Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 March 22

= March 22 =

Inexpensive series of science books
What are some series of science books which are inexpensive, but without sacrificing quality of the text? I am OK with lower quality paper though. Something like Dover Publications or Mir Publishers. --Doroletho (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you meaning to inquire about popular science works written for a broad audience or texts written from a more technical, professional, academic or otherwise formalist approach? If the former, do you want more generalist literature or something more specific to particular areas? Snow let's rap 06:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More technical/professional/academic. Generalist and specialized works are welcomed. --Doroletho (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for textbooks, openstax.org has downloadable pdf texts. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting, with decent quality. But I was looking for printed material.--Doroletho (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dover. If you know of a specific book you want, go to Amazon and check the used box. Hundreds and hundreds of local used bookstores list everything they have on Amazon. Sometimes you find $100+ books going for a dollar or two.
 * Also,`seriously consider getting an ereader. You can get a Kobo touch for $60 and it looks like you can run Debian Linux on it. As we move into the future the options for those who will only accept dead trees keep getting smaller and smaller. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the reduced environmental impact of e-readers (vs books). Those devices don't last long and they have some toxic stuff in them. Paper (especially pocket books) can well be made of recycled paper, and some can last decades. And you'll be using energy for turning the pages. Doroletho (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're all right with ebooks, look for open access content from solid publishers. Springer Science and Business Media is a good example; go to https://link.springer.com/advanced-search and enter your criteria, and before you hit "search", tick the box that says Include Preview-Only content.  If you exclude preview-only, it will show you only what you can access in full, and if you're at home, that will be limited to open access content.  And while Springer's primarily a traditional supplier, ANU Press is exclusively open-access; it seems to be mostly humanities and social-sciences oriented, but they have hard-sciences content as well.  Finally, http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page is an editor-supervised site (with accounts being given only upon request) consisting of a directory of open-access publishers maintained by the library school at Simmons University.  Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I missed I was looking for printed material.  Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You provided a nice source though. It's just the case that sometimes I want to spend some hours staring at something that's not a screen. Doroletho (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Economy Editions. There was a court case about the legality of importing them to the US and I think it was ruled legal. Either way, it's done a lot, typically as side businesses of students from Asian countries who study in the US. They obtain the books in their home countries and bring them to the US to sell to other students. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Polonium production
Would it be feasible to extract polonium from the coolant of a lead-bismuth eutectic-cooled fast breeder reactor? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:51E3:EF9C:2B98:7660 (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would you want polonium?
 * When would you want polonium (i.e. which decade)
 * At the time you wanted polonium, could you make a fast breeder reactor work?
 * AIUI (published material is scarce), polonium has little demand and this demand has decreased since the 1950s, when there was a demand for it for nuclear weapons and the early 'Urchin' initiator designs. It was produced in thermal reactors, not fast reactors. This demand decreased after the development of the 'Zippo' design of electronic neutron source.  However it was still a factor in the 1957 Windscale fire.
