Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ScienceNostalgia101

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1904 profile views
  1. But is eating bat or snake meat safe so long as it's cooked long enough? Is there any virus or other pathogen that'll be present no matter the temperature to which it is heated or the duration for which it's heated to that temperature? While I'm at it, I know it's a distinct topic, but... does the same apply to human meat? I'm not considering trying it or anything, but I know a lot of people in desperate circumstances end up resorting to it, is that safe as long as it's heated enough or is there some other reason that's unsafe?
  2. Not sure whether this is better for here or Biology, but I'll put it here for now. I assume most of you have already heard of China's coronavirus outbreak, but in case you haven't, a little refresher... https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1 A. So does this suggest doing farming within the city limits of a major city is more likely to spread disease than relegating the farming tasks to small towns? Does it depend on whether it's meat farming or just vegetable farming? Either way, how come China often does their farming in major cities, while in the United States, farming's considered a "small town" thing? B. Within the idea of farming in cities in particular, is it safer to slaughter animals before bringing them to a market, or after? Does the former risk causing insects and/or microbes to get at them faster or something? C. Within the latter, is it safer to cook the meat before bringing it to the wet market, or to leave the customer to cook it? Would "cooked" meat have only the illusion of safety since in an open air market insects and/or microbes could get at it? D. Is there any animal that's dangerous to eat no matter how long you cook it for?
  3. Another question now (sorry to keep bumping this, but it's not letting me edit the previous post now) but I was wondering another thing. I mentioned before the question of a concave arrangement of various small mirrors, vs. one large concave mirror, in the context of solar collectors on land. It was pointed out that in that context, it's better to have a number of small mirrors than one large one. Does the same apply to thermal solar power at sea? If one were to mass-manufacture, and then arrange into a concave pattern, a series of small mirrors, could most of the thermal energy that would otherwise fall on the Atlantic Ocean instead be captured by these solar collectors, if they were made to float in the ocean? (Presumably tied to each other and the land, to prevent them from being swept away by the currents...)
  4. Looking at various chemical reactions, I used to see parallels in acidity and alkalinity to the energy concept. Acids and bases neutralize; sort of temperatures contrasting. Acids react with metals to form neutral hydrogen and salt; but those metals would if electrolyzed would've become alkaline, so it almost looks like the "alkalinity" equivalent of latent energy. And of course, if you burn plants, the ashes are alkaline, but the gases could be reacted with water to form acids. A divergence between alkalinity and acidity, if you will. But then I found this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHfN7GvAyI#t=2m11s This person forms a strong acid; hydrochloric acid; by reacting together two substances for which neither of them are strong acids. The other product of this reaction is not a strong base, so it's not a "divergent" reaction either. Is there some sort of "latent" alkalinity contained here? If so, could something like this be used to reverse the effects of acid rain by, let's say, reacting together substances that aren't strong bases to form a strong base, with the other product not being a strong acid, therefore increasing the pH of the bodies of water?
  5. For the record I wasn't referring to using indoor appliances outdoors so much as whether or not there's some outdoor equivalent that'd still keep it cold on abnormally warm (as far as winter goes) days. In any case, I was surprised to learn they manage to store ice all year, let alone through the occasional warm day within winter. I guess anything well insulated enough with enough ice in it would prevent the temperature from going too far above freezing, if only by convection. (Though I'd be terrified of accidentally locking myself in one.)
  6. Can't edit prior post. Have a new energy-saver inquiry. Is it more energy-efficient, in the wintertime, to have an outdoor refrigerator/freezer, such that the temperature difference between the outdoor air and refrigerator/freezer is less than that between the indoor air and refrigerator/freezer, or less efficient because an indoor refrigerator/freezer releases heat into its surroundings anyway?
  7. Wasn't sure whether this belonged in physics or chemistry, but being that from my familiarity with physics, heat makes objects LESS conductive, I assume it's chemistry that explains this. (And/or gives us enough to go on as to whether or not it's a hoax.) Starting at 4 minutes and 13 seconds in, you can see a tree branch that fell on two power lines conduct smolder; presumably from conducting electricity between them. However, it takes more than a minute for any flames to become visible. Within seconds of the flame becoming visible, you can hear audible electrical arc sounds for a few seconds before the tree branch outright explodes, turning the smoke given off from grey to brown. So what's going on here? Does the electricity directly cause chemical reactions that produce compounds more electrically conductive than those of the tree branch itself? Or does the smoldering cause that? As well, why the abrupt shift from flame to explosion if it took more than a minute for flames to appear?
  8. Apparently there's digestive problems from them as well. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sugar-alcohols-good-or-bad#section6 Not sure if it'd be worth it for the buzz. The issue with the corn syrup thing is that the federal government itself won't call it sugar. So why the impetus to refuse to in this context even though fructose is referred to as "a sugar" in biology classes? https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/feds-say-high-fructose-corn-syrup-not-sugar-flna805762
  9. I forgot to reply to this earlier. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask; should this be the same thread or a separate one? Because I can think of some things that blur the distinction between "increasing power production" and "reducing current power usage." For instance, suppose that instead of throwing paper waste away, one were to burn it for heat. There are two ways I can think of for this heat to be used: A) Put a metal tube above the fire that does not allow smoke to enter, but allows the heat energy to conduct through, so that enclosed air molecules can warm up from contact with this surface and enter any household to which this tube is connected, or... B) Just directly boil water above it and use it to cook food or brew coffee. Would either of these be more efficient; or less; than transporting everyone's paper waste to an incinerator that uses higher temperatures to generate electricity? (Efficiency of an engine; if I recall correctly, is a strictly monotonic function of difference in temperature between the hot reservoir and cold reservoir, correct?)
  10. So a lot of companies try to get around admitting to the sugar content of their products through special pleading. They'll refuse to count high fructose corn syrup as sugar, for instance, presumably by the fact that it's technically chemically distinct from sucrose. This raises a key question; how was sugar originally defined? Did the original definition include all things chemically counted as sugars, or just a narrower subset of them?
  11. So does that make it misleading, then, if its actual scientific name is hydrogen oxide?
  12. Water is easily the most common oxide of hydrogen. Its two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom correspond to the 2- charge of oxygen and 1+ for hydrogen. I would think, if only for those reasons, "hydrogen oxide" would be the most appropriate name for it. To cap it off, other covalent hydrogen compounds seemed to be named that way. H2S, for instance, isn't called "dihydrogen monosulfide." However, I always hear "dihydrogen monoxide" referred to as the name for water when people are using it to mock environmental scares. I see two explanations for this: A. They're actually that ignorant about this, which would make it seem rather hypocritical to then paint environmentalists that way, or... B. They're deliberately misrepresenting the way chemical names work to catch people off-guard, whether to make it sound scarier than water's actual chemical name would be, or to avoid allowing anyone an opportunity to think "hydrogen oxide, eh? Hmm... what is formed when hydrogen is burned in oxygen again?" Is there a legitimate reason H2S is more commonly referred to as hydrogen sulfide and H2O as dihydrogen monoxide, or am I onto something here?
  13. Magnification... as in camera magnification, or is there an equivalent for "field of view" in the context of eyesight?
  14. Depends on the temperature, I think. At higher temperatures a 1% shift in humidity counts for more than that of lower temperatures. In any case, thanks for the clarification.
  15. Again, a network of permanent firebreaks could isolate the fire to one grid square at a time (presuming it didn't spread) but that isn't denying them fire altogether. It's just having one grid square catch fire at a time. So they'd still replenish themselves with fire, just on a smaller (if more frequent) scale.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.