Science desk
< July 31	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 2 >

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.

August 1

Atomic spectrum

What is meant by atomic spectrum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.84.91 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our atomic spectrum article would be a good place to start. DMacks (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live flu vaccine causes extroversion?

I read in a news article that in a study, subjects displayed more extroverted behaviour (e.g. were more likely to socialize with strangers) after receiving a live attenuated flu vaccine. The explanation implied by the article was that the flu virus (for which the vaccine was presumably a proxy, for ethical reasons) had evolved this effect in order to spread faster. Can anyone provide the original citation? Was it a DBPCT or just a correlational study? Neon Merlin 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many studies about this, of varying quality and with varying conclusions. See [1] and [2]. Maybe if you linked to the news article, someone could figure out which one they are talking about. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does astrology say anything about when technological/social progress has head/tailwinds?

It's all baloney of course, but fiction is still entertaining. Any lists of planet(s) by sign or something out there? Re:1846-48, they've got some explainin' to do: ether, chloroform, cameras, Neptune, telegraphs, democratization and Marxism, lol. 108.27.81.195 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a science desk. Since it's fiction, there is no correct answer. Find the Folklore and crystal dangling desk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.236.14 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Humanities reference desk is the right place to ask about astrology. Sjö (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Astrology isn't science. Take it somewhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested there is astrology and science, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology may not be a science but, as the OP remarked, astrologically speaking the discovery of Neptune has a lot to do with the discoveries/inventions that the OP lists. We also have an article which the OP should consult: Planets in astrology --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... the discovery of Neptune had an astrological effect? Wnt (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wnt, the time a planet comes into the consciousness of mankind is deemed to be the time that planet starts to affect mankind. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, when Pluto was degraded to a non-planet, it affected people? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well they had to invent new claims about the planet, Astrology_and_science#Lack_of_predictive_power. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why only 2nd period elements show diagonal relationship?

Only 2nd period elements exhibit same property which resembles not only with the property of it's own group members,but also with the members of next group which is one period below ...Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit.ghimire13 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you implying, that the other periods do not, or that period one specifically does not, or something else? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am implying that why other periods do not show such property? Why only 2nd period only show it?

User:Amrit.ghimire13 (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.84.93 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am confused, because all the periods show trends in both horizontal and vertical directions, and thus logically diagonally also. The trends may not be linear, but they exist nonetheless. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are underground power lines still vulnerable to electrical storms?

Topic^ ScienceApe (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fulgurite. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Underground powerlines are still connected to things above the ground, wouldn't be much use otherwise. And stuff above the ground gets hit by lightning sometimes... Ssscienccce (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Underground distribution cables, and a few thousand volts, are often plastic-jacketed cable buried just a few feet underground. Lightning has little trouble travelling the short distance into the ground to hit the nice metallic ground sheath in the cable, having travelled miles down through the air. Even without a direct strike, if it hits the portion of the underground cable that comes up and connects to the system at the top of a pole, the spike can stress the cross linked polyethylene insulation leaving "trees" of insulation breakdown which later turn into a solid fault. Edison (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See The Underground Cable Program for simulated lightning tests on underground cables. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even remotely possible that this isn't a scam?

Here's an interesting Kickstarter Project that claims to "Filter out" the greenhouse gasses from your car's emissions.

CO2ube

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that thousands of pounds worth of material?

(They answer this idea by vaguely mentioning that they're using photosynthesis to make the carbon disappear. But that just raises further questions!)

Am I missing something? Is there even the slightest chance that this is real?

