Science desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 10 >

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.

May 9[edit]

pressure enough to make "oxgen glass"?[edit]

49.135.2.215 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Like sushi[reply]

The word "glass" or "amorphous" does not appear in our article on Solid oxygen. I'm not sure any of the solid phases of oxygen are "glass" or "glass like", can't find any reference to suggest it. Vespine (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about "oxygen glasses", which are eyeglasses that include nasal cannula tubes for delivering supplemental oxygen? My understanding is that, like any other nasal cannula, the oxygen flowing through the flexible tubes is very close to local atmospheric pressure. (The oxygen typically comes from an oxygen tank that is "full" at roughly 2000 psi). --DavidCary (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 2/3 quarks for "positive hole"?[edit]

49.135.2.215 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Like sushi[reply]

Are you talking about a pair of up quarks here? More likely for you to find is 2 up quarks, and a down quark making a proton. You would have some of these in your body. Take a read of our quark article. Particles made from quarks always appear to have integer charge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

proton approaching neutron?[edit]

49.135.2.215 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Like sushi[reply]

You haven't really asked a question here, perhaps Nuclear force helps? If not, you might need to actually form a question. If you have a hard time trying to ask a question in English, you could try asking in your native language and someone might be able to translate it for you. Vespine (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

anti-proton receeding from anti-neutron?[edit]

49.135.2.215 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Like sushi[reply]

These two make the antideuteron. But we do not have much written on this. Strong nuclear force holds them together. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water universal soluvant as v shaped molcure?[edit]

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced:

accelerated solvent extraction

Please consider contributing

(I will not surly be back)

49.135.2.215 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Like sushi[reply]

Water is not a universal solvent, as many substances are not water-soluble, such as oils. (Our disambiguation page does include water, but that must be because many, but not all, substances are water soluble.) StuRat (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under some conditions, water becomes substantially able to dissolve non-polar things too (for various reasons depending on what conditions...Accelerated Solvent Extractor, microwave irradiation, etc). DMacks (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...which prompted me to create the accelerated solvent extraction stub. Wasn't there a template/tag for RD discussions that led to article-space improvements? DMacks (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration}} --Jayron 32 12:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes (and {{WPRDAC attention}}). DMacks (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The molecular dipole moment of water and the v shape of the molecule are indeed an important factor in water's ability to dissolve many substances. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also hydrogen bonding. --Jayron 32 16:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old conundrum: If you had a truly universal solvent, what could you store it in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Fullerenes, apparently. That or a Penning trap. N.B. I suppose we should have expected a universal solvent would have a high heat of solution. :) Wnt (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology of hemoptysis in PE[edit]

In case of PE (or pulmonary embolism) in some of the cases one of the signs is hemoptysis. I'm trying to understand how could it happen.

Here is the blood comes the vena cava and then he's coming into the right atrium >right ventricle > pulmonary artery > alveoli capillary system and then come back to the heart through: pulmonary vein > left atrium > left ventricle and leaves the heart to the aorta etc.

My question is: if the embolism is stuck in the pulmonary artery (this is the definition of PE) how can influence on the bronchial arteries which are exploded as a result of the higher pressure of the blood there and causes to hemoptysis. here is the higher pressure is found before the embolism rather than after this point of this embolism is found. I'm trying to understand this pathophysiology unsuccessfully 93.126.95.68 (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulmonary emboli often present with hemoptysis as a result of ischemic pulmonary parenchymal necrosis. (source here) --Dr Dima (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC) In plain English, this means that when embolism cuts off circulation to (a part of) a lung, the lung tissue startts to die. This may show up as coughing up blood. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you Dr. Dima. To be honest, I still don't understand, how can it be that there is an ischemic pulmonary parenchymal necrosis, while the lungs gets blood from the aorta (through bronchial arteries) rather than from the pulmonary artery (which is the blocked one). 93.126.95.68 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed mechanism is explained here --Dr Dima (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC); see also this paper --Dr Dima (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our pulmonary embolism article says: "Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a blockage of an artery in the lungs...", emphasis mine. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baby growth[edit]

Asking for a friend. Do human babies grow more in the first or second year of their lives after birth? Is there a time past that when humans grow even faster? Zell Faze (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More the first year: [1]. As far as "is there a time when they grow even faster"; as a percentage, no, but possibly in terms of most weight gained in a year, but there will be considerable variation in that, depending on gender, when growth spurts hit, if they suffer from obesity, etc. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an anecdote, you very much notice a big difference in size between a new born baby and a one year old. IMHO there is still a considerable difference in size between a one year old and a two year old. But now my son is two, there is not such a bid difference in size between him and a three year old child. Vespine (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "bid difference" ? So you put him up for sale each year on his birthday ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Allometric growth is the general concept, here applied to applied to human ontogeny. See also Human_development_(biology), infant, and toddler. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]