Just a short criticism, while oxygen is used in cutting steel to increase the heating temperature of the cutting gas used, like acetylene. In welding it is forced out of the welding area by flux or a gas like Argon. Oxygen molecules as you know are quite large and will get between the metals and not allow them to bond, contaminate the weld with impurities, and allow the metal to burn at the high temp of the weld leaving a weak joint. So one of the main jobs of any flux is to remove any oxygen around the hot weld and keep the hot weld contained until cool enough for oxygen to not be an issue.
Oxygen is the cutting gas, the fuel gas and oxygen mix is to get the metal hot enough and then extra oxygen is added which burns the steel.. if you get it right, you can get steel up to temperature and start cutting and turn the fuel gas off and continue the cut using only the oxygen
Youre thinking of modern arc welding. I'm a tig welder myself and while oxygen is my worst nightmare while welding, back in the day they used those oxy/ace torches to weld, not just cut with. Now ive never welded with oxy/ace but from what I understand if you run it a little rich it will burn all the oxygen out of the air around your weld and that will in a sense be your shielding gas. But you still need the oxygen to burn the acetylene to weld!
@@autodidacticartisan wow, I learned something new about welding, too! I'd heard of oxy-ace welding, but always thought it was just a form of brazing! Thanks, I love learning, but had welded (along with other parts of the job) as a semi trailer mechanic for 2½ decades, but obviously had no real idea what the oxy-ace welding really was. Very cool!
@@MaryAnnNytowl yeah I mean thats how all welding was done before arc welding processes. How do you think they built all those ww2 tanks and plane? Well... Mostly rivets and nuts and bolts but also some welding. I used to be a commercial tire tech. I love working on semi trucks. King pins and drums brakes are a huge pain in the ass but I bet working on those big diesels is alot of fun
3:55 nice, very interesting. I love your videos, especially when they show me a new and interesting idea like this triplet vs singlet state. I dogmatically believed that the e‐'s had to be in separate orbitals whenever possible. That 22 kcal difference is really neat.
Not a comment related to this video but just wanted to say I’ve only just ‘stumbled’ across your channel and I have to say your content, standpoint and outlook are phenomenal. Although far inferior my mind seems to work in the exact same way, data, evidence, test and retest. Just great to see someone who has the mental capacity to both teach and plough a huge furrow through pseudoscience 👍
Just one more thing (and I’m just exploring your channel) if you haven’t yet I know you talk about disinformation and it being the number 1 danger to humanity, maybe touching on climate change ? (Apologies if you have but I’ve just found you this afternoon 👍)
@@jamessimmonds9369 Go to the playlists on his channel and explore the debunking list. Dave began his channel to give knowledgeable tutorials. However, he became concerned with the amount of pseudoscience out there and began debunking it. He has collaborated with some other debunkers on this effort too. He is also very good at taking down well-educated people who have turned into charlatans and snake-oil salespeople. Find his recent book, "Is this WiFi Organic?" A tongue in cheek title! His focus, however, is to produce good quality tutorial vids like this one and like most of his material, which he does very well.
i believe its due to the S S double bond being weaker than the O O double bond due to the atoms and therefore orbitals being larger, leading to poorer overlap thus increasing bond length. Due to this sulphur prefers to form single bonds rather than double bonds and forms stable rings that have the lowest amount of ring strain when 8 atoms of sulphur are connected, in the way that carbon forms most stable 6 membered rings. Hope this helps
I know the answer to my following question is deep into particle physics or something related, by why can't we force polonium to be stable? Another question might be, is there some way to overcome the weak and strong forces that bind atomic nuclei? I know so little about particle physics. I'm simply wondering if there's a way to force stability in* otherwise unstable (ie radioactive) isotopes & elements. Edited for a typo.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI watched your video about nuclear reactions, and I greatly appreciate the help. You reminded me that yes, to a degree, both nature and humans overcome the nuclear forces. Humans tend to do it for a tiny fraction of second in nuclear bombs, and particle acceleraters. Nature does it for a little longer than a tiny fraction of a second in hugely powerful explosions like those caused by merging neutron stars. All of that said, what my question asks is a little different. Both nature and man only produce these elements for small moments of time. I assume the only way to "stabalize" unstable isotopes is a tremendous amount of heat, energy, and pressure applied over a relatively long time. Doing this to any large amount of matter is likely going to need massive amounts of energy. I can only see this being done to tiny amounts of plasmatic matter. Long-running fusion reactors might be exactly what I'm asking for, but on a scale that could stabalize the nuclei of polonium and other heavy nuclei. What I'm describing simply doesn't exist yet, and it might not even work in theory. I appreciate your channel, Dave. Thanks for everything.
