It always suprised me my chamber's encyclopedia from the late 1800s had HO as the incorrect formula for water, but had the correct formula for benzene, C6H6.
Dalton's work was so influential that it took a long time to reach consensus about Avogadro's work. Chemists started to accept Avogadro's Law after 1860 (when Cannizzaro distributed very convincing arguments in favor of Avogadro's Law) - Ever
inflammable air: aka hydrogen, named because objects in it wont burn, but it itself will burn. dephlogisticated air: aka oxygen, named because it was hypothesized that it was air deprived of "phlogiston", the hypothetical fiery principle thought to be one of the necessary constituent of combustion, and to be given up by them when burned.
Seems to me like pure oxygen would have more phlogiston in it rather than less. Or perhaps the air you put back into the environment has been dephlogistonated and you're left with pure phlogiston. Also doesn't inflammable just mean flammable?
@@minerscale yeah, I too was under the impression that dephlogisticated air was Air that would burn no more, and probably represented combustion products CO₂, H₂O, and probably a bunch of N₂. With the benefit of hindsight, it makes more sense to us that “phlogiston” would be the _fiery potential of air_ aka oxygen, but maybe they were thinking the other way around…
@@AnkhAnanku Oh wow just did some reading and they thought of it backwards. Air can only have so much phlogiston in it before it becomes fully saturated and combustion can no longer happen. Phlogiston is released by flammable things into the air. So air which has been dephlogistonated has had the phlogiston removed and so the air had the most ability to absorb phlogiston. What a whack and backwards theory. Also does that mean that a vacuum is pure phlogiston because things don't burn in a vacuum??
The early elements were close to the commonly found states of matter, (solid, liquid, gas, plasma). I think they just didn't figure out that it was an quality of matter at a given temperature and not a kind of matter.
Saying this is telling ourselves a fable, they couldn't figure it out because the two concepts are really different. It is as imaginary as saying our concept of atoms is akin to the one of ancient Greeks. Because a link can be made does not imply it really exist
It’s so interesting how scientific knowledge develops and changes over the years. Sometimes I wish I could time travel and see which current theories stood the test of time, which theories have changed over the years, and what new theories exist.
Yes, and yet each stage along the way we are browbeaten to believe that it is the last word on the subject. We were told to follow the science for two years, but it turned out to be nonsense after all 😅
@@SusanHopkinson imagine changing recommendations as we get more data. Cleary that means that they were lying and not just refining our understanding of the universe as we always do with science.
@@Eic17H it comes from the PIE root gene Contracted "Gen" as done in latin. By so it's literal meaning is "to give birth", "to cause" or "to form" Its essentially causation & correlation. Hydrogen: "cause water/ related to water" (It is important to denote that a lot of word's roots are based on physical phenomenons or elements, due to their abstraction having not been developed up to that point)
You can applicate the same logic to oxygen (Oxy [Greek for sharp] Gen [related causation]) As things oxidize they get an acid taste which Greeks described as "sharp". In the same way we address spicy food(an acid) as 'hot'. This makes oxygen "Related/causal for oxidization"
The origins of stoichiometry have always fascinated me. Especially with how these hints of order were used to find the patterns behind the periodic table. Must have been hard to figure out that hydrogen gas was two atoms and not one, I guess it had to be found by connecting it to something like ammonia. Also isn’t this more physics than earth?
Yes, Infact it was thanks to avogadro that this became quite obvious Since 2 vols of hydrogen with 1 vol of oxygen gives 2 vol of water (What Dalton and other thoughts that element are made of atoms and compound made of molecules , this is what my book told me ) His law stated that at a constant Temp and pressure , gases will have same amount of entity If this were to be believed ( that they did after his death poor guy , But thanks ) them Hydrogen and oxygen would have to be made up of molecules Instead of just hydrogen atoms or Oxygen like those in Inert gases Otherwise 2 vol. of hydrogen should react with 1 vol of Oxygen only one vol. of water It to me hints towards 1. That H²O is the molecules for water not HO otherwise there should be hydrogen left 2. It doesn't match what really happen that is the production of 2 vol of water instead of one Though granted all this what i think would have happened and there might have been different event but My book didn't clear how did avogadro's law distinguished from molecules and atoms, it just said that it did , and didn't give a proper reason Just that it was accepted after Avogadro died that they considered his law is actually true And it's not explained why too ,like did they experimentally found it out or just believed this law Because if his law weren't to be followed then they still were good Like 2 vol of water react with 1 vol of oxygen which probably had same amount of "atoms" as in 2 vol of hydrogen gas which gives 2 vol of HO molecule water The only explaination would be that they found out water us made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms lol thus Avogadro's law was needed
Because just some theory is correct in certain observation, doesn't meant it always correct. Sometimes when theory didn't match with observation. Something must be wrong with the observation method or even the theory itself.
I love these videos that show the way big scientific discoveries happened thanks to small contributions by many different people over many years. It combats the common misconception that progress only happens thanks to a singular smart individual having a stroke of inspiration, which is the exception not the rule.
It's absolutely amazing to me that Dalton's symbol for hydrogen looks exactly like a hydrogen atom! It was made LONG before we understand atomic structure, so it's just a fun coincidence
It looks like the Bohr model for Hydrogen, but it doesn't look like the electron cloud model, which is a more accurate representation of what physicists believe atoms look like.
Ah yes, the 4 ways to break water apart into its components, Dropping a piano on it, a golden pickaxe, shooting a bullet bill at it, and just getting Undyne to hit it really hard.
I never thought about avogadro's law before. can you make a video explaining how he proved that equal volumes have equal molecules. it doesn't seem intuitive to me
Avogadro didn't really prove it, he proposed it because it made a lot of sense (it was known as Avogadro's Hypothesis for a long time). By the time chemists started to acknowledge his work, Avogadro had already died (as an unknown chemist). Have you read about Gay-Lussac's law of combining volumes? I might take on this topic at some point. - Ever
It’s because the molecules in a gas will spread out to fill their volume equally, and the pressure inside a volume is determined by exactly how many molecules are inside that volume. That is why you have to pump more air into a car tyre if you want to increase the pressure of the tyre. So, as long as the pressure and temperature are equal (which was shown on screen but not in the voiceover), a given volume will always contain the same number of molecules. This is also why a litre of hydrogen at standard air pressure/temperature weighs much less than a litre of oxygen at the same temp and pressure.
@@kaitlyn__L My intuition would tell me, the pressure (and thus the number of molecule at a given pressure) also depends on how much the molecules repel each other - why is that not the case?
@@einfischnamenspanda3306 they all repel each other equally, via the electrons in their outer shells wanting to repel other molecules. (I just wrote up and then deleted ever-deeper justifications and symmetries, before realising they don’t really illuminate any further if you’re not already familiar with other aspects of the field.)
