Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2023 March 31

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.

March 31

Surviving a poisoning attempt

Can any opioid antagonists be taken by mouth with, or dissolved in, an alcoholic drink? (Not medical advice -- this question was inspired by a cut scene in Criminal Cases (what, no article for such a popular video game?!) where Chief Ripley takes an opioid antagonist with champagne to survive an assassination attempt with a poisoned dart!) 2601:646:9882:46E0:ACB0:15FA:37FF:553C (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Criminal Case (video game)? As to the question, no idea. --174.89.12.187 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

While they may not dissolve in alcohol or water (alcoholic drinks are mostly water), they could certainly be ingested with them in powdered form. I wonder more if it is practically possible to deliver an opioid overdose using a dart.  --Lambiam 09:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that tranquilizer darts for large animals often include a "super-opioid" like etorphine, which is waaaay more potent than fentanyl (see table) and standard procedure for using them is for the personnel to have a primed syringe of naloxone ready to go in case of accidents, I'd say signs point to yes. --47.155.46.15 (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

He'd have been far better off with an injection of the antagonist. And would still need care as extra doses are often required as they just temporarily stop the effects so one has to wait for the opiods to leave the system. NadVolum (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all it's a she, and apparently she chose ingestion with champagne instead of an injection in order for it to be inconspicuous (given that her objective was not only to survive, but also to fake her own death in order to fool the bad guys). As far as the extra doses, that would not be a problem in this case -- the second dose would be administered by the local EMS (in this case, the Corps of Firefighters of Catalonia), and any subsequent doses at the hospital. And yes, ingestion of powdered antidote in champagne should work in theory even if it doesn't dissolve (in that case, champagne would be uniquely suitable because the bubbles would act to keep the antidote particles suspended in the liquid and thereby help ensure that she takes the full dose) -- what I was concerned about is the possibility that the alcohol might interfere with the antidote and make it less effective, would that be likely? 2601:646:9882:46E0:D025:DD3C:502E:4122 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hypnotism of psychiatrist

Many movies show psychiatrist hypnotising patients to bring out deep, hidden secrets.

Is it real? Is it reliable as many says Homeopathy is not good for treatment?

All psychiatrists I met, ask questions and give medicines. Couencellers also do not hypnotise. Larrenduusser (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Hypnosis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from the section Hypnosis § Hypnotherapy: "Hypnotherapy was historically used in psychiatric and legal settings to enhance the recall of repressed or degraded memories, but this application of the technique has declined as scientific evidence accumulated that hypnotherapy can increase confidence in false memories.^[95]" This suggests it is still being done by some practitioners, but that it is not a good idea. For more, see Age regression in therapy.  --Lambiam 08:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what hypnosis has to do with homeopathy, but both are real things. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you mean hypnotherapy? Homeopathy is total nonsense. NadVolum (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Because this is a general English resource, I want to point out that in India, the word "homeopathy" is often incorrectly used to refer to "treating the whole body." So, when they hear that homepathy is garbage, they argue that it isn't, mainly because they are referring to something else. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article and it describes India as supporting the total quackery version rather than something different. Have you got something showing the alternative meaning? NadVolum (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Other than moving from Bangalore to the United States seven years ago after living there since 1973, no. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be better if someone wth experience of the place looked into it and got a citation as I can see it being easy to misunderstand the situation. I think I'll just have to go with the article for the moment thanks. NadVolum (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it real and efficacious? Nobody knows for sure, with most mainstream scientists defaulting to the nondeceptive placebo explanation, which makes sense to me. It’s also difficult to measure and replicate because each individual has a different level of suggestibility. Hypnotherapy in movies is more of a theatrical device for narrative. The most famous example is of an answering machine. Nobody has answering machines anymore, but they work great in film and television to further the story. In other words, this works great in fiction, not so much in real life. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Work–Energy principle.

