Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 April 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.

April 13

Charge

if there is say, a proton and electron, not in contact with each other, how does the proton know the electron is negatively charged, and move towards it and vice versa? Philip Woods (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they don't "know" that the other one is the opposite charge really, its just that they get pulled towards it each other.--Phoenix-wiki 12:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You've hit on one of the unknowns of the universe, how forces act at a distance. Your same question can be extended to all the fundamental forces, such as gravity: "How exactly does the Earth 'know' the Sun is there to orbit around it ?" One attempt to explain how such forces work at a distance is gauge bosons. As I understand it, however, an infinite number of massless particles would need to constantly emit from every subatomic particle which exerts a force in order for this to work. The gauge boson for gravity is the graviton and for electromagnetism it's the photon. The graviton is especially problematic, leading to new conjecture in string theory to try to explain how gravity works at a distance. StuRat (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The force between an electron and a proton is an example of the Coulomb force. This force is communicated by means of virtual photons. Since these particles cannot be directly observed, you might not find this explanation very satisfying, but it's the best there is. --Heron (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

StuRat just gave an epic answer. Mac Davis (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not being able to directly observe something isn't the issue, I believe in many things that I can't personally see. The question is, can they be experimentally verified ? StuRat (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

their electric fields? Em3ryguy (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Lamb shift and the Casimir effect are experimental verifications of the existence of virtual photons - see this Scientific American article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but how about gravitons ? StuRat (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the idea of VIRTUAL photons is just another way of thinking about the same underlying phenomenon. Sort of like lines of force. They dont really exist but they help one to visualize whats going on. but i am not an expert so i can always be wrong. Em3ryguy (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "virtual" in virtual photons causes some confusion. These are real photons - or at least, they have as much "reality" as any other unobserved particle in quantum mechanics - they are only "virtual" in the sense that they only exist for a short period of time. But if virtual photons cause you a headache, you can use the alternative dual concept of zero-point energy. Either way, these are inherently quantum concepts - they have no equivalent in classical physics. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be a misuse of the word "vitrual". Something like the "random" in "random access memory" ("which byte should I return to the user, let me just flip a coin to find out") or the "auto" in "autopsy" (cutting yourself open after death ?). StuRat (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And it should be noted that yes, gravitons are still totally hypothetical. There's no strong reason to believe one way or another about them at the moment, except for the fact that most forces have gauge bosons, but there are questions as to whether gravity is a force like the other ones (or if it is, as Einstein had it, "just" a curvature of spacetime). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Biggest bang for the buck in health care

I heard the US pays something like 6th most per capita on health care but is something like 27th in effectiveness of their health care system. (Those numbers may be off a bit.) My question is, which countries have a highly effective health care system despite paying little for it ? StuRat (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to our article, the US spends the most on health per capita. Anyway, there are no doubt several such countries, but Cuba is the most obvious one. Algebraist 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, paying doctors the equivalent of $US 15-20 per month feels like cheating though. I'm sure our healthcare system would also be much more affordable if doctors worked for (essentially) free. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It becomes difficult to answer this question when you say "effective". For example, if you don't spend any money at all to treat things like AIDS and diabetes, then those people will die quickly. You get them off your stats and have a healthier population. You can stretch it even further. Someone has a car accident and is bleeding internally - just let them die. Then, you won't have bad stats for having a person in need of a lot of health care later. You can also refuse to treat the mentally ill. You save a lot of money and nobody really has any idea how many mentally are not being treated. You can rank really high on infant morality by aborting any babies that have the slightest health risks. It is cheap and only healthy low-risk pregnancies make it on your stat sheet. Overall, you have to consider how many chronically ill patients get health care in any two systems you compare just as well as comparing the healthy people. Most arguments for social medicine only consider the healthy patients and ignore the chronically ill and the preventable death rate. -- kainaw™ 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Accoding to the World Health Organisation the US government spends more money on health care than most, supposedly "socialist", European governments - Healthcare spending (government alone!) per person per year in the USA is $2,700. Compare this to - France:$2,400 Germany: $2,400 UK: $2,200 Sweden:$2,400 Italy:$1,800. Yet somehow the USA manages to leave 1/5 of its population uninsured, and many more underinsured, while Europeans enjoy a decent quality of state-funded universal health care, free at the point of use (no extra co-insurance, co-payments and deductibles needed). One wonders where all the money in the US goes... On the other hand, average cancer survival rates are higher in the US than in Europe. Medical research is also much stronger in the US - if you want to get the newest form of state-of-the-art treatment (and can afford it), you often have to go to America.