@@einfischnamenspanda3306 Because molecules in many gases under common conditions essentially do not interact with each other, or at least not often enough to matter much. This is actually the main property of an "ideal gas" - you may be familiar with the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, that relates pressure, volume, and temperature quite accurately for many gases.
Nowhere near as mindblowing as how we get to simply reject any of these facts by the modern logic of "my opinion is just as valid as yours (and I have a vested interest in refusing to believe )"
this video comes at the perfect time! I'm teaching chemistry and we're talking about elements and compounds and chemical reactions in the coming week the topic is the electrolysis. Definitely showing this video in class!
Fascinating! I remembered a little bit of that from high school chemistry (decades ago). I'd like to see another video in the same style but talking about how Avogadro found out about the numbers of molecules were equal.
I remember doing this experiment in high school chemistry to combine water and oxygen to make water. It was so simple, but was the first time chemistry really made sense that it was really a description of everything around us. I ended up going to college for chemical engineering thanks to that chemistry class
They used very clever devices and techniques. For example, if you run water vapor over heated iron filings, the iron oxidizes (taking oxygen from water) leaving hydrogen gas. The iron oxide is solid and any leftover water vapor can be condensed. If all of this happens in an airtight environment, you can get as much hydrogen gas as you want. In the references, you'll find Lavoisier's description of his method (or go to www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30775/pg30775-images.html#Page_83) (p.83) - Ever
How the neutron was discovered was also interesting. Basically they accidentally distilled heavy water. And for hydrogen - but only hydrogen - one neutron makes such difference, it was observable.
Indeed, water is one of the fundamental sources of life! As I was browsing on the origin of water along with other elements and chemical compounds, I finally came to interpret it. Hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) are both diatomic molecules, meaning they are molecules with two atoms bound together. There can be homonuclear molecules, which are two or more of the same molecules like H2 or O2; or heteronuclear molecules, which have two or more different molecules bound together like water (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2).
You mean…chemical compounds vs elements? Oxygen and hydrogen are elements whose molecules are comprised of two atoms of the same element, while molecules H2O or CO2 are compounds comprised of different elements.
I mean, this just comes to prove the point that, at some point in history, things that we consider common knowledge were actually very novel concepts that were hard to grasp. Another very good example of this is the wheel. Like, the wheel is such a quintessential thing in our day to day life, but at some point in the far back of history, the thought of putting a wheel on a cart to expedite things was a new fangled invention
Interestingly, it was Kanada who first realized the idea that "anu" (atom) was an indestructible particle of matter. सदकारणवन्नित्यम् He called this indivisible matter, "anu” which literally means atom. He founded the Vaisheshika School of philosophy where he taught his ideas and the nature of the universe. He authored the text "Vaiseshika Sutras" or aphorisms, pioneering the atomic theory, describing dimension, motion and chemical reactions of atoms.
India has contributed much in many different ways. It's true the country/region doesn't get enough recognition. Of course, having a large population contributes immensely toward increasing the odds for high-level insights and discoveries. Still, impressive nonetheless. Think I'll get in a quick game of chess now and then call it a day.
The ancient atomic theory was proposed in the 5th century BCE by the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus and was revived in the 1st century BCE by the Roman philosopher and poet Lucretius. The modern atomic theory, which has undergone continuous refinement, began to flourish at the beginning of the 19th century with the work of the English chemist John Dalton
@@JupiterBoy100 In the late 18th century, oxides were called "earths" and it was known that they were made of a metal and a gas. I think the belief in three to five traditional elements as being literally real had already begun to wane by the late 17th century, although many alchemists did still use them, often with additional elements like mercury and later phlogiston. In the 18th century, a lot of work was done on analyzing chemical compounds, and the atomic theory took on new force, with many chemists believing there were dozens of elements. The first somewhat modern list of elements is from Lavoisier in 1789, with 33 elements, 23 of which are still considered elements today. This is not in itself a proof of anything, since it was possible that the numerous so-called elements were in fact compounds of more fundamental elements (and indeed many were, such as the "boracic radical," which is actually 3,7-dioxido-2,4,6,8,9-pentaoxa-1,3,5,7-tetraborabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane). It's not clear what could ever qualify as a complete proof that an element is fundamental. In the late 19th century, the discovery of radiation by Curie and eventually the electron by Thomson showed that in fact, atoms were not fundamental but were built out of subatomic particles. The later discovery of the neutron eventually proved that there were at some level three "elements," the proton, electron, and neutron, though these have none of the properties ascribed to the traditional elements. The standard model of physics currently has about 37 distinct particles (if antiparticles are considered distinct), unless there are additional Higgs bosons, but there may well be more. Or there could be fewer, if for instance the quarks turn out to be composite particles. Analysis in this sense may never be complete. As for whether it makes sense to call earth, air, or fire "elements," well, it was easy to show that these were composed of multiple different substances. It is at least a proof that any element you call "air" for instance can't literally be the same thing that we commonly call air, and thus the name is at best misleading. But that was also known long before this model was abandoned, so take it for what you will. Even in ancient Greece, most people claimed that there were no pure substances in nature, and that every substance you encountered was actually a mixture of the different elements, even if one predominated.
I get the feeling that if you approached a 1700s chemist with modern chemistry knowledge, they wouldn't be particularly shocked. Surprised by some things, but not shocker
The only thing they might be shocked about is nuclear transmutation, and with it, the ability to create synthetic elements. Turns out, the alchemists were right about the ability to transmute one element into another, but they were going about it all wrong.
It was what made the most sense to bring together several experimental observations (Gay-Lussac's law of combining volumes, the mass/volume of gasses, etc). However, it was a hypothesis. It was known as Avogadro's Hypothesis for a long time. - Ever
It is worth noting that Avogadro’s Law as stated is dependent on temperature and pressure. That is, Avogadro’s number applies at 0 degrees Celsius and one standard atmosphe of pressure.
2:05 I don't blame Dalton, in reality what happened is the other way around, what people can't accept that is scientist have flaws, because they're as human as any of us...what makes them absolutely crazy that they state that anything else beyond what they declared as a law is IMPOSSIBLE !!!...condemning people who know more than them as failures and must be secluded from society
One way to prove that water isn’t an element is adding sodium metal. It reacts giving off hydrogen gas and forming sodium hydroxide. This allows us to deduce that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.
Instantly got all the references at 1:27, I'll list them here really quickly from top to bottom: The piano falling is a reference to the Piano Drop trope, where a piano is dropped upon someone's head. The stick figure using a pickaxe is Steve from Minecraft; notice the haircut with matches Steve's haircut in game. A Bullet Bill from Mario. Undyne from the 2015 indie game Undertale, holding one of her magical spears.
