Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 January 5

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.

January 5

Acidity of the female reproductive tract

Why is the female reproductive tract acidic when this inhibits the ability of spermatozoa to survive and fertilise an egg, which is, of course, the female reproductive tract's primary purpose? Isn't that kind of self-defeating? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Only the strongest will do it. 88.9.109.182 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See this paper specifically the section: Vaginal defenses against infectious organisms may affect sperm. Rockpocket 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is to prevent pregnancy by a male with inadequate sperm count. It is to the woman's advantage to prevent a pregnancy that may result in a male baby that will turn out to have low sperm count (ounce he grows up) reducing the number of grandchildren. Dauto (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of important factors working together on this. Consider, for example, that the female orgasm allows her to decide on a male's genetic quality in a rather conscious way, giving sperm with this advantage more time in the acid bath and some less (or keeping the seminal plasma, and its buffering capacity, together?) Males are potentially competing with one another, perhaps in nearly simultaneous matings, or perhaps in repeated matings over a period of months until pregnancy is attained. Over the course of evolution female body needs to decide on how long a relationship should go on, on average, until a baby is conceived in order for it to have the best chance of paternal support. Probably there are dozens, maybe hundreds of things like this you could name off, and it would be very hard to test most of them except by computer modelling based on perhaps very inaccurate presumptions about the lifestyle of our ancestors. Wnt (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Over the course of evolution female body needs to decide on how long a relationship should go on, on average, until a baby is conceived...". I'd have thought myself that the 'female mind' would be involved in this decision too - but then, I'm one of these wishy-washy social-science graduates who sees people (male and female) as more than just reproductive machines... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but remember that for most of humanity's evolutionary history, the connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy was (so most think) not understood. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.46 (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the 'female mind' didn't understand the connection, the 'female body' certainly couldn't have done - though I'm tempted to add [citation needed] to your premise anyway. How do you know what "was not understood" regarding the question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither I nor anybody else can "know" in the strict sense what people tens to millions of years ago knew: presumably our ancestors of 6 million years ago didn't understand the connection (do chimps, from whose ancestral line ours diverged about that long ago?); today most of us do, but the knowledge is culturally learned, not innate. Some time in the intervening period someone worked it out, but when? I am under the impression that the majority opinion is that the connection was probably not understood until the last few millennia, which is why I said "so most think." If I can think of a specific source to cite, I'll come back and do so, but no promises.

As for Wnt's terminology about the female body "deciding" things, and others' about evolved biological systems having "purposes" – these are examples of describing unconscious and undirected phenomena metaphorically as if they have mentation and purpose, which strictly is fallacious, but is natural to everyday speech and consequently nearly everyone uses unless they're being ultra-correct, because we usually understand what is really meant.

In the exchanges above, biological processes were being discussed that have evolved over many millions of years, and which are common to, for example, most if not all mammals. They don't work markedly differently in the particular species under discussion (H sapiens), so bringing in conscious knowledge and intentions is a red herring (that's another metaphor, no actual fish are being invoked). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.46 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any references for this? It doesn't seem like a difficult correlation for people to notice. In the absence of fertility problems, pregnancy usually follows pretty quickly after you start having sex. The connection has definitely been known for pretty much all of recorded history. Almost every society has had fertility gods of one sort or another, and they are often linked very obviously with sex. --Tango (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably as opposed to those wishy-washy social science graduates who studied evolutionary psychology.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out that ancient humans, even apes, maybe even lots of mammals know the connection between sex and reproduction. But in the end it is the evolution - and the statistical effect it has on the design of the body - which will decide the rate of childbirth, not the preferences of the individual females. Because if the females, on average, consciously decided to have sex less often (or in ways less suited to reproduction) then evolution would have to compensate for that by some mechanism or another to bring the rate of childbirth back toward the functional optimum. Wnt (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Behaviour is affected by genes and thus evolutionary pressure just as much as physical characteristics. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

When semen enters the vaginal tract, it is initially basic, having a pH higher than 7. The acidic vagina neutralizes this alklinity, producing large amounts of water. However, I couldn't comment on the purpose that this occurs. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

is it homosexuality?

