NotAGoodUsername360 It's not really a matter of contaminants. I mean, you could argue that the match itself is a contaminant. It's that there is an excess of oxygen and anything that's able to burn, will. But, yeah, the carbon burned to become CO2 and the hydrogen burned to become H2O and whatever else was in the match became whatever oxide is appropriate.
@Azure It's possible that the fire burned so hot, that the mineral oxides (ash) were carried off as fumes, sort of like the alumina fumes you see coming off of thermite reactions, or the magnesium oxide fumes that come off burning magnesium. It's also possible that there was ash there, but the camera quality wasn't good enough to see it.
You guys are great teachers! I already knew all this stuff, but its a different experience when shown the experiment from two kind faces with a personality I actually want to see more of! you're not boring drones like the teachers I had back when I was in highschool! :)
Depending on the relative amounts of liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen, you either get nothing (mostly nitrogen), lots of fire (mostly oxygen) or something in between.
Depends on the relative amounts of each. You've seen the two extremes (all nitrogen and all oxygen), so you should be able to interpolate how it would react with different amounts of N2 and O2.
Yes, if I'm understanding you correctly. The matchstick is mostly cellulose and cellulose is a molecule composed of a chain of C6H10O5 subunits. The combustion reaction for one of the subunits is: C6H10O5 + 6O2 -> 5H2O + 6CO2 The matchstick is converted into water and carbon dioxide.
That's right. The clouds that you do see when liquid nitrogen (or any object that's cold enough) is used is just water. It's no different than seeing your breath on a cold day.
@danictheman No, we only put a little liquid oxygen in the test tube because there was a real fire concern. The worry wasn't so much about anything exploding. It was that if the test tube broke, you end up with liquid oxygen and a lit match falling onto the table. Although a welder's blanket was being used (that's why there's a white 'tablecloth' rather than our usual black one), no one thought it would be a good idea to soak it with liquid oxygen and then add fire to it.
Yes, both matches burnt completely. Since there's an excess of oxygen in the test tube, the combustion reaction runs until there's nothing left to combust.
@Nomoreidsleft The safety division wouldn't be too thrilled if we fought a fire with liquid nitrogen, although it would quite happily put the fire out. Oddly, the extinguisher in the video, while it is a real fire extinguisher, was really just being used as a prop. There's actually someone just off camera with a CO2 extinguisher who was there specifically as a fire watch. You can see him in the 'Behind the Scenes' video.
@MrMontez11 The liquid doesn't have an extinguishing effect. Remember what Joanna says in the beginning. For a fire, you need heat, fuel and oxygen. The fire went out because it ran out of fuel. The match was completely consumed. The fire went out because there was nothing left to burn.
From the University of Washington Chemistry Department: "The transition responsible for the pale blue color of liquid oxygen is the simultaneous excitation of two molecules from triplet sigma to singlet delta. The double excitation avoids the spin forbiddeness. The energy for the transition corresponds to a wavlenght of 650 nm. Absorbing in the red means the liquid oxygen looks blue. This is only possible in the high density of the liquid so air doesn't have this absorption with any intensity."
The liquid nitrogen floats on the surface of the water and a lot of fog gets made. If there's enough liquid nitrogen, the surface of the eventually freezes.
I would at least hazard a guess the temperature the match burns while submerged in the LOX (Liquid Oxygen) to be around 3,000 to 3,500 °C. Amazing that the glass test tube didn't shatter due to thermal difference across the surface of the tube. That's also the reason why every LOX tanks are clearly labeled as the cryogenically refrigerated oxidizer. First, it's very cold but not as cold as Liquid Nitrogen (LN2). Second, anything that's normally not flammable WILL burn in it like steel shavings for example. As in burn, it will burn like there's no tomorrow, easily reaching extremely high temperature.
Jefferson Lab Ah, makes sense. I thought it was made of proper glass. I must have forgotten that Pyrex is the only glass type that can handle the cryogenic temperature.
@cegoins25 Actually, this video was reposed in October of 2011. The footage was originally shot and posted in November of 2008. For some reason, Google/UA-cam age restricted it. Since there was no way for us to appeal the age restriction, our only recourse was to repost the video.
I'm doing my second marathon of all your videos. These are awesome! I'm 17 and am taking a bunch of AP science classes, and even though these videos are mostly for the maybe 6th grade level, I still love to watch them. I aslo love your replies to some of the comments. The somewhat literal and sarcastic ones are hilarious! Is this Joanna and Steve replying to all of these or some of the other people of the channel? You're hilarious who ever it is. Any way keep up the good work! You're awesome!
