8 08:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The medical term for such an affliction is eschar. ^tucker/_rekcut 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, eschar is an interesting article. --Shines8 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clonazepam & Caffiene

I was wondering, does the drug Caffiene's pharmacology indicate it with stopping the pharmacology of Clonazepam? Is it possible? --Shines8 05:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but if you're taking Clonazepam and are worried about potential drug interactions, you should consult your doctor. These links suggest there may be an interaction [1],[2] & [3] Nil Einne 08:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is I am not worried or anything just curious. Thanks for your reply. In the last link, (I liked that link out of all 3, as it goes into more detail) it relates to a study:

The administration of drugs with anxiolytic action to rehydrating rats augments the intake of 1.5% NaCl solution. In order to clarify the status of caffeine as an anxiolytic agent and its possible interaction with a benzodiazepine having high potency and efficacy in this regard, caffeine (0.78-100 mg/kg) alone and caffeine (0.78-50 mg/kg) plus clonazepam (0.05 or 0.50 mg/kg) injections (IP) were administered to rehydrating rats prior to 1-hr sessions during which they drank 1.5% NaCl solution. When given alone, caffeine, within a particular dose range, and clonazepam at both doses, augmented NaCl solution intake, but when administered in combination, caffeine antagonized the effects of clonazepam.

So what do you think? It states caffeine antagonized the effects of clonazepam. An then earlier it stated that they were looking if caffeine is an anxiolytic. --Shines8 08:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the actual articles? Unfortunately I don't currently have access to journals so I haven't myself Nil Einne 09:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't read the articles, just the abstract as I do not have money to register for viewing the full article. --Shines8 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article of mapping of bacteriophage genome & phage phenotype

please send me an article related to above topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.112.198 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

bacteriophage genome & phage phenotype. bacteriophage. genome. phage. phenotype. --Shines8 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Costa Rican lizard

(Question reposted at askers request--VectorPotential^Talk 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I recently took a trip to Costa Rica and got a shot of this lizard one morning. I'd like it to be used in some article, so does anyone know what it could be. FYI, the lizard was seen at a beach resort in Guanacaste at 8:something AM local time. - AMP'd 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say look here but unfortunately it doesn't even look remotely like a compsognathus :) Brammers 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it cant be a compsognathus, they're extinct! it might be an iguana? no too small i dont know what it is.--Lerdthenerd 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deciduous Forests

Background: The recent very warm weather, followed by two freezing days, caused our forest trees that were leafing to have their foliage curl up and turn black.

Question: Will those trees leaf out again this year? Will they die? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.54.235.58 (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would expect them to sprout more leaves when it turns warm again and do just fine. Trees have a rather substantial energy reserve and can typically afford to lose one set of leaves without much damage. Think of it like you getting a sunburn and having your skin peel. StuRat 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I get the impression that some trees, at least, form one set of leaf buds in the late winter and then sprout them all when (the tree thinks) Spring is here. So if the tree miscalculates and loses that set of leaves to an unexpected freeze, it could be in for a pretty bad year. But yes, StuRat is correct, trees do have substantial energy reserves, and might well be able to tolerate an entire leafless year (or perhaps 2-3 years in a row), with drastically reduced photosynthetic capability, simply trying again with a new set of leaves next year. Only after several such years in a row might the tree start dying. (But this is underinformed speculation on my part, so I'd welcome a more substantial answer from a knowledgeable botanist or arborist.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One way to answer this question would be to look in a farmer's almanac for when the last similar late frost occurred, and if you see any of the trees in question that are older than that, then clearly some of them can survive it. --TotoBaggins 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Numbers

How many Quantum Numbers are necessary to specify an electrons position in an atom, and what does each of the numbers actually mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.191.88 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 April 2007

Quantum number may help you. Dismas|^(talk) 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, that the analysis in that article is an approximation, that is only valid in hydrogen and to a lesser extend alkali metals. To describe the position of an electron in the conduction band of a metal you need literally billions of quantum numbers.