I guess it depends what you mean by "effective". The UK has a highly cheap and effective health care system for treating common ailments, the US has an expensive, but effective system for treating serious diseases. Someone in the US with cancer might be forced to sell their house and go bankrupt, but at least they are more likely survive in the end. Cambrasa 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, to get around the vagueness of "health care effectiveness", let's use "life expectancy", instead. While perhaps not ideal, that is a metric that should be available for most countries. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem there is, life expectancy depends on several factors, not just health care. For example, Singapore and Japan have some of the highest life expectancy rates in the world, but I don't think these are usually solely attributed to their health care system (I'm not saying they're bad) but other factors like diet as well. Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize it's not perfect, but it's not bad. In many ways, the diet, sanitation, etc., of a country can be considered to be extensions of the health care system. I've even seen attempts to treat violence as a contagion. (One gang member kills someone in another gang, then that gang kills two in the first gang, and so it spreads.) StuRat (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shock

If you hold on to both terminals of a car battery will you get a shock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.125.7 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In a circuitous sort of way, I would have to conclude that it is very likely that you would. Here's a related question - in the movies and TV, people in that situation are unable to disengage themselves. Is this because of the effect of electricity on the muscles, or is that just a Hollywood myth? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If they have become married it would be shocking to disengage. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You will not get a shock. It's only 12 volts. Hollywood also thinks that high-voltage cables writhe like snakes when lying on the ground, and that all vehicles explode into a fireball in every collision. --Heron (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The 12-14volt battery in a car won't be able to shock you, no. You might feel something if you have wet hands, but otherwise there isn't enough voltage to get past your skin. If, however, you stuck electrodes into your bloodstream and connected them to a car battery (even a little 9volt, or so I've heard), then you are unlikely to live to tell about it. As for the second question, electrical current is known to cause muscle contractions. Since the flexor muscles (in general and especially in the hands) are stronger than the extensor muscles, the net effect of gross electrical stimulation is flexion. Therefore it is possible that your electrified hand may grasp the conducting material and be unable to let go. Of course much of the rest of your body will also be contorting, and this is likely to pull you away from any fixed object, but flexible conductors, such as wires, may come with you if gripped firmly. This is why electricians are trained to touch possibly electrified equipment with the back of their hands first. Tuckerekcut (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

High voltage wires which fall to the ground in fact can jump around. Sometimes they just lie there all innocent, but ready to kill anyone who touches them or the metal fence they are lying on. Other times the smoke. Other times they make a popping noise as the end pops up in the air repeatedly. Edison (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

When I had army training (British), we were taught something called the "Ghost Walk", which included probing the immediately forward area (half a foot or so) with every slow step. The relevant bit is that you use the back of your hand in case you come into contact with electrified wires.

Okay, time for the [[Citation needed]] thing. Two statements have been made which I'm having trouble with:

1. "If you stuck electrodes into your bloodstream and connected them to a car battery, then you are unlikely to live to tell about it"
2. "electricians are trained to touch possibly electrified equipment with the back of their hands"

I suppose #1 might be true, but I'm inclined to doubt it. And I'm quite sure #2 is false: the way you touch a possibly live object safely is not to touch it at all. You use a neon test lamp or other voltage tester, obviously.

Anybody got any definitive references for either of these? If not, I call bovine byproduct.

