Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 June 25

= June 25 =

Leg cramps
Are leg cramps statistically related to heart attacks in some way and if so are they related to any imbalance, excess or lack of minerals or other constituents of the blood? 71.100.3.132 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article on cramp, in particular the section on causes and treatment? It covers most of this pretty well. It doesn't really say anything about the heart attacks, and I don't know about that, perhaps someone else has information on that aspect. --jjron 05:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fluorescent lighting and human health
Are there any serious scientific studies about the effect that fluorescent lighting has in human health? I would also like to know all other sorts of information on the subject. (See also Talk:Fluorescent lamp) A.Z. 04:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, my English was really bad at the time of that thread, and I hadn't learnt how to properly use prepositions. A.Z. 04:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several ways they can be harmful:

1) Some produce an unpleasant bluish-white light, which is unnatural and annoying, possibly having a negative psychological effect on people. A side effect is that they make people look "ugly", making varicose veins and acne more visible, for example.  Newer models provide more natural light.


 * Note that colour temperature preference various between countries. In I believe most of the Western world, 'hot' yellowish/red light is generally preferred while in East Asian preference (& perhaps SEA) preference are more variable and whiter or bluer light is sometimes preferred. Note also that the Western colour temperature preference is 'hotter' (i.e. a lower temperature) then daylight (although closer to traditional artificial sources like incandescent light bulbs and fire) so I would question whether either colour preferences could emperically be called 'natural' Nil Einne 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick follow up, our colour temperature article doesn't explain how the colour temperatures corelate to natural light very well but I found this . Note the D65 article also supports the idea that 6500 K is close to a bright temperate western hemisphere summer day. I think some confusion may arise because of the difference between 'Average Summer Sunlight (plus blue skylight) at 6500 K' and 'Average Summer Sunlight at Noon (Washington DC) at 5400 K'. From what I can tell from my searches, the latter is simply taking into account the colour temperature of the light from the sun, e.g. if you have a ray shining into your room. Whereas the former is the actual colour temperature you will experience out in the open on a cloudless blue day. It is bluer due to the effect of the blueish light from the sky. To me 6500 K is the more 'natural' colour (as it's what you experience out in the open) but AFAIK the preferred temperature in the western hemisphere is lower, around 5000 K or less (which is below the pure 5400 K of simple sunlight). Of course, as you can tell a very wide range can be called natural since it will be experienced in certain conditions of daylight. It's perhaps better to just say people have different colour temperature preferences rather then argue one is more 'natural' then the other Nil Einne 12:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

2) When some start to go bad they flicker (at first, imperceptibly) in a way that can cause headaches or possibly trigger seizures in epileptics.

3) Since fluorescent lighting is cheap, businesses tend to overlight some areas, making computer screens difficult to read, causing eye strain and headaches. People may compensate by turning up the brightness on the monitor and sitting closer, both of which increase their radiation exposure (at least for CRT monitors).


 * (See Over-illumination. —Keenan Pepper 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

4) In cases where incandescent lighting was replaced with fluorescent, the HVAC system may have been designed for the thermal load of the incandescents, and may need to be retuned for the cooler fluorescents. Failure to do so could result in some rooms, with lots of new flourescents, being cold, and others, with few new flourescents, being hot.