Missing some points about chalcogens: chacogenide glasses for Mid-IR applications... (optical fibers/photonic crystal fibers/lenses and so on). These glasses can transmit up to 24um (bulk Te-based glass) and have the largest non-linear refractive index among ALL glasses, making them particularly appropriate for supercontinuum generation (hence amazing for sensing or bioimagery for example).
I may just be young and dumb but how exactly does oxygen make up 89% of the ocean if water is H20, 2 parts hydrogen 1 part oxygen, shouldn't there be twice as much hydrogen as oxygen?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains yau have knowledge on every topic. OMG 😳 that's incredible. I have checked all your playlists dude u r just amazing. Literally your intro is never wasted By the way where u did all your studies m curious about you😅
Just a short criticism, while oxygen is used in cutting steel to increase the heating temperature of the cutting gas used, like acetylene. In welding it is forced out of the welding area by flux or a gas like Argon. Oxygen molecules as you know are quite large and will get between the metals and not allow them to bond, contaminate the weld with impurities, and allow the metal to burn at the high temp of the weld leaving a weak joint. So one of the main jobs of any flux is to remove any oxygen around the hot weld and keep the hot weld contained until cool enough for oxygen to not be an issue.
Oxygen is the cutting gas, the fuel gas and oxygen mix is to get the metal hot enough and then extra oxygen is added which burns the steel.. if you get it right, you can get steel up to temperature and start cutting and turn the fuel gas off and continue the cut using only the oxygen
Youre thinking of modern arc welding. I'm a tig welder myself and while oxygen is my worst nightmare while welding, back in the day they used those oxy/ace torches to weld, not just cut with. Now ive never welded with oxy/ace but from what I understand if you run it a little rich it will burn all the oxygen out of the air around your weld and that will in a sense be your shielding gas. But you still need the oxygen to burn the acetylene to weld!
@@autodidacticartisan wow, I learned something new about welding, too! I'd heard of oxy-ace welding, but always thought it was just a form of brazing! Thanks, I love learning, but had welded (along with other parts of the job) as a semi trailer mechanic for 2½ decades, but obviously had no real idea what the oxy-ace welding really was. Very cool!
@@MaryAnnNytowl yeah I mean thats how all welding was done before arc welding processes. How do you think they built all those ww2 tanks and plane? Well... Mostly rivets and nuts and bolts but also some welding. I used to be a commercial tire tech. I love working on semi trucks. King pins and drums brakes are a huge pain in the ass but I bet working on those big diesels is alot of fun
3:55 nice, very interesting. I love your videos, especially when they show me a new and interesting idea like this triplet vs singlet state. I dogmatically believed that the e‐'s had to be in separate orbitals whenever possible. That 22 kcal difference is really neat.
Not a comment related to this video but just wanted to say I’ve only just ‘stumbled’ across your channel and I have to say your content, standpoint and outlook are phenomenal. Although far inferior my mind seems to work in the exact same way, data, evidence, test and retest. Just great to see someone who has the mental capacity to both teach and plough a huge furrow through pseudoscience 👍
Just one more thing (and I’m just exploring your channel) if you haven’t yet I know you talk about disinformation and it being the number 1 danger to humanity, maybe touching on climate change ? (Apologies if you have but I’ve just found you this afternoon 👍)
@@jamessimmonds9369 Go to the playlists on his channel and explore the debunking list. Dave began his channel to give knowledgeable tutorials. However, he became concerned with the amount of pseudoscience out there and began debunking it. He has collaborated with some other debunkers on this effort too.
He is also very good at taking down well-educated people who have turned into charlatans and snake-oil salespeople.
Find his recent book, "Is this WiFi Organic?" A tongue in cheek title! His focus, however, is to produce good quality tutorial vids like this one and like most of his material, which he does very well.