The use of CNG in automobiles has reduced pollution in our cities as it is a quality fuel and has some benefits: (a) It gives out less carbon dioxide gas, carbon monoxide gas, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, which is beneficial as they play crucial role in global warming and acid rain. (b) It leaves behind no residue after its combustion. 4. LPG Wood (i) It does not cause pollution on combustion (i) It pollutes air on its combustion. (ii) No smoke is produced. (ii) It produces smoke. (iii) It is a liquid fuel (iii) It is a solid fuel (iv) It has more calorific value (55000 kJ/kg) (iv) It has less calorific value (17000 kJ/kg) (v) It can be easily transported, as it is stored in cylinders (v) It can’t be transported easily like LPG fuels 5. (a) Since water is a good conductor of electricity, it may result in electric shocks to the person trying to extinguish fire. (b) LPG is better domestic fuel than wood because it does not produce gases, nor does it leave any residue behind. Moreover, it has more calorific value than wood. (c) As its ignition temperature is low, the paper by itself catches fire easily. But a piece of paper wrapped around an aluminium pipe does not catch fire easily, as the heat being given gets absorbed by the aluminium pipe and the piece of paper does not get its ignition temperature. 8. As CO2 is heavier than oxygen, it forms a blanket around fire, because of which the supply of air is stopped. Men over, it brings down the temperature of the burning substance. In these ways, it plays a significant role in controlling fire. 9. The green leaves hold some amount of water, so its ignition temperature gets increased and it does not burn easily. On the other hand, dry leaves are waterless, so they catch fire easily (having low ignition temperature). 10. A goldsmith uses the outermost zone of a flame, which is non-luminous, to melt gold and silver as it is the hottest zone of the flame, having more temperature. 11. Calorific value of a fuel = HeatProduced / Amountoffuel = 180000/ 4.5 kJ/kg = 40,000 kJ/kg. 12. The process of rusting emits heat during the formation of its oxide. So we can call the process of rusting as slow combustion. 13. The water which was put by Ramesh will get heated in a shorter time; because he had put it nearer to the hottest zone of the flame.
This might be a case of Pratchett-overdose, but is the little red-haired blue person at 1:27 a Feegle? In any case, loved the video, great explanations and illustrations!
Aang: "I'm the avatar, master of all four elements!" Mendelejew: "And I'm the master of 118 elements. *WHOOSH* That was polonium bending. You probably don't feel anything right now but soon the symptoms of severe radioactive poisoning will start to take place."
About the elements, I always understood them as representations of the simplest states of matter found in nature (solid, gas, liquid and plasma). Does it have any relationship?
The Classical Elements have more to do with culture than anything else. Look at the Chinese Elements which are Water, Fire, Earth, *Wood*, and *Metal*.
Those are states of matter. Which are categories different models apply to. For example, you wouldn't use models for fluid flow to describe ice. Or, try and analyze the crystalline structure of a gas. That just wouldn't make any sense. What Element an atom is, is just a measure of how many protons an atom has. In non-plasma matter the amount of protons is the numbet of electrons. The number of electrons is what determine how atoms interact (by and large) so categorizing atoms by element can tell us a lot about their properties. Both useful but very different from eachother.
@@TacticusPrime indeed, the Chinese elements are traditionally tied to states of matter or action much more so than the Western ones Water representing all liquids, and the action of flowing, etc
2:23 It's fascinating to me how just hearing this I found it absurd, as it's common knowledge to me that equal volumes of a gas has equal number of "Moles" at same temp and pressure. It took me a while to realize that "Mole concept" wasn't always known.
Well, not *very*, just moderately. It's not like it explodes as easily as explosives, it actually needs a LOT of energy to do so. Pretty much the same energy that the combustion of hydrogen liberates :)
I didn't get it. Gases expand to occupy the whole available volume. How can we then say that "the same volume of gas contains the same number of molecules"?. Maybe under same pressure and temperature?
Damn. I thought you were gonna go into how we learnt that the water molecule was bent, has the dipole moment and all that stuff. But I guess that wouldn't exactly be "minute" earth.
When the two gasses combined to form water, how did they know that water was composite, and the gasses were fundamental, and not the other way around? If I had been a scientist back then, knowing different types of air exist, but assuming water to be fundamental, I would just assume one of the ingoing gasses was a type of air containing water.
If anyone wants to know Avogadro discovered the Avogadro number which is 6,02 *10^23 and it means how much molecules or atoms there is per 1 mol of gas and 1 mol of gas is always 22,4 dm3 or 22,4 liters
My husband John, whose login this is, has aphasia. He asked me to request that the subtitles that appear on these episodes be "printed" word by word, as they are on some other channels, so that he can read along with exactly what you are saying. If the subtitles appear line by line, he gets lost.
You should select the auto-generated CC, in the gear icon, then subtitles/CC, then "English (Auto Generated)". That should do the trick. The issue with that, is that there aren't punctuation marks (and they're auto-generated, but it's almost perfect). Hopefully that's what you mean? - Ever
One of the funny things about water that most people have trouble grasping, is that it is the most deadly substance on the planet; Simply put mostly all living beings are susceptible to being poisoned by trace amounts of other substances being carried in solution without being visible or having any distinct smell or taste, water at the same time is one of the best solvents when it comes to picking up other substances from solids or sequestering them from gasses, and mostly all living beings have an ongoing need to ingest water at regular intervals. Then there's of course drowning in and being crushed by it, being frozen in it, falling through it(thin ice) and getting thermally shocked since it also conducts heat fairly well, and a zilion other more remote accidental ways to end by water such as being impaled by a big icicle or being smushed by a big piece of hail etc. Talking about a double-edged swords, water is it for life as we know it on Earth, it's everywhere, it's a must-have, it's delicious, it's a place to live, but it's also suddenly or slowly deadly enough that mostly all life can die to it in one way or more.
Tip: Care to avoid "figured out" as a pseudo-explanation. "Italian Amedeo Avogrado" does not reasonably explain the "figuring out" in "major breakthrough". As it currently is in the video, there was no explanation at all about "(those) different gasses have the same number of atoms (per molecule)". Collecting shared beliefs isn't sciencing methodological guesses. Thanks for caring.