Note that all of these issues can be addressed, and the lower power usage of fluorescent lights means less fossil fuel is burnt, resulting in less global warming, less air pollution, etc. So, my conclusion is that fluorescent lights should be used properly, not abandoned. StuRat 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we note that A.Z. asked for scientific evidence. As best I can tell everything mentioned above is anecdotal evidence. Please read the talk page that he originally directed us to for the reason behind this...
 * Re this topic, the Australian government has recently announced (see here for example) that it is banning incandescent light bulbs within three years. Presumably other countries may follow suit if this does go ahead. --jjron 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's shocking. It makes me not want to visit Australia anymore. A.Z. 03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the information, though. A.Z. 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I read about this and thankfully the incandescent light bulb article already covers it resonably. Preceeding the Australian move, the European Union had already been considering banning the incandescent light bulbs. Following the Australian annoucement, some European countries, New Zealand and some Canadian provinincial governments annouced that they are also considering or planning such moves. Several proposals have also been made in some US states. It seems likely that most developed countries will have limitation of these sort within 10 years so I expect A.Z. will have to limit him/herself the parts of the US and the developing countries without such limitations (some of which will probably have such limitations) Nil Einne 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Politicians shouldn't be allowed to decide about such important matters. I hope a scientist tests human beings and other animals under the influence of fluorescent lighting. Unfortunately, it seems that this has never been done before. A.Z. 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit this move has torn me apart - a part of me agrees with any reasonable action to reduce greenhouse emissions, but a part of me simply cannot abide fluorescent lighting in homes, particularly in kitchens. I'll just have to stop eating, I guess.  For the record, Australia is not banning incandescent lights per se - it's not as if their use will become illegal - but the ultimate effect of the move will be to severely reduce their availability through the usual outlets.  But there's always eBay.  And there's always people power; if the demand for incandescent globes does not lessen, the supply will surely be maintained.  --  JackofOz 00:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's really good to know! I could already picture Australia turning into a big drug store (or a hospital, or a mall, or a prison). Restaurants, hotels, people's houses, all of them would become a sickening place because the government told so. There are truly reasonable actions to reduce greenhouse emissions. Using fluorescent lighting is not one of them: I feel that it's not only unpleasant, but can be truly harmful to your health. Any more information is still welcome. A.Z. 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not much more I can tell you, A.Z. But surely there are options other than fluorescent if incandescent is unavailable.  --  JackofOz 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How environmental are candles? A.Z. 05:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LEDs Skittle 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Flight of a plane
Whenever I travel by flight, I get a feeling that the body of the plane is not parallel to the ground (Even at the cruising altitude, I feel that the nose of the plane is pointing up, as in climbing). Is it just my feeling or it it an illusion or is it really the case ? -- WikiCheng | Talk 04:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have an answer, but that's interesting, I get the same sensation. I've actually assumed it was for real, and had rationalised it as the plane overcoming it's tendency to be pulled down by gravity (in very simple terms), so still having to point up, even when flying at a fixed altitude (sort of like how you have to keep the engines going to maintain a fixed a speed). I'd be interested if someone knows more about this. --jjron 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How would pointing the nose of the plane up help you overcome the tendency to be pulled down by gravity? A.Z. 05:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It might just be that you feel like this because this is often the case in short flights- you spend a lot of the time climbing, then the plane points up when it lands as well. It could also be the air pressures on the plane- keep in mind a lot of the sensation of "which way is up" that we have is from our ears (at least, last I checked), so the cabin's air pressure could very well mess that up. It could also be caused by the way cargo is loaded, although I imagine any amount of luggage holding the plane down like that would make it extremely difficult and dangerous to fly. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The angle of attack of a plane is not always horizontal. It depends on many factors, including prevailing weather, aircraft design, speed, and atitude. You can check the attitude by suspending a pendulum (a piece of string with a weight); provided the aircraft is not accelerating, the string will point towards "down," and you can compare it to the normal vector of the floorboards. Nimur 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a little tip, a tennis shoe makes a good pendulum for things such as this. take one off, and dangle it by one of the strings. You can also use it to get a basic idea of how much gforce there is in one turn compared to other turns in a car trip if you're bored -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, if you take off your tennis shoe and start fiddling with it, the odds are that some ignorant passenger will immediately denounce you to the air marshals or form a vigilante band of fellow passengers to kill you. Perhaps you want to use a less-obvious plumb-bob?