@PichkaSparktail Thermite isn't a combustion reaction, so it doesn't 'burn.' Ti's a single replacement reaction that also gives off a lot of heat. It's a combination of a metal powder and an oxide. A typical thermite reaction is: Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3
Honestly, I really don't know how interesting that would be. After all, We have the two extremes here (all nitrogen - no fire; all oxygen - lot of fire). Everything else would just be between those two endpoints.
I've seen a few of your videos, please keep up the good work ^^ you make science fun and interesting, if you were my teacher I probably wouldn't have dropped out.
We have about 100 liters on-site, so we could conceivably get some. However, it wouldn't be as explosive as you might be thinking. You would get a 'pop' as the hydrogen near the top of the test tube reacted with the oxygen in the air. But, once in the test tube, the match would just go out. In a pure hydrogen environment, there's nothing to keep the flame burning and no oxygen for the hydrogen to react with.
@xxSyphenxx I don't think that you're hearing the whole thing. The gas in the test tube is colder than the air in the room, so it's denser. For it to spill out, it must first fill the test tube. Once full, new gas pushes old gas out. The gas doesn't completely pour out of the test tube because the test tube it pointed upwards. It's like having a glass full of water. As long as you don't tilt the glass, the water stays inside it.
It depends on what you mean by 'ash.' If you mean the bits of leftover carbon you tend to get when you burn a matchstick, all of that is essentially incompletely burnt matchstick. In the presence of excess oxygen, those bits of leftover carbon burn as well. The only 'ash' that's made in this experiment is water vapor and carbon dioxide. Those combustion products eventually diffuse into the surrounding air.
If you placed something that was burning into that mixture, what would happen would depend on the amounts of nitrogen and oxygen in the mixture. If it's a lot of oxygen and a little nitrogen, the fire would burn well. If it's a lot of nitrogen and a little oxygen, the fire would go out. Change the ratios and you'll change how well the fire does or doesn't burn.
Surprisingly, it's not as big of a problem as you think it would be. At least, not if it's done like the liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen are being done here. Consider the test tube with LN2. The match goes out right at the top because, below that, there isn't enough oxygen to keep the flame going. LH2 would have the same problem. You'd get a 'pop' at the H2/O2 interface but, within the test tube, it's pure H2. Without O2, there can't be a fire or explosion.
@Snakecharmer95 Yes, we did. In fact, this is the same footage, just recut a bit. The original one, for some unexplained reason, was age restricted by UA-cam/Google. There's no appeal process for non-partners, so our only recourse was to reload the video.
Oxygen doesn't burn, so it's the match that's burning. You can tell that oxygen doesn't burn since the flame went out once the match was consumed, even though the test tube was still full of oxygen.
@Teankun Right, oxygen does not burn. You can see this in the video. The fire went out once it ran out of match (fuel), even though there was still plenty of oxygen in the test tube.
This is the video that made me ask you the question in the beginning; but I was being more specific as to seeing you actually extract the liquid oxygen using a neodymium magnet; but it's all A-OK! I will have to experiment with trying to isolate "the stuff" myself! Thank you JL as your information helps to educate millions of young/amateur/ or self-taught scientist!
That's more due to cooling than to a lack of oxygen. If your exhaled breath had too little oxygen to support fire, then mouth-to-mouth resuscitation wouldn't work.
@sammy3212321 Yes, it is. The original one was marked with an age restriction warning. Since there is no one for us to appeal that decision to (since we're not partners), our only choice was to reload it. It also gave us to opportunity to reload it at a higher quality.
The variables will never be right for it not to be harmful. You can make oxygen a liquid in two ways: make it cold or place it under high pressure. Make cold liquid oxygen and you freeze. Make warm, high pressure liquid nitrogen and you get crushed.
@khoi98 Pure hydrogen, on its own, doesn't burn. It needs oxygen. Back when the shuttles were flying, you would have noticed that it was attached to a big orange take. That tank held liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (each in their own, separate tanks) for the main engines. The reaction from this is pretty simple: O2 + 2H2 -> 2H2O The 'smoke' from the main engines was just steam.
@odysseus9672 The match is entirely consumed. The only reason why the fire goes out is because it runs out of match to burn. There was no soot, no ash. It was just gone.
