Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 July 13
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 12 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 14 > |
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. |
July 13
editplanet with size Mars can not impact with earth
editIt said that any mars sized planet impacted earth to form moon. my calculations show it is impossible .--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Giant Impact Hypothesis- the planet Theia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbarmohammadzade (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- (here to learn, not answer questions) Did you take into account the fact that the solar system wasn't settled yet, then? Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 06:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Have you read Giant-impact hypothesis? What do you think is impossible - that such an impact could have occurred, or that Earth would have survived the impact, or that the moon could have resulted from the impact and found a stable orbit?-gadfium 06:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- How about you show us your calculations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- NO! I mean, if the calculations were validated and published in some (real) physical review, at some point it will show in wikipedia. But Ref Desk is not place to discuss such hard science Gem fr (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- The OP has stated a premise. It is totally reasonable to ask what the basis of that premise is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- NO! I mean, if the calculations were validated and published in some (real) physical review, at some point it will show in wikipedia. But Ref Desk is not place to discuss such hard science Gem fr (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
why we suppose that it impacted when in such case two planets only start to form couple planet system? in fact when it was nearing the earth , new planet get the earth out of its orbital , and for the reason of gravity field effect , two planets only were been rotating each other.--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC) we see Pluto and Charon do so--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- The two would need to be headed on a collision course, not a near miss. This seems extremely unlikely today, but there were a lot more such objects flying around the solar system in the early days (all the craters on the Moon, where they are preserved, are a fair indication of that), and over billions of years most of them either hit the Sun or planets, were ejected from the solar system, or found a stable orbit. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's a little late to submit papers, but the Ames lunar summer science summit is in a few days (registration open through July 18!) and this year is sure to be a big one - commemorating fifty orbits since the return of Apollo 11! :Anyway, without being a little too blunt, I'm inclined to quote my own words from a couple of months ago responding to amateur research here on Wikipedia's science reference desk. "Until you have established credibility in these fields by following well-established career-trajectories working toward the professional level, the experts don't really care what opinions you have about their work. You are free to critique advanced physics - or to complain that you don't understand it - but it will be about as productive as if you complain about the coaching strategy for a professional sports team. Your opinion carries no weight, and your critiques don't merit attention, because you aren't playing in the same league."
- So for example, when Apollo 17 astronaut-scientist publishes an outside-the-mainstream opinion on planetary impact, like the famous Moon’s Origin And Evolution: Alternatives and Implications,... we take note of his idea, even if we don't accept every single detail; but we look at it because he's worth listening to and has previously established his credentials; but when random Wikipedia contributors do the same, we sort of hold them to a different bar. It's not necessarily the case that scientists disagree with your independent research: it's more the case that scientists don't care enough about your work to actually bother looking at your calculations. It is a harsh and competitive world, and if you haven't proven your mettle by conducting well-respected peer-reviewed research before the time you finish formal university years, well... then, the scientific-community-at-large is too busy studying the work that other bright people have done on these interesting topics.
- Nimur (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There are examples of amateurs making respected contributions to science. Astronomy, Chemistry, and Archaeology are fields that come to mind. See, for example, “Amateurs and professionals in chemistry: The case of the periodic system” You need to do your research, and if you ask politely and present your work concisely, some experts will look at your work. After that the road to wider recognition is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. You do not necessarily need to be an expert in the field to achieve this. The good thing about being an amateur is that amateurs will sometimes bring a different perspective to matters. The not so good thing is that you need to do a lot more homework to be able to speak the language of whatever the applicable field is. Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Producing CO2 from vinegar and baking soda
editAt a science fair I saw a"baking soda and (colored) vinegar volcano". Was nice.
There was an argument how much CO2 is emitted (starting with a 9 years old that was worried it will contribute to global warming :) )
So my question is as follow: How much (in grams) baking soda and how much (in liters) 5% vinegar produce 1 cubic meter of CO2 under 1 atmosphere pressure? אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- First you need Avogadro's law and the ideal gas law to do some thermodynamics.
- From these, one mole of CO2 will occupy 24.5 litres at room temperature the (molar volume – it's the same for any gas that one mole of it, a very large but standard number of molecules, will occupy the same volume). i.e. Your "one cubic metre" will need of CO2 (that's about 40 moles of it, which gives many experienced chemists a quick idea of if they're talking about beakers or tank trucks of it)
- The next bit is chemistry.
- To make a mole of CO2 you need at least enough of each ingredient. You could use a stoichiometric mixture, but usually one is in excess (and doesn't react, because it's run out of the other reactant).
- Baking soda is sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3
- Vinegar is acetic acid, CH3COOH (5% by volume, here)
- Their reaction is NaHCO3 + CH3COOH → NaC2H3O2 + H2O + CO2
- This isn't quite the full detail of the reaction,[1] but it's OK to show us the end result. What it means is that we need one molecule of baking soda to react with one molecule of vinegar, to give us one molecule of CO2. To make our cubic metre of gas, we need of each. As liquids and solids are more dense than gases, that's a lot less than a cubic metre of those! But how much?
- A molecule of baking soda (NaHCO3) has a molar mass of 84.0066 g mol−1 (I cheated and looked that up from WP). I could work it out too, by adding up the individal atomic masses for each of the four elements in it (and counting three times for all those oxygens). That's (real chemists will object to my approximations here)
- Acetic acid is 60.052 g·mol−1
- So we'll need at least of baking soda. The vinegar will need 2.45 kg of acetic acid, or about 2.33 litres of it. But as this is 5% vinegar, that's 47 litres of vinegar.
- So overall, to make a cubic metre of CO2 gas from one of these volcanoes, that's a couple of sugar bags of baking soda, mixed with a dustbin of vinegar. Quite a bit for a science fair project! But maybe, you could catch the gas bubbles produced and measure them?
- Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! Not only an answer, but detailed walkthrough! אילן שמעוני (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand, so I am collapsing this. There are things below that are not debate about climate change, but there are few of them. As a rule of thumb, when an adequate answer has been provided that covers everything the question asked, one should refrain from adding stuff to answer questions that were not asked. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
|