How did the scientists know that in the two bottles of Gas, which they combined to get water from the reaction, really were the gasses they thought? Why isn‘t it possible that both gasses were impure (contained some water) and cancelled each other out, so only the water remained (or maybe the reaction just separated the water from both gasses and some leftover gas they could not detect remained…)
You can, for example, cool them down below freezing point and see if any condensation or frost forms inside the bottle. Also, passing the gas through anhydrous (waterless) copper sulfate crystals. Anhydrous copper sulfate is gray, but with water it turns blue. I'm sure there are other more reliable methods, but these are just the two I can immediately think of from high school chemistry.
my guess, by measuring the mass, they could see the mass of the water created was (close to) the sum of the masses of the component gases. theyd have to be incredibly impure if all that water was hiding in them, seems strange that much wouldnt condense out at room temperature. but, in general, there are many *possible* explanations for an experiment, we assume the simplest that fits the evidence, and hope to get gradually closer to the truth that way.
They were able to consistently identify gasses because of their particular properties. Hydrogen was colorless, odorless, very light, very flammable, etc. They knew water vapor would condense at certain temperatures and pressures, so they could easily separate water vapor from the gas mix. They actually were able to remove oxygen from regular air. And there were several ways to obtain these gasses from other reactions. It's all really clever and impressive. - Ever
@@MinuteEarth those early experiments creating different “types of air” are really impressive, because they weren’t actually aiming for any of the compounds they know today. They discovered those properties through their experiments to produce the gases, and eventually found multiple methods that yielded the same properties. I like that it’s backwards from how we often look at the process today.
I wonder how are citys and all its lights effect the plants/trees in them and outside the city. How do these plants respond are they stressed what is the 24/7 light doing. In the wild whats the lights doing to the plants/trees when a car drives by then its dark again 5 minutes later a car then dark again how do these plants/trees respond to this.
I tend to think that when the Hindenberg, a giant airship filled with hydrogen, caught fire the burning of hydrogen in an oxygen filled atmosphere created thousands of gallons of ... water. If you look carefully at the old footage of the disaster you can sometimes see water splashimg down to the ground. The Hindenberg did carry water as ballast, but I would think a lot of that water was produced by the burning of hydrogen in an oxygen filled atmosphere.
If you actually see splashing water in that footage, it's probably the water the Hindenburg carried with it. Water produced by the reaction of two gas molecules will be a gas molecule itself, commonly known as water vapor or steam. Of course it will turn into liquid at room temperature eventually, but this takes a while. Chemistry teachers like to blow up balloons filled with hydrogen and I've seen that several times but this doesn't instantly make the room wet.
@@Mis7erSeven I have (mis)remembered a chemistry lesson in which my 8th grade chemistry teacher used electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then lit the hydrogen. My memory is of a big screech and a spurt of liquid water emanating from the nozzle with the hydrogen and splashing on the table. Memory is unreliable. I never could accept that the burning hydrogen from the zeppelin was creating enough water to have it gush out. I more easily thought that was the ballast water used to weigh the airship down and make it more navigable. That hydrogen is burning with intense heat should lead one to conclude the water that is, in fact, created when hydrogen is burned would become water vapor or steam. So ... good on you for knowing your physics, chemistry, and general science knowledge. 😋
It always suprised me my chamber's encyclopedia from the late 1800s had HO as the incorrect formula for water, but had the correct formula for benzene, C6H6.
Dalton's work was so influential that it took a long time to reach consensus about Avogadro's work. Chemists started to accept Avogadro's Law after 1860 (when Cannizzaro distributed very convincing arguments in favor of Avogadro's Law) - Ever
+
damn
and glucose C6 H12 O6
Damn thats a sweet rare book to own. What year is the edition?
inflammable air: aka hydrogen, named because objects in it wont burn, but it itself will burn.
dephlogisticated air: aka oxygen, named because it was hypothesized that it was air deprived of "phlogiston", the hypothetical fiery principle thought to be one of the necessary constituent of combustion, and to be given up by them when burned.
Seems to me like pure oxygen would have more phlogiston in it rather than less. Or perhaps the air you put back into the environment has been dephlogistonated and you're left with pure phlogiston.
Also doesn't inflammable just mean flammable?
@@minerscale yeah, I too was under the impression that dephlogisticated air was Air that would burn no more, and probably represented combustion products CO₂, H₂O, and probably a bunch of N₂. With the benefit of hindsight, it makes more sense to us that “phlogiston” would be the _fiery potential of air_ aka oxygen, but maybe they were thinking the other way around…
@@AnkhAnanku Oh wow just did some reading and they thought of it backwards. Air can only have so much phlogiston in it before it becomes fully saturated and combustion can no longer happen. Phlogiston is released by flammable things into the air. So air which has been dephlogistonated has had the phlogiston removed and so the air had the most ability to absorb phlogiston.
What a whack and backwards theory. Also does that mean that a vacuum is pure phlogiston because things don't burn in a vacuum??
@@minerscale There's a good reason why the theory of a "phlogiston" was disproven.
@@minerscale yeah, inflammable = "easily set on fire"
The early elements were close to the commonly found states of matter, (solid, liquid, gas, plasma). I think they just didn't figure out that it was an quality of matter at a given temperature and not a kind of matter.
Saying this is telling ourselves a fable, they couldn't figure it out because the two concepts are really different. It is as imaginary as saying our concept of atoms is akin to the one of ancient Greeks. Because a link can be made does not imply it really exist
I like that expression, "the commonly found states of matter"
Just FYI for other readers... Alan's comment doesn't really have anything to do with the video. It's more like a shower-thought :P
Uhhh
@@Mikee512 well, it’s related in that the video mentioned the classical 4/5 “elements” at the start
It’s so interesting how scientific knowledge develops and changes over the years.
Sometimes I wish I could time travel and see which current theories stood the test of time, which theories have changed over the years, and what new theories exist.
Yes
Yes, and yet each stage along the way we are browbeaten to believe that it is the last word on the subject. We were told to follow the science for two years, but it turned out to be nonsense after all 😅
@@SusanHopkinson don't bring your covid conspiracy theories here. Open a book and learn something for once.
@@SusanHopkinson imagine changing recommendations as we get more data. Cleary that means that they were lying and not just refining our understanding of the universe as we always do with science.
Newton's Laws of Motion lasted quite well!
1:25 i didnt know undyne was a chemist! Good for her
Found the comment on it
* Undyne suplexes a water molecule, in order to prove it can be split into simpler parts
This is where hydrogen gets its name.
hydro = water
gen = generate
When combusted it literally generates water.
*genes is a greek root meaning forming
@@kewlman5417* gen- is the root, genes is a word containing that root
@@Eic17H it comes from the PIE root gene
Contracted "Gen" as done in latin.
By so it's literal meaning is "to give birth", "to cause" or "to form"
Its essentially causation & correlation.
Hydrogen: "cause water/ related to water"
(It is important to denote that a lot of word's roots are based on physical phenomenons or elements, due to their abstraction having not been developed up to that point)
You can applicate the same logic to oxygen
(Oxy [Greek for sharp]
Gen [related causation])
As things oxidize they get an acid taste which Greeks described as "sharp". In the same way we address spicy food(an acid) as 'hot'.
