Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 June 15

= June 15 =

Allergy medicine
What allergy medicine is the most common?

What allergy medicine is typically most effective?

What type (pill, nasal spray, drop, etc) is typically most effective?  Maddie talk 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See your doctor. We cannot answer medical questions, as every case will be different, but our article on allergy has some information that you might find helpful.--Shantavira|feed me 07:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your first two questions is likely diphenhydramine.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd probably dispute that and say cetirizine hydrochloride. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends on many factors. Antihistamines like the ones already mentioned are popular and pretty effective, but not generally considered to be the "most effective".  Most effective for immediate relief is probably epinephrine (adrenaline) - e.g. for severe reactions.  Most effective for greater duration, but taking longer to kick in, are systemic corticosteroids like prednisone but the side effects preclude common use for this purpose.  Topical (inhaled) corticosteroids strike a good balance in the right setting, but they can be absorbed and can also interact with other medications.  Leukotriene antagonists are also highly effective in certain settings, and the list goes on... Scray (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Physics-- Force, Mass and Acceleration
Hello everyone! This is in reference to the question with the same heading posted a few days back. I was asked to get details of the book, but since it wasn't mine to begin with, it took me some time to get my hands on it. The book's called "Elements of Physics" by the authors D.Datta, B.Pal and B.Chaudhury. For some unknown reason, the back of the book was blank, i.e, it didn't have a bar code or the ISBN number printed in the place where most books have them. A thorough search revealed that the book hadn't given an ISBN number at all ! I know that's strange and positively fishy, but this is really the best I can do. Thanks for all your help.

@Spinning Spark-- Please look up the book on the net now and let me know what you think about that odd question. 117.194.227.13 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That title and author do not show up in a search of Library of Congress, Google Books, British Library, European Library or a general web search. I also tried a number of major bookshops.  I have also waded through the list of every book of that title (you would not believe how many people thought that title was original) just to make sure the spelling of Indian names was not an issue.  The book does not seem to have any real provenance.  I can only suggest that you treat its claims with suspicion.


 * here is a link to the archived discussion if anyone wants to have another attempt.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  12:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't look very hard but did come across this . I suspect the book is an ultra low cost Indian text book hence the lack of ISBN and difficulty finding much information about it. I agree that its claims should be treated with suspicion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you sure know how to make a person look stupid! Unfortunately we are still no closer to seeing what is in it as that does not include a preview facility.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking your time, everyone! I agree that the book is "an ultra low cost Indian text book", but would have thought that anyone writing a textbook for children would've been a bit more careful. I'm sure that something's wrong the question now.And to think that I (as well as all of you) wasted our time on it! Sorry for the inconvenience caused, everyone. 117.194.224.227 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple Inorganic Reaction
Calcium chloride, when added to sodium carbonate, causes calcium carbonate to precipitate. CaCl2 + Na2CO3 -> CaCO3 + 2NaCl. I should know the answer to this being a chemistry major, but I can't remember back to my gen chem class. What causes this exchange of ions to occur? Is it because of the insolubility of calcium carbonate? Or is there more to it that this? Thanks. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's insolubility. If you want to get more technical, the chemical equilibrium for Ca2+(aq) + CO32-(aq) -> CaCO3(s) lies much more strongly on the right than any other combination of those ions, so while all possible combinations go in and out of solution, calcium carbonate is the only one that suddenly finds it too hard to keep dissociating and hence precipitates out. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. My inorganic chem is beginning to come back to me. Thanks for your help. --Russoc4 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercury
Is there mercury on Mercury? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.229.166 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is possible, though one is not named after one of the others. Both the planet and the element are named after the same Roman deity. The articles contain more information. I'm not sure about the presence of the element on the planet, but I do know that is not a very abundant element on earth. I do believe the planet Mercury has a high abundance of iron, though. --Russoc4 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Similarly, compare Uranus with Uranium, Neptune with Neptunium, and Pluto with Plutonium. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And tellurium with Earth and Selenium witb Moon. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think it likely, as small planets, like Mercury, tend to concentrate heavier elements, like mercury, so they are far more abundant than in the solar system in general. In order for there not to be any mercury present one would have to imagine a way for it to leave.  I could imagine it all boiling into a gas, and then being blown away by the strong solar wind at that distance.  I'll check out some numbers and see if that seems possible... StuRat (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the max surface temp is listed as 700°K, which is higher than the 630°K boiling point of the element, so some mercury vapor should be produced. However, as the average temps are far less than the boiling temp, I'd expect underground mercury to remain closer to the average temps, remain liquid, and thus remain on the planet. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So assuming it were abundant enough, it could actually rain mercury on Mercury? Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, sounds like a nice day for Terminator 2. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Boiling point is defined as the temperature at which the vapor pressure reaches atmospheric pressure. Are you using the atmospheric pressure of Earth, or the atmospheric pressure of Mercury? — DanielLC 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The atmospheric pressure on Mercury is effectively zero, so any liquids would boil away. Any elemental mercury on the surface would be liquid at those temperatures (it's liquid at room temperature, after all!), so would boil. Mercury beneath the surface might remain liquid because of the pressure of the surrounding rock, I don't know enough about the subject to make an accurate prediction there. Of course, mercury could be present in compounds with higher melting points which would exist in solid form. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mercury rain on Mercury sounds as unlikely as Venereal disease on Venus. Edison (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