In answer to the original question, the other posters are right: simply touching the terminals of a car battery won't hurt you a bit. 12 volts just isn't enough to shock you. (And don't be misled by the car battery's huge current-supplying capability: that has nothing to do with the electric shock question.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, 12 V is certainly "enough to shock you", however, touching the terminals with your hands might not be enough to "hurt you a bit". Was I the only kid that had been tricked into (and then tricked someone else into) licking a 9 V battery? See also our electric shock article. I remember reading somewhere that certain types of shocks (maybe AC vs DC, or certain frequencies, or certain voltages, or...) caused reflexive release or recoiling from the source whereas others caused inability to release, but can't find it at the moment. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tricked, no. But I have frequently tested 9V batteries with my tongue. I have been told it's a bad idea.

Also, this site discusses electric shocks making your muscles contract and forcing you to hold onto a live wire. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you kept a 9V battery on your tongue continuously, you might electroplate some metal onto your tongue and that probably wouldn't be good for you. But aside from the "startle" factor, I can't see where the occasional casual touch of a 9V battery to your tongue could hurt you and I, like you, do it routinely to assess the go/no go state of a 9V battery. Over the years, my tongue has gotten pretty well calibrated (say, +/- 1 volt) but my wife still gets a laugh when she sees me doing it.

Atlant (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that professional electricians are not trained to test a possibly live wire by nicking it with the back of their finger, but I have personally seen a number of them doing so, and I myself do it after I've done the other tests, just as a final head check. I figure if I'm about to touch the wire anyway, why not do it in the safest way I can? --Sean 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but if the battery is an old, unsealed battery in really poor condition, you might get a chemical burn from the deposits that used to form on the battery's terminal studs. This seems to be much less of a problem with modern mostly-sealed batteries.

Atlant (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have personal experience with not being able to let go of an electrified object. When I was 5 we had a farm nearby and I went "to see the horsies". I grabbed onto the metal fence with both hands, only to find out it was electrified. I couldn't let go and couldn't talk. Fortunately, it was the modern type with the safety feature which cycles on and off, and I was able to let go once it cycled off. The older type, without that feature, would probably have killed me. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stu, I have to disagree here, you felt a god-almighty, I'm-dying-now jolt that taught you a good lesson, but the lesson ended real soon. Electric fences are high-voltage, low-current devices designed to teach lessons with pulses. I'd like to see your reference to the older type that would have killed you, presumably it would kill a calf also - which farmers were in the habit of killing their animals for touching the fence? Wouldn't they just use a rifle? It sure does feel like you're dying, but the 12-volts is at the fence battery, you're feeling the coil pulse, many more volts than 12, and it's just a quick reminder. Bet you never touched it again :) Franamax (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The muscle contraction response only forces you to grab onto the item if you have hands capable of grasping. It's pretty darned difficult to grasp anything with a hoof, so the animals would be perfectly safe. If I, on the other hand, could not let go, I'd have been there for a very long time, and it seems like very little voltage/amperage is needed to interfere with the heart's electrical signals. I also don't see how I could breathe like that. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So how long was it, that the juice was on, that you couldn't let go and couldn't breathe, before the "modern safety feature" deenergized the fence and saved you?

Agricultural electric fences that I'm familiar with (including the one *I* foolishly touched when I was 5) deliver brief pulses of high voltage, once every second or two. And this has nothing to do with any safety feature; it's inherent in the simple pulse transformer way they work. So I'm puzzled about your experience. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to say how long it was as "time stopped" for me. I do recall the feeling of helplessness, though, at not being able to do anything to get out of the situation until the pulse ended. StuRat (talk)