@nwfklan Yep. The original was age restricted by UA-cam/Google for apparently being in violation of some community standard. Or something. It never seemed fair or reasonable to me, but, when it's your site, you can be autocratic if you want to be. Since there's no appeals process for lowly non-partners, our only recourse was to upload a revised version. -shrug-
@thewii552 This is in better quality. We know a bit more now than we did then and, for some reason, the first version was uploaded with letterboxing bars. The real reason for the reload is because the original was age restricted by UA-cam/Google. The fact that we could improve the quality is a nice fringe benefit. It would be nice to reload a few others without losing the comments, external links, view count, etc...
@JJAB91 While we have a lot of liquid helium on-site, it isn't as accessible as liquid nitrogen. It's also a lot more expensive. However, we may eventually be able to do something with it. Helium can be frozen. It has to be under pressure (~25 atm) to do so.
@Bellerina2288 The nitrogen would boil rapidly and a fog layer would be created. You can't buy liquid nitrogen in 'regular' stores. You usually have to find a supplier of industrial gases.
@Teankun There are a number of processes that can lead to ozone production. If you want to make ozone just from oxygen, you have to split some of the oxygen molecules apart into atomic oxygen. The sun does this with ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. Since diatomic oxygen (O2) is more stable than ozone, you can't 'burn' oxygen to make ozone. It's like expecting a ball to roll uphill all on its own.
@JeffersonLab Well I haven't seen any of your videos with it in it, although I admit Ive so far only seen around 10 of your videos. I was wondering if experiments on Liquid Helium are possible from you guys? Also if there a way to get around Helium's superfluidity or is it truly impossible to freeze liquid Helium?
@PichkaSparktail Because combustion is, by definition, a chemical reaction where something combines with oxygen. What's oxygen going to combine with? Itself? O2 + O2 -> O2 + O2 Doesn't really work... Oxygen supports burning, but does not burn itself. You'll notice that the fire went out once the match was consumed. The fire had plenty of oxygen, but ran out of fuel.
@GabbyYouDidnt It burnt. Completely. The fire went out because there was no more match to burn. The fire ran out of fuel. Figure that the wood is largely a hydrocarbon, so it would have been converted into water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2).
@DaviBraid No, it can't freeze everything. It can't freeze itself, for example. Or oxygen. Or helium. Or neon. Or hydrogen. I'm sure there are other things it can't freeze (change to a solid), but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
@meowmeow5 The original was age restricted by UA-cam/Google. We can't appeal that decision since we aren't UA-cam partners. So, either you have to be logged-in to view the original or we upload another version of this video that isn't age restricted. The original allegedly violated some sort of community standard. I have no idea what that could have possibly been. But, when it's your site, you can do what you want. And that's what UA-cam/Google did.
what if you compressed liquid oxygen in a can, and blew/shot it at a blowtorch, would you have a flamethrowing effect or would it not be as impressive as a napalm(jellied gasoline) reaction
@TeHKRiiNG There is so much oxygen available that the match completely burns. The carbon residue you're normally left gets converted to carbon dioxide.
TheWolfHowling It's just a wild guess but I think it would, and there are two reasons for that: A liquid below boiling temperature with space above it will still emit some particles, creating a portion of gas(the same way a drop of water on a table disappears in a matter of minutes, although the table is not at 100°C) The second thing is that, the surface of contact may not be very high, you should still have a very tiny reaction at the surface of the oxygen(would be a flat flame) but I think it would go out very quickly since the product of the reaction would occupy the surface of contact.
Will pure o2 combined with pure n2 burn to form nitrates if they are combined from separate streams under pressure? If so, it is interesting to note that you can separate the gasses from compressed air by using a vortex tube. Maybe you would need a plasma arc. . .
No, not easily. Remember, the nitrogen-nitrogen triple bond is very strong. There has to be enough available energy to break that bond. Just combining nitrogen with oxygen won't do it (and, luckily so, considering we live in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere). Throw in a lightning strike (basically, your plasma arc) and you'll form some nitrates.
Depends on the ratio. If you mix 79% liquid nitrogen with 21% liquid oxygen, you essentially get liquid air.
Hi, I'm Sheldon Cooper and welcome to "Fun with Flags"!
+Carl Oscar Källström haha, I was looking this comment
Everything PSG hahahhahah i thought the same
😂😂
exactly XD XD XD
They are the most diabolical actors ever...
