Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< August 11 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 13 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
This question is for Donna Reister-Piper.
Hi Donna, you have been so kind to Gus, who I believe has spoken to you about my father who is suffering from MDS, and is currently receiving treatment using Hydroxy Urea.
We are in Adelaide, South Australia, and Gus is a relative of ours.
My father has had a Bone Marrow biopsy, and lots of blood tests.
I would like to ask you, what information can I provide to you from his case notes that would help you for his case. There are two volumes at this stage, and I would be more than happy to copy and send the information that you need, including blood tests, biopsy results and the like.
I would also be happy to pass any questions on to the Haematologist, if I can not get this information myself.
I happen to work here at the treating hospital the Royal Adelaide Hospital, so I should be able to get most of the information that you need.
Iwould like to express sincere gratitude for your help.
Thank You
Peter Spyropoulos
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspyropo ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Name the bird species which can only eat with its head up side down? 59.98.68.47 ( talk) 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What ten books would you recommend to a social science or philosopher willing to learn something about science? One I have thought of is Lectures of Physics of Feynman, another is Calculus of James Stewart. I want general, complete books, not necessarily with historical value, but more like a thourough manual, covering Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Mr.K. (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would look for a modern textbook written for a college freshman course in the particular subject (Biology, General Chemistry, ect.). The forward of a textbook often describes its intended audience or what sort of course it is designed for. For your purposes, I don't see value in looking for famous or classic names. ike9898 ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree: The Feynman Lectures are amazingly well written and incredible to read...if you already know physics. To be honest, I find that they make a pretty miserable textbook. On the other hand, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! is an amazing book that is a transcript of some narrations that Richard Feynman made. It isn't instructive on the discipline itself, but I think gives some interesting insights into its culture, though I wouldn't take it as a last word. You have to keep in mind, Feynman was a (lovable) weirdo. EagleFalconn ( talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to throw in an easy book, A Short History of Nearly Everything was quite enjoyable for me. -- Kjoon lee 02:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been looking around for a while in the chem section of Wikipedia, but I can't seem to understand a few things concerning the equilibrium of reactions exactly. I was hoping for a simple tutorial, but, then again, there may be no simple way to describe this...
First, a friend of mine who's studying to be a chem teacher told me a simple rule to determine whether two diatomic salts will react or not, saying that the one with the highest electronegativity sticks with the one with the lowest (e.g. CuF + NaCl react to form CuCl + NaF, but not the other way around). Is this true in all cases?
Secondly, for salts that are not diatomic, I would have to calculate the electronegativity of the conjugate base, which, he said, was the geometric mean of the electronegativities of all atoms forming the conjugate base (e.g. for SO42-, the electronegativity χSO42- = (χS1 * χO4)1/5. It seems to me that this ignores the spatial arrangement of the atoms, can it be true nonetheless?
Finally, for any reaction (naA + nbB + ... -> npP + nqQ + ...), with ni being the stoichiometrical coefficients, how can I find out step by step whether the equilibrium is towards the reactants of the products?
Thanks in advance for your help, Danielsavoiu ( talk) 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
EagleFalconn ( talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In 1954, at the age of two-and-a-half, I had an operation at a large hospital in Illinois. The anesthesia used was "ether," and I'm trying to find out which type of ether it would have been. My end goal is find out what the physical side effects would have been following the operation. I've looked at several articles about different kinds of ether on Wikipedia and don't have enough science background to tell the difference or to guess which one would have been prevalent in a major hospital at that time. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcol4info ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes when people say ether, they mean petroleum ether. ike9898 ( talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I was curious about the overall shape of the E8. What does it mean scientifcally, and why does it appear to imitate other famous symbols such as the shape in Dante's Divine Comedy ? 69.157.227.243 ( talk) 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(I could not think of a better name for this problem, if you can be concise, kindly rename)
Problem:
Consider two earth like planets, A and B, a distance of 1 lightyear apart. Also, assume that these two planets are geosyncronous to each other. A string/rope of length 1 lightyear is tied to one of the planets A and a mass, say "x" kg is hanging on the string close to the other planet B. It is certain that no signal can travel from planet A to planet B in less that 1 year, the question is, if I cut the string at planet A, when does the mass start falling on planet B? Also, what constraints have to be kept in mind, and what assumptions have to be made? (for instance, is it possible for the mass to stay in its original place even after the string/rope is cut, as the gravitational pull of the other planet keeps the rope in "mid air"). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Akanksh (
talk •
contribs)
18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Kainaw's answer, but if you simply pull on the string it wouldn't take any time at all for the guy on the other end to realize it because it's connected. Even if the string is a zillion light years across they would know it the millisecond you pulled on it because all of the string is moving. Now where is my Nobel prize?! ;) -- Sam Science ( talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble with this. When you move something, all of it moves. At exactly the same time. Now I'm picturing the rope already stretched to the max. As tight as you can stretch it without breaking. So if you pull it, the other end also pulls. It's instantly known. Let's say you're at a stoplight in a light year long limo (play along here). If you're in the back seat, you will know the absolute second the driver hits the gas. Instant, faster than light communication! The Nobel prize pays almost two million bucks, right? Now if you'll excuse me for a moment I have to call my boss (it's 2am here), and tell him to shove it. Sam Science ( talk) 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Be it a soldier throwing himself on top of a live grenade in order to shield his comrades from the blast, a bodyguard taking a bullet for his president, a random passer-by jumping into the road to push a child out of the path of an oncoming car and taking the hit themselves, or someone running into a burning building to save a complete stranger, human beings sometimes make a spontaneous, conscious decision to potentially give up their own life for that of another (unrelated) individual.