In response to the call for citation above: The second statement (that electricians are trained to touch possible live wires first with extensor surfaces) was relayed to me by a friend of mine who is a (certified? i don't know the terminology) journeyman electrician. As mentioned by another poster, this is of course after using other equipment/methods/tag-outs to ensure that the thing in question has been discharged/unnelectrified. I didn't mean to suggest that this was a primary basis of checking, it's more of a last ditch safety measure just in case... The first statement, now that I think about it, really does need more justification. This was something I have heard on three different occasions: the first time it was a high school physics teacher; the second time it was in the context of the Darwin awards, being the cause of death for an unwitting victim; and the third time it was from an instructor teaching an EMT certification course. It was only repetition that led me to consider this a factual possibility, and I happily rescind the statement until such time as I find more convincing support. Tuckerekcut (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This somewhat answers the question [1]. Not technically a reliable source but from my experience, DansData usually gets it right Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Impressive. Thanks. I guess I'll have to at least partially retract my doubts stated above. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not changing my opinion of Dans Data, he appears to be wrong in this instance with his suggestion "6mA. You may be able to feel that. You probably won't.". According to several sources including [2] (seems quite a good source) and ironically the Darwin's Award which Dan himself mentions, there's a rule of thumb where 1 mA is usually consider the threshold to feel, 10 mA the let go threshold (beyond this, you can't let go) and 100 mA the threshold to cause ventricular fibrulation. So you almost definitely could feel 6 mA although I think he was being generous with suggestion of a 2000 ohms resistance, I suspect you won't be able achieve anything close to that. ([3] suggests a resistance of 20000 Ohms for wet skin although admitedly this was for meter prongs which would be much smaller then a battery terminal). So indeed you probably won't feel anything. Update: Actually a little more complicated then that [4] gives different, higher values for DC. The same values are given in [5] which also gives values of 1000-2000 ohm for the resistance with of a wet palm. And it also mentions one emperical example where someone did feel DC admitedly while holding a wrench. So it sounds as if Dan's Data is wrong, you probably can feel a 12V battery in some ordinary circumstances but beyond something stupid like poking prongs into your skin, it's unlikely to cause any damage beyond any damage you cause to yourself by a reflex action. Nil Einne (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Utility workers or well trained electricians would check a wire dead with a meter which was known to be in good working condition before and after the test, the ground it with a ground cable able to carry the availlable fault current until a fuse or breaker interrupted the current upstream, before the touched the wire. Sloppy and careless workers might check a wire with the back of the hand, and they might get a very unpleasant surprise if it were alive, especially at voltages at or above 120, and especially if some other part of their body was grounded. Edison (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is happening when one thinks one's dreams are reality?

A few times, a couple friends have had the experience of dreaming and being *so* sure it was real later; and I mean for days. Nothing big, except for the time I dreamt a cousin was more badly injured than he was in a fall. (But, that's easily attributed to the stress of the moment - he *was* in the hospital a few days as his spleen healed.) The other times, it's been a scene in a TV show that someone swore was part of the episode and later learned it wasn't in the original airing at all, or something else little. For isntance, in Hogan's Heroes, Col. Hogan delivers a coded message way down in Heidelberg, when that was not actually part of that episode, they convince the friendly sergeant to take it down and are able to get him to go on furlough.

What causes this? Is it just that some dreams are so lucid that we can be convinced they're real? But, why don't all dreams make us think they were real days or weeks later? Certainly only a few have made my firends or me think they were real. And, only the one of mine was caused by a stressful event.

And, no, neither of us has ever taken any drugs or alcohol. Then again it's not uncommon for even neurotypicals to have stress dreams like mine; but I dont' understand the others, how that happens. Somebody or his brother 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We cannot give any medical advice on Reference Desk, and that rule kicks in when someone says they have some medical condition or symptom. But we can discuss things like dreams seeming real in general. I would say the many dreams seem real during the dream, but it is rarer for the memory of what was dreamed to be confused with a memory of a real event later, like hours later. Edison (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that afterword, but I trusted that people would look past what seemed to be a very minor point to the larger question of what process int he brain causes it (which was the question.) So, i deleted it, because I do tend to ramble a bit with things that aren't really as importnat to the discussion

The didactic purposes of a dream would be lost if we were so easily able to brush them off. Vranak (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have this problem all the time. I mix up real events with dream events. I think of it as confabulation. I haven't identified a reason why this happens, but luckily it hasn't gotten me into any trouble yet :) Also, "lucid" usually means that you understand a dream is only a dream, and is also used to describe the amazing clarity that often accompanies. Mac Davis (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dreams (mine at least) may seem real during the dream but have absurd events. The absurdity makes it easy later to be sure it is the memory of a dream and not of real-world events. The problem with this is that absurd events sometimes happen in the real world, and thinking about them the next day or years later there might be some uncertainty that it was reality. Edison (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dangers of carbonated soft drinks