You said it bro
Seriously
Have you forgotten about me?
I'm honestly surprised that the match didn't even leave behind any observable ash or black residue after such an intense combustion reaction
No contaminants in the air means complete combustion- all the carbon became carbon dioxide, no leftover carbon (ash) to leave behind.
NotAGoodUsername360 It's not really a matter of contaminants. I mean, you could argue that the match itself is a contaminant. It's that there is an excess of oxygen and anything that's able to burn, will. But, yeah, the carbon burned to become CO2 and the hydrogen burned to become H2O and whatever else was in the match became whatever oxide is appropriate.
@Azure It's possible that the fire burned so hot, that the mineral oxides (ash) were carried off as fumes, sort of like the alumina fumes you see coming off of thermite reactions, or the magnesium oxide fumes that come off burning magnesium. It's also possible that there was ash there, but the camera quality wasn't good enough to see it.
@@JeffersonLab nice science bro
You guys are great teachers! I already knew all this stuff, but its a different experience when shown the experiment from two kind faces with a personality I actually want to see more of! you're not boring drones like the teachers I had back when I was in highschool! :)
Depending on the relative amounts of liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen, you either get nothing (mostly nitrogen), lots of fire (mostly oxygen) or something in between.
You guys really seem to enjoy what you're doing.
Chopper! :)
Depends on the relative amounts of each. You've seen the two extremes (all nitrogen and all oxygen), so you should be able to interpolate how it would react with different amounts of N2 and O2.
Yes, if I'm understanding you correctly. The matchstick is mostly cellulose and cellulose is a molecule composed of a chain of C6H10O5 subunits. The combustion reaction for one of the subunits is:
C6H10O5 + 6O2 -> 5H2O + 6CO2
The matchstick is converted into water and carbon dioxide.
Can you make nitrous oxide used in cars and planes?
That's right. The clouds that you do see when liquid nitrogen (or any object that's cold enough) is used is just water. It's no different than seeing your breath on a cold day.
More like "You can swim in liquid oxygen and freeze."
What you're suggesting was essentially done. The matchstick is a hydrocarbon and it was dropped in the liquid oxygen.
That would basically be liquid air, depending on the proportions. The fire wouldn't burn any more vigorously than it does in normal air.
@danictheman No, we only put a little liquid oxygen in the test tube because there was a real fire concern. The worry wasn't so much about anything exploding. It was that if the test tube broke, you end up with liquid oxygen and a lit match falling onto the table. Although a welder's blanket was being used (that's why there's a white 'tablecloth' rather than our usual black one), no one thought it would be a good idea to soak it with liquid oxygen and then add fire to it.
Yes. The matchstick was essentially converted into molecules of water and carbon dioxide.
Yes, both matches burnt completely. Since there's an excess of oxygen in the test tube, the combustion reaction runs until there's nothing left to combust.
It burned completely. Since the matchstick is a hydrocarbon, the bulk of it was converted into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
@Nomoreidsleft The safety division wouldn't be too thrilled if we fought a fire with liquid nitrogen, although it would quite happily put the fire out. Oddly, the extinguisher in the video, while it is a real fire extinguisher, was really just being used as a prop. There's actually someone just off camera with a CO2 extinguisher who was there specifically as a fire watch. You can see him in the 'Behind the Scenes' video.
Yes. All of the matchstick was consumed in the fire. The fire went out because there was nothing left to burn.
@MrMontez11 The liquid doesn't have an extinguishing effect. Remember what Joanna says in the beginning. For a fire, you need heat, fuel and oxygen. The fire went out because it ran out of fuel. The match was completely consumed. The fire went out because there was nothing left to burn.
Depends. How hot are you getting it?
Yes, the match was completely consumed. In essence, the matchstick was converted into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
YOU TWO ARE INTENSE
From the University of Washington Chemistry Department:
"The transition responsible for the pale blue color of liquid oxygen is the simultaneous excitation of two molecules from triplet sigma to singlet delta. The double excitation avoids the spin forbiddeness. The energy for the transition corresponds to a wavlenght of 650 nm. Absorbing in the red means the liquid oxygen looks blue. This is only possible in the high density of the liquid so air doesn't have this absorption with any intensity."
The liquid nitrogen floats on the surface of the water and a lot of fog gets made. If there's enough liquid nitrogen, the surface of the eventually freezes.
