Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 July 2

= July 2 =

Phantom question (nothing to do with the paranormal)
Just a couple of days ago I've read a funny story on the Internet about an F-4 Phantom taking off from a combination civilian/military airfield. Supposedly, the Phantom pilot was in a hurry to take off but the tower told him to wait because of heavy civilian traffic; then, after some back-and-forth between the tower and the pilot, the controller said, "OK, if you can reach 14,000 feet within half the runway length, then you are cleared for takeoff; otherwise, continue to hold." Allegedly, what happened then was that the Phantom taxied into position at the approach end of the runway, engaged full afterburner, lifted off within half the runway length, and then climbed vertically to 14,000 feet, thus abiding by the tower's conditional clearance. (Here's the link to the site in question: http://www.businessballs.com/airtrafficcontrollersfunnyquotes.htm ) My question is, does the Phantom have a sufficient thrust/weight ratio to do that? I've never flown the Phantom, so I can't be sure that this is possible. Thanks in advance! 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the numbers in our article, the plane could climb vertically if it was empty, but the thrust/weight ratio was only 0.86 in a fully loaded configuration. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words, the plane must've had no bombs, no missiles, and only a light load of fuel on board. (Which means that the pilot (1) wasn't flying far, and (2) must've been a real hotshot to climb in afterburner with such a light fuel load.)  Thanks for the info, and clear skies to you! 67.170.215.166 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although not, I think, literally possible, such a feat would be much closer to attainable by an English Electric Lightning. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The F-15 Eagle could do it without ruffling a feather (I know, I've seen that at an airshow). 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Chatting back and forth with ATC, especially during heavy traffic would be seriously unprofessional and violate FAA regs. I hope this story is not based on fact.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wormholes
Does a wormhole exert its own gravitational pull assuming they exist? Based off diagrams I have seen of wormholes they seem to have a gravitational well similar to that of a black hole, so wouldn't they have an event horizon around each of the mouths and trap any traveller going through them inside? Or does the negative energy density required inorder to keep a wormhole open cancel out the gravitational fields. I know that this is assuming that traversable wormholes exist and they might not, but thanks for the help anyway. --74.67.89.61 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wormholes do not exist. They are hypothetical conceptualizations.  Even within the realm of the hypothetical, they introduce irresolvable contradictions.  Wormholes are an interesting, mind-bending game for geometrically inclined mathematicians.  But we have never seen them; we have never seen any evidence of them; and our best efforts to consistently explain them would require bizarre and unrealistic physics.  It would serve the world a lot better if the pop-science physics books would focus on actual, existing strange physics - like the solution to the generalized double pendulum.  Have you ever seen one of these crazy contraptions?  I can't comprehend the popular fascination with fictional physics, when there is so much unexplained in actual physics.  Nimur (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no currently known property that forbids the existence of wormholes (and lets be clear here, I am not talking about traversable wormholes, I am talking about any type of wormhole, stable or not, microscopic or macroscopic) although there are a lot of strange implications. We currently do not know enough to say whether they exist or not for certain. When black holes were found in general relativity, many scientists believe they were impossible even though there was no principle that made them impossible, and look where we are today, finding that black holes are actually common throughout the universe. Wormholes are in a similar state today of what black holes used to be in, being allowed by general relativity with nothing preventing them, but no evidence for them and strange impications. I am not saying that they exist or don't, I am simply saying we do not know enough to give a definite answer, which is why I said ASSUMING THAT THEY EXIST do they exert a gravitational pull, i am simply curious as to whether someone knows the answer to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.89.61 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, we can't just assume they exist. We have to make some assumptions about how they exist - we have to change something in the laws of physics, and there are all kinds of ways we could do that (some more plausible than others). Depending on how we change physics, we'll get different answers to your question. If we talk about a specific theory of wormholes, for example the wormhole described by Matt Visser which is mentioned in Wormhole, then the question is answerable. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer... I can't find the paper mentioned. --Tango (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for soap-boxing, but somebody needs to just come out and say it. Wormholes do not exist. Before anybody tries to contemplate the gravitational behavior of a hypothetical wormhole, they should be required to thoroughly, quantitatively, and correctly describe the behavior of this simple contraption, which is only under the influence of regular, earth gravity.  Once you have mastered the mathematical techniques necessary for the generalized description of a system in ordinary geometries, you will have the foundations for the mathematical tools to play with general solutions in arbitrary geometries.  Unless you have these techniques completely mastered, any description of wormholes is just gonna be a lot of handwaving and nothing more.  That's why it is so frustrating to see so much meaningless and frivolous writing on the subject of wormholes, hidden behind the excuse of advanced science/magic and totally devoid of actual meaning.  Nimur (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to actually try to be encouraging, rather than discouraging, here is a list of topics you will need to learn thoroughly in order to understand geometries and topologies for wormholes:
 * Algebraic geometry, specifically the representation of space as a set of abstract and mappable coordinates
 * Multivariate calculus, especially as related to coordinate transforms and the ugly/beautiful details associated with the careful study the mathematics of continuity
 * Geometric topology
 * Advanced linear algebra, tensor algebra
 * Any of the various reincarnations of mechanics in terms of representations of energy - like Lagrangian mechanics
 * And of course, the relativistic theory of gravity
 * This list is not complete, but by the time you master those concepts, you'll already know what else you need to learn in order to study wormholes. Spend a lot of time on the mathematical foundations.  These subjects are very difficult, but they are not inaccessible.  They are requisite - these are the languages which are best suited to discussions of the geometry of space.  "Simple english" just doesn't have the precision and unambiguity necessary to properly describe these sorts of systems.  Nimur (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hold an MMath degree in which I studied (and passed) modules in all the fields you mention. I am qualified to discuss the subject of wormholes. We do not know if wormholes can exist or not, but from a mathematical point of view (which is the point of view I take, since I am a mathematician by training) the changes to our physical theories are minimal (basically, you just have to forget the weak energy condition). Just because we cannot demonstrate that the weak energy condition can be violated does not mean that we cannot investigate the consequences of such a violation. --Tango (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found the paper! It is here. It describes a solution in which a traveller would feel no forces on travelling through. In the words of the paper, if you send a beam of light into the wormhole "the throat of the wormhole acts as a “perfect mirror”, except that the “reflected” light is shunted into the other universe." (The paper describes wormholes between two universes, but the idea should work for wormholes within one universe too - at least, I can't see any problems with it.) Away from the throat of the wormhole, the universes are just flat Minkowski space, so there would be no gravitational attraction (or repulsion, for that matter). --Tango (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And that paper links to Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity (1988). (PDF available). That paper lays out some conditions for wormholes: "It turns out that there are very simple, exact solutions of the Einstein field equations, which describe wormholes that have none of the above problems. ... The traversible wormhole solutions to Einstein's field equations are so simple that they can be used as a tool for teaching beginning relativity students how to solve the Einstein equations, how to interpret physically solutions they have obtained, and how to explore the properties of solutions."  This is what the OP was really asking, I think.  Thanks Tango for the reference above.  Nimur (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to believe the OP was interested in the pedagogical properties of wormholes. Those properties are very important (my first rigorous exposure to wormholes was purely as a convenient example of a non-trivial solution to the Einstein equations, although that was the non-traversable Schwarschild wormhole, so not much use to the OP), but I don't think the OP cares about them. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I've said in the past about these traversable wormhole "solutions": a solution of general relativity is a solution of the Einstein field equation Gμν/8πG = Tμν, and any spacetime geometry whatsoever "solves" that equation if you don't constrain Tμν. All you have to do is work out Gμν/8πG for your geometry and then declare Tμν to be equal to it by fiat. Thus to say that a traversable wormhole geometry is a "solution" of general relativity is to say nothing at all, unless you have some independent constraints on Tμν (i.e., some non-gravitational laws of physics). Even the simplest physical constraints on Tμν rule out all of these wormhole solutions. They are therefore not solutions in any meaningful sense. The authors of these papers do acknowledge this, but what they don't mention is how easy it is to write down wormhole and warp-drive and time-travel geometries with whatever crazy properties you want, in the absence of any physical constraints. There's nothing interesting or inventive about the particular geometries they wrote down. -- BenRG (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say a "solution" of the Einstein field equation is an explicit description of both the spacetime geometry and the matter/energy distribution that produces it. Just saying that the stress-momentum-energy tensor equals the appropriate value doesn't really count. --Tango (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But it has been pointed out that these solutions require "exotic matter" and other un-physical assumptions, in some distribution, to produce the wormhole geometry. The paper Tango linked at least did not require exotic matter to be present in the throat of the wormhole (hence the arbitrary label of "traversable"), but exotic/unphysical matter was required elsewhere in some distribution to produce the system and its geometry.  Such exotic matter does not exist.  (Rather, we have never observed it, nor do we have any reason to believe it exists, but it would be really neat if it existed and it is very hard to prove non-existence, so lots of people latch on to the idea).  Nimur (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the solution did involve exotic matter at the throat, just not covering the whole throat so a traveller could avoid it. Also, "traversable" usually refers to the wormhole existing long enough to travel through rather than to whether there is exotic matter in the way. While there is far from any conclusive evidence that exotic matter can exist, the Casimir effect does point in the right direction. --Tango (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may attempt to answer OP directly (the linked paper does that, but it's at a rather high level), wormholes can be considered a topological defect in spacetime. When you have a gravitational well, like the attraction to a planet or whatever that causes curves in the rubber sheet diagrams that I assume you're looking at, those are geometrical properties, not topological. So geometrical = bumps and troughs and mountains, while topological = bottomless holes and tunnels and loops and various cartoon sight-gags.