~~75.69.10.209 (talk) —Preceding undated APL (talk) comment added 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Sugar is a very good source of energy. If something that size could do that easily then you would be able to take the sugar it produces and run an engine from it - which would produce the carbon dioxide again for that to turn into sugar again. Not quite a perpetual motion machine but at that size with so little access for sunlight practically so. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The principle that photosynthesis removes CO_2 from the air is sound. They don't seem to claim to eliminate CO_2 emissions, just reduce emissions. Really, any old can of algae can do that. It remains unclear just how effective this design is, and what its life cycle analysis might be. For instance, though CO_2 is likely trapped in the algae, what do you do with said algae when you clean the filter? If you throw it in the trash or compost, the CO_2 will be back in the air in a few years (or less), due to decomposition. I wouldn't call it an outright scam, because I believe their device can reduce tailpipe emissions. But I am highly suspicious of the long-term benefits of such a system. Perhaps it would be most useful to prevent smog in e.g. L.A. Even if the total offset of emissions is small, there may be value in distributing the emissions more evenly (e.g. far from urban centers, where they pose health risks). My WP:OR is, if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, invest in a bike, move closer to work, and plant a few trees. (Post EC with DMCQ, re-using the sugars for usable energy would indeed be a good idea, and there are plenty of bright people working on said biofuels) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We have grown multiple generations of algae colonies to find the most suitable strain for the heat and pressure of the exhaust system (artificial selection)." Suitable for 900°F / 500°C, really?... Ssscienccce (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some consideration for radiating heat. Are tailpipe gases really at 500C a few inches past the end of the pipe? SemanticMantis (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we take it for face value, any removed C would wind up in the filter one way or another. Photosynthesis doesn't make C disappear. So it'd be a worthlessly small amount of C.

That's the part I'm questioning, you'd need a place to put all the C, right? It can't just be "filtered out" into nothingness. So there's no way this filter, photosynthesis or not, could remove a useful amount of carbon. (A single tank of gas probably represents hundreds of kilos of algae-manufactured sugars.)

Unless I'm missing something really important, which is why I asked.

(Of course, this alleged photosynthesis would be taking place inside an opaque black tube.) ~~75.69.10.209 (talk)~~APL (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; in this universe we obey the law of conservation of mass. Gasoline and diesel fuel are both upwards of 80% carbon by mass, and even ethanol is more than 50% carbon. The important reaction here appears to be the reaction of water vapor and carbon dioxide with sodium hydroxide to form solid sodium carbonate, thereby 'reducing' the carbon dioxide output (at least until all of the sodium hydroxide is consumed). The algae in the product appears to be a red herring; at best it's a matrix that enables the device to disperse the solid sodium carbonate out the tailpipe.

One mole of sodium hydroxide reacts with one mole of carbon to produce one mole of sodium carbonate (via various intermediates and producing some other unimportant products); to fully sequester the carbon from a kilogram of gasoline will require something like three kilograms of sodium hydroxide. That fist-sized device couldn't hold even a full kilo of NaOH even if it were the solid material; one tank of gasoline contains 40 kilos of carbon. You do the math.

One also wonders if the increased back pressure on the exhaust system (caused by the partial obstruction introduced by this device) might not have a detrimental effect on fuel efficiency. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident the device does not work. But where do we even begin enumerating its many flaws? The rate of exhaust-gas production is orders of magnitude faster than any algae can grow. Conservation of mass flux inside a tube is about as simple a problem as you can get: if you can't "use up" or convert the carbon exactly as fast as the engine produces gases, then you either overpressure the exhaust pipe (unsafe!) or you vent the exhaust gas to the outside world.

Also, automotive exhaust isn't just carbon dioxide. It's also carbon monoxide, soot, trace heavy hydrocarbons, unburned fuel, trace nitrates, sulfates, oxides of those; heavy metals and metal vapors... this exhaust gas isn't healthy for living organisms, even algae. That's why we call it pollution. It's not the ideal breeding ground for algae: it's as hot as a furnace, there's no sunlight, and there are numerous chemical toxins contaminating the "fresh breathable CO₂" that algae and plants crave.

Capturing carbon dioxide isn't sufficient. Trees, algae, and plants outside the car will capture that carbon anyway, once it's in the atmosphere: you don't need a special tube on your car for that. But capturing carbon with plants isn't carbon-neutral over the fossil fuel life-cycle unless you put the carbon back under ground. It's not even clear to me that carbon neutral policy is good for the planet; and this algae tube isn't even carbon neutral.

