Reflections Upon Others' Blogs

First, I visited James’ blog concerning nanotechnology. His blog mentioned that nanotechnology has both positive and negative effects on products and our environment. I found his sunscreen example very interesting. In it, he discussed how the tiny particles in sunscreen protect our skin, but they can also penetrate the skin, harming the user of the sunscreen. Also, his list of nanotechnology vocabulary was very useful in providing me with an intro to nano-tech. It is interesting that “nanoshells,” very small nano-particles, can be given different physical properties by varying their sizes. For example, some nanoshells can absorb harmful light rays, which is useful for medical procedures.

I then entered McLovin Cohen’s Pasteurization blog. His entry began with a definition of ‘pasteurization,’ which I learned is the process of heating an edible product to destroy microorganisms which may cause disease. Evan discussed how without pasteurization, food would spoil much more quickly. He focused some of his entry discussing how the wine industry is dependent upon pasteurization to preserve their products while aging. Without pasteurization, microorganisms would multiply in their respective wines, during aging, contamination the final product. Therefore, pasteurization, like all of chemistry, helps our national economy. Also, although not mentioned in his blog, I thought that milk also underwent pasteurization. I am not positive whether I am confusing ‘pasteurization’ with another long work, but maybe Evan could answer this in a future post for me.

After Evan’s blog, I arrived at Laura’s blog on college’s affect on chemical imbalances, (i.e. stress). Although interesting, her blog was also quite frightening, for it reminded me of the bad side of college. She mentioned that college students were more prone to depression, schizophrenia, and eating disorders due to chemical imbalances. These imbalances are caused by the stress of a new environment and unfamiliarly with the college lifestyle. Her blog also discussed how there is still much that scientists do not know about these chemical imbalances. However, some medicines exist to help remedy this problem.

~Rick

How do Car Engines Work? (How does gasoline make our cars ‘go places’)?

(Although the topic for my blog is nuclear energy, I am going to focus this post on car engines/combustion engines and improving their miles per gallon/efficiencies. I will compare combustion to nuclear energy processes in later posts.)

To start off, cars are powered by internal combustion engines. As the name suggests, these engines are powered by the combustion of gasoline. (During combustion, gasoline is ignited, releasing large amounts of energy to power a car). There are four steps to a car’s combustion cycle (commonly known as the Otto cycle). In the first step, air and gasoline enter the engine to be used in the combustion reaction; chemically speaking, combustion reactions require a hydrocarbon and oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, water, and energy. For this reaction, the oxygen comes from the air, and the gasoline serves as our hydrocarbon. In the second step, the engine compresses to increase the energy which will be produced in the explosion (HowStuffWorks, 2). During the third step, a spark ignites the gasoline, causing a reaction (the combustion reaction). The energy from this reaction forces down the engine’s turbine. The turbine then transforms this energy into rotational motion to be used by our cars. In the fourth step, the byproducts of the combustion reaction, mostly carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, are released as exhaust. And then the cycle repeats.

While reading about car engines, I also came across an interesting article discussing ethanol’s usefulness in improving the combustion reaction. When ethanol is added to gasoline, the ethanol “enhances” the gasoline, increasing the distance that the gasoline will last your car (Journey to Forever, 3). The ethanol also decreases carbon monoxide products in the combustion reaction. Overall, the ethanol increases the efficiency of your car’s engine by a few percent, yet this reaction is still very inefficient. A lot energy is lost to heat, exhaust, and friction, making the reaction only 20% efficient (Wikipedia, 3).

It appears that combustion and gasoline are not a very efficient method of producing energy. In later research, I will compare combustion’s 20% with statistics concerning nuclear and other types of energy.

Without knowledge of chemistry, it would be difficult to describe the combustion reaction that takes place in a car’s engine. As mentioned earlier, this particular reaction requires oxygen, a hydrocarbon, and something to ignite the hydrocarbon so that it can take place. An understanding of chemistry is useful in recognizing the products of the reaction. Also, chemistry can help explain that in incomplete reactions, carbon monoxide is formed instead of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, if one understands the bonding of carbon monoxide, it is easy to see why this molecule can be dangerous.

Works Cited

Ethanol Fuel. Journey to Forever. 28 January 2008.

____http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol.html.

How Car Engines Work. HowStuffWorks. 28 January 2008.

____http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm.

Internal Combustion Engine. 28 January 2008. Wikipedia. 28 January

____2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine.

*Ms. V, I had difficulty formatting the indentations and '<>' s in my citations.

Research Plan

In my research, I plan on comparing nuclear energy to other energy sources. In my first specific area of exploration, I will investigate the chemical reactions that occur in nuclear and other types of power plants. In my second specific area, I will examine the costs, the practicality, and side effects of each type of power plant from my first area.

I have been able to find a lot of information about the reactions that occur in nuclear, solar, and coal plants. I have not found too much information about tidal and wind plants, but I will keep looking! I have also found a fairly large amount of information about the practicality of different types of energy.

I recently added five more links to the top of my link list concerning nuclear (and other types of energy). None of the new links connect to the UD database, but some of my older links link to articles that were mentioned on the Gale database.

Also, I posted on Julia, Gealina, and Alison’s blogs.

~Rick

The Usefulness of Wikipedia

As far as internet sources go, we have been taught to always respect subscription encyclopedias (such as Britannica), government websites, and university databases. We have been taught to question the sites of “random” individuals and sites without a listed author unless we can confirm these facts with those from a database that we can trust.