 * Since then, there's little demand for it. The Russians started to produce it, by extracting it from coolant from the OK-550 reactors of decommissioned Alfa submarines. This was as much a waste-management task as anything, to make the remaining coolant less hazardous. Polonium isn't particularly useful (Americium is more commonly used as a handy alpha emitter) and one of their main uses for it seems to be poisoning Putin's enemies. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Putin has a sleeper-cell in California. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Windscale fire is our article on one topic Andy Dingley mentions. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it still used in nuclear weapons? Or has it been completely replaced in that application? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:D957:1488:1878:1C03 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Modulated neutron initiators of early atomic weapons used polonium, but these were phased out in favor of alternative neutron sources that did not require frequent replacement of short-lived isotopes. As for the original question, I mean, I have no idea if it would be economically feasible. Transmuting bismuth to polonium becomes inefficient at high neutron energies, which is where fast reactors operate. So you should expect less polonium generation than with older reactor types, but I have no idea how much less. Our articles don't give the rates, if they are even published somewhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So in other words, even if it's feasible, there's not much point in it? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:D957:1488:1878:1C03 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to take something back. The lead-bismuth cooled reactors of the past were also fast reactors. Looking at the sources on coolant activation in fast reactors, polonium isn't even mentioned specifically in this paper . It appears the reason is that since its half-life is so relatively brief, it is not considered a major waste concern compared to other radionuclides generated (at least it seems to be the Russian attitude that if you can safely decontaminate something simply by having it sit in a barrel for 50 years, it is not a serious issue). No, the major concern with polonium was simply keeping it from escaping into the environment, as it is a potent acute toxin. Anyway, looking online, there are actually quite a few papers describing polonium extraction from lead-bismuth (this includes a nice review: ), but these were never used for reactor coolant. The methods actually employed were simply for lead-bismuth samples that were deliberately activated for the purpose of making polonium, and also some theoretical reactor-cleaning processes that were never used. It's stated in that review that the problem is ease of removal from coolant, which is not really the same as the base material for polonium production via lead-bismuth. The coolant has a much greater volume than you would want for the amount of polonium you have, it's not chemically precisely the same as what you'd use for deliberate production, and it's operating much hotter than you would want for extraction. So it might not be possible to extract significant amounts from coolant that's in use (aside from what simply vaporizes out of it already, which is a real concern), and the extraction process could render the coolant useless. And since the polonium concentration could actually be less than what you'd get with a deliberate activation, it could even be more expensive overall than just having a totally separate operation to activate-and-extract. Finally, even if you just wanted to do this to waste coolant, to make the material safer, if it's already safe just sitting in a sealed container, there's not going to be much incentive. So, is there a point in it? Well, actual nuclear engineers are writing papers speculating about how to do this, and they believe that making coolant safer for the environment is the point in it, even if it's not the biggest concern. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Could a planet form from just helium and hydrogen?
Could a planet form from just helium and hydrogen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.64.221.25 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The article Sub-brown dwarf seems to imply the theoretical possibility for rogue planets. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If by 'just helium and hydrogen' the OP means 'without any other trace elements whatever,' the answer is probably "no," since even in the early universe there was probably a small admixture of Lithium created by the Big Bang. Subsequently, stars created and dispersed other elements into the interstellar medium in amounts gradually increased by repeated generations, which is where all the non H and He elements in, for example, the Earth and the Sun when first formed come from.
 * However, if the OP means merely 'mostly', then "yes," as Cookatoo suggests. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I read this question a bit differently, as "If there was only hydrogen and helium in the universe, would planets still form ?". I believe the answer is yes, at least for large gas giants.  I'm not sure if smaller planets could form, at least within a solar system, as the small gravity would be insufficient to prevent the solar wind from blowing away the gas, thus preventing planet formation.  However, smaller gas planets may form in calmer areas, where there is nothing to blow it away.  SinisterLefty (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes: Sub-brown dwarf. I was surprised by this myself - I'd assumed the minimum mass for a gas cloud to collapse would be somewhere up near the threshold for brown dwarfs, but apparently not - something as small as Jupiter can form by this phenomenon. This is the same way that stars form, rather than the gas giants of our own solar system, which started as gas accreting onto a rocky core. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Saturn is mostly hydrogen and helium; its overall density is 30% less than water at STP, so it actually has the same surface gravity as Earth. But it does have a rocky core making up perhaps 10-20% of its total mass.  So your question to me boils down to "Could Saturn's core be smaller?" and I'd guess "yeah, sure, why not?" Wnt (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I interpreted this as a gravity question, that is, can hydrogen and helium gas form a planet with strong enough gravity to define it as a planet. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC).


 * I searched smallest gas giant possible and got this link which cites Minimum planetary size for forming outer Jovian-type planets: stability of an isothermal atmosphere surrounding a planet from 1988 by S. Sasaki. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Walkable non-terran Solar System more or less surface than the Earth?
