Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 June 27

Science desk
< June 26	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 27

Hypertension, isolated

There is a disease called isolated systolic hypertension. But why there doesn't exist a disease called isolated diastolic hypertension? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There is: [1]. And also there's isolated diastolic hypotension: [2], and isolated systolic hypotension: [3]. As for Wikipedia not having articles on all of them, some conditions are more common and/or more problematic than others, and hence more notable. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the impressive and excellent points!! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Can likely be redirected to hypertension and a sentence or two written about it there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: how to quickly tell if https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30226658 is an peer-reviewed article? I didn't see the term "review" in the MeSH terms or Publication type beneath. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, dear Sir or Madam. Can I ask you a question? How to tell if an article on PubMed is an peer-reviewed/reviewd article? Thank you! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 13:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Usually on can look under MeSH terms for the work "review article". That is correct more than 95% of the time, but sometimes it is not and sometimes it is missing.

With respect to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30226658 I think it is an okay source to use to discuss isolated diastolic hypertension. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, I get it! Gratitude! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Actinide Questions and Info needed

I'm writing a binder of every Fact, use and Compound of every element and I need some info on some Actinides if you could give some. I also have some questions to ask If anyone can help. I'd appreciate it. Porygon-Z (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See actinide series. Then follow up with all the links and sources you find there. After finishing that, come back here with any further questions. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I do have a question. How do we Know more about Cn than Es-Lr? Porygon-Z (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You mean Cm (curium) ? SinisterLefty (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No We know more About Cn Than we do Md, No, and Lr. I'm making a binder on the facts, uses and compounds of every element. Can you give me more info about Fm-Lr. Porygon-Z (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You mean copernicium? Why do you say we know more about it ? Our article on it is about as long as the rest, and all are over 30k characters, with separate articles on the isotopes of each. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Because we know more about an element that only lasts 5 seconds and has a compound (Cn) compared to an element that we only know its chemistry in solution and it oxidation states with no compounds (Md,No,Lr). I did go through each article even listing facts uses and compounds. I don't have much. Porygon-Z (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure. In some cases, they may not have been studied for chemical reactions, as they are dangerous and expensive to work with and there is very little benefit, since they have short half lives. The same applies to Cn, but somebody might just have happened to get a grant to study that one. There's also a theoretical island of stability, which may include Cn, leading to more study to verify if that is actually the case. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

But What about Mendelevium What do we know about it that I don't already have? Porygon-Z (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We have this link to the chemistry of Md: [4]. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't give much, but what little it does have, I already either have, don't care about, or don't understand. What else can you find? Porygon-Z (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You should include that electron configuration diagram, and ask about those parts you don't understand. I'm not sure if there is any more info out there. You can try Google searches, but, as I said, such artificial elements are of limited use so aren't studied much. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what the Electrochemical Equivalent of Mendelevium even means? Porygon-Z (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

They have a link that attempts to explain it. I don't know anything about it beyond that. SinisterLefty (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, then what about nobelium? What facts can you give there? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at isotopes of nobelium ? Lots of info there. SinisterLefty (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Lots of info on how to make it. What about its chemistry? Porygon-Z (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

They do have extensive info on decay processes, too. Same comments apply as above: "may not have been studied for chemical reactions, as they are dangerous and expensive to work with and there is very little benefit, since they have short half lives.". To give an analogy, there's lots of info on the speed at which various fish swim, because that's what they do. But not so much info, say, on how fast an elephant swims, as that would be a rare occurrence for them. So, rather than looking for that info, how fast an elephant walks is more relevant. Similarly, for unstable laboratory elements, the nuclear processes are far more significant than the chemical processes. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of nobelium chemistry, described in that article. Much more so than for the trans-actinides. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that recycles into the question; What do we know about it ? Porygon-Z (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You cannot really tell the limits of knowledge by looking in a Wikipedia article. As yo cannot tell what is missing by looking at it. But there is a tendency for the topics about which less is known to have a higher proportion of that knowledge in the article. If you want a more recent review see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10967-014-2971-y and The Chemistry of the Superheavy Elements Structural Characteristics, Population Analysis, and Binding Energies of [An(NO3)2+ (with An = Ac to Lr)] and Chemistry Of The Heaviest Elements Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

OK thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)