Are we unique in the animal kingdom in that respect? Does science know why we do this? -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if animals really know about death. Through experience, an animal may learn that other animals may injure it and cause pain. And a predator kills other animals, but does it realize that could happen to itself? Andme2 ( talk) 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Can a fly, or any other living thing except humans, conceive being dead - not being aware of anything? Perhaps they just live in the present.
A predator may anticipate the movements of its prey in the next few seconds, but may not think at all of the future except for that.
As for a fly moving out of the way of a fly swatter, that may just be instinct. A predator could move toward the fly to seize it, so the fly may instantly flee simply out of instinct. The instinct could apply to things as well. A horse's tail, for instance, may swish toward the fly to swat it, so the fly flees. It may instinctively flee from anything moving rapidly toward it. I don't believe it's a matter of the fly thinking it could be killed.
Creatures that have a memory may anticipate pain experienced from earlier similar circumstances and may flee to avoid pain, but not death.
I think fleeing is either a matter of instinct, or it is from a memory of earlier painful experience. Andme2 ( talk) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The cockatoo is simply remembering past experience. Just as a creature with a memory avoids pain by remembering past experience, it may also seek to repeat pleasure derived in past experience. But if it sees the death of another creature, it may not apply that eventuality to itself.
If a creature does not anticipate its own death (thinks the present will go on forever) it will not knowingly sacrifice its life for others.
Of course, instinct may cause animals to take risks for each other. For instance, a mother animal may defend its young. And a pack of wolves will attack a large and dangerous animal, instinctively aiding each other in the attack.
Or an animal may non-instinctively attack one of its own kind for food, a mate, or pack leadership. (It may also be a coward to avoid pain - that's how pack leadership is given to another.)
But a mother animal or pack animal, acting from instinct, may never think of death occuring to itself when it aids another of its own kind. The same goes for a conscious attack for food, a mate, or pack leadership. Andme2 ( talk) 03:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing. I have never seen, in life or in photos, an animal react with horror or aversion when it sees another dead animal. Not even when the dead animal was horribly wounded. The live animal didn't seem to understand what death was. Andme2 ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read the essay in Wikipedia regarding teeth whitening but I'm anxious to hear from people who have undergone various proceedures. Do any of them really work? Do the proceedures carried out by Dentists hurt? Do any of the "do it yourself" products really work? Which ones? Thanks, WSC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.203.191 ( talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I'm going to be teaching an introductory general chemistry class this semester and I've been making lesson plans. I'm at the part where I talk about orbitals, and I have a question I'm not sure how to address. When speaking of the reactivity of electrons, we often talk about the size of the p-orbitals and thats why they are more reactive. But at the same time, I've asked this question before and always been told that size is ambiguous at the quantum level, which I know is crap because in my quantum class we've calculated the expectation value of the radii for some of the orbitals. I guess I'm trying to come up with a good way to answer the question, "But aren't those orbitals (say the 2s and the 2p) occupying the same space? How can two probability areas be occupying the same space? Is the 2p orbital in the 2s orbital?" Any suggestions? EagleFalconn ( talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In general orbitals that are higher in energy are on average further away from the nucleus. So if your p orbitals are higher in energy than s you can use that.
Two gases can occupy the same space, as can smells, lights you name it. Use an analogy. 77.86.119.155 ( talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Per Atom the outermost electron can be as far as half a millimeter from the nucleus. Edison ( talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< August 11 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 13 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
This question is for Donna Reister-Piper.
