Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 February 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.

February 15

Why has life evolved to use rare elements for essential functions?

Examples: The thyroid hormone contains iodine, which isn't very abundant. Vitamin B12 contains cobalt, which is even less abundant. Count Iblis (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The boring-but-true answer is "because it could get away with it." If cobalt or iodine were so un-abundant that it proved a stumbling block to life, it would have evolved some other way to do whatever they do. It isn't thought out rationally, it's a "just good enough" process. (And I just want to point out that of course I know this isn't the whole explanation there, but it's just in response to any general "why has life evolved...?" questions. It's key to recognize, from the start, that life didn't do anything "for a reason" that it knew about.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec: agree with Mr.98 as a summary, but there has to be more) Very clever question, and I'll be checking back to see what others come up with, but there's a difference between abundance and availability, i.e. a reliable source, regardless of how rare. Just from browsing the articles, selenium is essential for animals, but present as a bystander in plants. It may have something to do with which elements are found in aquatic environments, since life began in the sea. [ie. found in water --> plants drink it up --> animals use it etc.] Plants just turn out to have a reasonable supply of it, which they don't use, so animal life, consuming the plants, finds it readily available, and decides to use it. The first consumer (plants) doesn't need it: it is available, not critical. Another example may be iodine, which found in the sea, so it becomes concentrated there, and is available to marine creatures. I couldn't find anything about whether plants (especially marine ones) need iodine though, so I can't pursue this further. Maybe someone can clarify or correct anything here, but I suspect it has something to do with the concentration in aquatic ecosystems, and availability in plants. IBE (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC) [I added a comment in because my answer was mangling two threads in my head: presence in water, and availability in plants] IBE (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just adding by way of confirmation, this says iodine, selenium and cobalt are present in plants, but do not seem to be essential to life for them. IBE (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

B12 was probably incorporated into the animal physiology because it happens to be in the environment (it is naturally produced by certain bacteria in the gut), and it catalyses a certain reaction which is necessary to increase efficiency of utilization of the folic acid (which, in turn, is crucial to the synthesis of new DNA). That establishes a symbiotic relationship between you and the species of bacteria which produce said B12. Cobalt is not abundant, but you only need 0.1 mcg/day of cobalt to satisfy all your biological needs.

Regarding thyroid hormone, I'm not sure how it happened to incorporate iodine, but it may have happened before our ancestors left the ocean, and iodine is sufficiently abundant in sea water. It is the 17th most common element in sea water (19th if you include hydrogen and oxygen). Of the 16 elements ahead of it, life depends on 14 (the only ones with no known biological roles are lithium and rubidium).--Itinerant1 (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Nearly all cofactors date back to truly ancient times - actually, I suspect that some of the nucleotides might predate proteins altogether, but no proof for that. ;) Thyroid hormone does indeed occur in basal chordates and I just read it is even associated with metamorphosis in echinoids (sand dollars/sea urchins) [1]. And the thing about sea water is that it's pretty similar everywhere, so even a rare element is present reliably at the concentration it has. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How about in fresh water ? How did early animals in lakes and rivers get their rare elements ? StuRat (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cofactors aren't always retained - there is more than one way to do some things. Consider hemoglobin versus hemocyanin for example. Juvenile hormone is related to thyroid hormone but doesn't use iodine. If deficiency of a particular element became an issue, organisms had to adapt and evolve. The remaining uses of trace elements represent the instances where that was unnecessary or at least less effective than suffering through the shortages. Wnt (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that certain elements/structures are used because of their particular reactivity. In the case of Vitamin B12, the reason B12 is important is it participates in a number of critical and somewhat difficult metabolic reactions. Key to this special reactivity is the colbalt-carbon bond. If colbalt was replaced with pretty much any other atom (except perhaps for some other metals as or more rare than colbalt), the metal-carbon bond would be too strong or too weak to participate in the reaction. Cobalt is used because it has the proper reactivity for doing what's necessary. (As Wnt indicates, B12 isn't completely unique (sic) in its reactivity - the "radical-SAM" enzymes in some cases can catalyze similar reactions through a related-but-different approach. However such a small amount of cobalt is needed for the amount of B12 needed, the main limiting factor for B12 availability is the difficulty of synthesizing the surrounding organic bits, rather than lack of cobalt, so there really isn't any pressure to switch from B12 to radical SAM.) -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. It's similar with molybdenum being used by nitrogenases - it's pretty damn hard to break the NN triple bond. Again following on from Wnt, it's interesting to note that some nitrogenases use iron or vanadium instead. Magnesium isn't especially rare, but a similar situation exists. Iron is another interesting example - when life evolved and there was no oxygen, free iron (Fe II) would have been abundant and that, combined with the above, explains why it is found in all life forms. Now it is actually a rare element (or rather it is unavailable since it is in the form of Fe III) and in both marine and terrestrial environments can be limiting. As a result, microbes have evolved siderophores which allow them to grab Fe III and transport it into their cells to be reduced to Fe II. If you want more, the element articles tend to have a fairly good sections dealing with their biological roles. Boron is an odd one - we don't know what it's use is in animals. SmartSE (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for their input here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