polyatomic and monoatomic ions.
I need to know the difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.5.173 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen our articles on polyatomic ions and monoatomic ions? As their name suggests. Polyatomic ions consist of many atoms covalently bound with a net charge not equal to 0. Monoatomic ions are single atoms that have more or fewer electrons than they normally have. Both are involved in ionic compounds. --Russoc4 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass/Weight of a Pokemon in a Pokeball
OK so we all know how it goes, Pokemon magically appear from their pokeballs and fight it out, but when they re-enter Pokemon trainers seem to have no trouble lifting the balls up (I mean some Pokemon are pretty heavy; Charizard for example is a right burger biffer). So where does the weight, and therefore mass, of the Pokemon go? In search for an answe myself and an equally socially challenged friend have come up with two possible theories, which continue a longstanding tradition of debate and hate towards each other:

1. Inside the pokeball is void of Higgs Bosons, therefore the Pokemon does not experience mass as it has no interaction with the Higgs Field. I'm assuming the pokemon turns into a strange radiative state which is regenerated on expulsion from its resting place.

2. (In what is quite franky a rediculious explanation..) The Pokeball acts as a gateway to a different dimension which stores the Pokemon until needed (I know, down right retarded).

So, Wikipedians, Discuss. -Benbread (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always assumed that hammerspace-like containers(such as Dennis Kucinich's pockets as seen on the Colbert Report), have some way of making their contents weightless, maybe through the dimensional portal you mention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.84.182 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a theory: pokemon aren't real, so they go to the place in your brain other cartoons go when you suspend your disblief. Try our cartoon physics article on for size. --Shaggorama (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question invokes a discussion on an idea that has appeared in video games for years. See magic satchel. I don't think anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation for such things.--Russoc4 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From Poké Ball - "In the Pokémon world, scientists have been using various, highly developed techniques of converting matter into energy and back for years." "The conversion of a Pokémon into energy when inside a Poké Ball explains how some Pokémon can be many times the Trainer's height and weight, yet still fit in a Poké Ball and not make it any heavier." Digger3000 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is great in fiction, but in the real world even when you "convert" matter into energy if you measure it you'll still find it has the same mass. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Shhhh... --Tango (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Forget Pokemon. I now want to use Poke balls for energy storage. If it can really store an entire animal converted to energy as energy, then it could power every electrical device I'll ever own in my entire life. If extracting this energy requires a one-time sacrafice of a pokemon then that's a price I can live with. APL (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Two dimensional objects do not possess any mass. It is a non (or poker none) question.   Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hammer space, of course. Rmhermen (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this space governed by Hammer time?-- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about if each Pokeball has miniaturized shrink ray technology, something akin to Honey, I Shrunk the Kids? The process would then be reversed when the Pokeball is opened. Compared to other theories presented (with the exception of the alternate dimension theory), this one has the advantage of allowing said Pokemon to retain previous training, since the subjects in said movie had no memory loss; the same might not be true if you converted matter into energy and back again. Eric  (EWS23) 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This problem goes even further when you realize that may Pokémon can create many times their weight in whatever they can shoot out. For example, a Poké ball the size of a tennis ball holds a Blastoize the size of a van, which can shoot out enough water to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool in a few seconds. Maybe we should just assume that Pokémon takes place in another universe, and things we take for granted in our own, such as the law of conservation of energy, simply don't apply. — DanielLC 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't able to determine the mass of Pokey balls, and couldn't even spot them in pics like this:


 * StuRat (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That was the first time I burst out laughing at something on the reference desk in months. Kudos! --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now the pic has been removed. I guess Pokey's privates will remain private. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to add another dimension to this problem. When a pokemon evolves, many of its properties change instantaneously, like mass, size and even biological properties(consider charmaleon developing into charizard). This change often takes only few seconds.Perhaps the assertion is correct that in the universe of pokemons the conservation laws don't apply.shanu 08:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit max (talk • contribs)