Who was the first to establish it? Our article Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis states that happened in his period (i.e. around 1829). It also indicates that this principle derives from Newton's second law. Yet, the article does not mention any certain person who was the first to engross the principle. 2A06:C701:746E:2200:952B:99D5:60D:342 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the principle (along with the very concepts of mechanical work and of kinetic energy) was established by

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz. Эйхер (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Leibniz indicated the importance of the product of mass multiplied by velocity squared, but he did not mention the concept of work. Our article Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis states that principle was established in de Coriolis's period (i.e. around 1829). 2A06:C701:746E:2200:952B:99D5:60D:342 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say the person who really established energy as a quantity was James Prescott Joule. NadVolum (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

But I'm not asking about the energy as a quantity, but rather about discovering the equation "work = difference between kinetic energies". 2A06:C701:746E:2200:952B:99D5:60D:342 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not one person. The faulty Great man theory of scientific development is too concerned with crediting the great discoveries of science as solely the responsibility of a few scientific superheroes, where in reality these sorts of things are built up over time by the contributions of hundreds of people, some well known, and some obscure. According to Work (physics), the concept of work has alternately been ascribed to de Coriolis as above, as well as Salomon de Caus in his work Les Raisons des forces mouvantes (the reasons for motive forces). Some also consider John Smeaton to have contributed to the concept. Regarding energy, wikipedia has a whole article titled History of energy, which names a whole plethora of people who contributed to developing the concept, though it credits Thomas Young (scientist) specifically with naming it "energy". Of special note is the often not credited Émilie du Châtelet, who contributed as much as anyone to the modern notions of conservation of energy (though the term hadn't been invented yet), and the development of the idea of energy as a distinct quantity from momentum. Several sites do credit Joule (named above) with the first practical tests of the work-energy theorem, see [1] and [2] for example. But most also recognize that Joule didn't invent the concept, he just came up with the experiments to test it.--Jayron32 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking about the equation "work = difference between kinetic energies". Did any of the persons you have mentioned indicate this equation? 2A06:C701:746E:2200:952B:99D5:60D:342 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

According to this, "Although we don’t know who to attribute the Theorem to specifically, we do know it’s based on the previous work of Gaspard Gustave de Coriolis and James Prescott Joule, whose work in turn built upon that of Isaac Newton’s Second Law of Motion." This book credits Joule specifically, but only in passing, and I can't find any confirmation of that. I think the "we don’t know who to attribute the Theorem to specifically" is the best answer, though Joule and Coriolis, among others, had contributions to it. --Jayron32 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

thanks. 2A06:C701:4264:CA00:4401:F4E2:2C50:A5C9 (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue was (I think) not so much establishing the equation, but developing the notions of "work" and "kinetic energy" as physical quantities definable by formulas. Once you have these defined, it takes only a few elementary calculus steps to derive the relationship.  --Lambiam 19:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there any applications for rust?

thanks Rich (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thermite. --Jayron32 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

...and it can be recycled back to iron as it is hydrated hematite, mostly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Some iron objects or structures deliberately have rust for appearance (see Weathering steel), and some kind of rust may actually protect from further corrosion. Yellow ochre is a natural form used for pigments. And it has use as a medium[3][4] or for symbolism in visual arts as a sign of neglect or gradual decay of society. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean are there things which can be applied to treat or prevent rust, or do you mean are there things for which rust can be used? DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

the second thing, actual use of rust(iron rust).136.36.123.146 (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Apparently enough people do not only want iron surfaces to rust, but to do so quickly and with consistent results of a high-quality uniform rust, for there to be a market for a rust accelerator.^[5] My guess is that the purpose is to produce a patina of a certain esthetic quality.  --Lambiam 10:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I recall a college campus building from the 1970s that was built with an exterior that quickly developed what its designers called "an attractive oxide coating". The students called the building a "rust-bucket". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Disk drives/tapes? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

These are based on magnetite, which is a different iron oxide than the oxides plain rust is comprised of.  --Lambiam 10:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Though nevertheless the slang term "spinning rust" came into usage. Modern drives use cobalt alloys, which permit higher density of magnetic domains and thus storage capacity. --47.155.46.15 (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It could in principle be used as a low-cost abrasive, but I don't know whether it is in fact used for this. 2601:646:9882:46E0:A5F2:1021:A63E:67E0 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What about, conceivably, "rustene" a 2-dimensional rust, analogous to graphene and silicene? Rich (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned jeweller's rouge. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)