This makes oxygen
"Related/causal for oxidization"
interestingly, it is called waterstof in dutch
The origins of stoichiometry have always fascinated me. Especially with how these hints of order were used to find the patterns behind the periodic table. Must have been hard to figure out that hydrogen gas was two atoms and not one, I guess it had to be found by connecting it to something like ammonia.
Also isn’t this more physics than earth?
New channel- MinuteChemistry
Well I learned a new word today
Yes, Infact it was thanks to avogadro that this became quite obvious
Since 2 vols of hydrogen with 1 vol of oxygen gives 2 vol of water
(What Dalton and other thoughts that element are made of atoms and compound made of molecules , this is what my book told me )
His law stated that at a constant Temp and pressure , gases will have same amount of entity
If this were to be believed ( that they did after his death poor guy , But thanks ) them Hydrogen and oxygen would have to be made up of molecules Instead of just hydrogen atoms or Oxygen like those in Inert gases
Otherwise
2 vol. of hydrogen should react with 1 vol of Oxygen only one vol. of water
It to me hints towards
1. That H²O is the molecules for water not HO otherwise there should be hydrogen left
2. It doesn't match what really happen that is the production of 2 vol of water instead of one
Though granted all this what i think would have happened and there might have been different event but My book didn't clear how did avogadro's law distinguished from molecules and atoms, it just said that it did , and didn't give a proper reason
Just that it was accepted after Avogadro died that they considered his law is actually true
And it's not explained why too ,like did they experimentally found it out or just believed this law
Because if his law weren't to be followed then they still were good
Like 2 vol of water react with 1 vol of oxygen which probably had same amount of "atoms" as in 2 vol of hydrogen gas which gives 2 vol of HO molecule water
The only explaination would be that they found out water us made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms lol thus Avogadro's law was needed
I mean it got discovered on earth
Why didnt they just google it
I think the interent was too slow in the black and white times
@@bluecat5669 ohh makes sense
And mister Wikipedia from Wikipedia and sons did only update once a century.😢
computers were really rare back then
Mom changed the wifi password
This is a wonderful example of how scientific theories change when new reproduceable observations are made.
Yes that’s what happens!
Because just some theory is correct in certain observation, doesn't meant it always correct.
Sometimes when theory didn't match with observation. Something must be wrong with the observation method or even the theory itself.
I love these videos that show the way big scientific discoveries happened thanks to small contributions by many different people over many years. It combats the common misconception that progress only happens thanks to a singular smart individual having a stroke of inspiration, which is the exception not the rule.
It's absolutely amazing to me that Dalton's symbol for hydrogen looks exactly like a hydrogen atom! It was made LONG before we understand atomic structure, so it's just a fun coincidence
It looks like the Bohr model for Hydrogen, but it doesn't look like the electron cloud model, which is a more accurate representation of what physicists believe atoms look like.
And Oxygen looks like
Well
An 'O'
Was it because the sun has lots of it and they used the Greek/Roman symbol for the sun?
@@e0031-w5eI don‘t think so, I don‘t think they knew what the sun was made out of
@@RibusPQR I mean, it kinda looks like the electron cloud model. The s orbital DOES have a spherical shape after all, right?
I love learning how scientists in the past figured stuff out. It's very enlightening.
awesome job! I'd love more of these history lessons/stories
Ah yes, the 4 ways to break water apart into its components, Dropping a piano on it, a golden pickaxe, shooting a bullet bill at it, and just getting Undyne to hit it really hard.
I wonder how chemists established that water is H2O and not H4O2, H6O3 and so on
Because they were looking for the simplest ratio possible. And 6:3, 4:2, etc can be simplified to 2:1
So the higher ratios would just be the same thing?
@@ikthion6402 I’m pretty sure that they would be
@@ikthion6402 that is correct, yes
@@ikthion6402 they would be able to be split apart
I never thought about avogadro's law before. can you make a video explaining how he proved that equal volumes have equal molecules. it doesn't seem intuitive to me
Avogadro didn't really prove it, he proposed it because it made a lot of sense (it was known as Avogadro's Hypothesis for a long time). By the time chemists started to acknowledge his work, Avogadro had already died (as an unknown chemist).
Have you read about Gay-Lussac's law of combining volumes? I might take on this topic at some point. - Ever
It’s because the molecules in a gas will spread out to fill their volume equally, and the pressure inside a volume is determined by exactly how many molecules are inside that volume.
That is why you have to pump more air into a car tyre if you want to increase the pressure of the tyre.
So, as long as the pressure and temperature are equal (which was shown on screen but not in the voiceover), a given volume will always contain the same number of molecules.
This is also why a litre of hydrogen at standard air pressure/temperature weighs much less than a litre of oxygen at the same temp and pressure.
@@kaitlyn__L My intuition would tell me, the pressure (and thus the number of molecule at a given pressure) also depends on how much the molecules repel each other - why is that not the case?
@@einfischnamenspanda3306 they all repel each other equally, via the electrons in their outer shells wanting to repel other molecules. (I just wrote up and then deleted ever-deeper justifications and symmetries, before realising they don’t really illuminate any further if you’re not already familiar with other aspects of the field.)
@@einfischnamenspanda3306 Because molecules in many gases under common conditions essentially do not interact with each other, or at least not often enough to matter much. This is actually the main property of an "ideal gas" - you may be familiar with the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, that relates pressure, volume, and temperature quite accurately for many gases.
The fact that we knew these things in the literal 18th century without using electron microscopes is simply mind-blowing.
Nowhere near as mindblowing as how we get to simply reject any of these facts by the modern logic of "my opinion is just as valid as yours (and I have a vested interest in refusing to believe )"
this video comes at the perfect time! I'm teaching chemistry and we're talking about elements and compounds and chemical reactions in the coming week the topic is the electrolysis. Definitely showing this video in class!
Fascinating! I remembered a little bit of that from high school chemistry (decades ago). I'd like to see another video in the same style but talking about how Avogadro found out about the numbers of molecules were equal.
Fun to see you work in the little tidbits of the phlogiston theory and the Hermetic alchemical influences on Dalton’s notation.
I remember doing this experiment in high school chemistry to combine water and oxygen to make water. It was so simple, but was the first time chemistry really made sense that it was really a description of everything around us. I ended up going to college for chemical engineering thanks to that chemistry class
combining water and oxygen to make water lol.
How difficult was chemical engineering? Did it prevent you from going out while at college?