I've been noticing this several times. Some male dogs smell other male dogs' butt and in some instances try to copulate them. Why is that so? Can we consider this as displaying of homosexuality behavior? I read our article about Homosexuality in animals and this behavior of dogs is not discussed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.61.174 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is probably quite common behaviour in dogs (I've certainly seen it myself). As to whether you consider it 'homosexuality', I think that depends on two things - firstly, on whether there is a clearcut definition of 'homosexuality' within human societies - and evidence strongly suggests there isn't - and secondly, the extent to which you consider it meaningful to analyse the behaviour of other species from the perspective of human sexuality. So there isn't a definitive answer to this, and it probably isn't a particularly useful question to ask. Instead, you might ask why dogs do this. The immediate answer is most likely 'because they enjoy it', and the more fundamental answer will probably depend on the degree to which you think that behaviour is a direct result of evolutionary pressures. You'll have to make your own mind up on this, but it is an interesting question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cows commonly mount, in simulated copulation, other cows. Are they bovine lesbians? Edison (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that they consider it 'simulated copulation'? Maybe they think that doing it with a bull isn't as good as the real thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Animals don't do sexual identity. They just do sex.

— sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath, richarddawkins.net Von Restorff (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Homosexual behavior in animals article you linked heads its long section on such behaviour in specific creatures "Some selected species and groups", and the text mentions that it "has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." That dogs' behaviour was not specifically detailed in that section of the article may mean no more than that the article's editors didn't want to expand it beyond reasonable bounds or hadn't run across material specific to dogs. In fact, dogs are briefly mentioned earlier in the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.46 (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Bruce Bagemihl's book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (ISBN 978-0312192396), made famous by Ricky Gervais, covers dogs. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "homosexuality" if a dog tries to rut on a man's leg? Yes, I know this is an etymological fallacy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you consult a dictionary you'll see that "homosexual" derives from "homo-" Greek for same, not "homo" Latin for man.[1] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightenment. Apparently, I've always fallen for the folk etymology. This will be the thing I learned in 2012! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Having watched too many episodes of The Dog Whisperer, the incomparable Cesar Millan, he has mentioned many times that one male dog trying to mount another usually with no sign of arousal, indicates powerplay, a dog attempting to dominate the other, it also happens with dogs and bitches. The cow apparently attempting to mount another cow indicates that the mounting cow is in oestrus and wishes to mate. This usually happens if there is not a bull available which would detected the cow's availability earlier and taken the natural action. Sorry, can't cite it but perhaps someone can find a link. Richard Avery (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the cow question. Richard Avery (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the name of the veins inside a flower petal?

Do they have a special name? Are they just called veins? 184.58.178.182 (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Vascular tissue. Von Restorff (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 184.58.178.182 (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome of course! Von Restorff (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

They're just called veins - there is nothing more specific in glossary of botanical terms or glossary of plant morphology terms. SmartSE (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Watt hours

500 of 10000 mAh NiMH batteries, operating at 1.2V. Would it be 12*500 == 6 KWh? Wondering if my calculation correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.132.165 (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 500 times 10 Ah is 5000 Ah; at 1.2V this means 1.2*5000 = 6000 Wh = 6 KWh. -- Lindert (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Can animals think of future?

We human beings can think of the future, sometimes worried about future i.e. what will happen in future. Can animals do the same? --Poytlok (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The more famous case of which is a dolphin named Kelly who learned to game the system. You can even find instance of it in the most surprising taxa, like the well-studied Portia spiders which can create complex attack strategies based on what enemy/prey it faces.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