government brainwashing campaign

I remember as a kid in New York state that used to air these commercials saying "not me not now what smart kids say about sex" trying to brainwash kids and teenagers not to have sex. They used to also send us literature in the mail. This was government sponsored and was done by the governor at the time governor pataki. I ask how is this legal they are trying to teach children religious values and abstinence and this is supposed to be a nonreligious country. I haven't seen these commercials in probably 10 years and I'm amazed how it's possible it was ever authorized that this stuff ran. can anyone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.202 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda. →Στc. 05:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not having sex isn't merely religious values. While many religions do require people to refrain from premarital sex, even athiests can get pregnant and get sexually transmitted diseases like HIV. Teenage pregancy and STDs are a public health issue, and as such, are well within the remit of the government to deal with, even without any religious motivations at all. --Jayron32 05:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe the preamble to the US Constitution lists "to promote the general welfare" as one of the purposes of government. Also, the Constitution only say "Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of a state religion". The states, on the other hand, are free to do as they please. StuRat (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't. See Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has been frequently interpretted to apply the rest of the U.S. Constitution to the States as well. Still, a moot point as this still isn't a religious issue. The effectiveness of the campaign aside, it is still quite within the governments mission to discourage sex in teenagers, for various reasons, none of which have to be religious. --Jayron32 05:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC) edit: Mobetter links: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights and Everson v. Board of Education. Just for the sake of completeness re: U.S. states and state religion. --Jayron32 06:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main issue with Abstinence-only sex education is that it doesn't work - doesn't prevent pregnancy, doesn't prevent HIV. The money spent on those government ads would be welcome in the treasury right around now. Teaching kids to delay having sex is propaganda, but its relation to religion is debatable - for example, is it a religious message to tell kids not to use drugs? Religion underlies, but is not equivalent to, the political viewpoint. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought they took the wrong approach with those ads. I'd have a girl with lips covered in canker sores coming on to a boy, who leaves in revulsion, and says to his friend as he flees, "Gross ... what a skank !". Girls would think "I don't want to be like that". When they just list possible consequences, teens think "that won't happen to me". It's best to use their own insecurities against them. StuRat (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

May be the concept of political erotophobia is relevant here. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Public health in the United States has a long history of trying to get people to change their activities and practices. Sometimes this has been in the form of communication. Sometimes it has been about changing infrastructure (the common "bubbler" drinking fountain started out at school playgrounds in the 19th century as a public health move — prior to that, kids would just drink from a hose and spread diseases around rapidly). Encouraging teenagers to not have sex has more than just religious reasons behind it — it would be considered sufficiently "secular" a message with respects to the establishment clause. A more problematic message would be if the state was trying to encourage people to read the Bible or not go to a Temple or something like that, and even those would probably have very long, drawn-out court battles before it was clear how they would be ruled on. (The caselaw on the establishment clause is very patchy and contradictory in recent decades.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a religious thing because if they want to reduce teen pregnancy that could have launched a campaign encouraging condom use instead they launched a campaign promoting abstinence which is a religious issue--64.38.197.210 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, condoms aren't 100% effective at reducing pregnancy and disease, so perhaps, from a public health POV, both should be encouraged: "Don't ever have sex, but when you do...". StuRat (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a conclusion others have come to. See Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that religion and sex are closely tied together as a form of brain washing. This video explains it pretty well, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO8eubj23dQ ScienceApe (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Will a black blanket keep you warmer than a white blanket?

Resolved

The article on albedo says:

In sunlight, dark clothes absorb more heat and light-coloured clothes reflect it better.