@@Caaro99It makes the water.. more... watery
1:27 is that undyne down there?!
that reference is 1000% on purpose
@@chadcatidkimnotachadidenti7973 I saw frisk and flowey in another video so I guess so :0
Which ones @@nebolousanimating
Glad to see Misty from Cerulean City finally getting recognition as one of the greatest chemists in the world.
It was Dalton.
Dalton was a cooler, which is like the boss of all the bouncers.
I also saw Undyne
1:27 undyne sighting!! :D
I love it when they include lil Easter eggs like that in their videos
Undyne in 17XX??!?!111?1!1?
UNDYNE
ate a whole onion while watching this video
that's wild
Raw onions are underrated
How did they purify the H2 and O2 in the first place?
They used very clever devices and techniques. For example, if you run water vapor over heated iron filings, the iron oxidizes (taking oxygen from water) leaving hydrogen gas. The iron oxide is solid and any leftover water vapor can be condensed. If all of this happens in an airtight environment, you can get as much hydrogen gas as you want. In the references, you'll find Lavoisier's description of his method (or go to www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30775/pg30775-images.html#Page_83) (p.83) - Ever
How the neutron was discovered was also interesting. Basically they accidentally distilled heavy water. And for hydrogen - but only hydrogen - one neutron makes such difference, it was observable.
Indeed, water is one of the fundamental sources of life! As I was browsing on the origin of water along with other elements and chemical compounds, I finally came to interpret it.
Hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) are both diatomic molecules, meaning they are molecules with two atoms bound together. There can be homonuclear molecules, which are two or more of the same molecules like H2 or O2; or heteronuclear molecules, which have two or more different molecules bound together like water (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2).
Who comments like this???
You mean…chemical compounds vs elements? Oxygen and hydrogen are elements whose molecules are comprised of two atoms of the same element, while molecules H2O or CO2 are compounds comprised of different elements.
Avatar watcher crying rn
Then everything changed when the Bunsen burner attacked.
They wiped out the entire water tribe
The air tribe rose in power as the
power balance broke @@cats4Life
I wonder how this works in differing atmospheres, places where o3 build up and the hydrogen gets binded to other organic structures.
I mean, this just comes to prove the point that, at some point in history, things that we consider common knowledge were actually very novel concepts that were hard to grasp. Another very good example of this is the wheel. Like, the wheel is such a quintessential thing in our day to day life, but at some point in the far back of history, the thought of putting a wheel on a cart to expedite things was a new fangled invention
Interestingly, it was Kanada who first realized the idea that "anu" (atom) was an indestructible particle of matter.
सदकारणवन्नित्यम्
He called this indivisible matter, "anu” which literally means atom. He founded the Vaisheshika School of philosophy where he taught his ideas and the nature of the universe. He authored the text "Vaiseshika Sutras" or aphorisms, pioneering the atomic theory, describing dimension, motion and chemical reactions of atoms.
India has contributed much in many different ways. It's true the country/region doesn't get enough recognition. Of course, having a large population contributes immensely toward increasing the odds for high-level insights and discoveries. Still, impressive nonetheless. Think I'll get in a quick game of chess now and then call it a day.
The ancient atomic theory was proposed in the 5th century BCE by the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus and was revived in the 1st century BCE by the Roman philosopher and poet Lucretius. The modern atomic theory, which has undergone continuous refinement, began to flourish at the beginning of the 19th century with the work of the English chemist John Dalton
Now I wonder how they discovered all the other classical elements were not real elements. We need to make a video on this!
Edit: spelling
I'm particularly curious about earth, since it refers to a lot of different things and not a single substance.
@@JupiterBoy100 In the late 18th century, oxides were called "earths" and it was known that they were made of a metal and a gas. I think the belief in three to five traditional elements as being literally real had already begun to wane by the late 17th century, although many alchemists did still use them, often with additional elements like mercury and later phlogiston. In the 18th century, a lot of work was done on analyzing chemical compounds, and the atomic theory took on new force, with many chemists believing there were dozens of elements. The first somewhat modern list of elements is from Lavoisier in 1789, with 33 elements, 23 of which are still considered elements today.
This is not in itself a proof of anything, since it was possible that the numerous so-called elements were in fact compounds of more fundamental elements (and indeed many were, such as the "boracic radical," which is actually 3,7-dioxido-2,4,6,8,9-pentaoxa-1,3,5,7-tetraborabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane). It's not clear what could ever qualify as a complete proof that an element is fundamental. In the late 19th century, the discovery of radiation by Curie and eventually the electron by Thomson showed that in fact, atoms were not fundamental but were built out of subatomic particles. The later discovery of the neutron eventually proved that there were at some level three "elements," the proton, electron, and neutron, though these have none of the properties ascribed to the traditional elements. The standard model of physics currently has about 37 distinct particles (if antiparticles are considered distinct), unless there are additional Higgs bosons, but there may well be more. Or there could be fewer, if for instance the quarks turn out to be composite particles. Analysis in this sense may never be complete.
As for whether it makes sense to call earth, air, or fire "elements," well, it was easy to show that these were composed of multiple different substances. It is at least a proof that any element you call "air" for instance can't literally be the same thing that we commonly call air, and thus the name is at best misleading. But that was also known long before this model was abandoned, so take it for what you will. Even in ancient Greece, most people claimed that there were no pure substances in nature, and that every substance you encountered was actually a mixture of the different elements, even if one predominated.
Thank you for satisfying my boredom, expected a decent but slow paced 20minute video, but instead i found a straight to the point 5m video
I get the feeling that if you approached a 1700s chemist with modern chemistry knowledge, they wouldn't be particularly shocked. Surprised by some things, but not shocker
The only thing they might be shocked about is nuclear transmutation, and with it, the ability to create synthetic elements. Turns out, the alchemists were right about the ability to transmute one element into another, but they were going about it all wrong.
How did they figure out same volumes of gases contain the same number of molecules?
It was what made the most sense to bring together several experimental observations (Gay-Lussac's law of combining volumes, the mass/volume of gasses, etc). However, it was a hypothesis. It was known as Avogadro's Hypothesis for a long time. - Ever
Ah! Perfect timing! We are learning about atoms in science!
It is worth noting that Avogadro’s Law as stated is dependent on temperature and pressure. That is, Avogadro’s number applies at 0 degrees Celsius and one standard atmosphe of pressure.
2:05 I don't blame Dalton, in reality what happened is the other way around, what people can't accept that is scientist have flaws, because they're as human as any of us...what makes them absolutely crazy that they state that anything else beyond what they declared as a law is IMPOSSIBLE !!!...condemning people who know more than them as failures and must be secluded from society
Well those people have to prove they know more than the other scientists.
Just appreciating Ever being busy answering inquiries in the comments
One way to prove that water isn’t an element is adding sodium metal. It reacts giving off hydrogen gas and forming sodium hydroxide. This allows us to deduce that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.