But it is not what I'm saying. I mean, the example of spider is not what I want to mean. I mean thinking of a bit distant future. Say for example a human can use a trap to hunt an animal (a case similar to that of the spiders). But other than that, we can think of the distant future. Humans are worried about, say for example, their career, save money for possible future financial problems, worried about post-retirement life, worried about children's future, if a person is diagnosed with a critical disease, they become worried what will happen to them. Do animals also do the same? --Poytlok (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well to be fair not many animals are worried about careers, financial statuses, or retirement, and few have the wherewithal to discover they have a serious disease (our pets and zoo animals not withstanding). It has sometimes been suggested that behaviours such as squirrels storing nuts are an example of animals planning for the future, but others will argue it's simply instinctive. --jjron (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the dolphin example like what you described? The degree by which they can apparently plan ahead varies by what animal of course. Some behaviors, for example, are most likely hardwired - like salmon returning upriver to spawn, sexton beetles burying dead animals for their young, beavers building dams, pocket gophers hoarding seeds, or leaf-cutter ants harvesting leaves to provide fertilizer for their fungus gardens. Others are more likely to be actual planning, like orcas and bears coinciding their movements with seasonal food sources, or arctic foxes and other canids burying food stores in winter. Others are remarkably human-like, like tufted capuchins planning ahead by dehusking harvested nuts days in advance before cracking it open with stone tools (it's easier to crack them once they've dried a bit). But we have no objective way of knowing whether they actually worry about the future.

And yeah, one thing's for sure, heh. Animals don't have financial worries. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't mention caches created by Gray Jays (and other Jay's) so that they can survive winters in the arctic. Also animal migrations in general are a pretty clear example that animals can think of the future, even if it is only a few months ahead. SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For brevity, I guess, heh. I could go on and on with similar examples really :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty here is really with the concept of "thinking". There is no doubt that animals can take actions that yield future benefits or ward off future threats. But if we saw humans acting in the same way, we would not necessarily say that they were thinking about what they were doing. We humans are constantly, in essence, talking to ourselves -- we hold a conversation with ourselves inside our heads -- and we say we are thinking about something if it is the topic of that internal monologue. Other species probably do not carry on any such internal monologue, and even if they do, we have no way of observing it. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Looie's point cannot be understated, especially the last statement. There's a field of psychology, applied to both animals and humans called behaviorism, especially the field of radical behaviorism. The idea is that since we cannot observe "internal" thought process, we can only scientifically describe behaviors. If an animal "prepares" by burying nuts for the winter, we don't know if he does it because he knows he'll need them, or if he does it randomly and gets lucky. But it is an observable behavior which benefits the animal the same either way. We have no way to know that the animal is not "thinking" about the future, we only know that he exhibits planning behavior. Now, this is not the only perspective on what is happening in these cases, but people who ascribe to behaviorism don't worry about whether or not the animal is "thinking", because such an idea isn't scientifically testable. --Jayron32 18:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would argue squirrels are randomly performing actions and some lucky percentage of them result in useful future outcomes. If you wish to simplify the debate into a dichotomy, I suggest innate evolutionary programming vs. concious forethought. Of which I favour the former in the case of squirrels burying nuts Jebus989^✰ 18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The point of behaviorism, especially radical behaviorism, is that it does not recognize the existance of concious forethought. It takes the question from the opposite direction; that there is nothing magically distinctive between a squirrel burying nuts and a human saving for retirement. The represent the same fundemental behavior (saving for the future) so radical behaviorism recognizes them as the same sort of behavior and does not recognize the human activity as especially "privileged" merely because it had "thought". --Jayron32 18:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's, again, an interesting summation of radical behaviourism Jebus989^✰ 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The error with radical behaviorism, as Temple Grandin aptly points out repeatedly, is confusing the methodology of lack of conscious activity with the ontology of lack of conscious activity. Just because we cannot observe something does not mean it cannot exist. Saying, "I do not recognize this" can be a useful methodology for weeding out nonsense. But it doesn't mean they don't actually "think" or aren't actually "conscious." Behaviorism is very useful for certain types of questions and certain types of experiments, but it shouldn't be mistaken as a model for what actually occurs in the brain, or adhered to too rigidly. (There are good reasons that radical behaviorism is no longer in vogue in both cognitive science or animal behavior studies.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are ways to distinguish instinct from forethought. One example is kittens, which seem to have a an instinct to scratch at random after they defecate. So, they clearly aren't thinking "I need to bury it so the smell won't give my position away to a predator". Only after trained by momcat do they know how to bury it properly, but it seems unlikely the true purpose of this action was every communicated. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dogs bury bones. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And some things do more than just think about the future... →Στc. 07:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul never predicted anything as far as we know. Von Restorff (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

sun and planets angles.