Does this effect also work with the body's own infrared radiation, so that a black blanket will be warmer at night than a white one? If so, will it make a perceptible difference? -- (John) 65.92.52.28 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The reverse - in a camping scenario (cold background) white would insulate better, with a space blanket being the extreme case of this. A black body both absorbs and radiates light (infrared) more efficiently. Possibly in some scenario black would be warmer - summer night, room with hot walls, but the sleeper is sweating profusely and thus cooling down the blanket beyond equilibrium with the walls. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- (John) 65.92.52.28 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sun as a rd giant

When do sun actually become a rd giant at the maximum size at first RGB? Is it 5 billion years or is it 7.5 billion years. Our articles say 7.5 billion years, is that tip or RGB? Do sun leave main sequence and start expansion in 5 billion years or 3.5 billion years. What is asymptotic giant branch (AGB)? Is that RGB or not?. And also, does rd giant lass only millions of years or 2 billion years?. I got a little bit confused between 5 and 7.5 billion years usage.--69.229.39.25 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC

Too many questions. A star enters the red giant phase when hydrogen supply to its core is exhausted. In Sun's case, this will happen in 5 billion years. So the Sun will leave main sequence by 5 billion years from now, not 3.5 billion years (but by 3.5 billion years, the Sun will be much more brighter than it is today resulting in Earth's surface being scorched and becoming uninhabitable). By 7.5 billion years from now, the Sun will reach the maximum size as a red giant. Yes, the red giant phase will last for approximately 2 billion years. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that projections billions of years into the future of Earth and its sun only make sense if we assume humans destroy one another, which is possible, but not yet definitively proven to be inevitable. A space sunshade is a believable short-term protection against solar brightening (indeed, against far more rapid warming). It is interesting to imagine interventions to extend the life of the Sun - can the pattern of convection be altered, say by using some magnetic means, once the Sun is ringed by conductors and solar energy collectors? Wnt (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a topic of science fiction :D --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, does sun as a rd giant expand all or most at once (5 billion years it expand, 7.5 billion years it expands again), or it gradually gets bigger between 5 to 7.5 billion years in gradual expansion of size. I never got clear on that one, that is why I get confused on many other details.--69.229.39.25 (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not answer your question regarding AGB. Lets simplify the overview of Sun's death. Between 5 to 7.5 billion years (during the red giant phase), the Sun will gradually expand, and at the point of 7.5 billion years, there will the BOOM!!!, resulting in rapid shrinking of Sun's radius (even smaller than its current radius) and the Sun will enter Horizontal branch (HB) stage. The HB stage will last only some hundred million years.

After the HB stage, the Sun will expand again, and this time the bigger Sun will be known as an asymptotic giant branch (AGB). The AGB phase will last only a hundred million years. This AGB phase is sometimes erroneously called "second red giant" phase, but AGB is not red giant. This is the reason behind your confusion, I believe.

After the AGB phase ends, over the course of only a few thousands years, Sun will become a planetary nebula and a white dwarf. The white dwarf will gradually cool and loose its luminosity, and over the course of another 7.5 billion years, Sun will become a black dwarf and will loose its luminosity completely. The black dwarf will be the cadaver of Sun.

So lets sum up the death of Sun in a simplified way:

1. Sun leaves main sequence, become red giant (5 billion years from now) This phase lasts for 2-2.5 billion years.

2. After 2.5 billion years as a red giant, helium flash occurs, sun shrinks and enters Horizontal branch (HB) phase. HB lasts only some hundred million years.

3. Sun expands again, and becomes asymptotic giant branch (AGB). AGB lasts only 100 million years.

4. At the end of AGB phase, Sun become a white dwarf. It will take only a few thousand years to become white dwarf.

5. After another 7.5 billion years later Sun becomes black dwarf (the corpse of the once living Star).

But humanity will not survive that long to witness these magnificent and terrible events. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll survive. We're a hardy species. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Can flu cause Epistaxis?

Hi, I have a general medicine-related question: can flu, or flu-like conditions, cause Epistaxis? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Diamond cubic crystal structure

C, Si, Ge and Sn form allotropes with the diamond cubic crystal structure. What about lead, the last carbon group element? Are there any predictions for eka-lead (element 114)? Why is lead sometimes considered to be a metalloid (see metalloid)? Double sharp (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The following article ([2]) discusses the "hypothetical diamond cubic phase of lead". So the structure is theoretically possible, but has not (yet) been observed. As for element 114, again it is a possibility, but almost nothing is known of the element, because it is so unstable. In practice, it will be impossible to achieve such a structure, even if it is chemically viable. I do not know why lead is sometimes called a metalloid, but the WP-article notes there is no clear definition of the term, and different criteria are used by different authors. -- Lindert (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead's valence level electrons are affected by a low effective nuclear charge which results in those electrons being more stable in metallic bonding situations than covalent bonds, at least in pure lead. Lead is sometimes considered a metalloid, but it better described as a post-transition metal; a category which has properties somewhere between a transition metal and a metalloid. Post-transition metals like lead and tin do form some stable molecular compounds, for example tetraethyllead and tin(IV) chloride; for other metals you usually only expect salts to be commonly formed, especially for things like Group 1 and Group 2 metals. The post-transition metals are sometimes also called "poor metals", because the typical metallic properties are less well expressed in them (for example, they tend to be poorer conductors, they tend to be softer and less shiny). --Jayron32 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead has been or is sometimes classified as a metalloid on account of its amphoteric or weakly metallic nature. In the literature it is vastly more commonly referred to as a post-transition metal.