Looking at the places where I think Humans could walk in space suits long term being Mars plus 6 of the 7 largest planetary moons. ( Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Luna, Europa and Titan, but not Io). Does the Surface area of those 7 bodies exceed the surface area of Earth? Also, would adding to the "walkable non-terran" the surface area of Mercury (presumably near the poles) where those same spacesuits could be used regardless of time of "day" change the answer? (I was thinking about this while readying Waterclap)Naraht (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The surface area of a sphere of radius $r$ is:
 * $$A = 4\pi r^2.$$ WolframAlpha gives these values:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! !! Surface area
 * Earth||5.1 x 1014 m2
 * Ganymede||8.7 x 1013 m2
 * Titan||8.3 x 1013 m2
 * Callisto||7.3 x 1013 m2
 * Luna||3.8 x 1013 m2
 * Europa||3.3 x 1013 m2
 * Titan||8.3 x 1013 m2
 * Io||4.2 x 1013 m2
 * }
 * The sum of the 7 moon surface areas is 4.39 x 1013 14 m2 which is less than the surface area of the Earth. DroneB (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant 4.39 x 1014 m2. --Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, I have corrected. Well caught! DroneB (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Europa||3.3 x 1013 m2
 * Titan||8.3 x 1013 m2
 * Io||4.2 x 1013 m2
 * }
 * The sum of the 7 moon surface areas is 4.39 x 1013 14 m2 which is less than the surface area of the Earth. DroneB (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant 4.39 x 1014 m2. --Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, I have corrected. Well caught! DroneB (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The sum of the 7 moon surface areas is 4.39 x 1013 14 m2 which is less than the surface area of the Earth. DroneB (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant 4.39 x 1014 m2. --Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, I have corrected. Well caught! DroneB (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to add in Mars, at 1.4 x 1014 m2. Once that is added in, we do seem to have slightly more surface area than Earth's total, and way more than Earth's land area, which is only 1.5 x 1014 m2. Pluto, Ceres and other dwarf planets could also be added in.  As for Mercury, the night side might be walkable, not right after sunset, but after it's had time to radiate the day's heat off into space, and allowing for a space suit that could handle temperature extremes, too.  Mercury days are 176 Earth days long, so there would be plenty of time for the night side to cool off, and there's almost no atmosphere to distribute heat from the day side to the night side. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You listed Titan twice like the OP instead of Triton. I guess "walk" means motion similar to Earth walking without losing contact with the ground and without "cheating" like magnetism, adhesion, or thrusters pushing you down. But is it cheating to have a really heavy spacesuit or baggage? With enough mass you could walk on many smaller objects. Their mass may not add up to much but their surface may. If we change the second Titan to Triton and remove Io like the OP then we may need a lot of small objects to reach Earth including water. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note that about 70% of the Earth is not "walkable" as it is covered by water that is not covered by ice. Ignoring the matter of walkable ice, the land area of the Earth is only 1.5 x 1014 m2. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd said that. Oh, yea, I did. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, at least I mentioned the ice. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that many satellites are really walkable. At the surfaces of Io and Europa the radiation level is lethal to humans. Ganymede's is lower but still dangerous. The only low radiation environment is Callisto. Is it walkable taking into account that its surface is made of slowly sublimating water ice, which can make the surface very rough and prevent any free walking? Then we have Titan. In its atmosphere that is 4 times dense than that of Earth and at -183 C any walking in conventional spacesuit, which emits a lot of heat would look really strange. Pluto and Triton? They are covered by nitrogen ice which will explosively sublimate as an astronaut in a spacesuit steps on it. So, there is relatively little walkable surface in Solar System. Ruslik_ Zero 20:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The effects of walking on Triton (or anything further out really) were memorably described in Joe Haldeman's The Forever War: All you have to do is lean up against a boulder of frozen gas; there's lots of it around. The gas will sublime off faster than it can escape from the fins; in escaping, it will push against the surrounding ice, and fracture it … and in about one-hundredth of a second, you have the equivalent of a hand grenade going off right below your neck. You'll never feel a thing. (You can read some more of the relevant bit at Atomic Rockets – search for "-270".) Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you paved Saturn (i.e. put a membrane around it) we would have a winner. At the right height you could even enjoy a warm rain of liquid water at a few atmospheres of pressure, though it would be smelly. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh... it's always the same with these Earthlings... Nimur (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, I wasn't proposing asphalt, but a glittering gold-and-blue ribbon of polythiazyl harvested from the ammonium hydrosulfide precipitation in the upper atmosphere. It's practically green chemistry, as paving planets goes. Wnt (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