Here is a picture illustrating my thought process, depicting the nonexistent celestial sphere and its non-heliocentric properties. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I live in the Northern hemisphere. It is winter and the sun tracks low across the sky, however the planets are much higher in the night sky. I am confused by this as I thought that the plane of the solar system would keep the planets low along with the sun. What is going on ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.192.129 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Sun, Moon and planets roughly follow a disk on the imaginary celestial sphere called the ecliptic, and the entire sphere would be rotating around Earth, an axis centered near Polaris. At night during the winter, the side of the sky where the ecliptic is above the celestial equator rises, so Orion (constellation) is higher above the southern horizon compared to Saggitarius, even though Orion is below the ecliptic, but on the celestial equator, and Sagitarrius is on the ecliptic, but below the equator. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Think of a seesaw. If one side goes down, the other side goes up. If the Ecliptic is low during the day, it will be high during the night. Dauto (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the most intuitive way to understand it is this: Assume the earth stands still, and the sky is painted on a ball that rotates around it. You can try that out with a real ball in your hand, such as the one shown here. Just like this one has a blue ring around its waist, the sky has a ring painted with planets. When you hold it between your fingers and give it a spin, you will see that the blue ring wobbles. — Sebastian 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Download a program called Stellarium. It's free and will SHOW you exactly what's going on. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a software simulation must be worth a hundred thousand. :) Vespine (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Vespine's reply has addressed the issue at all. The OP's question clearly arises because the orbits of the various planets are not exactly (or even not closely) aligned with the plane of the ecliptic! --rossb (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are totally wrong, and if you downloaded stellarium and ran the simulation you would understand why. It's nothing to do with ecliptic alignment. From earth's perspective the planets are in fact closely aligned with the ecliptic, off by a few degrees at most. The "illusion" is that the sun (and therefore, as the OP assumes: "everything else") is rotating around the earth along the ecliptic, but of course that's not the case, it is the earth which is rotating through the ecliptic, as the little picture on the right illustrates. As duato already pointed out, if the ecliptic is LOW during the day when the sun is up, it will be HIGH during the night when the planets are up, the ones you can see anyway. Vespine (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - I had indeed got this quite wrong! --62.49.68.79 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed some of my earlier comments, which were based on my gut-reaction to always use the equatorial coordinate system, as opposed to celestial coordinate system). I still contend that my remarks were correct, but for an uncommon definition of "up."

There are a few confounding factors. The time of day when any particular planet transits is seasonal - not just based on Earth season, but on the season on the other planet. You can check these times online at the United States Navy Observatory's excellent database website. For example, today Jupiter will transit around 7 PM in San Jose, California. That is, tonight, Jupiter will appear at its highest location in the sky around 7PM. Chances are very high that if you were looking for Jupiter this summer, you didn't see it - because back in July, Jupiter rose at around 1AM. If you saw any planet at all, it was a different planet, and it rose at a different time... so, you're not comparing apples to apples!

Each planet in our solar system has almost no orbital inclination - other than Mercury. This means that the planets are all pretty darned close to the ecliptic, throughout the entire year. This also means that any individual planet will transit at a higher elevation in Summer. However, if a planet transited in summer in the middle of the day, you didn't see it, so you're comparing to some other astronomical object. Nimur (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The most striking of these effects is the high beautiful full moon near the winter solstice. Of course that's only a 'planet' in the archaic sense, but it follows the same path, and of course it's full only when directly opposite the sun. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Length of Radioactive Half-Life