In other words, you probably can use a more specific theory, rather than try to apply the "general case," which becomes unwieldy for some situations Nimur 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy in a Microwave Oven: Where Does It Go?

In a microwave oven, how much of the energy radiated by the magnetron is actually absorbed by the food? Also, is the amount of energy absorbed by the food different depending on the quantity of a same food in the oven (like more or less water in a glass)? If not all the energy is absorbed by the food, where does it go?--JLdesAlpins 14:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your question are contained in the "Efficiency" section of Microwave Oven. --bmk

Microwave Oven#Efficiency only talks about the efficiency in creating microwaves, not what happens to them afterwards. Nearly all microwaves are absorbed by the food, yes. If you put less food in it, that food absorbs proportionally more heat. This means you need to lower the time or power level on low quantities of food or risk burning it. I don't quite understand where the energy goes when there is no food, however. It must go into the glass tray and microwave housing, I imagine. StuRat 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any energy not absorbed by the food gets reflected back to where it came from: the magnetron. If the energy is not diverted by a circulator or isolator to a load, then it goes right back to the anode of the magnetron, which it proceeds to heat up rather rapidly. If this energy is too great, the magnetron will be destroyed. Moral: always make sure you have something in your cavity! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.109.89 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, this is why you never run a microwave without something in it, even just a glass of water if need be. --24.147.86.187 19:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But be very careful not to put metallic objects (cutlery, metal trays etc) in a microwave. JackofOz 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a treshold of reflected energy above which damages to the microwave oven unit can occur, how come then there are no sensors of some sort--say a kind of fuse--that stop the unit when needed?--JLdesAlpins 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some microwave oven manufacturers put thermal cutouts on the magnetron heatsink. You could easily find out if your manufacturer does this by leaving it on full power with no load inside. If it turns off and still works when you turn it back on, you have a cut out. If not- you buy a new microwave oven.

Uh oh -- do you perhaps share Calvin's father's theories on highway bridge building,too? :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok. I could have said; you take the top off the microwave oven (making sure its switched off) and dissassemble the area housing the magnetron. Then you look at the magnetreon heat sink and look for something that looks like a bimetallic sensor or a picotemp thermal fuse. Would that have been better? :-)_ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.3.93 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

StuRat i have done this i was wondering the effects of what would happen so i just placed 5 mins on the micro and left it alone. when i came back the rotation thing was all burnt up and when i opened the micro door it just bursted into flames (closed the door and the flames went out) but needless to say keep something in the micro at all times!! User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 02:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now why did you do that, weren't there enough warnings not to do that here ? StuRat 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unfortanitly wikipeida did not exsist to warn me of such things 7 years ago =P User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 02:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clean oven shouldnt have burst into flames. This was probably because of the inevitable small amounts of fat and grease deposited on the walls of the cavity. I believe fat absorbs microwaves very well. I had my microwave go on fire not long ago. But that was due to me turning on the infra red grill inside. THis ignited the fat deposits on the roof of the cavity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.28.251 (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See S-parameters for the mathematics that are usually employed. an empty cavity is the equivalent of an open circuit. I believe that a microwave oven only excites TE modes in the cavity ( a lot of them which prevents standing waves and "hot spots"). --Tbeatty 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction Rates/pH question

I need help with a reaction rate problem. Can someone point me in the right direction? It is as follows:

 2N₂H₄ + N₂O₄ --> 3N₂ + 4 H₂O

If N₂H₄ disappears at a rate of 0.12 mol*L*min, at what rate does N₂ appear?