@@jamessimmonds9369 See his recent take downs of two "creation" proponents.
At the beginning when showing the electronic distribution the names used are for the next group. Great as usual Prof. Thanks
Nice introduction to the Group 16 elements, Prof Dave; keep it up!
Flawless explained as usual
Always presents great content.
This is absolutely amazing!
What property(ies) of sulfur atoms allow it to have a structure of S8 while Oxygen atoms are usually only diatomic or in the form of O3?
i believe its due to the S S double bond being weaker than the O O double bond due to the atoms and therefore orbitals being larger, leading to poorer overlap thus increasing bond length. Due to this sulphur prefers to form single bonds rather than double bonds and forms stable rings that have the lowest amount of ring strain when 8 atoms of sulphur are connected, in the way that carbon forms most stable 6 membered rings. Hope this helps
Well explained, thanks
Fascinating
Thanks Professor Dave !!
I know the answer to my following question is deep into particle physics or something related, by why can't we force polonium to be stable? Another question might be, is there some way to overcome the weak and strong forces that bind atomic nuclei?
I know so little about particle physics. I'm simply wondering if there's a way to force stability in* otherwise unstable (ie radioactive) isotopes & elements.
Edited for a typo.
Check out my tutorial on nuclear reactions, it goes over the various reasons for nuclear instability.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Thanks for the super quick response.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI watched your video about nuclear reactions, and I greatly appreciate the help. You reminded me that yes, to a degree, both nature and humans overcome the nuclear forces. Humans tend to do it for a tiny fraction of second in nuclear bombs, and particle acceleraters. Nature does it for a little longer than a tiny fraction of a second in hugely powerful explosions like those caused by merging neutron stars.
All of that said, what my question asks is a little different. Both nature and man only produce these elements for small moments of time. I assume the only way to "stabalize" unstable isotopes is a tremendous amount of heat, energy, and pressure applied over a relatively long time. Doing this to any large amount of matter is likely going to need massive amounts of energy. I can only see this being done to tiny amounts of plasmatic matter. Long-running fusion reactors might be exactly what I'm asking for, but on a scale that could stabalize the nuclei of polonium and other heavy nuclei. What I'm describing simply doesn't exist yet, and it might not even work in theory.
I appreciate your channel, Dave. Thanks for everything.
Missing some points about chalcogens: chacogenide glasses for Mid-IR applications... (optical fibers/photonic crystal fibers/lenses and so on). These glasses can transmit up to 24um (bulk Te-based glass) and have the largest non-linear refractive index among ALL glasses, making them particularly appropriate for supercontinuum generation (hence amazing for sensing or bioimagery for example).
@@dororo2597 ???
Thank you, very helpful video ;)
Tellurium is actually my favorite Urium.
Did not know the elements in that group are collectively named chalcogens.
I do now!
50:01:40
nice video. maybe make the next video like this in darkmode and its perfect :)
Wow, I didn't know that antistatic devices could theoretically be quite so... deadly! 😬😲😳 The word that first comes to mind is YIKES!
I may just be young and dumb but how exactly does oxygen make up 89% of the ocean if water is H20, 2 parts hydrogen 1 part oxygen, shouldn't there be twice as much hydrogen as oxygen?
By mass.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Oh ok thank you
Aren't there caveats to combustion requiring oxygen, at least I've heard that chlorine can fill it's role in some scenarios
0:15
👏👍
You know a lot about the science stuff , prof.dave explains
Now I gotta watch a song "Tom Lehrer: The Elements, Live Copenhagen 1967"
Immunology?
That will continue in the near future.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains you are awesome professor Dave!
🙏
I knew what they all were by their symbols except the liver one.
Tellurium is amazingly cheap relative to rarity. I got a giant 500g brick for $70.
Strangely, chalcogen means copper maker, according to Wikipedia. (I wonder if policemen even know that.)
Do one on reproductive chromosomes
Check my biology/genetics playlist.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains yau have knowledge on every topic. OMG 😳 that's incredible. I have checked all your playlists dude u r just amazing. Literally your intro is never wasted
By the way where u did all your studies m curious about you😅
out of context but Justice for johnny depp ( don't consider me as a bot)