Potential Bonds - A SciShow Video Response
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2014
- Facebook: / frameofessence
Twitter: / frameofessence
UA-cam: / frameofessence
This is a video response to a SciShow Talk Show interview with Veritasium:
• Logic Problems, Energy...
SciShow's Channel: / @scishow
Veritasium's Channel: / 1veritasium
Potential Energy Links:
Gravitational force: • Why the solar system c...
Strong interaction: • Your Mass is NOT From ...
Nuclear force: phet.colorado.edu/en/simulatio...
***This video uses a simplified model of how organisms process glucose. In actual cellular respiration, organisms do not convert glucose and oxygen directly into water and carbon dioxide. There are internetiate steps. Also, there are other ways in which organisms can process glucose, namely processes which to not take up oxygen. This is why plants can produce more oxygen than they use, and why you and I are not suffocating right now.
Music in this video downloaded from the UA-cam Audio Library:
Good Starts
Locally Sourced
UPDATE - Aug 18, 2015
The Science Asylum made a good video response to the interview as well. Check it out: • Bonds Do NOT Have Energy!
I saw this same SciShow vid when it came out and it had me off balance for a day or so... but it's all a matter of where you define "zero" energy. The physics equations we use define zero potential energy at infinity (so, basically, the end of the universe or no bond). In biology, you never actually get to "no bond" because there are always chemicals, so it doesn't make as much sense to use the same zero.
I've actually been meaning to do a video about this. Looks like you beat me to it ;-)
***** Haha, don't let me stop you! It's always interesting to see different perspectives.
YOU GOTTA PUT MORE VIDEOS OUT! you're an amazing presenter/host!
I came here from Veritasium but I have to agree with Hank while seeing Derick's point. An energy bar contains energy even though you have to expend energy in digesting it.
love your videos! :D
you give a great perspective on the topics at hand, hope to see more in the future ^^
***** made a really good video response to the interview as well. Check it out: ua-cam.com/video/g39nwNm0Xfw/v-deo.html
In that case, if we are using Hank's argument, we should say the energy is stored in the oxygen, because most of the energy is released when the CO bonds are formed into CO2, not when the glucose OH bonds form water.
The error comes in singling out glucose as the energy storer.
has senpai noticed you yet?
金大恩
:'(
Frame of Essence
its ok. one day.
金大恩
:D
You have awesome science videos!!
you missed half the argument, in my opinion.
people usually say glucose is rich in energy and that this energy is stored in the bonds of glucose. but the energy that glucose isn't actually coming from there - it comes from the the carbon's and the oxygen's merging into carbon dioxide.
it isn't that people usually say that the energy of environment A (=glucose + oxygen) is greater than that of environment B (=water + carbon monoxide). rather, they're saying glucose carries energy.
the popular explanation never says "glucose and oxygen carry more energy than water and carbon dioxide", they say "glucose has energy". and that's wrong and misleading.
I like his videos but I agree with you. I do think he had a point about it being a better cognitive tool but I think we as people are too prone to creating narratives rather than understanding the facts of any given matter.
It's not wrong. Glucose "has energy" in some potential form.
So does carbon dioxide...
First!
Mom will be proud
This video (and the one from The Science Asylum) quite enlightened me. Thumbs up!
Dude, what a community... ☺
Greatest explainer.
Great video. Next, all the mistakes in MinutePhysics videos!
so its true that the energy isnt in the bonds, but as a potential energy what can be made from creating more stable bonds
Derek is right as far as the point he was making is concerned.
Any particular bond is a net loss of energy compared to the same atoms when broken apart from each other. Hank often said that "energy is released when breaking chemical bonds" which is precisely the misconception that Derek was correcting.
But it is true that the molecule of glucose has more energy than the co2 and water that it came from, and that energy is indeed somewhere in the bonds of the molecule. But the point is that the entire molecule as a whole, the system of bonds, has more energy than the molecules used to make the glucose. Stronger and more stable bonds in co2 and water were replaced with a bunch of other bonds that when compared to the bonds in co2 and water, have more potential energy.