 * Tango's first answer was that there have been different types of wormhole theories (mathematical equation sets) presented in physics, some of which show this rubber-sheet gravity well that ends up rubbering itself onto the other side of the universe. But others simply use a flat tunnel that you can walk through with no noticeable change in forces - you simply go in one end and come out the other. In both cases, we can make solutions in well-established General Relativity, but they require "exotic matter", which is basically matter with negative mass - i.e., it is gravitationally repulsive. Let me say this unqualified (I don't study GR) opinion as to your original question now: there are perfectly good reasons to imagine wormholes fitting either the gravity-well or the magic-tunnel description, but once we need any kind of matter, however unusual, to hold it up, there's probably going to be some (or lots of) gravitational discomfort when you walk through.


 * Finally, to touch on exotic matter, you are in agreement with most physicists if you find negative mass hard to swallow at this point. However, there are other places, like on a rotating black hole's event horizon, where exotic matter appears in some models (nice overview on all this). As sometimes matter and antimatter pop into existence and annihilate, this math shows sometimes mass and negative-mass pop into existence and annihilate.


 * Regardless, we've never seen any evidence of a wormhole existing naturally (it'd likely be visible, and because the universe is big, if it can exist then there'd probably be a lot of them), and it'd take more energy than currently conceivable by our civilization to mash up the topology of space ourselves were the cards of physics in our favor. But, as one researcher who works on this said, it's worth studying because it's simply fun and interesting. And indeed, all the cards have not yet been dealt. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

MP3 player (well, really amplifier) power consumption
I recently got a new iPod Nano (5G). It seems to have somewhat lower volume than my old (2G) one. It's fine for music, but very many spoken word programs (such as the excellent Open Yale Courses) are recorded with a much lower volume than music. As a consequence, I often listen to them at 100% volume, and even then some are quite quite for outdoor listening. I'm wondering what that does for battery life. Does the power consumption depend only or primarily on the volume level (on the principle that the signal is maximally amplified, even if there is not much of a signal), or does it depend primarily on the amount of actual sound energy coming out of the headphones? The first seems intuitive - if I crank up the volume, I use more energy. Physically, the second is more plausible - after all, where would the energy go otherwise? Does a amplifier amplifying a flat line get hot? If the second is true, how much of an effect is it? Will my mp3 player have a significantly longer battery life playing e.g. the Pastorale than playing Painkiller (and yes, I have both on my player ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, the power consumption of a noramlly designed amplifier is approximately proportional to the volume it produces, rather than the setting of the volume control. --Phil Holmes (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So I should always use an endless loop of 4′33″ for battery benchmarking ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * iPod Nano uses a Class D amplifier, and great pains are taken to reduce its quiescent current. (That means that "0 micro-amps" would be spent on audio power amplification if you played 4'33" through it - but of course, there are parasitics and losses, but generally very small).   Realistically, you will benefit more in terms of battery life by turning the LCD screen / backlight off - this draws significantly more current than the audio system.  Unfortunately the iPod nano internals are proprietary and their amplifier and audio system is integrated into the "anonymously marked" IC packages with Apple part-numbers only; it is impossible to get the exact specs.  Nimur (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, I believe you can set individual mp3 files to play with different volumes in iTunes — File > Get Info > Options > Volume Adjustment. You could boost the predictably quiet files by 100% before putting them on the iPod. (I'm reasonably sure those settings are transferrable to the iPod, but I haven't tried it.) --Mr.98 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

