How Do Chemical Reactions REALLY Happen?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 бер 2024
- How do chemical reactions actually take place and what is chemical kinetics? With animations, we look at the chemistry and science of how reactions work, including: the exact moment two molecules meet, the kinetic theory of gases, why kinetics is all about probabilities, what the differences are between gas- and solution-phase reactions, and why solid phase reactions are so different (hint: it’s all about surface to volume ratio).
Kyushu University is one of Japan’s top universities. Check out the link to learn about our science and engineering courses in English: www.eng.kyushu-u.ac.jp/e/u_in...
You might also be interested in the following resources that helped the production of this video:
Kinetics mechanism simulator: www.stolaf.edu/depts/chemistr...
Free photographs via www.pexels.com :
baking bread pexels-vaibhav-jadhav-3218467
bicycle pexels-zsolt-palatinus-1616566
chill out pexels-ron-lach-7884128
cooking powder pexels-mikhail-nilov-6957994
fire extinguisher pexels-jan-van-der-wolf-19107333
flour pexels-klaus-nielsen-6287581
match pexels-pixabay-159466
researcher pexels-polina-tankilevitch-3735736
rusty bike pexels-alain-frechette-1431117
Visit us on Instagram:
/ sannijuroku
Three Twentysix Project Leader: Dr Andrew Robertson
3D animations/production assistant: Es Hiranpakorn
Graphic Design: Maria Sucianto
This video was produced at Kyushu University and supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP21K02904. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Kyushu University, JSPS or MEXT.
One conceptual mistake I run into frequently is the idea that materials at a particular temperature have all their particles at the same kinetic energy, and thus chemical reactions (including side reactions) turn on or off as you raise or lower the temperature. In reality, at a particular temperature, the kinetic energy of the particles is distributed along a curve with most of them in middle range and smaller and smaller amounts as the energy gets higher or lower. So at any temperature, there will (theoretically) always be *some* with enough energy to reach the threshold needed for a reaction to occur, and controlling the temperature just raises or lowers the fraction of particles that do so.
Correct. The "temperature" is the *average* kinetic energy. Some will have almost none, some will be flying. Most will be about down the middle between the two, and that's the reading we get.
maxwell boltzmann distribution
isn't this also why stuff is always evaporating? water on earth is mostly below 100°C, yet there's humidity all over the globe.
@@crackedemerald4930correct
@@crackedemerald4930 yes, also why liquids “mist” from falling or splashing. as long as at least one particle has enough energy to overcome internal tension (like surface tension for water, specifically), it is free to escape and fly off. it happens all the time, and there is actually a calculable integer to figure out when it usually tapers off, known as “vapor pressure”. it’s why you don’t see much evaporation in a room temperature water bottle as opposed to a puddle. i mean, there are other nuances that depict the specific scenarios, but generally, if theres less room for the water to evaporate into the air, less water evaporates. pretty cool!
This video should be mandatory viewing for all high school chemistry courses.
It's a reminder that chemistry is truly applied physics.
This is probably the best theoratical chemistry channel right now
This is seriously one underrated channel.
Agreed!
@@wbreslyn Hi Wayne!
yet
FINALLY! The video that will allow me to sleep at night (this is not satirical, I have been grappling with how to conceptually understanding chemical kinetics) I seriously appreciate all the help you have been in my journey to understanding chemistry.
Once a concept stops bothering you and you understand it then you are gonna get bothered by something bigger. The cycle never ends trust me
@@nikos4677and that’s an amazing process, in my opinion
Could you do a video re: Thermodynamic vs Kinetic Reactions, Differences, and Products?
It would be great to show how the conditions of a reaction can arguably change the outcome substantially and even be controlled. A side piece on dealing with Chiral product purification/reactions would be cool too :)
Did my undergrad in Chem, still fascinated and don't want to forget anything! Your videos are awesome to dive into the nitty gritties that we're just told this happens "because" oh so often.
That one's definitely in the pipeline.
Don't worry, the chemical engineers don't want you to mention fugacity either!
Equivalent to voltage drop on a conductor, return loss of an antenna, topological boundary invariances causing run out on a mill pass.
All just measurable inefficiencies in outcome.
The physical chemists want to argue about it, but we'll eventually concede to skip discussion of activity, too. We just want to argue.
Fug that…
😂
Fugayzi, fugazi. It's a whazy. It's a woozie. It's fairy dust. It doesn't exist. It's never landed. It is no matter. It's not on the elemental chart. It's not real.
Wat
This is something I have been wondering for so long, and you laid out the kinetic aspect I was missing. In a way its simpler than I expected, but then most scientific truth is.
There's a related thing someone did a while back where you could actually listen to molecules hitting each other and "ringing"... it's a really strange thing but compliments this well (if one can find it)
I’m a sophomore studying chemistry. I really enjoy seeing the visuals and the concepts of collision theory, or Chemical Kinetics come to life. In school , those ideas of what’s going on can get easily get lost behind the scrutiny of learning how to find the numbers of for let’s say chemical kinetics / RXN rates.
Really loved the video. I’m excited to progress down this path of chemistry.
Very Nice video congratulations we love chemistry
When I was in school, I was terrible at math of almost any kind, until I discovered chemistry. It is such a beautiful science. I really love your videos, even though I did not become a chemist, I still love learning about chemistry and your shows are so engaging to watch. Thanks so much for your time and effort and letting me remanence about a time in my life when it was full of wonder and surprise.
Same! I hated math but took material science, chemistry, etc. And fell in love with not just the lab work but learning the art to chemistry equations and it clicked so much more for me at the time. Something about science just captivated me. The hands on experience, experiments and writing down the process and equations just clicked where I just hated math and thought it was so stupid and frustrating
Can you say more about how chemistry changed maths for you?