Relevant physical properties include: its low tensile strength, meaning that extruding thin wires of lead requires special handling to avoid stretching and breaking (some 19th century references even comment that lead is malleable but not ductile); it has a close-packed structure but an abnormally large inter-atomic distance that has been attributed to partial ionisation of the lead atoms; and it has a relatively low electrical conductivity.

Relevant chemical properties include: lead and its oxides are amphoteric, reacting with acids and bases; it shows significant covalent bonding tendencies, especially in the +4 oxidation state, but also in the +2 state (e.g. PbS, PbCl₂, PbBr₂, PbI₂); lead halides can be reversibly hydrolysed.

Properties such as these are generally associated with post-transition metals (and even some pre-transition "chemically weak" metals, such as Be and Al). Sandbh (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nitrogen(V)

Does nitrogen(V) exist? In what compounds does it exist? (Could references also be given?) Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the general idea of N with 5 valence pairs (covalent bonds and/or non-bonded pairs, weird coordination complexes, etc.), or do you specifically want the +5 oxidation state (some combination of ionic character and attachments to electronegative atoms)? I don't think either exist, but better figure out what you mean before I go hunting... DMacks (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

+5 oxidation state exists, see Dinitrogen pentoxide; the gas-phase molecule has a +5 oxidation state on nitrogen; however condensed and solution forms of this compound are ionic. Nitrogen cannot form 5 covalent bonds normally because it lacks valence-level d-orbitals with which to form an expanded octet. At least, that's the heuristic explanation. A more thorough explanation, without having to resort to hybridizing d-orbitals is at Hypervalent molecule; but AFAIK, there are no examples of hypervalent nitrogen compounds either. --Jayron32 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The N in N₂O₅ sure is formal (V) character based on covalent attachment of electronegative atoms, but it isn't an N⁵⁺ ion even in the ionic forms of that compound. On the other hand (and this surprises me) there is experimental evidence for (AuL)₅N²⁺ and maybe also NF₅ having geometries consistent with "5 bonds to N" (Au-N and N-F). DMacks (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. --Jayron32 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Astronomy stuff

The answer for the question on the right is any number from 4.75 to 4.95 days. I don't get how they do that. Can someone show me how to get the answer. Explain to me in enough details that if i was given a similar problem i can do it by myself. Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, an O-C diagram is a measurement of error. So the horizontal axis is how many days have passed and vertical is how far wrong our model is. If you take a point on the line ((50, 20) look about right, then something that should have happened after 30 days has happened after 50. So our model is too fast, and so, I think you need to take your answer (or possibly information in the question) from a previous part and scale it up by (50/30), which is (5/3). Does that work with the given answers (there should be a period of approximately 3 at some point)? If I'm right, then I can elaborate, but I shan't lest I be wrong.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is number 20 and 21. For number 20 the answer is 5.3-5.4 days. For number 21 the answer is 4.75-4.95 days. Number 20 is easy but number 21 is pretty confusing to me. Hope that you can see number 20 now, you can give me the better explanation. Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh. I think i got it now. The slope of the line is about 1/2. Since the original period is 5.3-5.4 days. 5.3-5.4 - 1/2 = 4.8-4.9. So 4.75-4.95 is like anything within .05 off should be acceptable. Thanks a lot for the link anyway.Pendragon5 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I don't understand why. The observed and expected values are for a particular thing happening. I would have thought that (5.3, 0.5) would be on the graph on those figures. Hmm. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well slope is 1/2 because at 50 x axis correspond with 25 on the y axis. y/x = 25/50 = 1/2.Pendragon5 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I know how to calculate the gradient, but I don't see how we can take that figure, a ratio, and then subtract it as a value. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Amount of calories in different beers