 * Good idea, but you won't detect any downward pointing force and when turning, I think they try to position the airplane so that the resulting force (from gravity and turn) will point downward. If not for other reasons, so at least because it's the most comfortable things for the passengers. —Bromskloss 12:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)




 * (edit conflict)This is OR but planes DON'T fly to parallel to the ground even when it's cruising. Based on the PMDG 737NG on Flight Simulator 2004 it's currently cruising from Auckland to Sydney at 33000 feet at Mach 0.81 and the nose is pointing about 5 degrees up. The angle of attack is 2.2 degrees and if the plane flew parallel to the tangent of the ground then it would be descending quite fast. --antilivedT 06:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm confused by this. I can think of several disadvantages if a commercial aircraft has to maintain 5 degrees nose up attitude in level flight, and not a single advantage. If you didn't have to design a commercial aircraft with this attribute, then why would you ? Gandalf61 12:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Can we conclude that the plane needs to keep going up (or actually keep trying to go up) so as to compensate for the gravity ?. If it tried to fly horizontally, it would actually be pulled down (say at a rate of 10 m per sec). Hence the plane has to try to keep climbing 10 m per sec so that it flies horizontally. It would be a good idea to hang a pendulum to the seat, note down the position while it is on the ground and then see if there is any difference when the plane is cruising without acceleration. If any of you are frequent fliers and find time to do this, please leave a note on my talk page :-) -- WikiCheng | Talk 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not necessary. It's the angle of the wings to the air, the airspeed, the ambient pressure, and the wing geometry that determine lift.  For a given cruising altitude and velocity, one could certainly design a plane such that the body is horizontal even if it meant tilting the wings relative to the body.  Now, it could be that planes aren't designed to be horizontal when cruising (perhaps because it makes them easier to fly or allows for more lift under other conditions, or something) but being not horizontal is not a fundemental requirement of flight.  Dragons flight 15:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that it isn't necessary to tilt either the fuselage or wings upward to provide lift, as an airfoil provides lift even when horizontal. However, tilt may be needed to prevent the plane from pitching forward, although placing the wings farther forward would likely do this, as well, but might have other negative consequences.  As far as perceptions go, having a large flat area in front of you is important for many people to accurately determine "up" and "down".  For the pilots this can be a severe problem, and they sometimes end up flying the plane sideways when it's too dark to get visual clues as to the plane's orientation.  Instruments, if working properly, can provide the missing visual information. StuRat 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The question has arisen why someone would design a commercial plane to this specification. The crucial information to answer this is that ambient conditions such as pressure and temperature change the available lift (not to mention passenger loading - just a dozen passengers weigh upwards of a ton!).  Few aircraft have movable wings, so the only way to change the lift given by a static wing design is to change the attitude of the plane.  Finally, it is not necessarily true that a zero-degree pitch would be more fuel efficient, more safe, or any other "obvious" benefit.  Nimur 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Wing.slat.600pix.jpg|right|thumb|300px|slats and flaps]]
 * When you say "Few aircraft have movable wings" - we must be very careful to qualify that by pointing out that almost all aircraft have flaps and almost all large commercial aircraft have slats and specialised aircraft may even have LEX's, blown flaps and slots too. Those things most definitely change the shape of the wing - and therefore the amount of lift it generates!  They are typically used during landing and takeoff for precisely that purpose.  They also change the trim of the aircraft because the center of pressure will shift as these various gizmos are deployed.  It'll generally fly at a different angle to the horizontal depending on how those controls are set.  If you get a window seat just behind the trailing edge of the wings the next time you fly in a big commercial plane - just watch the wing as you come into land.  You'd swear you were riding in a transformer because the wing seems to completely disassemble itself!  So - pretty much all aircraft have wings that move and reshape themselves in one way or another.  SteveBaker 18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am not a pilot, but I have done a bit of research on this, and my understanding is that once an aircraft reaches its cruising altitude and speed, the pilot then sets the elevator controls to trim the aircraft so that it is level (see elevator (aircraft) and tailplane). A commercial aircraft is designed to be very stable when properly trimmed. While I don't doubt that it is possible to cruise with 5 degrees of nose up pitch, and their may be reasons why this attitude would be maintained for short periods, I really can't see why a properly flown commercial aircraft would cruise with significant nose up pitch for a long period. Gandalf61 09:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Trim got nothing to do with reducing required pitch, it merely serve as sort of a zero adjustment for the yoke, allowing you to fly without touching the yoke (other than using autopilot). You will be flying at exactly the same pitch when you have neutral trim and holding the stick back to maintain the attitude as to trimmed and flying with no force on the stick. I don't know why they couldn't rotate the wings 5 degrees up so the fuselage can maintain horizontal in cruise but that's just the way it is. The cruise pitch goes up when I climb to say 11000 meters and reduces when I descend to 9000 meters so air density also play a part, maybe it's just that the air is so thin at cruising altitude that you need a higher angle of attack to produce enough lift, and yet having a higher-lift wing is not possible/advantageous than flying at 5 degrees pitch up. --antilivedT 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ringing of copper versus zinc pennies
Why do copper US cents ring when flipped and zinc cents remain almost silent? What specific property of the metals is responsible? —Keenan Pepper 06:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevant parameter is the loss angle $$\gamma$$, also expressed as the loss tangent $$\tan{(\gamma)}$$. It describes the degree of internal damping (energy loss) in a material. $$\gamma$$ is the complex phase angle of the complex young's modulus. Essentially, if you push on a material with a sinusoidally time-varying force, the resulting deformation will be phase-delayed by $$\gamma$$ relative to the applied force due to energy loss in the material. The loss angle is typically frequency dependent. When your coin is struck, it starts to oscillate (and thus radiate sound); the oscillation amplitude decays with time. The number of oscillation cycles before the amplitude has decayed by a factor e is called the quality factor Q, which equals $$1/\tan{(\gamma)}$$ for small $$\gamma$$. Copper has a small loss angle and a high quality factor, so a copper coin will ring for a long time, whereas zinc has a moderate loss tangent (around 0.01 at a range of frequencies ), so a zinc coin will damp out much faster. --mglg(talk) 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks! —Keenan Pepper 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Airbus 300 and 330 & Boeing 747
What is Airbus (A300 and A330)? What is Boeing747 ? How are they different between Airbus 300/330 and Boeing747?