What effect does this tube have on engine performance, auto maintenance, and gas mileage? Adding exhaust backpressure increases engine temperature and lowers performance. Users may burn more gas, less efficiently, getting fewer miles per gallon, because their exhaust system is essentially clogged. Engine life may be reduced. This data should be trivially easy to collect by road testing.

The entrepreneurs claim to have filed for tax credits and other incentives. Anyone can ask the EPA to evaluate technology; that doesn't mean the EPA will evaluate it; and it certainly doesn't mean that a tax credit is "in the works." If these guys had a real and competitive idea, why haven't they applied for an SBIR? What's their DOE project number? Or did they prefer Kickstarter over these real methods to fund environmentally-friendly energy technology because Kickstarter requires far less accountability?

Our OP asks if this is a scam. At first glance, I thought otherwise: it looked like some naive high-schoolers optimistic about ecologically friendly technology innovation, who haven't yet learned very much about biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and the environment. Given enough time, working out the details on their own, plus a healthy amount of formal schooling, they'll learn to constrain their problem a little better, and make more realistic claims.

But the more I looked at their elaborate diagrams, drawings, and photos; and the more I entertained their outrageous claims; I realized they've put too much effort into their charlatanism to have overlooked the basic operational flaws. Airflow simulations? Computational fluid dynamics? All the while ignoring basic physics and chemistry? I conclude that there is no plausible way these guys are "unaware." One cannot operate a CFD software program if one does not know how to use a 4-function calculator. They know exactly how ineffectual their device is, in concept and in practice. They see crowd-sourced internet funding as an easy way to get twenty thousand dollars with few questions and zero accountability. Perhaps it is an indictment of the recent fad for "crowd sourced funding" - uninformed public contributors are very ill-equipped to evaluate the financial and technical merits of new ideas. And, these guys are taking full advantage of it. Perhaps they are not even who they claim to be, but chose the façade of independent kid-inventors to maximize marketability in the target audience.

The real trouble is, disproving the device requires a little more lab equipment than their average clientele will muster; there's a vibrant commercial market for all sorts of pseudoscientific cruft, because someone always buys it. Nimur (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, That's all pretty much what I thought, but the presentation, and the complete lack of any skepticism from media that covered it gave me he tiniest shade of doubt that I was missing something obvious. I must be getting gullible or something!
Still, you have to respect a well formed scam. I wonder if they'll even bother shipping out product, or if they'll just disappear entirely. APL (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's ask the inventors! There is a new post on the comments section at the kickstarter that asks some of these questions - it's written by a guy called 3DGeek who pledged $1 in support of this "amazing" invention. I'm guessing that he'll back out his pledge unless he gets some convincing answers. Interestingly, I used to use "3DGeek" as my online handle...quite a coincidence! Perhaps some more people would like to risk $1 to ask the inventors of this wonderful machine some clarifying questions? (Note that you can always revert your pledge before the Kickstarter ends if you don't get any decent answers!) SteveBaker (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to examine the claims they make for EPA endorsement. It seems that this is based on an EPA-backed science fair that one of the inventors participated in back in 2011 - the device was then claimed to convert CO2 into oxygen...which also was a non-starter. But evidently the EPA weren't exactly checking the entries that closely! But it seems like they needed a less obviously ridiculous scam for the Kickstarter - so they added all of this extra vague hand-waving and impressive-looking chemistry to the mix.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sad part about this is that these are two kids, just out of high school. When (inevitably) this is discovered to be a scam, the shadow of that will taint their future careers - the Internet has a long memory. Getting decent science jobs in the future will be very hard indeed. SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, perhaps their talents lay more in the realm of marketing and sales. APL (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Someone has to make those adverts for replica coins with 3 micrograms of 99.999% pure gold on them or those shoe inserts that suck the toxins out of your body through the soles of your feet. SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]