Another caveat is that you need o2 to break apart the glucose and release the 23 or so atp molecules' worth of energy. That o2 also has a weaker bond than the bonds in the final product and thus contributes to the net energy output of the reaction. Meaning that it's not really correct to consider fuel to be the "source" of energy in a redox reaction (as we often think).
"really guys? doesn't it seem a little silly to argue about this?"
[proceeds to present arguments]
But it's an argument about the argument, so I get a pass right? :P
psch nah you only get a pass because you had good arguments lol
aint no inception up in here
Loved the video, keep making awesome videos. Ignore comments from the haters. :V
I sure miss your making new videos.
You and I both man. I subscribed a long while back thinking they'd continue and he'd be up with the best of them :-/
Its all very conventional. Consider two situations where in the first case the object undergoes an exothermic process and second, an endothermic process.
Case 1: Exothermic
Object loses heat
Medium gains heat.
Case 2: Endothermic
Object gains heat
Medium loses heat.
You see, if the object undergoes an exothermic process then it is an endothermic process for the medium and vice versa.
So in a closed system where there is an object and a medium, there can never be an "increased" energy state or "decreased" energy state. It is very subjective, when we talk about this and we have adopted the convention that bonding means that the newly formed molecule has more energy than when its component atoms are seperated.
Hey have you have ever heard about ATP
Why can't these guys just ask a *chemist*?
+The Sandre Guy hank is a chemist.
purewaterruler
Really?
DO you think Chemists would know? We are constantly teaching stuff that seems correct but are misleading.
Chemistry is just applied physics...
ha hank is not a chemist. he's an avid science spokesman with a bachelor's in biochem sure. he is capable of chemistry but i would be pretty surprised if even he would call himself a chemist let's not get carried away here lol
It makes more sense to think of it as energy storage because it demonstrates the relative increase in potential energy in the system. I think you were too fair with Derek's argument. Simply put, if you put more energy into a system than you lose getting it to a stable configuration, the energy is being stored. Derek's view seems to ambiguate or ignore relative potential energy that's the only problem I have with it. It makes more sense to look at final potential change rather than based on change relative to the transition state. What do you guys think?
Derek’s point is that energy is stored *in the system* but not *in the bonds*. For example, O2 molecule has less energy than two oxygen atoms.
Dude I might recommend changing the music; it doesn't really feel like the right demographic.
3:48 U 2
It's not in the lowest possible ground state--the end!
No dislikes as it should be! Great job.
what is the third video at 1:57 like i doesn't have an hyperlink
It's a PhET simulation. Link in the description
I wounder if the sun will go dead out 1st or humanity. If humanity goes out 1st, it could be ww3, large meteorite, cosmic event (blackhole). Only time will tell, and in the end life is what we make of it. I'm glad to live in a time where the world is so interconnected more than ever, since the past 200 years.
verissassastium?
its physics vs biology
I see that someone's been listening to HI. :D
Veristablium.
You're representation of of photosynthesis is wrong and not because it doesn't show the complex pathways. The oxygen that comes out of plants didn't come in in the form of CO2 like you show here; it came in as water and was split to supply hydrogen radicals. Since aerobic respiration evolved from photosynthesis, the oxygen you breath in comes out as water not CO2. Please don't promote this common misconception.
Ha, take that UA-cam
This is all beautifull and so but.....first make some basic videos that explain atoms and bonds.
Energy is lost
Brothers and Sisters, God loves us so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ for us, who, bled and died on a cross for us to redeem us from death, to gain life everlasting, for those who put their trust in him. And what's more, he has risen, and is willing to call you to repentance (correction) and as his witness, by his grace indeed. "For it is by grace you have been saved". Jesus loves you, God cares for you!