I will be gladful if you could answer my question as soon as possible....

Thank you very much


 * This is an encyclopedia. See Airbus A300, Airbus A330, and Boeing 747. -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Might as well look at the Airbus and Boeing articles too. -- JSBillings  12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Speed of light
How fast does light travel? And does light have any particular...um..if you can see light, can you, like, touch it or smell it? :) - Zachary crimsonwolf  11:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The speed of light varies depending on the medium in which it's traveling. In vacuum, it's 3x108 meters per second. In answer to your second question, it's possible if you have synesthesia. Clarityfiend 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay..but how fast does light travel in air? What about sound in vacuum and air? Cheers!!! - Zachary crimsonwolf  11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The speed of light in air is very close to the speed in vacuum. Sound is made of vibrations in the medium it travels through, so it cannot exist in vacuum. The speed of sound in air you can look up for yourself. :-) (Oh, and is you name taken from Crimson Skies? I played the game and love the setting with airships and airlplanes taking off from it!) —Bromskloss 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah..I forgot about the fact that soun cannot travel in a vacuum, its what I'm learning currently in school. Thanks. But I did not get my name from the game. Its from the anime Naruto, where a big red demon fox is sealed in the bod of the protagonist. Thanks again! Cheers!!!! - Zachary crimsonwolf  12:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, hehe. Because the main character in Crimson Skies is named Zachary. :-) —Bromskloss 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you were holding on to a solar sail, you could indeed feel the light, due to its radiation pressure. That force is otherwise too weak to feel. --TotoBaggins 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall a sci-fi movie where astronauts, on the moon, in an air-filled plastic dome got into a fight and one fired a machine gun at the other. You heard the first several shots, but as the air leaked into space from the shredded dome the last many shots were silent. A gun should work in vacuum because the oxidizer is contained in gunpowder in the cartridge. Edison 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can feel light without a solar sail - just stick your finger into a suitably high powered laser...you'll definitely feel it! ...and of course you can feel sunlight falling onto your skin to. SteveBaker 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can not smell light, but you can smell the results of ionizing radiation (which could be loosely categorized as light, by some definitions). One such product is ozone, and it has a distinctive smell that is often described as "electric".  Nimur 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And it's not smelling the light, but the photic sneeze reflex is at least in the right neighborhood. --TotoBaggins 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sight is pretty much "feeling" photons with your eyes, right? The same kind of signals are produced? 213.48.15.234 07:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be a vast simplification, but the nerves transmitting the signals back to the brain all make use of neurotransmitters and action potentials. See neuron.  Nimur 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian Aborigines and race
What race do the Australian Aborigines belong to? Heegoop, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Australian Aborigine race? Some call this a subset of the Oceanian race. For some discussion of the issues that have to be addressed in answering this sort of question, race seems to be quite good. Algebraist 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