is there such a thing as a "semi-permanent" or reversible tattoo?
so I really like the idea of getting a tattoo, but who knows if later I need to sell out to the man as most people in corporations do after a while. If I ever need to have Forbes and Fortune's cocks ramming down my throat, or, who knows, maybe even Wall Street's directly, they will not be moved by tattoos on me. So, my question is whether there exists a tattoo that is "permanent" in the sense that it doesn't "just" go away, it is a real tattoo and looks like one, but semipermanent or reversible in the sense that I can get rid of it for a fee later? For example, I can imagine that a certain class of dyes have a specific "antidote", a chemical that will cause them to break up and disappear into the body, despite the fact that they do not by themselves. Is there such a thing? Or any other way to get a semipermanent or reversible tattoo? Thank you. 92.230.232.169 (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, best-practice modern tattoos will respond well to laser treatment (laser light tuned to the dye is used to destroy the colour molecules, your immune systems takes care of the rest). There is a certain risk, though, both that the process will be incomplete, but also of allergic reactions. And it's expensive... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * so why dont they develop special dyes that respond to, say, a certain frequency of microwave radiation, or a certain "antidote" chemical, or anything else... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.13.177 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article Temporary tattoo mentions InfinitInk which is supposed to be easier to remove with laser treatment. While are I'm sure inks which are easier to remove which could be developed, I'm not convinced your first idea would be much easier or cheaper then with lasers, particularly if you don't want the rough area you were tattoed to be cooked and also don't wont your tattoo to fade a lot over time due to natural exposure to EM radiation from the many forms of transmission common nowadays. Your second idea is more promosing but developing something safe and effective is probably not easier or cheap particularly since the antidote will need to penetrate the skin Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also the far-off possibility of nano-tattoos, which could be reprogrammed as you saw fit. (Kind of goes against the point of a tattoo, if you ask me. They're not just an image, they're an image of commitment!) IMO, if you are worried about not looking corporate enough, get it in an area that can be easily hidden, like the shoulder or upper arm, which can be displayed if and when you want it pretty easily, but is also easily hidden under your suit. And please watch your language on here—it's rude to swear for no purpose, and makes you sound neither edgy nor interesting. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your sentiment, though I wonder if it isn't prompted by your regularly ingesting more corporate c**k than is your preference. see? self-censored. 92.224.207.197 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Henna? Woad? 92.28.247.183 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Copper(I) sulfate
I reduced copper(II) sulfate (blue) with ascorbic acid solution (colorless) to get a yellow solution. Is it copper(I) sulfate? It reacted with hydrogen peroxide to form a green solution again (it was green because of the additional acidity of the ascorbic acid). --Chemicali nterest (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like a copper ascorbate complex to me. Physchim62 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree (that example is in anhydrous conditions) - in aqueous solution copper is reduced
 * Possibly you made nano-copper in the first step . It's also possible that the some of the product at the first step was fine Copper(I) oxide (this paper )
 * Additionally 'Cuprous(I) hydroxide' is yellow and is obtained in alkaline conditions, though this seems very unlikely in acid conditions - see also Benedict's reagent and Fehling's reagent
 * This paper is available online, and covers a lot of stuff relating to the first reaction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.124.131 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The second step (green solution) sounds like it might be a copper(II) complex - which are often green with oxy-ligands - I'm not sure what happens to the ascorbic acid through all this - but I guess it will be a complex of whatever the ascorbic acid is oxidised to.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Cu(I) isn't very stable in water. I'm going with the idea of nanocopper -- you reduced Cu(II) to Cu(I) only to have it disproportionate into Cu(II) and Cu(0). (And the Cu(II) gets reduced again into Cu(I)...) And colloidal copper is much different than bulk copper....because of different surface energies and the Mie scattering it will take on a different colour...welcome to nanochemistry! John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also did you add Vitamin C in excess? Or? John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither were in clear excess. When CuCl2 is reacted with ascorbic acid, white CuCl is formed. I was wondering whether there is a similarity in the sulfate reaction. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try tin(II) chloride as a reducing agent and see if there is a difference. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is that Cu(I) sulfate is probably very soluble in water whereas CuCl precipitates in excess and is thus most of the Cu(I) is shielded from disproportionation. Try reducing Cu(II) chloride in the presence of concentrated HCl.... also reduce Cu(II) sulfate with Vitamin C in clear excess, eliminate the chance of any remaining Cu(II).
 * Btw, do you have any sodium borohydride? John Riemann Soong (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (I ask because NaBH4 is a little more environmentally friendly than Tin(II) and Tin(IV)...what do you do with your waste?) John Riemann Soong (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tin is ok unless you're a mollusc ... In the overall scheme of things using NaBH4 is just as damaging (production of) as a little solder+HCl, but I appreciate your point.77.86.124.131 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * well the basic products of NaBH4 decomposition can be neutralised with acetic acid or vinegar... then dumped down the sink. You can't do that with Tin(IV). John Riemann Soong (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tin in the enviroment (in the quantities here) is unlikely to be a problem .. the main problem from tin is poisonous by products from its production ie smelting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.124.131 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a centrifuge? If you want to do the waste management yourself, you can recover the colloidal copper by centrifuge. Sodium ions, sulfate ions, phosphate ions and chloride ions don't stress the environment that much. John Riemann Soong (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would use tin(II) chloride in quantities in order of .2 grams; that shouldn't hurt the environment. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * More clues: When reacted with an excess of ascorbic acid, it forms a yellow solution. The yellow solution becomes darker as ammonia is slowly added. The color is similar to a dilute solution of iron(III) chloride in acidic conditions. Wisps of brown precipitate are formed. When much ammonia is added, it creates a very dark brown precipitate that lightens within 1 second to a yellow brown precipitate. The yellow brown precipitate reacts with small amounts of hydrochloric acid to form a colorless precipitate (CuCl), which dissolves in excess HCl to form a clear solution. The precipitate also reacts with hydrogen peroxide to form a greenish solution (Cu(H2O)2+). Hope this helps. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Concentration of NaOH
100 mL of 0.125 M NaOH was mixed with 64 mL of H2O. Calculate the final concentration.