I'm having a discussion with a brewer friend regarding which type of beer has the fewest calories. We know the beer will be lower in alcohol, as alcohol has twice as many calories per gram as sugar does. But would, say a mild ale with an ABV of 3.5% have the same calories as a bitter with an ABV of 3.5%? All the calorie sheets I have say that mild ale has the lowest calories. Why should this be? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides alcohol you also have to consider the total carbohydrate content. Roger (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes we get that, but the brewer makes the point that a mild ale, with sugars which have not been fully attenuated during the process (i.e. turned into alcohol), should be sweeter than a bitter beer of the same alcoholic content, and therefore more calorific? What is it in the bitter that adds to the calorific value of the beer? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the nutrition info for regular beer ([3]), it looks like most of the calories come from alcohol, then complex carbs (starches), and even some protein. No sugars (simple carbs) are listed, though. So, presumably the bitter beer isn't bitter because it contains less sugar, but because it contains more of something bitter. The bitter beer may also contain more starches and/or protein, bringing the calorie count up. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with these styles of beer, but a google search tells me that mild ales typically have slightly lower final gravity values than bitters (at the same ABV), which would mean that the bitter has lower attenuation and more residual sugars. The difference in tastes would be explained by the difference in hop levels: mild ales have 10-25 IBUs and bitters have 25-35 IBUs.--Itinerant1 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. Basically the question was, why would two beers with the same alcoholic content have quite different calorific values. A chemist has told me that a lot depends on the type of malt used: a malt which has been roasted darker would not have the amount of sugars available for attenuation due to the caramelisation process which produces the darkness. In the paler beers, that means that more of the sugar turns to alcohol which has more calories than sugar. For a darker beer using darker roasted malts and having the same amount of alcohol as the paler beer, more complex carbs remain but this produces fewer calories. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Negative weight

Can a hot air balloon or a Zeppelin have negative weight? Or how do you express the idea that something would lift a weight of x kg? 188.76.228.174 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Buoyancy is the property of an object weighing less than the same volume of whatever it's displacing. It's not negative in an absolute sense, but just by comparison to its environment. So a hot air balloon rises because the balloon (+gondola, etc.) volume V weighs less than the amount of normal atmospheric air V, and even the added weight of a person is not enough to make it heavier (so the balloon can lift the person). You can express "how much lighter is the balloon", and therefore state "how much can it lift" (...before becoming heavier than the displaced V, and therefore sink). DMacks (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See also mass versus weight.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This requires careful definition of terms. Usually, "weight" is explicitly defined to exactly equal "mass × gravity constant" (that is, ... "little g"). This definition is valid, but the computed result is pretty useless in the day-to-day operation of buoyant systems, like boats and balloons. For this reason, boat weights are denoted by nautical displacement. Balloons, like other aircraft, are described aerodynamically using the four-force model (lift, weight, thrust, and drag). For a balloon or zeppelin, the lift and the weight are treated a little differently than for other aircrafts; but the physics is the same. The FAA's Balloon Flying Handbook, Chapter 2, has an excellent overview of the physics theory and the practical considerations. Nimur (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So, if weight = mass times acceleration due to gravity, that implies that a true negative weight would require either a negative mass or a negative g (you sometimes can pull negative g's in a plane, if that counts). Does physics permit either of these to exist (perhaps in a different universe in our multi-verse) ? I suppose if both were negative, the weight would be positive again. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody gets very far hypothesizing about negative mass, but that doesn't stop it from being a popular topic. I think a more useful, less silly approach is to recognize that weight is a force and therefore a vector. This means that weight has a magnitude (which is always positive) and a direction (which is often "down," and therefore commonly denoted by the negative side of the "y axis." In a lot of physics applications, we use the notation "-" to indicate that the direction is "opposite" to some conventional direction. This corresponds directly to a lot of the calculations we perform, where the sign "-" is conventionally interpreted to mean negative number or subtraction. There are a lot of places where reversing the direction of a vector can be mathematically represented by negating or subtracting. Nonetheless, don't get hung up on the connection, because there's a subtle conceptual difference between negation of a scalar magnitude, and reversal of a vector's direction. Don't get hung up on the minus sign - in physics, we're using it as a mathematical tool. Nimur (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Statistics books, applied to science

Could someone suggest any books to use statistics better? Case studies, common errors, misconceptions, whatever, ... 88.9.105.3 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any particular science in mind? (biology, physics, psychology??). As a starting point there is a good list of introductory statistics books aimed at the biological sciences, compiled by the producers of a popular biostatistics program here as well as a list of free online resources. You might also be interested in this book on statistical rules of thumb, as well as the amazon "often bought together" suggestions on that page (one is a book of misconceptions, one is a book of case studies), which all seem to get reasonable reviews on Amazon. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

When I did my degree 30 odd years ago, one of the set books was called "How to Lie with Statistics". It was a thoroughly entertaining read besides being academically rigorous, and was instrumental in this dyscalculic being able to pass a stats module with 98%. If this book is still in print I thoroughly recommend it. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Wow! We do have an article on everything! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Super Crunchers by Ian Ayers165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not buy or suggest Super Crunchers by Ian Ayers. This book is an absolute piece of crap, written by a lawyer, BTW, with some knowledge of economics, but fairly missing the point, poorly defining basic concepts and shamelessly self-advertising. Ib30 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Benzisoxazinone

So this is a homework question, but I am at my wit's end and have no one else to ask. In chem lab, we made N-Acetylanthranilic acid by reacting anthranilic acid with acetic anhydride. This makes "benzisoxazinone," according to the lab manual. Then we mix that with water and hydrolysis makes N-acetylanthranilic acid. So far, so good.