I would at least hazard a guess the temperature the match burns while submerged in the LOX (Liquid Oxygen) to be around 3,000 to 3,500 °C. Amazing that the glass test tube didn't shatter due to thermal difference across the surface of the tube.
That's also the reason why every LOX tanks are clearly labeled as the cryogenically refrigerated oxidizer. First, it's very cold but not as cold as Liquid Nitrogen (LN2). Second, anything that's normally not flammable WILL burn in it like steel shavings for example. As in burn, it will burn like there's no tomorrow, easily reaching extremely high temperature.
Pyrex is a boss.
Jefferson Lab Ah, makes sense. I thought it was made of proper glass. I must have forgotten that Pyrex is the only glass type that can handle the cryogenic temperature.
@cegoins25 Actually, this video was reposed in October of 2011. The footage was originally shot and posted in November of 2008. For some reason, Google/UA-cam age restricted it. Since there was no way for us to appeal the age restriction, our only recourse was to repost the video.
That was really cool. Thanks for the video!
I'm doing my second marathon of all your videos.
These are awesome! I'm 17 and am taking a bunch of AP science classes, and even though these videos are mostly for the maybe 6th grade level, I still love to watch them.
I aslo love your replies to some of the comments. The somewhat literal and sarcastic ones are hilarious! Is this Joanna and Steve replying to all of these or some of the other people of the channel? You're hilarious who ever it is.
Any way keep up the good work! You're awesome!
@PichkaSparktail Thermite isn't a combustion reaction, so it doesn't 'burn.' Ti's a single replacement reaction that also gives off a lot of heat. It's a combination of a metal powder and an oxide. A typical thermite reaction is:
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3
Honestly, I really don't know how interesting that would be. After all, We have the two extremes here (all nitrogen - no fire; all oxygen - lot of fire). Everything else would just be between those two endpoints.
I've seen a few of your videos, please keep up the good work ^^ you make science fun and interesting, if you were my teacher I probably wouldn't have dropped out.
We have about 100 liters on-site, so we could conceivably get some. However, it wouldn't be as explosive as you might be thinking. You would get a 'pop' as the hydrogen near the top of the test tube reacted with the oxygen in the air. But, once in the test tube, the match would just go out. In a pure hydrogen environment, there's nothing to keep the flame burning and no oxygen for the hydrogen to react with.
@xxSyphenxx I don't think that you're hearing the whole thing. The gas in the test tube is colder than the air in the room, so it's denser. For it to spill out, it must first fill the test tube. Once full, new gas pushes old gas out. The gas doesn't completely pour out of the test tube because the test tube it pointed upwards. It's like having a glass full of water. As long as you don't tilt the glass, the water stays inside it.
It depends on what you mean by 'ash.' If you mean the bits of leftover carbon you tend to get when you burn a matchstick, all of that is essentially incompletely burnt matchstick. In the presence of excess oxygen, those bits of leftover carbon burn as well. The only 'ash' that's made in this experiment is water vapor and carbon dioxide. Those combustion products eventually diffuse into the surrounding air.
If you placed something that was burning into that mixture, what would happen would depend on the amounts of nitrogen and oxygen in the mixture. If it's a lot of oxygen and a little nitrogen, the fire would burn well. If it's a lot of nitrogen and a little oxygen, the fire would go out. Change the ratios and you'll change how well the fire does or doesn't burn.
@155Gabrielle It's usually done with a compression-heat exchange-decompression cycle similar to what a home air conditioner uses.
Surprisingly, it's not as big of a problem as you think it would be. At least, not if it's done like the liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen are being done here. Consider the test tube with LN2. The match goes out right at the top because, below that, there isn't enough oxygen to keep the flame going. LH2 would have the same problem. You'd get a 'pop' at the H2/O2 interface but, within the test tube, it's pure H2. Without O2, there can't be a fire or explosion.
@YanezAlfredo Yes, the match was completely consumed. There was nothing of it left in the test tube. Completely gone.
@Snakecharmer95 Yes, we did. In fact, this is the same footage, just recut a bit. The original one, for some unexplained reason, was age restricted by UA-cam/Google. There's no appeal process for non-partners, so our only recourse was to reload the video.
I love your videos. So what is burning ? The Oxogen? Or the match? Is the match rusting away really fast.
Oxygen doesn't burn, so it's the match that's burning. You can tell that oxygen doesn't burn since the flame went out once the match was consumed, even though the test tube was still full of oxygen.