nipples
what happens if i rub my nipples? 17:06, 25 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.31.174 (talk • contribs)
 * Read Nipple and find out, if you are averse to experimentation. Edison 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's only one way to find out ;) 209.53.181.67 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One doesn't want to risk blindness! &mdash;Tamfang 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You rubbed them. What do you want to happen? For them to blow up or something? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See also genie, altho it's my understanding that you'll have better luck with a lamp. Friday (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also a small chance of lactation (or indeed male lactation), even if you have not had a child, according to our (admittedly unsourced) articles... Laïka  21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Chafing, if you do it too much.. Vespine 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jesus kills a puppy. Gzuckier 20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Many males find that nipple rubbing produces erections. -- JackofOz 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's because you're gay, JackofOz.--Uraguayan1 02:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's a basic fact of male physiology. The sexual preference of the subject has nothing to do with it. --  JackofOz 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it true you should rub clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere? Edison 04:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the Coriolis effect doesn't have anything to do with that. Whether frictional preferences vary with the continent is a different thing. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

cruelty-free toiletries
Are Boots the Chemist,uk,toiletries tested on animals? How do they test them? Pol51


 * Boots is a UK retailer that sources its products from a number of manufacturers, some of whom will have tested their products on animals. Animal testing is the norm in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries. Try somewhere like The Body Shop if you wish to avoid such products. For the second part of your question, see animal testing.--Shantavira|feed me 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Boots Group (the side of Boots that makes the toiletries) claim on their website that "No animal testing of any kind is undertaken or commissioned by Boots Group PLC or its subsidiary businesses...[however] some animal tests will be carried out by others, to meet regulatory requirements and protect public health. These safety tests may involve ingredients used in products manufactured and sold by our subsidiary businesses". Generally, toiletries not tested on animals will say so somewhere on the packaging, often accompanied by a picture of a rabbit. Laïka  07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific names Iulus maximus and Everyx myron
The following work: contains illustrations for Iulus maximus and Everyx myron. However I don't seem to be able to locate the appropriate family/genus/whatever for these binomial names. (I suspect it's because they have since been renamed, but I haven't had much luck trying to track them down.) The captions read: The former resemble a millipede-like creature and the later looks like a moth. Can anybody tell me their modern names? I'd like to upload them onto the commons and use an appropriate category. Thank you! &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fig. 540.--Iulus maximus. (After Schmarda.)
 * Fig. 536.--Everyx myron. (From Riley.)