Instantly got all the references at 1:27, I'll list them here really quickly from top to bottom:
The piano falling is a reference to the Piano Drop trope, where a piano is dropped upon someone's head.
The stick figure using a pickaxe is Steve from Minecraft; notice the haircut with matches Steve's haircut in game.
A Bullet Bill from Mario.
Undyne from the 2015 indie game Undertale, holding one of her magical spears.
I'm impressed by the fact that they figured out the atoms (elements) before we could observe them.
Mendelev, the inventor of the periodic table, even accurately predicted the properties of then-undiscovered elements.
Mathematics is a wonderful tool
The use of CNG in automobiles has reduced pollution in our cities as it is a quality fuel and has some benefits:
(a) It gives out less carbon dioxide gas, carbon monoxide gas, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, which is beneficial as they play crucial role in global warming and acid rain.
(b) It leaves behind no residue after its combustion.
4.
LPG
Wood
(i) It does not cause pollution on combustion
(i) It pollutes air on its combustion.
(ii) No smoke is produced.
(ii) It produces smoke.
(iii) It is a liquid fuel
(iii) It is a solid fuel
(iv) It has more calorific value (55000 kJ/kg)
(iv) It has less calorific value (17000 kJ/kg)
(v) It can be easily transported, as it is stored in cylinders
(v) It can’t be transported easily like LPG fuels
5. (a) Since water is a good conductor of electricity, it may result in electric shocks to the person trying to extinguish fire.
(b) LPG is better domestic fuel than wood because it does not produce gases, nor does it leave any residue behind. Moreover, it has more calorific value than wood.
(c) As its ignition temperature is low, the paper by itself catches fire easily. But a piece of paper wrapped around an aluminium pipe does not catch fire easily, as the heat being given gets absorbed by the aluminium pipe and the piece of paper does not get its ignition temperature.
8. As CO2 is heavier than oxygen, it forms a blanket around fire, because of which the supply of air is stopped. Men over, it brings down the temperature of the burning substance. In these ways, it plays a significant role in controlling fire.
9. The green leaves hold some amount of water, so its ignition temperature gets increased and it does not burn easily. On the other hand, dry leaves are waterless, so they catch fire easily (having low ignition temperature).
10. A goldsmith uses the outermost zone of a flame, which is non-luminous, to melt gold and silver as it is the hottest zone of the flame, having more temperature.
11. Calorific value of a fuel = HeatProduced / Amountoffuel
= 180000/ 4.5 kJ/kg
= 40,000 kJ/kg.
12. The process of rusting emits heat during the formation of its oxide. So we can call the process of rusting as slow combustion.
13. The water which was put by Ramesh will get heated in a shorter time; because he had put it nearer to the hottest zone of the flame.
How did Avogadro determine that gases with the same volume have the same number of particles?
Crazy stuff. Really impressive how far we've come.
Are you telling me Avatar The last Airbender is a Lie
This might be a case of Pratchett-overdose, but is the little red-haired blue person at 1:27 a Feegle? In any case, loved the video, great explanations and illustrations!
I think it’s Undyne from Undertale
Nice, I want more of videos about how our knowledge evolved over time
You got my thumbs up for the "H2-wow" line ^_^
1:28 UNDYNE! LESSGOOOOOOO!
0:42 this is what ember means by “elements don’t mix”
I want to know how these guys were getting pure hydrogen and oxygen back in the 18th century
Only the avatar, master of all 3 elements can save the world.
Zhao:HAHAHA IT WORKED!
Aang: "I'm the avatar, master of all four elements!"
Mendelejew: "And I'm the master of 118 elements. *WHOOSH* That was polonium bending. You probably don't feel anything right now but soon the symptoms of severe radioactive poisoning will start to take place."
@@Mis7erSeven No way that the guy who INVENTED the elements is here.(what if he is God in the atla universe??)
About the elements, I always understood them as representations of the simplest states of matter found in nature (solid, gas, liquid and plasma). Does it have any relationship?
The Classical Elements have more to do with culture than anything else. Look at the Chinese Elements which are Water, Fire, Earth, *Wood*, and *Metal*.
@@TacticusPrime Or look at any harvesting/building/sim game.
Those are states of matter. Which are categories different models apply to. For example, you wouldn't use models for fluid flow to describe ice. Or, try and analyze the crystalline structure of a gas. That just wouldn't make any sense.
What Element an atom is, is just a measure of how many protons an atom has. In non-plasma matter the amount of protons is the numbet of electrons. The number of electrons is what determine how atoms interact (by and large) so categorizing atoms by element can tell us a lot about their properties.
Both useful but very different from eachother.
They are very different
@@TacticusPrime indeed, the Chinese elements are traditionally tied to states of matter or action much more so than the Western ones
Water representing all liquids, and the action of flowing, etc
3:39 Cute sketch of Misty there
2:23 It's fascinating to me how just hearing this I found it absurd, as it's common knowledge to me that equal volumes of a gas has equal number of "Moles" at same temp and pressure. It took me a while to realize that "Mole concept" wasn't always known.
Science history is the best!
Well they are kinda right, h2O really is a building block in almost everything, its just very splittable^^
Well, not *very*, just moderately. It's not like it explodes as easily as explosives, it actually needs a LOT of energy to do so. Pretty much the same energy that the combustion of hydrogen liberates :)
You're now officially my favorite channel for adding an undertale reference
the benefit of minuteEarth video: you learn something new, or update your information bank(brain), and get yourself some pun
Me who watches Avatar : "Liar, how many other lies have i been told by the council?"
1:27 bottom-middle of the screen, UNDYNE REFERENCE!!!!!
NGAAAAAAHH!!!!!!
I didn't get it. Gases expand to occupy the whole available volume. How can we then say that "the same volume of gas contains the same number of molecules"?. Maybe under same pressure and temperature?
Damn. I thought you were gonna go into how we learnt that the water molecule was bent, has the dipole moment and all that stuff. But I guess that wouldn't exactly be "minute" earth.
If Only my chemistry teachers had a tenth of the passion as you, I wouldn't have grown with a disdain for chemistry!
When the two gasses combined to form water, how did they know that water was composite, and the gasses were fundamental, and not the other way around?
If I had been a scientist back then, knowing different types of air exist, but assuming water to be fundamental, I would just assume one of the ingoing gasses was a type of air containing water.
And that the water was always there, but was released from the water-containing gas during the reaction
If anyone wants to know Avogadro discovered the Avogadro number which is 6,02 *10^23 and it means how much molecules or atoms there is per 1 mol of gas and 1 mol of gas is always 22,4 dm3 or 22,4 liters
Very well explained, thnx!