It burnt. In an environment with excess oxygen, it was ultimately reduced to water vapor and carbon dioxide.
@Teankun Right, oxygen does not burn. You can see this in the video. The fire went out once it ran out of match (fuel), even though there was still plenty of oxygen in the test tube.
This is the video that made me ask you the question in the beginning; but I was being more specific as to seeing you actually extract the liquid oxygen using a neodymium magnet; but it's all A-OK! I will have to experiment with trying to isolate "the stuff" myself!
Thank you JL as your information helps to educate millions of young/amateur/ or self-taught scientist!
@Teankun No. For the most part, it made water (if it combined with hydrogen) or carbon dioxide (if it combined with carbon).
I imagine that a fish could survive in liquid nitrogen for a very short amount of time, but it still amounts to animal cruelty.
Oh, you'd probably feel it...
That's more due to cooling than to a lack of oxygen. If your exhaled breath had too little oxygen to support fire, then mouth-to-mouth resuscitation wouldn't work.
Yes. And when any liquid becomes hot enough, it becomes a gas.
The sun isn't burning in the sense that wood or paper burns. The sun 'burns' hydrogen, creating helium 'ash,' via a nuclear reaction.
@VulpesFidelis Yep! It just keeps going until it runs out of oxygen or match.
You'll just get O2. Figure that a kitchen oven easily gets that hot without anything odd happening to the air within it.
@sammy3212321 Not quite. It's a reload of an older video. But, if all goes well, there will be an actual new video this week!
@sammy3212321 Yes, it is. The original one was marked with an age restriction warning. Since there is no one for us to appeal that decision to (since we're not partners), our only choice was to reload it. It also gave us to opportunity to reload it at a higher quality.
The variables will never be right for it not to be harmful. You can make oxygen a liquid in two ways: make it cold or place it under high pressure. Make cold liquid oxygen and you freeze. Make warm, high pressure liquid nitrogen and you get crushed.
@khoi98 Pure hydrogen, on its own, doesn't burn. It needs oxygen. Back when the shuttles were flying, you would have noticed that it was attached to a big orange take. That tank held liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (each in their own, separate tanks) for the main engines. The reaction from this is pretty simple:
O2 + 2H2 -> 2H2O
The 'smoke' from the main engines was just steam.
At their boiling points, 90 K and 77 K, respectively.
@odysseus9672 The match is entirely consumed. The only reason why the fire goes out is because it runs out of match to burn. There was no soot, no ash. It was just gone.
No, when you mix fire with liquid nitrogen, the fire goes out. That's what happened in the video.
If it were due to the cold, it would have gone out once it hit the liquid oxygen. It went out because the match was completely consumed.
No, the match burns. Completely. When it's done, all that's left is water vapor and carbon dioxide.
Nothing would be different. The fire went out because it ran out of fuel, not oxygen.
It's actually -183˚C, but the end result is the same.
@nwfklan Yep. The original was age restricted by UA-cam/Google for apparently being in violation of some community standard. Or something. It never seemed fair or reasonable to me, but, when it's your site, you can be autocratic if you want to be. Since there's no appeals process for lowly non-partners, our only recourse was to upload a revised version. -shrug-
@thewii552 This is in better quality. We know a bit more now than we did then and, for some reason, the first version was uploaded with letterboxing bars. The real reason for the reload is because the original was age restricted by UA-cam/Google. The fact that we could improve the quality is a nice fringe benefit. It would be nice to reload a few others without losing the comments, external links, view count, etc...
@JJAB91 While we have a lot of liquid helium on-site, it isn't as accessible as liquid nitrogen. It's also a lot more expensive. However, we may eventually be able to do something with it.
Helium can be frozen. It has to be under pressure (~25 atm) to do so.
@rubixcubeguy Happily (?), I'm not able to reproduce the error. With luck, it was an accidental, temporary 'feature' UA-cam/Google created.
@Bellerina2288 The nitrogen would boil rapidly and a fog layer would be created. You can't buy liquid nitrogen in 'regular' stores. You usually have to find a supplier of industrial gases.
@Teankun There are a number of processes that can lead to ozone production. If you want to make ozone just from oxygen, you have to split some of the oxygen molecules apart into atomic oxygen. The sun does this with ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. Since diatomic oxygen (O2) is more stable than ozone, you can't 'burn' oxygen to make ozone. It's like expecting a ball to roll uphill all on its own.