Hi Donna, you have been so kind to Gus, who I believe has spoken to you about my father who is suffering from MDS, and is currently receiving treatment using Hydroxy Urea.
We are in Adelaide, South Australia, and Gus is a relative of ours.
My father has had a Bone Marrow biopsy, and lots of blood tests.
I would like to ask you, what information can I provide to you from his case notes that would help you for his case. There are two volumes at this stage, and I would be more than happy to copy and send the information that you need, including blood tests, biopsy results and the like.
I would also be happy to pass any questions on to the Haematologist, if I can not get this information myself.
I happen to work here at the treating hospital the Royal Adelaide Hospital, so I should be able to get most of the information that you need.
Iwould like to express sincere gratitude for your help.
Thank You
Peter Spyropoulos
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspyropo ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Name the bird species which can only eat with its head up side down? 59.98.68.47 ( talk) 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What ten books would you recommend to a social science or philosopher willing to learn something about science? One I have thought of is Lectures of Physics of Feynman, another is Calculus of James Stewart. I want general, complete books, not necessarily with historical value, but more like a thourough manual, covering Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Mr.K. (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would look for a modern textbook written for a college freshman course in the particular subject (Biology, General Chemistry, ect.). The forward of a textbook often describes its intended audience or what sort of course it is designed for. For your purposes, I don't see value in looking for famous or classic names. ike9898 ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree: The Feynman Lectures are amazingly well written and incredible to read...if you already know physics. To be honest, I find that they make a pretty miserable textbook. On the other hand, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! is an amazing book that is a transcript of some narrations that Richard Feynman made. It isn't instructive on the discipline itself, but I think gives some interesting insights into its culture, though I wouldn't take it as a last word. You have to keep in mind, Feynman was a (lovable) weirdo. EagleFalconn ( talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to throw in an easy book, A Short History of Nearly Everything was quite enjoyable for me. -- Kjoon lee 02:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been looking around for a while in the chem section of Wikipedia, but I can't seem to understand a few things concerning the equilibrium of reactions exactly. I was hoping for a simple tutorial, but, then again, there may be no simple way to describe this...
First, a friend of mine who's studying to be a chem teacher told me a simple rule to determine whether two diatomic salts will react or not, saying that the one with the highest electronegativity sticks with the one with the lowest (e.g. CuF + NaCl react to form CuCl + NaF, but not the other way around). Is this true in all cases?
Secondly, for salts that are not diatomic, I would have to calculate the electronegativity of the conjugate base, which, he said, was the geometric mean of the electronegativities of all atoms forming the conjugate base (e.g. for SO42-, the electronegativity χSO42- = (χS1 * χO4)1/5. It seems to me that this ignores the spatial arrangement of the atoms, can it be true nonetheless?
Finally, for any reaction (naA + nbB + ... -> npP + nqQ + ...), with ni being the stoichiometrical coefficients, how can I find out step by step whether the equilibrium is towards the reactants of the products?
Thanks in advance for your help, Danielsavoiu ( talk) 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
EagleFalconn ( talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In 1954, at the age of two-and-a-half, I had an operation at a large hospital in Illinois. The anesthesia used was "ether," and I'm trying to find out which type of ether it would have been. My end goal is find out what the physical side effects would have been following the operation. I've looked at several articles about different kinds of ether on Wikipedia and don't have enough science background to tell the difference or to guess which one would have been prevalent in a major hospital at that time. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcol4info ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes when people say ether, they mean petroleum ether. ike9898 ( talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I was curious about the overall shape of the E8. What does it mean scientifcally, and why does it appear to imitate other famous symbols such as the shape in Dante's Divine Comedy ? 69.157.227.243 ( talk) 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(I could not think of a better name for this problem, if you can be concise, kindly rename)
Problem:
Consider two earth like planets, A and B, a distance of 1 lightyear apart. Also, assume that these two planets are geosyncronous to each other. A string/rope of length 1 lightyear is tied to one of the planets A and a mass, say "x" kg is hanging on the string close to the other planet B. It is certain that no signal can travel from planet A to planet B in less that 1 year, the question is, if I cut the string at planet A, when does the mass start falling on planet B? Also, what constraints have to be kept in mind, and what assumptions have to be made? (for instance, is it possible for the mass to stay in its original place even after the string/rope is cut, as the gravitational pull of the other planet keeps the rope in "mid air"). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Akanksh (
talk •
contribs)
18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Kainaw's answer, but if you simply pull on the string it wouldn't take any time at all for the guy on the other end to realize it because it's connected. Even if the string is a zillion light years across they would know it the millisecond you pulled on it because all of the string is moving. Now where is my Nobel prize?! ;) -- Sam Science ( talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble with this. When you move something, all of it moves. At exactly the same time. Now I'm picturing the rope already stretched to the max. As tight as you can stretch it without breaking. So if you pull it, the other end also pulls. It's instantly known. Let's say you're at a stoplight in a light year long limo (play along here). If you're in the back seat, you will know the absolute second the driver hits the gas. Instant, faster than light communication! The Nobel prize pays almost two million bucks, right? Now if you'll excuse me for a moment I have to call my boss (it's 2am here), and tell him to shove it. Sam Science ( talk) 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Be it a soldier throwing himself on top of a live grenade in order to shield his comrades from the blast, a bodyguard taking a bullet for his president, a random passer-by jumping into the road to push a child out of the path of an oncoming car and taking the hit themselves, or someone running into a burning building to save a complete stranger, human beings sometimes make a spontaneous, conscious decision to potentially give up their own life for that of another (unrelated) individual.