To answer the question based on Ruslik0's comment – I think, extraterrestrial walkable surface area is not greater than Earth's total surface area. (Counting just Mercury, Luna, Mars, Callisto, Titan; last two are a bit iffy, and you might need a special suit for Titan. Smaller than Pluto's gravity, and I wonder if it is really walking anymore, so I don't include smaller bodies.) But it is greater than Earth's total land area! Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Drainage
If you divided average water out a river mouth by average watershed water in you'd usually get a fraction less than 1 that accounts for water took by plants, evaporation and so on. What is this fraction for how much central Ohio precipitation reaches the Gulf of Mexico? What about the plains of the Missouri R. drained part of Montana? How much of their precipitation makes it all the way to the sea? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many rivers in Australia have a fraction precisely equal to one that accounts for water taken by plants and evaporation, mostly the latter. See the 400 million year old Finke River as an example. In fact, that description would surely apply to any river that doesn't reach the sea. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I must've been confusing. Drying up before reaching the sea or at least the lowest place it could flow to if it was humid enough would be 0. 0 water per 30 or millions of years into the sump of the watershed divided by anything would still be 0. I was wondering about the ratio of precipitation to liquid water out river mouth(s) instead of the fates of the specific precipitation molecules (some of which will even evaporate from the river, bounce lucky and become river again within nanoseconds and microns but generally move with the current and leave the Mississippi mouth thousands of miles later, do those molecules count as drained or evaporated?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that this fraction is close to unity because almost all water that precipitates will eventually drain into the ocean. (except a very small part that may go into the underground reservoir) Ruslik_ Zero 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For an extreme example the Colorado River rarely reaches the sea since the 1960s. Average precipitation in the drainage basin might be up to 5,000 tonnes per second or so but average flow into the sea is only a trickle. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It means that the water evaporates and then precipitates in another area and drains through different rivers. Over a large area the fraction will be ~1. The water must go somewhere. Ruslik_ Zero 21:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly true, because there are many geographies where evaporation, evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, groundwater flow, and aquifer charge and discharge, are non-negligible. In fact, it is a generally-valid statement about hydrology: in most parts of the world, most of the water does not flow at the surface.  We have articles on surface flow and subsurface flow; and many of our articles cite this textbook, Introduction to Physical Hydrology (Hendriks, 2010), which I have seen used in college classrooms.
 * Just to give one specific example: here's information published in Geophysical Research Letters about a subject I am always interested in: evaporation from the California central valley. Irrigation in California’s Central Valley strengthens the southwestern U.S. water cycle (2012).  We aren't talking about a small amount of water that evaporates: so much water is evaporating from California farmlands that it has a net cooling effect on the climate of a huge part of our continent.  According to USGS (2009), 60% more water evaporates out of California than gets precipitated back in - which is one of the reasons we see subsidence like the stuff pictured in our article.
 * Nimur (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are looking for a hydrological model of the region. Typically, such a model will be described in research and public documents from places like the US Geological Survey or the state government for the area of interest; of course, when hydrological features cross jurisdictions, it gets more complicated.
 * Here is the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Hydrologic Atlas, which is a published, data-driven "reference for the basic parameters of the hydrologic cycle. These parameters include precipitation, temperature, streamflow and water loss..."
 * Here is a USGS webpage, Water Resources, that will direct you to more tools, data, and research publications. :Nimur (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those seem like very informative and interesting links. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)