Other than the hazards of sugar, caffeine, and artificial sweeteners, is drinking soda thought to be harmful? For example, is the artificially carbonated water and acidity associated with any health risks?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is known to attack the enamel of the teeth as well. Sweetened sodas are a particularly bad combination, but even carbonated water has some softening effect, if I remember correctly. I'm not aware of any other danger if consumed with reasonable moderation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Dental caries, tooth enamel is in danger at a pH of 5.5 or below. Carbonic acid gives a table for the pH depending on the partial pressure of CO₂. Judging from this table, carbonated water can be expected to cause dental decay. Icek (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Phosphoric acid is problematic: see Phosphoric acid#Biological effects on bone calcium and kidney health moink (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, something about the carbonation affects the body's intake of calcium so that long term use may weaken bones. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The only evidence seems to be epidemiology. Methodologically better experimental studies don't seem to indicate such an effect. One sentence in the artice seems odd: "The study does not examine the effect of phosphoric acid, which binds with magnesium and calcium in the digestive tract to form salts that are not absorbed, but, rather, it studies general phosphorus intake." Whether it's phosphoric acid or phosphate is determined by the pH which is not determined by phosphoric acid in the intestine. And thanks to enzymes like nucleotidases, all bioavailable phosphorus should enter the body as phosphate. Icek (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consuming anything has health risks—the dose makes the poison. Mac Davis (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there has been some evidence that sodium benzoate - a common preservative in soft drinks - may react with ascorbic acid to form toxic benzene. Take a look at benzene in soft drinks. – ClockworkSoul 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sodium is superfluous - benzoate, ascorbate and transition metal ions will do it. Icek (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... the same reaction should actually occur in certain fruits like cranberries which contain vitamin C and benzoate (see Benzoic_acid#Biology_and_health_effects). Icek (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course there is the likelihood that it will contain vast amounts of E-numbers, the safety of which is still hotly debated. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially 2.71828...? Seriously, saying this is superfluous, nearly all substances which we named so far have E numbers, and E numbers do not imply that "the safety is hotly debated" (E 300?) - they imply that the European authorities regard it as safe. Icek (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Phosphoric acid is strong enough to eat rust.The Coke company uses their on product to clean their truck engines. Need I say more about phosphoric acid? If it can eat rust off a trucks engine, think what it can do to your insides let along your teeth.

Relativity

I have been reading the book entitled Relativity The Special and The General Theory. I have come across the part about the derivation of the Lorentz Transformation. (If anyone happens the have this book, it's on page 35. This is the beginning of chapter XII.) It says "For the velocity $v=c$ we should have $\textstyle {{\sqrt {I-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}=0}$..." This is when I=the length of a rigid rod. Yet, I don't see how this must equal zero for the fact that if v=c, then $\textstyle {{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}={\frac {c^{2}}{c^{2}}}=1}$. Therefore, if the length of the rod is I>1 then the result will be greater than 0 and things will be able to travel faster than the speed of light without violating anything. Also, if I<1 then it will be imaginary. Is there some rule that states I must always equal one? Whatever distance is being measured is always assigned a value of 1? Will someone please explain what I'm missing here? Thanks, Zrs 12 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The distance being calculated is the length of a 1 metre rod which is moving relative to an observer. The observer, because he is in another inertial frame will always measure something shorter than 1 metre. You are misreading the equation, the whole expression is the observed length of the rod. The "I" in your expression is not the length, it is the constant "1". This is just a common style of typesetting in old books. The correct expression is;

$x'={\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}$

From which you can see that the length of the rod is indeed zero if the velocity is C. SpinningSpark 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. It confused me because earlier in the book, I think I was used as a variable. But I did have the equation $x'={\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}$ (It was given in the book). It just appeared that the 1 was actually a variable (I). Thanks, SpinningSpark. Zrs 12 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Have you looked at the Wikipedia article on the Lorentz transform? We also have an articles on Special relativity, General relativity and Albert Einstein which you might also find interesting. SpinningSpark 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle and Continental Drift Question

I was wondering if anyone has done the research into the meteorite suspected of causing the extinction of the dinosaurs and the distance the continents have traveled since that event. Would the epicenter of such an event now be located someplace within the Bermuda Triangle region? If the meteorite was composed of a highly magnetic substance, would it be possible that the actual meteorite is embedded someplace below the Earth's crust and somewhat stationary position and as the continents continued to drift away from the original impact it would now be somewhere in the region we call the Bermuda Triangle?