Thanks for your help. --Sturgeonman 15:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First calculate the molecular weights for N₂H₄ and N₂. Do you know how to do that ? Then it becomes a simple ratio problem. StuRat 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the rate is given in terms of moles, not grams, you don't even need to know the molecular masses, just do the ratios directly. However, the unit "mol*L*min" doesn't make sense to me, shouldn't it be "mol/min" ? StuRat 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rate should be in mol/L/min or M/min. Fo63 04:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I get it now. You're right about the units; it should be M/min, but the worksheet I'm doing is poorly written. -- Sturgeonman 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more question, regarding pH's of solutions:

How would I find the pH of a 0.20 M HA solution (K_a 1.0 * 10^-6) that contains 0.40 M NaA?. The answer is 6.30, but can someone show me the process? Thanks again. -- Sturgeonman 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HA= H+ + A- (0.2) 0 0 (0.2-x) x x+0.4

You should know how to proceed from hereBastard Soap 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Food - deutrosulfazyme

What is actual mechanism of action of deutrosulfzyme? What are the benefits of using it? What are the references if it really works? How can I get in touch with somebody who has specific experience with Cell Food products? Personally, I am using the drops for the last 15 days and feel relatively good. I have lot of energy and I cannot be sure if Cell Food has anything to do with it. Please join me with any of your comments / experiences. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klimbek (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Looking at the first Google hit for deutrosulfazyme (note spelling), I find this site, which is a mix of badly-abused jargon, inaccurate analogies, and plain bollocks. I'm looking for useful references now. As to how it works, I have a sneaking suspicion that our article on the placebo effect will be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about "Clinical observations on the nutritional efficacy of Deutrosulfazyme...", I agree. That's not a scientific study, it's an ad designed to trick people into thinking it's a study. That kind of crap should be illegal. I wouldn't buy anything from a company which is intentionally deceptive to that extent. StuRat 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Further analysis, as promised.) PubMed returns no hits on Cellfood, deutrosulfazyme, or any likely variants on the spellings. In other words, it is very unlikely that there is any peer-reviewed research to support this stuff being good for anything. I also note that in the United States it is sold as a 'supplement' rather than as a 'drug'; the dubious distinction being that supplements are not required to demonstrate efficacy.

The company that manufactures it – NuScience Corp – has a number of 'research' reports on its website, here. On the bright side, it appears that the stuff probably won't hurt you (its LD50 is above 5000 mg/kg, see report), it probably won't do any good. There are two reports that attempt to look at patient performance. The free radical study is a page-and-a-half long, most of that is introduction. It purports to show that Cellfood reduces free radicals in the blood, however the experiment included no no-treatment or sham-treatment (placebo) controls.

The longer study, nominally conducted by the University of Pretoria's Sport Institute, was not peer-reviewed or published. ~~Frankly, it has the look of an undergraduate fourth-year project.~~ While this study at least includes placebo treatment, none of the figures includes any sort of margin for error. You have to look in the data tables at the very back to see what the error bars should be—and frankly, they're not good. I'd need to borrow a statistician and their raw data to do a proper job of it, but the vast bulk of their conclusions seem to be based on random fluctuations in their noise giving rise to spurious 'trends'. (A mean ferritin concentration of 133.5 plus or minus a standard deviation of 131.3? What do you want to bet that there are a couple of noisy outliers skewing that datum....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my statement about the study looking like a fourth-year undergrad project. On reflection, I believe that most fourth-year science undergrads should, frankly, know better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a highly edited copy of H. Nolte's master paper funded by Nu Science, "Efficacy of Cellfood and Switch as Ergogenic Aids in Edurance Athletes". Switch is Cellfood with citrin K and L-Carnitine. Nolte's paper can be found at www.upetd.up.ac.za/available/etd-10242005-101659/. Chapter 5 (conclusions and recommendations) states placebo was BETTER than cellfood for Hb, hematocrit, stats and HR. Cellfood WAS NOT significantly better than placebo for ALL OTHER MEASUREMENTS. 122.108.9.172 (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous question about damage to decidious forest

Lost the thread discussion of my computer. Want to get back on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.54.235.58 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's a bit further back up the page, here. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bromine Stuff

I'm trying to make up a theoretical method for creating bromoform, without having access to pure bromine. The article haloform reaction shows that a haloform can be made by reacting a methyl ketone with a halogen in basic conditions.