Is it incorrect to use the dilution equation in the following way?

(100 mL) (0.125 M) = (64 mL) (C)

Concentration = C = 0.20 M H2O.

--478jjjz (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that's wrong.
 * The correct formula is :

Initial volume --  x Initial concentration  = Final concentration Final volume
 * The final volume is 164mL. 77.86.124.131 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So, then the final Concentration is

[(100mL)/(164 mL)] * 0.125 M = 0.0762 M

--478jjjz (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

HCl and NaOH
25.0 mL of 0.5 M NaOH was reacted with 45 mL of 0.12 M HCl. Calculate the final concentration of NaOH.

(0.0250 L of NaOH)*(0.5 mol NaOH) = 0.0 1 25 mol NaOH.

(0.045 L) * (0.12 M HCl) = 0.0054 mol HCl

Since NaOH and HCl react in a 1:1 ratio, then HCl is the limiting reagent. The product is 0.0054 mol NaOH.

How do I proceed further?--478jjjz (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're starting materials indicate 0.0125 mol NaOH and 0.0054 mol HCl are availible to react. Since there is a 1:1 ratio, answer these questions:
 * If 0.0054 mol of HCl react, and the SAME NUMBER OF MOLES of NaOH react as well, then how many moles of NaOH actually react?
 * If you started with 0.0125 mol of NaOH, and you TAKE AWAY the number of moles of NaOH that reacted (#1 above) how many moles of NaOH are left over?
 * If you mixed two solutions, one of which contained 0.0250 L and the other which contained 0.045 L, what is the TOTAL VOLUME of the two solutions after mixing?
 * Now, you have some NaOH left (answer to #2) and it is in the combined volume (answer to #3). What is the final concentration, given that the concentration of the NaOH left is the LEFTOVER MOLES OF NaOH DIVIDED BY THE COMBINED LITERS OF SOLUTION.
 * Every problem you solve that looks very similar to this is solved roughly the same way. -- Jayron  32  18:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 0.0054 mol NaOH react
 * 2) 0.0071 mol NaOH left over
 * 3) 0.070 L = total volume
 * 4) (0.0071 mol NaOH)/(0.070 L) = 0.10 M NaOH.--478jjjz (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Solution concentration equals amount of stuff divided by solution volume--say that like a hundred times or so. That is the formula that always answers any dilution question, because you will always have or can figure out any two of those variables and then use that formula to solve the third. The secret to avoiding mistakes is to always write units with your numbers so you know exactly what the value means (i.e., whether it's concentration, volume, etc.). So when you first say "(0.5 mol NaOH)" BZZT, that's a kind of careless mistake that can lead to all sorts of confusion and more serious understanding mistakes later ("L * mol" is...um...L*mol not mol--that's a pretty fundamental fact). It's not just nit-picky--if you are working through towards an answer and the units are not the right type for the question ("how many moles?" and you have an answer in liters) you immediately know you made a mistake. Say you have figured out "0.0054 mol NaOH", that's an amount of stuff. You can easily figure out the total volume in which it is dissolved (the volume of a mixure of same-solvent solutions is just the sum of the volume of each part). And now you have a formula you've said like a hundred times or so that uses those two to figure out concentration. DMacks (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Titration
250.0 mL of an unknown HCl solution was titrated with 14.75 mL of 0.0762 M NaOH to the phenolphthalein end point. Calculate the molarity of the HCl solution. --478jjjz (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The reaction is