@JeffersonLab Well I haven't seen any of your videos with it in it, although I admit Ive so far only seen around 10 of your videos. I was wondering if experiments on Liquid Helium are possible from you guys? Also if there a way to get around Helium's superfluidity or is it truly impossible to freeze liquid Helium?
Oil is a hydrocarbon. The match is also a hydrocarbon. Don't think there would be all that much of a difference.
Will an unlit match still work if you dip it in liquid nitrogen then try to light it?
No. As far as I am aware, burning takes place within gases.
@typhoonkj My guess is that it'll be fine. Wouldn't hurt to test it using a small amount first, though.
@PichkaSparktail Because combustion is, by definition, a chemical reaction where something combines with oxygen. What's oxygen going to combine with? Itself?
O2 + O2 -> O2 + O2
Doesn't really work... Oxygen supports burning, but does not burn itself. You'll notice that the fire went out once the match was consumed. The fire had plenty of oxygen, but ran out of fuel.
Consider there was something burning, if you were to pour liquid nitrogen on it, it would turn to a gas, would the fire burn out?
@typhoonkj If you have the training and equipment to safely handle, store and transport it, try contacting a local welding supply shop.
it would be really great if this were a high def super slow motion close up video, so that we could see exactly what happens
Beautiful reaction.
@bronstain27 Sure. In fact, some water was made when the match burnt.
@GabbyYouDidnt It burnt. Completely. The fire went out because there was no more match to burn. The fire ran out of fuel. Figure that the wood is largely a hydrocarbon, so it would have been converted into water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2).
Liquid oxygen in gaseous form wouldn't be liquid oxygen, it would be oxygen gas, just like what's found in the atmosphere.
Yes, the whole match was consumed in the fire.
@2szymi Yeah, it could be. But, the only really over the top part is the bit in the beginning.
@DaviBraid No, it can't freeze everything. It can't freeze itself, for example. Or oxygen. Or helium. Or neon. Or hydrogen. I'm sure there are other things it can't freeze (change to a solid), but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
If you just want a simple refrigerant, liquid nitrogen is much safer and much less expensive than liquid oxygen.
thats what ive been thinking. thanks Jeff!
@PykohYT Not really. More worried about getting it in one take since it would take about 15 minutes to reset and condense another batch of oxygen.
@meowmeow5 The original was age restricted by UA-cam/Google. We can't appeal that decision since we aren't UA-cam partners. So, either you have to be logged-in to view the original or we upload another version of this video that isn't age restricted. The original allegedly violated some sort of community standard. I have no idea what that could have possibly been. But, when it's your site, you can do what you want. And that's what UA-cam/Google did.
what if you compressed liquid oxygen in a can, and blew/shot it at a blowtorch, would you have a flamethrowing effect or would it not be as impressive as a napalm(jellied gasoline) reaction
@JJAB91 What about it?
@superfrenchfrys If you combine them and ignite them, you are really igniting the vapors. You do wind up with water, but it's in the form of a gas.
@TeHKRiiNG There is so much oxygen available that the match completely burns. The carbon residue you're normally left gets converted to carbon dioxide.
@Bellerina2288 Regular glass normally doesn't survive it. Glass formulated to tolerate temperature extremes, like Pyrex, tends to do okay.
Depending on how much of each, you essentially get liquid air, as seen in "Liquid Nitrogen Experiments: The Balloon."
which is colder liquid nitrogen or liquid oxygen?
TheWolfHowling It's just a wild guess but I think it would, and there are two reasons for that:
A liquid below boiling temperature with space above it will still emit some particles, creating a portion of gas(the same way a drop of water on a table disappears in a matter of minutes, although the table is not at 100°C)
The second thing is that, the surface of contact may not be very high, you should still have a very tiny reaction at the surface of the oxygen(would be a flat flame) but I think it would go out very quickly since the product of the reaction would occupy the surface of contact.
Will pure o2 combined with pure n2 burn to form nitrates if they are combined from separate streams under pressure? If so, it is interesting to note that you can separate the gasses from compressed air by using a vortex tube. Maybe you would need a plasma arc. . .
No, not easily. Remember, the nitrogen-nitrogen triple bond is very strong. There has to be enough available energy to break that bond. Just combining nitrogen with oxygen won't do it (and, luckily so, considering we live in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere). Throw in a lightning strike (basically, your plasma arc) and you'll form some nitrates.