My husband John, whose login this is, has aphasia. He asked me to request that the subtitles that appear on these episodes be "printed" word by word, as they are on some other channels, so that he can read along with exactly what you are saying. If the subtitles appear line by line, he gets lost.
You should select the auto-generated CC, in the gear icon, then subtitles/CC, then "English (Auto Generated)". That should do the trick. The issue with that, is that there aren't punctuation marks (and they're auto-generated, but it's almost perfect). Hopefully that's what you mean? - Ever
The subtitles that have words "printed" one by one are the auto-generated ones, if they are manually written they are usually sentence by sentence.
I love how you stay in the comments to answer questions. :)
One of the funny things about water that most people have trouble grasping, is that it is the most deadly substance on the planet; Simply put mostly all living beings are susceptible to being poisoned by trace amounts of other substances being carried in solution without being visible or having any distinct smell or taste, water at the same time is one of the best solvents when it comes to picking up other substances from solids or sequestering them from gasses, and mostly all living beings have an ongoing need to ingest water at regular intervals. Then there's of course drowning in and being crushed by it, being frozen in it, falling through it(thin ice) and getting thermally shocked since it also conducts heat fairly well, and a zilion other more remote accidental ways to end by water such as being impaled by a big icicle or being smushed by a big piece of hail etc.
Talking about a double-edged swords, water is it for life as we know it on Earth, it's everywhere, it's a must-have, it's delicious, it's a place to live, but it's also suddenly or slowly deadly enough that mostly all life can die to it in one way or more.
I’ve known it since I was a kid, but these people that didn’t known it until they were in their forties are “smart”?
It'ds amazing. You take atoms of gasses, and they join into molecules of a liquid.,
Just remember guys, fundamentally all our technology is either to move water or move a wheel, and everything else thay benefits from it
1:27 wasn't expecting an undertale reference lol
I love the art!!!!
Arcadi made the beautiful illustrations on this one. I loved them too! - Ever
With this I further understand some Mistry's of chemistry
Tip:
Care to avoid "figured out" as a pseudo-explanation.
"Italian Amedeo Avogrado" does not reasonably explain the "figuring out" in "major breakthrough". As it currently is in the video, there was no explanation at all about "(those) different gasses have the same number of atoms (per molecule)". Collecting shared beliefs isn't sciencing methodological guesses. Thanks for caring.
Undyne has equivalent strength to:
A piano
A miner
And a Bullet Bill
Neat video, I like the animation style. Brand new subscriber here :)
Who else with a science degree watched this and still got something out of it?
You forgot to say that avagadros law only applies if both volumes are at the same pressure and temp
is nobody going to mention the O2 and H2 drawings? No? Nobody? Nobody at all? 😭😭😭
What about Cavendish ?
Was hoping it would go one level deeper into explanation
Dalton was colourblind.
but how did they find out that both were diatomic? this part is completely missing from the video
1:27 I see you Undyne.
1:30
Battle against a true water
Inflammable air is such a good name for hydrogen
3:00 the molecules on the left be looking kinda sus 🤨📸📸📸📸
1:28 UNDINE!? (I have no idea if I’m spelling that right)
How did the scientists know that in the two bottles of Gas, which they combined to get water from the reaction, really were the gasses they thought? Why isn‘t it possible that both gasses were impure (contained some water) and cancelled each other out, so only the water remained (or maybe the reaction just separated the water from both gasses and some leftover gas they could not detect remained…)
You can, for example, cool them down below freezing point and see if any condensation or frost forms inside the bottle.
Also, passing the gas through anhydrous (waterless) copper sulfate crystals. Anhydrous copper sulfate is gray, but with water it turns blue.
I'm sure there are other more reliable methods, but these are just the two I can immediately think of from high school chemistry.
my guess, by measuring the mass, they could see the mass of the water created was (close to) the sum of the masses of the component gases. theyd have to be incredibly impure if all that water was hiding in them, seems strange that much wouldnt condense out at room temperature. but, in general, there are many *possible* explanations for an experiment, we assume the simplest that fits the evidence, and hope to get gradually closer to the truth that way.
They were able to consistently identify gasses because of their particular properties. Hydrogen was colorless, odorless, very light, very flammable, etc. They knew water vapor would condense at certain temperatures and pressures, so they could easily separate water vapor from the gas mix. They actually were able to remove oxygen from regular air. And there were several ways to obtain these gasses from other reactions. It's all really clever and impressive. - Ever
@@MinuteEarth those early experiments creating different “types of air” are really impressive, because they weren’t actually aiming for any of the compounds they know today. They discovered those properties through their experiments to produce the gases, and eventually found multiple methods that yielded the same properties. I like that it’s backwards from how we often look at the process today.
gases cannot cancel out and disappear
I wonder how are citys and all its lights effect the plants/trees in them and outside the city.
How do these plants respond are they stressed what is the 24/7 light doing.
In the wild whats the lights doing to the plants/trees when a car drives by then its dark again 5 minutes later a car then dark again how do these plants/trees respond to this.
I kinda like the old symbols better, ya know? Kinda cute
1:27 undyne is there
Can one day we do restart that it’s about the whole periodic table and all of the elements
I tend to think that when the Hindenberg, a giant airship filled with hydrogen, caught fire the burning of hydrogen in an oxygen filled atmosphere created thousands of gallons of ... water. If you look carefully at the old footage of the disaster you can sometimes see water splashimg down to the ground. The Hindenberg did carry water as ballast, but I would think a lot of that water was produced by the burning of hydrogen in an oxygen filled atmosphere.
If you actually see splashing water in that footage, it's probably the water the Hindenburg carried with it. Water produced by the reaction of two gas molecules will be a gas molecule itself, commonly known as water vapor or steam. Of course it will turn into liquid at room temperature eventually, but this takes a while.
Chemistry teachers like to blow up balloons filled with hydrogen and I've seen that several times but this doesn't instantly make the room wet.
@@Mis7erSeven I have (mis)remembered a chemistry lesson in which my 8th grade chemistry teacher used electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then lit the hydrogen. My memory is of a big screech and a spurt of liquid water emanating from the nozzle with the hydrogen and splashing on the table. Memory is unreliable. I never could accept that the burning hydrogen from the zeppelin was creating enough water to have it gush out. I more easily thought that was the ballast water used to weigh the airship down and make it more navigable. That hydrogen is burning with intense heat should lead one to conclude the water that is, in fact, created when hydrogen is burned would become water vapor or steam. So ... good on you for knowing your physics, chemistry, and general science knowledge. 😋
The "hydro-" in "hydrogen" is Greek for water.
Which is reminiscent of the German word "Wasserstoff" - "Waterstuff"