HCl + NaOH ==> NaCl + H2O

Total volume= 250.0 mL + 14.75 mL = 264.75 mL = 0.26475 L


 * Every concentration problem is the same, just different numbers. DMacks (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We have 0.0012 mol NaOH --478jjjz (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * DMacks, I beg to differ with you. I don't know how many moles of HCl I started with.  This is the source of my confusion.--478jjjz (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have the number of moles of NaOH and wish to find the number of moles of HCl, look at the equation. It will tell you the ratio between the two. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 0.0012 mol HCl reacted with 0.0012 mol NaOH. I don't know how many moles of HCl I started with; how do I find the moles of leftover HCl?

--478jjjz (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What does the "phenolphthalein end point" mean? DMacks (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It means to the point where all the acid (HCl) and base (NaOH) have completely reacted.--478jjjz (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With none left over? DMacks (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I don't know the starting moles of HCl, I don't know how much of it is left over. I want to know if this problem from one of my chemistry quizzes is even solvable.--478jjjz (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the context of my question wasn't clear. Again, for the definition of the phenolphthalein endpoint of a titration, you say the acid and base "have completely reacted". How many moles of base do you need in order that X moles of acid gets "all reacted"? Does the definition here mean you have added just an arbitrary small amount, exactly as much of one as the other, or a huge excess amount? How much un-neutralized acid (or base) is present according to the definition of your endpoint? DMacks (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 0.0012 mol NaOH has reacted with X amount of HCl. I don't know the initial concentration of HCl which I can multiply by the volume to get the # of moles of HCl.  If I have, let's say, 0.000005 moles of HCl at the start of the reaction, then HCl would be the limiting reagent & none would be left over.--478jjjz (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have 0.000005 moles of HCl at the start of the reaction, how many moles of NaOH would you add to get that amount of HCl all reacted? DMacks (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

They would both be in a beaker. 0.0012 mol NaOH reacts with with all HCl and (0.0012 -0.000005) mol NaOH is left over in the basic solution in the beaker due to the excess NaOH.--478jjjz (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's your problem: the very definition of your endpoint is when the solution reaches a very specific pH (the color changes), which tells you exactly how much H+ is present at that point. The casual wording of the reaction description might be throwing you: if you have >0 of compound X present, it is not "all reacted", it's excess unreacted. All reacted means all of it is reacted, not just "as much as can". If I have 10 H+ and add 5 OH-, my OH- is all reacted, but my H+ is not all reacted. The first drop of base you add to the acid completely reacts, but you (hopefully) recognize that this is not the endpoint of the titration (would be silly because every titration would be "1 drop"). You keep adding base until (for example) neutrality (until the H+ is "all reacted"). DMacks (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The purple words above have been copied verbatim. I have concluded that this problem isn't solvable.  I have to speak to the instructor and let him know that it is preposterous to put unsolvable problems on quizzes to make me get a low grade.  (If anyone can somehow solve this problem, then please do!)--478jjjz (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is perfectly solvable. In fact, it is a routine calculation in analytical chemistry! Just just need to figure out the amount of HCl in the initial solution, then divide by the volume of the initial solution to find the concentration. Physchim62 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) To be honest, if I were the teacher, I would tell you to go back and relearn what "endpoint" means in the context of a titration experiment. Again, per the technical definition of phenolphthalien endpoint, you know exactly the concentration of unreacted acid in the solution at that point (i.e., excess, compared to the amount of base you added). DMacks (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This problem was in a lab quiz. The #s in the above purple problem have nothing to do with the experiment that I had performed during the prior class.  As it stands, I re-affirm that the purple problem is unsolvable.--478jjjz (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The first step in pretty much any titration problem is the calculate the amount of reagent you have added from the burette. Now here, you've added 14.75 mL of a 0.0762 M solution: amount is concentration times volume, so you have added n(NaOH) = 0.01475*0.0762 = 0.001124 mol. You know the equation, so you know that that hydroxide has reacted with 0.001124 mol of HCl. So how much HCl is left over? Take a quick look at our article on phenolphthalein, and you will see that it changes colour at pH 8.2… so when the phenolphthalein changes colour, there's no hydrochloric acid left! So your initial solution of HCl contained 0.001124 mol HCl in 250 mL, in other words it was a 0.001124/0.25 = 0.00450 M solution. Physchim62 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's start again
 * 14.75 mL of 0.0762 M NaOH was used - that's 14.75 x 0.0762 = 1.12395mmol of NaOH (A)
 * It was titrated to an end point with an acid-base indicator in the reaction NaOH + HCl >>> NaCl + H2O, that's as 1:1 reaction so 1.12395mmol of HCl must have been used (B)
 * Molar concentration is related to number of moles and volume by the equation:

Number of moles Concentration = --  (C) Volume
 * You've been asked to find the molality (concentration) of the HCl solution, so that's 1.12395mmol ÷ 250ml (D)
 * Be careful with units, since both the quanities in D are 'milli' in this case the answer is is mol/litre, which is the same of molality, no further work needed.
 * If you didn't get any part please ask about it. I've labelled each step A,B,C etc .77.86.124.131 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your methodology differs from the section above this problem. Therein, the leftover moles that hadn't reacted were used to find the concentration.  On the other hand, in this problem, the number of moles that have reacted have been used to find the concentration.--478jjjz (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem should have said " Calculate the initial molarity of the HCl solution." User:Physchim62's explanation has made me believe that 0.001124/0.25 = 0.00450 M HCl is indeed correct for the initial concentration.
 * The point is that you start out with 250 mL of an HCl solution: the implication is that it is a sample of a larger volume of solution that you have sitting in a bottle somewhere. Physchim62 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have finally reconciles the approach of this problem and the one above it. In both cases, we have used the unreacted substance to find concentration. In this one, we found the unreacted amount prior to the reaction to get the concentration. In the previous problem, we found the unreacted amount after the reaction to get the concentration.--478jjjz (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The other point with a titration is that you use an indicator (here, phenolphthalein) so that you know exactly when the last of the reactant has been used up. In effect, you already know the final concentrations – they're both zero. Physchim62 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thank you and others who helped me with this problem.--478jjjz (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "endpoint" in this case is mentioned in the main titration article. See Equivalence point. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Temperature of the ocean
What IS the temperature of the water 1000s of meters down in the worlds oceans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.34.28 (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty close to freezing. 35-40 deg F.  Volcanic vents the exception.  Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pretty close to freezing" may be a bit misleading. Those temperatures are close to freezing at sea level. However, due to the great pressures experienced at that depth (not to mention the salinity), the water isn't really close to becoming ice 1000s of meters deep. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Abyssal plain has lots of interesting information on this subject. --Tango (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Four degrees celsius, because that is the temperature at which water is most dense.  See below, and the article - sorry, my error.  Thermocline has good information for you.  Because of salinity-based and thermal-based upwelling, there may be local variations, but in the very deep ocean, there is a reasonably static temperature profile (even if there is mass transfer of the water).  Nimur (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I learned after giving the same answer here some time ago, the four degree value holds true for fresh water but not for salt water. The link you pointed to explains that the freezing point of seawater is about minus two Celsius, and the density increases right down to the freezing point. Looie496 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this for global ocean temperatures at the depth of 1000 metres (select the "1000 m" option; here is a permanent link for June 30, 2010). ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Audio amplifier power output
Why is the output of a domestic audio amplifier not inversely proportional to the loudspeaker impedance. I was taught that P=V^2/R but amplifiers dont seem to obey this law when you look at their specifications. Why not?--Bellwelder (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly because the amplifier itself has impedance as well - this makes your equation:

P=V2/(Rspeaker+Ramplifier)


 * The other additional factor in old fashioned amplifiers is the power supply capacity of the power supply ie the transformer - there's a limit to how much power a transformer can supply related to its inductance, but I don't know the equation.


 * Yes but the output impedance of a feedback amplifier is very low (approaching zero)--88.104.90.10 (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 77.86.124.131 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You will get maximum power transfer from the amplifier to the loadspeaker when their impedences are matched, not when the speaker impedence is minimum: this is known as the maximum power theorem. Physchim62 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