For the lab report, we have to include a table with properties of each reagent and product (ex. molecular weight, mass or volume used, etc.) which we are supposed to get from websites like Sigma Aldrich or Fischer Sci. But no website recognizes benzisoxazinone! I asked my prof if there's another name it goes by, but she just said, "I don't know (even though she obviously does)--try looking it up by molecular formula." I did. Still no website comes up with the right structure. As far as I can tell, benzisoxazinone does not exist. Help please! :( Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What actual properties do you really need? You mention molecular weight, which you can easily determine from the chemical formula (which you say you already have). DMacks (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I need the density, and I need to cite a reference for the structure other than our lab manual, which apparently doesn't count :P Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe melting point... Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean 'benzisoxazinone'? A simple search suggests 'benzoxazinone' as an alternative (and the results for benzisoxazinone are few), but it's been so long since I did chemistry and I never did it to that high a level so I'm not sure if it's really equivalent. Also are you sure benzisoxazinone is the systematic name? Again it's been a while but it sounds like it may not be to me. If it isn't can't you work it out from your existing information? Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this ChemSpider link of any use to you? Not sure where you are in your degree, so I hope you don't mind me warning you that the predicted mp/bp, densities etc can be very dodgy in molecules that hydrogen bond, such as this one. This isn't a great link, but it might do as a last-ditch attempt to get some numbers. I did a structure search on Sigma's website, just to see if it was the name that was giving you gyp, but nothing came up. Good luck! Brammers (talk/c) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very similar to benzoxazinone, but it's not. Instead of an H on the N, the N is double-bonded to a neighbouring carbon, and the O, the N, and carbonyl are in different spots on the ring. And yes, I double- and triple-checked the spelling in the manual. I don't know how to put a drawing of the structure in here, but the molecular formula is C9H7NO2, if that helps. Thanks for all suggestions so far! Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, and there is also a methyl group on that ring. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I found it on Chem Spider! Thank you Brammers, I will love you forever :) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad you could find it in the end! Brammers (talk/c) 21:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowflake symmetry

As we all know, and as is illustrated at Snowflake#Gallery, snowflakes often (or, depending on what you read, occasionally) have a sixfold radial symmetry. While I can roughly visualise how individual branches or leaves can grow into pretty geometric patterns, due to the geometry of the water molecules attaching to the crystal, I find it much harder to understand why all six main branches could grow so similarly. It seems spooky, almost as if one branch "knows" what its neighbour is doing. The article says "Since the micro-environment (and its changes) are very nearly identical around the snowflake, each arm can grow in nearly the same way." Other explanations on the Internet say essentially the same thing. This seems decidedly dubious to me. I would have thought the variations in patterns would be caused by essentially random imperfections in the crystal growth that no amount of "nearly identical micro-climate" could cause to be exactly replicated across all six sectors. Is there any other possible explanation? 86.176.211.121 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Random" is often just used for patterns too complex for us to understand. In this case, the symmetry seems to be proof that's it's not truly random, but depends on rather precise temperature, humidity, etc. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, by "essentially random" I allow that there is some deterministic process at the molecular level, but I was suggesting that on a macroscopic, snowflake-sized level, it is to all intents and purposes random. I take your point that the symmetry seems to prove otherwise. But somehow I still find it impossible to visualise how that intricate, near-perfect symmetry could arise just by virtue of a shared "micro-climate", so I still wonder if any other explanation has been proposed... 86.176.211.121 (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets say you are building a brick wall. You've got many options for how to lay your bricks, but the pattern of bricks for the whole wall is determined largely by how you lay the first few rows of bricks; the later bricks "fit" whatever pattern you first establish. Or, if you prefer, picture stacking cannonballs: how you arange the bottom row of cannonballs determins what the other rows will look like. These are extremely simplified versions of the principle of snowflake construction: the established patterns are more complex, but that is our problem (being unable to fit the pattern nicely into our heads, unlike the brick example) than the snowflakes problem. Its still works on the principle that the initial pattern of building determines what the rest of the flake will look like. --Jayron32 02:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, well in some ways it would make a lot of sense to me if the shape of whole flake was determined by the first few "bricks", because I can visualise that this "locked-in" pattern could then be transmitted outwards symmetrically. On the other hand, I find it quite hard to believe that the exact shapes of the intricate substructures that appear on the outer branches could be predetermined in such a way. (The usual explanation seems to be that the changing environment as the snowflake grows is what is responsible for the complex variation (see e.g. [4]), and so the shape is very much not largely determined by the first few "bricks". Of course, I do not complain that your explanation does not accord with this one, since I specifically asked for other ideas.) 86.176.211.121 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the microenvironment explanation believable - especially, changes in humidity and temperature could easily change how the crystals grow. Doing a quick search for "snowflake growth in the lab" I came up with [5], where multiple snowflakes grow with very similar patterns under controlled conditions. If the changes in pattern were due entirely to random seeding, one would expect them to be as diverse as snowflakes in the wild. Wnt (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See also crystal growth.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Those videos were quite enlightening. I — and I'm betting the OP — was imagining snowflake growth as a more "constructive" function. First the center, then out go some arms, then out go some little bits, etc. But the snowflakes in those videos are really "growing" in a different way — they scale up and as they do, interesting patterns form. (I'm not describing this very articulately, I'm afraid.) I think it's quite easy to see how those would lead to such symmetry, when you see it occurring that slowly. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fukushima