What factors control the length of the radioactive half life of atoms? It seems incredible to me that Sulfur-35 has a half-life of 87 days, but the other isotopes of sulfur have a half-life shorter than 170 minutes. One obvious influence to half-life length is the decay method, either alpha or beta emission, for instance, but what other factors control half-life and why would the decay method influence half-life?128.227.87.186 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's ultimately a measure of the stability of the arrangement of the nucleus. See Magic number (physics), which describes how the nuclear shell model predicts the various types of instability you get in radioactive isotopes. My read of the chart in that article is that the method of day is not super important; that's just a reflection of whatever kind of instability there is (beta minus happens when you're on the left side of the "stable" line; beta plus when you're on the right, alpha if you're too far up and to the right, etc.). Putting this another way, the question isn't why the half lives differ so much as it is why certain isotopes are so unstable versus others. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are basically two factors. One is a kinematic factor proportional to the volume of phase space available to the final state. The larger the binding energy released through the decay process the larger that phase space tends to be and the shorter the half life will tend to be. That's basically what Mr.98 described above as the stability of the initial state. The second factor called the amplitude of the process is a dynamic factor which depends on the details of the process causing the decay and is much harder to calculate. The calculation involves computation of Feynman diagrams. One of the factors that are included in the amplitude calculation is the strength of the interaction given by the coupling constant of the interaction. Beta decays are mediated by the weak interaction which has an effective coupling constant much smaller than the strong interaction's coupling constant which mediates the alpha decay. Dauto (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Planetary alignment

Typically, "planetary alignment" is considered only in the partial sense, as referred to in our article on syzygy. However, I would like to consider a theoretical "total planetary alignment," which I define as follows: Given the plane of Earth's orbit, imagine a perpendicular plane that passes through both Earth and the Sun. (Does this plane have a name?) The orbits of all of the other planets will also pass through this second plane, although not necessarily at a perpendicular, due to different inclinations. Anyway, has there ever been a time when all of the planets were at the intersection of their own orbital planes and this perpendicular plane, on the same side of the sun, at the same time? Will there ever be such a time? Can such an event even be calculated? (Note that this can be done with any planet's orbital plane as a starting point. I used Earth's merely for simplicity.) Thank you for your time. — Michael J 23:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The probability of such event happening is almost surely exactly zero because it is represented by just a countable number of points in the phase space. That's equivalent to asking what's the probability that a number chosen randomly will be exactly 1. If that number could be anything at all than the probability is zero because there are an infinite number of possible outcomes and only one of those outcomes is 1. Dauto (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many websites that work on the possibility in many different ways. They all come up with about 1 chance of it happening in 150-200 trillion years - which basically means that it won't happen. I've also seen some that relax this and ask if they will be in a line - even with some on the other side of the Sun, but still in a line. That is about 1 chance in 340 million years. So, it is very rare, but ever so slightly possible. The big problem is that searching for "planetary alignment" pulls up a lot of nutjob sites that show how planets line up with one another in the night sky. Of course - they are all on the ecliptic. They are supposed to line up. -- kainaw™ 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspected it was theoretically possible if one considers time to be infinite. I agree that the "alignments" along the ecliptic that you mention are not the same thing. If the theoretical event I suggested were ever to happen, the planets would appear to be stacked vertically as viewed from Earth, not horizontally. — Michael J 03:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On top of thst, planetary orbits tend to be variable over long periods of time, because the planets are not perfectly isolated systems. Even the Moon is migrating outward from the Earth at a rate of about 5 centimetres a year. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Another way to put Dauto's criticism is that the probability number you get depends entirely on your definition. If you're willing to tolerate only an inch of misalignment, you might wait a bazillion years. If you just want them all roughly in the same plane and on one side of the sun, it's true fairly often. So any number cited is not really that meaningful. Wnt (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Enthalpy of a reaction

Hello. I was trying to calculate the change in enthalpy of the following reaction: 2C(s)+Cl₂(g)+ 3H₂(g) -> 2CH₂Cl by considering bond enthalpies. It is trivial to calculate those of Cl₂(g) and H₂ as well as the product, but the 2C gave me pause. Since with this we are dealing in moles (not individual atoms) we can assume there are many carbons, and without direction I assumed they were in a diamond formation. How do I proceed from here? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bond energy calculations depend on a) molecular substance in b) the gas phase. Solid carbon is not a molecular substance (it has network covalent bonding), nor is it in the gas phase. So you need to use another method. The problem cannot be solved as you note. Also, C (s), unqualified, usually refers to the graphite phase of Carbon, because that is the ground state. However, since all three of your reactants are elements in their native, ground state, your equation is simply the formation reaction of methylene chloride. You would just look the value up in a table of Standard enthalpy of formation. --Jayron32 01:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)