natural skin oil
What oils most closely mimic natural skin oil: for example, olive oil, peanut oil, canola oil, mineral oil, vaseline, coconut oil, palm oil, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsmith44 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Human skin oil is called Sebum, there's a simplfied analysis at Sebaceous_gland - of those components most are not found in vegetable oils, so a comparison between them isn't that viable. (Mineral oil and Vaseline are pure petroleum product and not like skin oil at all).77.86.124.131 (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very roughly it's similar to 40% vegetable oil + 20% beeswax + 10% vaseline + 10% soap (though it's not salty like soap) .. hope that helps.77.86.124.131 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jojoba, which is strictly speaking not an oil but a wax, is said to have the nearest composition to human sebum. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds quite similar to 25% of the make up of sebum - I used 'beeswax' as an equivalent above, but johoba is a better match.87.102.21.49 (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Name these two plants?
In a park in southern England. http://img186.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=04455_DSCF0003_122_354lo.JPG The one on the right foreground had grape-like berries earlier in the year, on the now dried fish-bone-shaped parts. Thanks 92.28.247.183 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to give the same warning as before, the image link gives a popup to a NSFW site 77.86.124.131 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Back left is I think some kind of fig (ficus), but there's an awful lot of them to choose from. Perhaps the one in front is mahonia? 213.122.27.137 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The plant at the back is the False Castor Oil plant, (fatsia japonica), see here, I agree the plant at the front is a mahonia of some sort. Richard Avery (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 92.15.0.208 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Annual architectural plants
I bought some annual seeds to sow in my garden in southern England and was dispointed to discover that they were only 2 or 3 inches high when flowering. Are there any big garden plants that will grow as an annual, particularly in semi-shade? 'Architectural plant' means a large plant at least three or four feet high. Thanks. 92.28.247.183 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rhododendron? I think you mean a small shrub of which there are many - was there anything else you wanted in the plant that could help narrow the search?77.86.124.131 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some varieties of Hollyhock (Althaea aka Alcea) would certainly qualify: they are often used as the 'backdrop' plant (in front of which shorter flowers are placed) in the traditional English Cottage garden. Foxgloves (Digitalis) would fit the size criterion, but are perennial or biennial.
 * Leafing quickly through Dr D. G. Hessayon's The Bedding Plant Expert, other candidate annuals with some varieties in the 3-4 feet range include: Love-lies-bleeding (Amaranthus); African Daisy (Arctotis); Spider Flower (Cleome); Datura; Sunflower (Helianthus); Burning Bush (Kochia); Larkspur (Delphinium); Annual Mallow (Lavatera); Nasturtium (Tropaeolum); Sweet Pea (Lathyrus); Ornamental Maize (Zea). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although I thought all Hollyhocks were at least biennial. Are there any that are annual? 92.15.0.208 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we have this gigantic encyclopedia here someplace...um, let me see...aha! Hollyhock says "They are biennial or short-lived perennial", so no. SteveBaker (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr Hessayon says otherwise: "Hollyhocks are sometimes grown as perennials in the border, but rust disease generally weakens the plant and it soon becomes a sorry sight. It is better to treat Hollyhock as a biennial or to grow one of the annual varieties." [My italics]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The USDA] disagree. Their website (which is the reference for our hollyhocks article) clearly states perennial/biennial. SteveBaker (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I venture to suggest that the USDA are referring to the wild-growing parent plant rather than all of the domestic cultivars created for the horticultural market to be grown in gardens. Many plants that are primarily perennial or biennial in the wild have had annual varieties bred by commercial nurseries. Note also that the OP asked for plants "that can be grown as an annual", which horticulturally one can do with a biological perennial that reaches maturity in the first year simply by removing it after its first flowering - our own Annual plant article states "Some perennials and biennials are grown in gardens as annuals for convenience . . . ." That said, I find it difficult to believe that such an eminent gardening authority as Hessayon would explicitly refer to "annual varieties" if none such existed, but this is I suppose also possible. Perhaps we need a tie-breaker. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaaand . . . try this. The very first google hit from "annual hollyhock seed" gives this site page which includes the paragraph "The small annual hollyhock 'Majorette Mixed' which has large semi-double blooms is ideal to grow in a flower border with other annuals and perrenials [sic]." I rest my case. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend Sunflowers. They are annuals and some varieties grow to be 6' tall.  However, the more natural varieties grow to three or four feet and produce gigantic, long-lasting orange blossoms.  They grow spectacularly quickly. SteveBaker (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW this year we have both of sweet peas and sunflowers grown from seed a month or so ago next to each others. They are both currently about 175 cm tall, both growing fast but the sweet peas are much bulkier and will go further if supported. If you only want four foot and want quick growth Californian poppies are not bad (but a bit vulgar to look at, hence the name I guess). Of the above list Nasturtium is fun because the buds are edible (they taste like capers) but will only grow high if supported. --BozMo talk 21:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)