After the disaster in Fukushima nuclear plant why didn't they just cover the reactors with sand and then with concrete like they did in the Ukraine. It seems really dumb to just pour a little water on it where it will evaporate in the form of radioactive steam I don't understand why they made all these dumb decisions. Also after the first explosion they never do anything to try and prevent the others from also exploding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.210 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me flip this around: why, in the absence of detailed engineering analysis, shouldn't we expect differences? Fukushima was 15 years after Chernobyl, with different reactor types, different available support infrastructure, different emergency plans, different emergency planners... the list goes on. The second statement ("never do anything to prevent the other [explosions]") is patently false. Note also that we have an article for a comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. — Lomn 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Chernobyl was a much worse disaster, and they had nothing else they could do but entomb the reactor and evacuate the entire population of the surrounding area. In Fukushima, they hope to be able to clean up the site and bring back people much sooner. To do so, you need to maintain access to the reactor. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why not just "seed" the whole area with Citrobacter to absorb all the uranium? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The dangerous radionuclides are generally the fission fragments rather than the uranium itself. Dragons flight (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable clear to me from all the news reports immediately after the event, and ever since, that a) Fukushima is as bad as Chernobyl; b) Fukushima was made much worse than it should have been, because people in charge (politicians, regulators, and power company execs) could not make decisions, did not understand what was going on, and could not work together. The Japanses Govt has since admitted as much. The Russians reponse was delayed a short period, but once they did react, their reaction was superb: They covered the reactor with concrete, and they marshalled a great fleet of busses and moved everyone out forthwith - no arguments - the explanation to the people was done on the buses. The Japanese did things right away, but it was a mix of panicky ineffective things, and the evacuation or the area was a shambles. Remember that stunt of droping water from a helicopter? Anybody with an ounce of sense could see that was never going to work. Remember those ealy Japanese Govt announcements "We had an explosion - its only hydrogen - nothing to worry about"? Anybody who have the sketchiest knowlege of nuclear power and hydrogen chemistry knows that means a meltdown. Wickwack01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.13.105 (talk)

It wasn't on the same scale of Chernobyl. Chernobyl had 57 deaths as a direct result, while this had zero direct deaths. The radiation release was also much less here. As for competence, in Japan they at least had a double natural disaster to deal with (earthquake and tsunami), while Chernobyl was entirely caused by incompetence. I do agree that the procedures in Japan weren't thought through, particularly the idea of shutting down the reactors and using diesel generators or power off the grid to continue to cool them, neither of which were likely to work. At the very least, you'd think they would have verified that they worked before implementing this plan, and, when they found they weren't usable, kept the most stable reactor at minimal power levels to provide the electricity needed to cool them all. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