Are we unique in the animal kingdom in that respect? Does science know why we do this? -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if animals really know about death. Through experience, an animal may learn that other animals may injure it and cause pain. And a predator kills other animals, but does it realize that could happen to itself? Andme2 ( talk) 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Can a fly, or any other living thing except humans, conceive being dead - not being aware of anything? Perhaps they just live in the present.
A predator may anticipate the movements of its prey in the next few seconds, but may not think at all of the future except for that.
As for a fly moving out of the way of a fly swatter, that may just be instinct. A predator could move toward the fly to seize it, so the fly may instantly flee simply out of instinct. The instinct could apply to things as well. A horse's tail, for instance, may swish toward the fly to swat it, so the fly flees. It may instinctively flee from anything moving rapidly toward it. I don't believe it's a matter of the fly thinking it could be killed.
Creatures that have a memory may anticipate pain experienced from earlier similar circumstances and may flee to avoid pain, but not death.
I think fleeing is either a matter of instinct, or it is from a memory of earlier painful experience. Andme2 ( talk) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The cockatoo is simply remembering past experience. Just as a creature with a memory avoids pain by remembering past experience, it may also seek to repeat pleasure derived in past experience. But if it sees the death of another creature, it may not apply that eventuality to itself.
If a creature does not anticipate its own death (thinks the present will go on forever) it will not knowingly sacrifice its life for others.
Of course, instinct may cause animals to take risks for each other. For instance, a mother animal may defend its young. And a pack of wolves will attack a large and dangerous animal, instinctively aiding each other in the attack.
Or an animal may non-instinctively attack one of its own kind for food, a mate, or pack leadership. (It may also be a coward to avoid pain - that's how pack leadership is given to another.)
But a mother animal or pack animal, acting from instinct, may never think of death occuring to itself when it aids another of its own kind. The same goes for a conscious attack for food, a mate, or pack leadership. Andme2 ( talk) 03:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing. I have never seen, in life or in photos, an animal react with horror or aversion when it sees another dead animal. Not even when the dead animal was horribly wounded. The live animal didn't seem to understand what death was. Andme2 ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read the essay in Wikipedia regarding teeth whitening but I'm anxious to hear from people who have undergone various proceedures. Do any of them really work? Do the proceedures carried out by Dentists hurt? Do any of the "do it yourself" products really work? Which ones? Thanks, WSC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.203.191 ( talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I'm going to be teaching an introductory general chemistry class this semester and I've been making lesson plans. I'm at the part where I talk about orbitals, and I have a question I'm not sure how to address. When speaking of the reactivity of electrons, we often talk about the size of the p-orbitals and thats why they are more reactive. But at the same time, I've asked this question before and always been told that size is ambiguous at the quantum level, which I know is crap because in my quantum class we've calculated the expectation value of the radii for some of the orbitals. I guess I'm trying to come up with a good way to answer the question, "But aren't those orbitals (say the 2s and the 2p) occupying the same space? How can two probability areas be occupying the same space? Is the 2p orbital in the 2s orbital?" Any suggestions? EagleFalconn ( talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In general orbitals that are higher in energy are on average further away from the nucleus. So if your p orbitals are higher in energy than s you can use that.
Two gases can occupy the same space, as can smells, lights you name it. Use an analogy. 77.86.119.155 ( talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Per Atom the outermost electron can be as far as half a millimeter from the nucleus. Edison ( talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)