 * You might want to try Julus Maximus for Iulus maximus, some casual searching hasn't turned up anything more recent than your text on the alternative spelling, though, although I have found some references to "Great Jülus" (both with and without the umlaut. Donald Hosek 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: A bit of digging indicates that Julus is an active genus according to . Not sure if Julus maximus has been moved to a new genus or not... Donald Hosek 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you're right: Iulus is listed as an alternate spelling of Julus on the Ascanius page. It looks like the Millipede page has an "Order Julida [Brandt, 1833]" down in the classification section. So then the Iulus maximus perhaps belongs under there. Thanks! &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Everyx myron, I suspect that it might be Quasimellana myron although I'm basing this strictly on the fact that it shares a latin species name and is in the right general area of the taxonomic tree. Donald Hosek 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Richard Hertwig. It doesn't help for this question, but the 1909 book appears to be a translation of a later edition of a textbook first published in German in 1891. We can also guess that the species name for Everyx myron is the name of the discoverer. We also have a Darapsa myron -Arch dude 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: From there, a google for Everyx Darapsa gets us to a google books scan of "Transactions of the American Entomological Society for 1888", page 78, which discusses a name change involving the two words, but I cannot understand what the heck they are talking about. -Arch dude 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It pretty much confirms your surmise. Darapsa myron is the same as Everyx myron. I'm guessing that it may also be Quasimellana myron. It will be nice when they get the encyclopedia of life finished. Donald Hosek 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the byproducts of mixing Sodium Bicarbonate with Aqueous Chlorine?
Specifically, I'm referring to the aqueous chlorine solution you would find in the salt brine tank from a (partially) completed electrolysis via the chloralkali process and a membrane cell. If Sodium bicarbonate is poured into the post-electrolysis chlorinated brine, a) What is the chemical reaction, and b) What chemicals are produced as a result? As a bonus, if anyone knows, could the electrolysis be performed using NaHCO3 instead of NaCl, to possibly clean up the chlorine as it happens? Many thanks in advance. 97.82.254.213 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) -Kelaniz


 * I went along and tried it. :-) Well, I think. I took some chlorine bleach, though I'm not sure what it contains (chlorine, chlorine dioxide?), and sprinkled over baking soda. There were bubbles, as usual with baking soda, and a smell of swimming pool. Not sure what reactions took place, so it's not much of an answer. (And I was hoping for an explosion or something else spectacular.) —Bromskloss 14:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, chlorine bleach would be sodium hypochlorite (NaClO), which I'm guessing would be a different reaction. I'm referring to chlorine gas dissolved in a NaCl brine. After the electrolysis, I'm left with a large tub of this waste, and I've seen lots of references to using NaHCO3 to remove/alter the chlorine to make it safer for dumping. When I did this, I got a lot of gas bubbling (not flammable, apparently) and salty sludge and what looked to be a few carbon granules on the bottom of the tank. So, I don't know. My original guess was that a mix of CO2 H2O and NaCl are formed, but I think that I'm one H atom short, so I'm probably wrong on that. I wish someone would answer this, or point me in the right direction. Even though I don't know the answer, I know it's not a difficult question. Bromskloss: sorry to disappoint you on the explosion thing. :) No bomb making here. I was just creating a NaOH solution and some Hydrogen to experiment with Hydrogenation of oils, among other boring things. :) 97.82.254.213 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - kelaniz


 * Got an answer this morning from chemicalforums.com:
 * Cl2 + H2O = HCl + HOCl
 * HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + CO2 + H2O
 * Chlorine partially dissolves in water, then reacts according the first reaction. Also, apparently the electrolysis can be performed with NAHCO3. Water and H2, CO2 gases are produced. I'm still not sure whether sodium is formed at the cathode, or something else happens to the hydronium ions.
 * One can perform electrolysis and convert sodium ions into metallic sodium, but you have to design the electrolysis cell such that this material is not exposed to the water. See Mercury cell electrolysis, Castner Process, and Downs Cell. DMacks 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)