First, the reactors automatically shutdown when an earthquake occurs, which has been considered the safest response to the possibility of a containment or coolant failure due to the earthquake itself. (If shaking damages your reactor, you don't generally want to wait for someone to find the damage before turning it off.) Secondly, nuclear reactors are baseload scale electric power. Even if you turn down the heat, they generally aren't designed for small scale power generation and their minimum output is often still tens of megawatts. That's far more power than required to run the pumps, and with nowhere else to shunt the excess due to the loss of the grid connection, that much power would just burn everything out. Sure, they could have built a system with better fallbacks, and more emergency options, but the system they did have wasn't capable of generating electricity from the reactors without a grid connection. Dragons flight (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tens of megawatts" does not sound like a wildly excess amount of power to run the cooling pumps for several nuclear reactors. Many nuke plants have provisions for steam from the residual heat to power turbines to run the cooling pumps. Check your numbers as to the size of the normal pumps there. And trailer mounted diesels of several megawatt size are readily available and could have been delivered to the site in half a day or so, aside from the continuing explosions and radioactive steam leaks, as they commonly are used to power essential loads during blackouts.99.141.7.172 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about how quickly they could be delivered by truck, since the roads were covered with wrecked cars and houses. Perhaps helicopters would be a better choice. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The official Japanese report, of which I have heard a summary (I don't read Japanese and I'm not sure it's officially out yet) blames managerial issues as a major cause of it. They had done simulations regarding flooding and correctly predicted their outcome; they ignored them. They had not trained their on-site personnel for real disasters. There were various design flaws that look rather obvious in retrospect (putting spent fuel up high and the pumps down low). I'm not generally a fan of playing the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" game, personally, but it does seem that the Japanese nuclear industry has some major systemic problems with it regarding regulatory capture. As for comparisons with Chernobyl, it's of course hard to do that given the many differences (what factors do we compare, and which do we throw out?), but it's worth noting that the Japanese gov't ranks them the same on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Personally I would rate Chernobyl worse, not necessarily because of the acute deaths, but because of the amount of particulate fallout pumped into the atmosphere over land (as opposed to sea, where it will dissipate quickly). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick: a hydrogen explosion doesn't mean a meltdown. It means the fuel cladding has become exposed to oxygen, oxidized, and created hydrogen gas. That's not good, but it's not synonymous with fuel melt. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the separation of hydrogen requires very high temperatures (=meltdown). The cladding is Zirconium, chosen for, amongst other things, for chemical stability and low catalytic ability. Ratbone124.182.51.46 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require meltdown. There are plenty of high temperature sources inside a reactor without actual fuel melting. It means loss of cooling, to be sure. And that ain't good. But not necessarily meltdown. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Wickwack is right. The important reaction here is the reaction between zirconium and steam which produces zirconium oxide and hydrogen. The reaction is very slow until temperatures above 1200K are reached. That is safety below the melting point of zirconium (2130K) but not safely below that of the uranium core (~1400K). Once the uranium has melted, the cladding is shot due to expansion. Evolution of large quantities of hydrogen in nuclear reactors with zirconium cladding has only been seen when meltdown has occurred. The reaction does occur very slowly at lower temperatures, but reactors have a catalyst system to recombine the hydrogen. It is only when very high temperatures resulting in production hydrogen at a rate to overwhelm the catalyst system that you have an explosion risk. Our power company was scheduled to get a nuclear reactor until the politicians canned it (one of the few times politicians did something sensible), and we have some operating manuals in our library. It's a while since I looked, but as I recall, they essentially say "if you get significant hydrogen, the core is stuffed, get your excuse ready". Ratbone58.170.133.219 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The fuel in a power reactor won't be metallic uranium or uranium alloy; it will be the much-higher-melting (3140 K) uranium dioxide. You'll only find metallic uranium alloys as the fuel in a few specialized, relatively-low-power scientific, research, and isotope-generating reactors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Molten fuel reactor

Instead of having the fuel in a nuclear reactor heat water which turns turbines which spin a generator to generate electricity, wouldn't more efficient heat transfer occur if the molten fuel itself turned the turbines in a sort of "molten fuel reactor"? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It might, but there are many good reasons not to do it:

• Solid fuel is much easier to handle, it is easier to control the chain reaction
• Using fuel instead of water will quickly irradiate pipes and turbines (this happens with water too, but much slower), and you'll have to replace them frequently
• Most uranium compounds have very high melting points. If you choose metallic uranium (melting point 1100 C), even the most heat-resistant pipes and turbines won't last long at those temperatures. If you use a substance that melts at a lower temperature, it will be harder to contain it.
• Turbine operation normally requires an inert high-purity coolant. Impurities corrode the turbine and leave deposits on pipes. If you use fuel to power the turbine, you'd frequently have to stop the reactor and separate fission products from the fuel, which is a complex, time-consuming and risky process. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See molten salt reactor, which includes some variants where the molten salt is the fuel. — Lomn 23:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In your proposal, there does not seem to be any phase transition (liquid to vapor), which plays an important part in the operation of conventional turbines. Maybe the molten metal would expand a little as it got hot in the reactor, but something very different from a fast-spinning turbine would be needed. Perhaps some expansion chamber or piston which was geared up to spin a generator rapidly. 99.141.7.172 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Even the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor uses a coolant to cool the molten nuclear fuels, and it seems that this coolant is then passed to other fluids (maybe not necessarily water, could be liquid metal) via heat exchangers to eventually spin a turbine. I'm not sure if there are any advanced theoretical fission reactor designs that don't use a coolant, and spin turbines directly via molten fuel. If it were possible, I'd expect it to require quite a few advances in materials engineering. Namely in heat resistant materials. Such a machine would probably need a coolant anyway though in a scram situation or if the reactor core was too hot. ScienceApe (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)