To create the bromine, a solution of sodium bromide (NaBr) can be electrolysized to get bromine, hydrogen, and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The hydrogen gas would be released, and the bromine and sodium hydroxide would be the halogen and base required to react with a methyl ketone, such as acetone. Theoretically at this point acetone can be added and bromoform will be made.

This article says that bromine in water creates hypobromous acid (HOBr) and hydrobromic acid (HBr). Thus, the HBr might react with NaOH to form NaBr which is the starting point. There will also be bromite (^-OBr) ions from the hypobormus acid. These can theoretically be the ions that react with the methyl ketone. My question is: since there is a chance that the NaOH will be reverted back to NaBr by HBr, is there a chance to create bromoform from this reaction mixture? --Russoc4 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

battery farms and global warming

hi, I've just read some chicken guys response to critics of battery farming chickens (in the UK). Anyway, he said that organic chicken take twice as long to grow (perhaps a good thing?) and that they have 50% more global warming potential - what, if anything, does this mean? How does the ability of a chicken to access fresh air (amongst other things) effect significantly its greenhouse gas emissions? Your thoughts please!87.194.21.177 19:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think chicken manure produces methane, like most livestock manure, but I don't quite see why factory farmed chickens would produce less of it. Perhaps it is just easier to contain? I don't know. Sounds pretty spurious to me, though — an attempt to grasp at straws, and an attempt to somehow tie in something as environmentally unsound as factory farming to a semi-environmental cause. --24.147.86.187 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that gets me pretty skeptical. 50% slower aging? (maybe we should try that technique with humans?) Less waste? (maybe we should try that technique with humans?) Kinda crazy. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?)  ❖ 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could buy that chickens in cages with nothing to do but eat might put on weight twice as quickly, allowing them to reach a suitable size for slaughter in half the time, therefore producing half as much methane. I don't think that's a very strong argument against organic chicken farming, however. StuRat 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess the difference in growth rate is steroids. As for the 50% increase in global warming potential, I would tend to agree. But remember it's 50% more for the contribution taht a chicken makes. Also, keep in mind that organic farming generally consumes more resources to produce and therefore is why it's more expensive. If it consumed less land/food/water, there would only be organic farms. Rminds me of the commercial organic farms that can't use chemicals to kill gophers. So they use explosives. Straight out of Caddyshack. True story. --Tbeatty 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, organic food does cost a lot more than "normal" food in energy costs. Reminds me of the oil in your oatmeal. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?)  ❖ 08:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you'd have to factor in more than the energy costs to know the relative environmental impacts. Factory farms are notorious for the amount of waste they produce of all sorts, much less all of their other public-health issues. Taking a narrow view doesn't tell you much. (I'm not committed one way or another for or against it, but the logic is sloppy in any case.) --24.147.86.187 12:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about global warming impact. I suspect that the majority of global warming impact of farms has to do with the burning of fossil fuels. A secondary impact might be release of methane both from petroleum fertilizer processing for commercial farms and manure from organic famrs. In any case, I would suspect that cost of the product is dominated by energy consumption, and to a first order, it's the direct contribution to global warming. --Tbeatty 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem at all surprising to me. A chicken that doesn't get any exercise whatever and has nothing to do but eat - and which is fed a carefully metered diet that's designed for optimum growth - will turn into a couch-potato and may well reach saleable weight at half the age of one that can walk around, amuse itself in other ways, and gets a more 'normal' diet. Keeping chickens obviously requires light, heat and foodstuffs that take energy to produce - so clearly more energy goes into keeping a chicken for longer. More energy pretty much certainly means more global warming - so yes, I have no trouble whatever believing that intensive 'factory farming' of chickens is somehow better for the environment than raising free-range birds. Not so good for the chicken of course - and perhaps not so good for the humans who eat them...but that's not what's being asked here. SteveBaker 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about just their cellular respiration? If they live twice as long (all other factors being equal) wouldn't they make twice as much CO2 from the O2 they breath in? If the longer-lived chickens are more active than there short-live couch-potato cousins then it seems the effect would multiply. Johntex\^talk 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairlessness

What congenital or genetic disorders can cause the lack of body hair? Hair on the head is preserved but not the rest of the body. Yes, I know Wikipedia does not give medical advice. And no, this is not asking for medical advice. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?)  ❖ 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See alopecia. --Russoc4 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can a strong magnet erase a credit card?

The Tesla (unit) article states that "A modern neodymium-iron-boron (NIB) rare earth magnet has a strength of about 1.25 T. A coin-sized neodymium magnet can lift more than 9 kg, and can pinch skin and erase credit cards." The Neodymium magnet article states, however, that "it cannot erase information contained on the magnetic stripes of credit cards." Clearly this is an inconsistency; can someone with the relevant background fix one or the other of these statements? Thanks. --bdesham ★ 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article incorrectly states that the magnet cannot destroy the magnetic strip. The MythBusters episode in question checked to see if an eelskin wallet could ruin a credit card from the electricy of the eel (go figure). It was proven false, and they tried a whole lot of other things to see if they would ruin a credit card. All failed. A few years later, they released some MythBusters deleted scenes where they used a NIB magnet to successfully ruin the card. I'll fix the article.--Russoc4 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since magnetic stripes consist of ferromagnetic material and are written with magnetic write heads, it is obvious that a magnet, if strong enough and brought close enpugh can take the magnetic material right around its hysteresis loop. Remember the old cassette recorders that had a magnet as the 'erase' head? I wonder if thats where the term wiping a tape comes from —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.28.251 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That reminds me. I have erased the music from a cassette with a neodymium magnet before. So there ya go. --Russoc4 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing credit cards is a well-known "hazard" of using NMR spectrometers, because of the strong and fluctuating magntic field. Physchim62 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you never want to go into an NMR room wearing a watch, wallet, or pacemaker--VectorPotential^Talk 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or if the room is big enough, don't have them on you within the range of the NMR... except for the pacemaker, lol. But that uses an electromagnet, which could theoretically be as strong as you wish.--Russoc4 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it can be as strong'as you wish' because of the saturation flux density of normally available core materials. I heard that the limit was about ~~2T (could be wrong though)~~ ok make that 45T--SlipperyHippo 23:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of copper sulphate

I want to do some experiments with copper sulphate (CuSo4. 5H20). Where would be the best place to obtain some legally. Or is it easier to make using battery acid?--88.110.28.251 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are five different results for copper sulfate, each of varying purity and price. The cheapest amongst these five is this. I'm not familiar with any online chemical suppliers other than sciencelab, and I have yet to order anything from them. I'm not sure if you can find copper sulfate in stores. I'll check. --Russoc4 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can get it a lot cheaper off eBay if you want to go that route. --Russoc4 23:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The salt can be made from the battery acid and copper via electrolysis and later separation of the excess of acid. Caution! Such use of electricity and the chemicals put person at risk. All precautions should be taken; and the process should be done either by a specialist or under a qualified supervision.Fo63 04:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you can get it from battery acid and copper via electrolysis, do you mean that you just use copper as the electrodes? The article on sulfuric acid says you can get it by adding copper(II) oxide (CuO) with sulfuric acid. The easiest way to make CuO is to just heat pure copper for a while until it turns black, but it doesn't get you 100% CuO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russoc4 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You can usually find some at the hardware store. I believe it's used as a root killer, especially in drains or something like that. Although it might not be a high enough purity to do any in-depth experiments. --Bennybp 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks! I had discovered that it is a root killer from the above posts, so I may be able to get it at the garden centre/store I dont think I need high purity, but the experiments will tell!

Thanks to all respondents.--SlipperyHippo 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]