Sadly, Wikipedia.org technically falls into the second category, and it does not garner as much respect as it deserves. Yes, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and can be grossly inaccurate. HOWEVER, Wikipedia employs experts to ensure the accuracy of its facts and therefore, a very small proportion of Wikipedia’s articles are inaccurate.

Another plus to Wikipedia is the fact that it is free, and therefore, it can be accessed from any computer with an internet connection. No lousy database subscription with a 17 character password required to log-on. Additionally, no annoying advertisements. Instead, Wikipedia provides its users with a user-friendly search interface that allows one to quickly find his/her desired article.

Wikipedia is useful for those of us who want to quickly look up a literary or IM reference. The opening paragraphs of each article provide users with a quick overview of the topic. Additionally, for those of us doing a research project on a topic, a preliminary search on Wikipedia informs us whether our topic is too narrow or too broad. The Wikipedia article can provide us with several suggestions of how to narrow or broaden this field. Furthermore, Wikipedia provides one with outside links to further one’s understanding of any subject.
Also, Wikipedia’s use of fairly simplistic vocabulary assists students from becoming lost in the complicated jargon of a specialized field.

Some critics argue that not all of the information on Wikipedia can necessarily be trusted. I concur; it is important to double check facts with ANOTHER respected database.

While researching, it is likely that you may come across a source with a subjective viewpoint. To filter out this bias, one must ask oneself, “Why is this author writing this? Is he/she out to prove a point? Or does he/she simply want to share his/her knowledge with the world?” If you do come across a source which you feel may be biased, it is best to again check these facts with different sources. But remember, Britannica and .gov sites can be culturally biased (“the most powerful societies write the history books”).

In my research, I intend to skim the majority of the Wikipedia article on nuclear energy. I will select a few portions that interest me to focus on. I will then thoroughly read these sections ALONG WITH outside sources, such as from The Nuclear Energy Institute and the US government’s Energy Information Administration.

~Rick

Initial Research

I have decided to focus my blog on nuclear energy. I visited several sites related to nuclear energy and learned some important facts. First, I found out that nuclear energy is NOT classified as a “renewable” source of energy. Nuclear energy reactors convert uranium and plutonium into new, smaller particles, and not all of this waste can be reprocessed into usable material.
Furthermore, unlike “renewable” sources such as solar, wind, and tidal power, nuclear energy produces waste and tends to be very expensive in the long-term. Although solar, wind, and tidal power plants tend to be very expensive to construct (much more so than nuclear energy plants), once these plants begins operation, they are very economically efficient to maintain. On the other hand, nuclear plants require raw materials (uranium/plutonium) and produce waste that must be treated.
During my next step of research, I plan to research the chemical reactions that convert uranium/plutonium into energy. Additionally, I will compare these reactions to those of oil, natural gas, coal, solar, and wind engines/plants. In my analysis, I intend to include how much energy each type of reaction produces and compare the relative costs between these different energy sources.

Possible Topics (The full post, I would delete the earlier post, but I dont want to delete James' comment)

Although I am not sure what topic I would like to research, nuclear energy is on the top of my list. Due to decreasing supplies of fossil fuels and other sources of non-renewable energy, it is important that we soon find new sources of energy to replace those that will one day run out (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2005/February/Thenuclearsolution.asp). Nuclear energy, if it can be harnessed safely and cheaply, could serve as a feasible replacement. I would like to examine nuclear fission (the breaking apart of a large particle into two or more smaller particles) and nuclear fusion (the combining of two or more particles) reactions, focusing on the energy that is released in these reactions. I plan to research how efficient these reactions are, how expensive the raw materials of the reaction are, the cost of disposing of waste from these reactions, and possible dangers of relying on nuclear energy.

Another possible topic which I have considered researching is the effectiveness of antibacterial soap. There is currently a debate in the scientific community about whether antibacterial soap kills germs more effectively than normal soap. Additionally, some scientists theorize that antibacterial soap also kills healthy skin cells. There are studies that support both sides of this argument. But which is true? If I were to select this topic, I would compare the chemical reactions that occur when normal soap and when antibacterial soap come into contact with one’s skin. Additional information on this topic can be found at:
http://home.howstuffworks.com/question692.htm &
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1213399&page=1.

A third possible topic is nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is a fairly new concept that deals with very tiny particles, smaller than 100 nanometers (http://www.livescience.com/nanotechnology/). Although mostly theoretical, nanotechnology advocates suspect that one day scientists will be able to construct large structures by combining individual atoms and relying on the chemical properties of the atoms to form predictable structures. If I were to select this topic, I would research why nanotechnology works and current advances in nanotechnology. More information on nanotechnology can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology.

~Rick

Possible Topics

While I was looking for possible topics, I came across the site http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/ which has some interesting up-to-date articles concerning every day chemistry. I find the topic of nuclear energy particularly interesting (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2005/February/Thenuclearsolution.asp). Due to decreasing supplies of fossil fuels and other sources of non-renewable energy, it is important that we find new sources of energy to replace those that will run out. Another possible topic which I will consider researching is the effectiveness of antibacterial soap. There is currently a debate in the scientific community about whether antibacterial soap kills germs any better than normal soap. Additionally, some scientists theorize that antibacterial soap also kills healthy skin cells. Multiple studies each support different sides of this argument. But which is true? More information about this topic can be found at: http://home.howstuffworks.com/question692.htm http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1213399&page=1 I am also interested in nanotechnology, a