It seems as though the distance the continents traveled between that meteorite event and today would be fairly easy for someone to calculate. Just a curiosity for me but if there is a co-relation then it might explain some of the odd effects noted in that region of the world.

If there is someone who can do the calculations on this and drop me a note it would be nice.

Thank you,

Randall Arthur—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.48.237 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is just offshore in Yucatan, Mexico. See Chicxulub crater. SpinningSpark 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe when the meteorite hit, it the crater overlapped the land and sea. Mac Davis (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And the Bermuda Triangle is interesting only for pseudoscientists. Carl Sagan opened The Demon-Haunted World with a similar story about Atlantis. Imagine Reason (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is a bad idea to post your e-mail in a public place like Wikipedia so I have removed it. SpinningSpark 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Although this is just speculation, people think it might be methane clatherates. These are released when it warms, and if a fisherman picks it up then it will fizz away on the deck. If a ship encounters a bed of methane claterates being released then the ship might start to sink, and if the ship sinks then anyone that jumps out to save themselves may sink too as the methane relieves the water of most of its bouyancy. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Clathrates bubbling up from the ocean floor would not create such a dense foam that the ship would sink. Is that what you mean? Clathrates form on the ocean floor, how would it get on the deck? Mac Davis (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia has got an article on methane clathrate. Regarding the original question, I think the meteorite is expected to have evaporated completely, but if the meteorite penetrated the tectonic plate of the lithosphere and got stuck in the asthenosphere below, then it probably isn't at the same position anymore as the asthenosphere can be expected to move even faster than the lithosphere (it is semi-liquid). Icek (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I once saw a great map that showed all recorded shipwrecks in the Atlantic. It was a great map because the triangle did not show up at all. If you didn't already know about it, it would never have occurred to you to think that the area was 'special' in any way. I wish I could find that map now, but I can't. APL (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of embedded in or below the crust, continental drift will move that part along with the continent, so it will stay in the same position relative to the continent, and not be moving further and further out in the ocean. A large chunk of iron could cause a magnetic and gravitational anomoly, but only cause a problem for ships if they ran into it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. To answer the part about how the clathrates get on the deck, fisherman scoop them up in nets accidentally, and alarmed fisherman usually throw it back quick when it starts to fizz away on the deck, the book I was reading said. Also, global warming scientists fear that billions of tonnes of methane may be released by these clathrates, and that a few thousand years ago a slip in the clathrate-ridden rockbed occured, and sent a tsunami from Storegga to norway, hundreds of feet high. Also, apparently chathrates are flaring up in the Caspian sea, sending fire plumes hundreds of metres high. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Calcium Gluconate Illustration

I asked a while back if someone could help me map out the chemical structure for the supplement Calcium Gluconate. I was given assistance and shown how someone would write out it's formula, but what I was really looking for was Calcium Gluconate illustrated in the form that a molecular editor, like BKchem would show. What with the polygons and lines and what not. Any direct link to an illustration of Calcium Gluconate, or if someone could clearly explain how to do find it would be very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.106.51 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is in this [6]. We also have an article on Calcium gluconate SpinningSpark 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not quite. That's what I was directed to before, something along those lines. I'm looking more for something like this [7]. Illustrated more along those lines. I would assume you could turn it into that? From text form to drawn out like I've linked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.106.51 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you not seeing the diagram at all in the NCBI Pubchem data sheet? Perhaps you have a browser problem. If you do see it, explain why it is not what you want. SpinningSpark 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I see now what you're getting at. I may have known the answer all along. It seems that it is that simple drawn out. I thought it might be a little more elaborate, like the link I provided, like Miconazole is shown. Not as simple as left to right. If that's it, then that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.106.51 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)