Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2020 April 27
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 26 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 28 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 27
[edit]Is all hypochlorite salts of transition metals are colorless?
[edit]I'm don't sure that all hypochlorite salts of transition metals (like Fe(ClO)3, Cu(ClO)2, Rh(ClO)3, Pt(ClO)4,...) will colorless. So what do you think for the color of them? Thanks for much (Sorry if you don't understand, because my English is not good).--Ccv2020 (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Might be difficult to make some of those. Adding Fe3+ to NaClO solution creates a giant cloud of chlorine gas, as seen in multiple industrial accidents such as [1]. DMacks (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- As noted above, I can't find any evidence the above compounds exist at all. Any reaction that would putatively create them is likely outcompeted by some kind of redox reaction that would reduce the ClO- to Cl2. I can't find an MSDS on any of them, which again, is a good sign that they don't exist. I'll repeat what I said last time: just because you can write a correct formula for a compound doesn't mean it can actually exist. Describing the color of a non-existent compound is a futile thing. --Jayron32 12:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- For attempts at making copper hypochlorite, a precipitate of cupric hydroxide / copper oxychloride forms. Quite a few of the oxychloride compounds are coloured eg TiOCl VOCl VOCl2 VOCl3 and FeOCl. These oxychlorides do not contain O-Cl groups though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, just to clarify that, those are compounds that contain oxygen atoms and chlorine atoms as separate moeities, not as hypochlorite ions. That's a very different animal.--Jayron32 13:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- For attempts at making copper hypochlorite, a precipitate of cupric hydroxide / copper oxychloride forms. Quite a few of the oxychloride compounds are coloured eg TiOCl VOCl VOCl2 VOCl3 and FeOCl. These oxychlorides do not contain O-Cl groups though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- As noted above, I can't find any evidence the above compounds exist at all. Any reaction that would putatively create them is likely outcompeted by some kind of redox reaction that would reduce the ClO- to Cl2. I can't find an MSDS on any of them, which again, is a good sign that they don't exist. I'll repeat what I said last time: just because you can write a correct formula for a compound doesn't mean it can actually exist. Describing the color of a non-existent compound is a futile thing. --Jayron32 12:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Address of a medical machine
[edit]Hello, I would like the address of the machine, which is in the USA, which can maintain in life the head despite the body is ceasing to function , please ? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.124.43 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Are you asking about Advanced Life Support, about Cryonics, or about something else entirely? -- ToE 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Outside of Futurama, I don't think such a machine exists. Even cryogenically frozen heads are still dead. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- The OP might be talking about Alcor, which is where the remains of Ted Williams are on ice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- And (iirc) most of Alcor's customers are head-only ("neurosuspension"), because it's cheaper and because recovery is thought easier that way. If technology can someday revive the corpsicles at all, cloning a new body is an easier job. —Tamfang (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
(52768) 1998 OR2 Asteroid
[edit]Hi, just wanted to ask questions concerning the subject above - What will be the impact of the asteroid on the earth? - Where it will hit hard?
Please explain it in less 'Scientific terms', my field is quite different
I'd be grateful Thanks --RazorTheDJ (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has an article titled (52768) 1998 OR2 that should answer your questions. The most relevant sentence I can quote to answer your question by reading that article is "On 16 April 2079, this asteroid will make a near-Earth encounter at a safe distance of 0.0118 AU (4.59 LD), and pass the Moon at 0.0092 AU (3.6 LD)" Which is to say the next closest approach to the earth by this asteroid will be a distance of 4.59 times the distance the moon is from the Earth. In your lifetime, there is zero chance of it having any impact. --Jayron32 18:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Jayron32, thank you for your response
- What's all about the April 29th 2020 frenzy of the asteroid 'crushing' the earth? Please explain
- P.S I'll probably be alive in 2079 at a proud age of 76!!😁--RazorTheDJ (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is also making a "close" approach on April 29th. It is not "crushing" the Earth. It will miss us, at its closest it will be 16 times further away from the Earth than the Moon, and we don't generally consider the Moon to be crushing us. It will not hit us. We know its closest approach to an accuracy of +/- 7km, which is incredibly accurate. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Where can I see this "April 29th 2020 frenzy"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is also making a "close" approach on April 29th. It is not "crushing" the Earth. It will miss us, at its closest it will be 16 times further away from the Earth than the Moon, and we don't generally consider the Moon to be crushing us. It will not hit us. We know its closest approach to an accuracy of +/- 7km, which is incredibly accurate. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- There are lots of rocks that get much closer to the Earth than this one. See e.g. spaceweather.com table of Near Earth Asteroids. Dark red entries indicate rocks that come closer than the Earth-Moon distance, lighter red lines are less than five lunar distances. All of that happens several times every month. NASA has a Near Earth Object database where you can dig for more orbital elements of rocks. 85.76.44.116 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your responses,all of you. At least there's nothing gonna annihilate us, for now. So what's all the fuss of it being 'potentially dangerous to earth' ? Why should some websites spread fear if at all it will miss us?--RazorTheDJ (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe because they are sensationalist and have some way of benefiting from the attention. That's existed for a long time, in the form of "buy my doomsday pamphlet" or "visit my website as clicks get me revenue," etc. That, or people who genuinely do not understand the science and spread hysteria. That also has existed for a long, long time. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Will it be seen by the naked eyes or with the aid of a telescope as it passes?--RazorTheDJ (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- If I did my maths right, the rock will have an angular size of 0.0002 degrees. Which is like looking at a car tail light at a distance of 200 kilometers. So pretty much negatory on the naked eye. Telescope - sure, though probably you'll want to set a longish exposure time on your telescope camera. 85.76.44.116 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your responses,all of you. At least there's nothing gonna annihilate us, for now. So what's all the fuss of it being 'potentially dangerous to earth' ? Why should some websites spread fear if at all it will miss us?--RazorTheDJ (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, the end of the world was two days ago and I missed it?! Ultimate FOMO! —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)