@@henkbroers288 It gave me the desire to learn math, so I could study chemistry. Motivation is everything.
I am a big fan of the animation at 21:17! It encaptivated my soul .. truly wondrous!
I'm glad you're making these I never took kinetics
I can't wait for the rest of the videos on kinetics! Thanks so much!
I love this channel and the insight it gives about chemistry along with O-chem
I love your videos soo much. Really awaiting your videos on other topics, and I'd love to see one where you go into detail on Bonding in Coordination complexes, hopefully with MOT(carbonyl and other ligands).
Favorite chemistry channel!
wow!! this is a super awesome video, thank you. there aren't a huge number of channels that make chemistry engaging this way!!
another fantastic video, thanks for the upload
This video is pure GOLD! Wow!!!!!!!
Great video! Looking forward to see video about the activation energy
I love his calm voice and easy to digest explanations. His videos have helped so much in class, especially with conceptual questions
as always such a great video! learned a lot!
We missed you! Keep this kinda content up, I love your explanations
I love your channel man, the way you describe things makes them easy to grasp
Thank you for your informative videos. I seriously appreciate them.
Big fan! Your videos truely enrich my 3 26! I recommended you many timed and hope your channel grows further. More people habe to enjoy this.
Glad I found this channel !
10:00 This makes me just happy, i appreciate the amount of detail
Thank you and your team for such a good explanation! You make me fall in love with chemistry more and more. Chemical processes are so beautiful, they bring tears to my eyes.
What a fantastic channel you have, i cant believe ive only just found you. Very well concisly explained. I am a home chemist in my 40's & love tinkering with molecules, i took physics at uni & now whish i had done chemistry. Thers nothing more satisfying than getting my glassware out & building molecules.
fantastic content and delivery! Please keep it up.
Watching your videos helps cooling my head off, whenever i need to. Can't wait for the 'activation energy' video
oooh goody! thanks doc.
Early birthday present! Thanks!
i just ran into this channel and i can't thank enough cuz my professors don't have this awesome way of teaching THANKS !
batool XD
Great video
Great and thanks. 😇
Great video. Goode intermediate between graduate and undergraduate level study
I'm watching this again, and I am again struck by the randomness and energy and solvents and so on and so on... That has got to be a frustrating job sometimes. Wow!
Thanks!
Thank you for talking so well about our job👩🔬👨🔬
kimist the spelling cracked me up X'D
Yessssss my day has been saved 🎉😂
the wink is a nice touch
Nice work! I'd like to suggest more intro about molecular chemistry ( orbitals, etc) in reactions. Examples: H2 +O2 goes with explosion with practically any concentrations, any temperature, etc vs rusting going relatively slow and really depends on reaction conditions. Pb(N3)2 is very sensitive, very often self exploded under any conditions vs reactions require some concentration, temperature etc. One more suggestion is to talk about how chemical properties define the speed of reaction. Examples: H2+O2 -> blast always, but oil+O2 -> slow combustion always. Bonus topic, IMHO, about 'unknown' reactions. Example: plastit usually is very safe explosion. To detonate one, the one needs to apply high voltage like 15kV. For this reason, plastit is used for R&D work with explosions. But sometime plastit can detonate from unknown reason. It is very seldom. In my personal work, 2 times for several years. I had collected unused plastit into a wood box and blast happened. No reason, very seldom case, but could happen.
Most of those questions will be answered in the next video on activation energy.
Can u make a video on coordinate complexes?
In the pipeline but there's lots to get through first, I'm afraid!
Phenomenal
Speaking of setting things on fire.. that animation at 21:17 surely set me on it!
Good, isn't it?
Regarding surface to volume ratio, is it safer to dispose sodium metal in water in big chunks (lower ratio) than in small bits to prevent kaboom?
you are excellent
2:00-2:30 that's it? Sure would've been nice to know that a fucking decade ago. As far as school is concerned chemistry is magic liquids that change color and human-written equations on paper.
11:51 but... but... mathematics is beautiful. It must be one and the same with reality!!
17:00-22:00 this is the second coolest part of the video. I didn't know fine air-suspended metal could just burn same as dust and starch.
22:39 oh. Fine metal powder frictioning with itself causes pockets of heat, which blows up and suspends surrounding powder, and that air powder itself blows up and escalates everything. Cool.
23:31 this was made in Japan? you have a new subscriber now
can you please explain how catalyst work in the video about activation energy?
I'm afraid not. I'll explain that in the video about catalysts! 😉😄
You know when you said this was made in Japan I was like huuuh as your Scottish accent had me guessing like you were someone in England or maybe Stirling, don't know why, but did you know the open university have no DaisyChains Audio or any audio version of there bio-chemistry related subjects and they don't know why, they have literally just been apologising too me for 5 years since I am dyslexic, and I failed 2nd year twice because I have just been giving walls of text too read as a dyslexic man and like I can't learn like that, though this is a perfect way, which is why I have a stupid playlist I have been building over the past 5 years of everything practical and like visual (or just the only English information on UA-cam, the amount of videos in English which go into Hindi drive me insane, I think I find a video and nope, but coming across your channel sure was a treat.)
Being very useful, I wanna pass my final year, you know, would be nice.
It's been a month and I'm still waiting on the indepths of the kinetics and thermodynamics of a reaction😭
Studying organic chemistry right now so that would be so amazing
Activation energy out tomorrow!
Thank you. I got into vaporizing weed a while ago and i was wondering how to explain my end products’s color variability
My first instinct would be that, by saying “molecules are floating around and the right bits need to hit for a reaction to happen”, we are excluding the combined effect of this extremely intricate, quasi discontinuous 3D texture of forces acting between EACH of these huge number molecules. The complicated movement the magnetic forces start to cause in small distances are also disregarded in all the 3D modelling we see in this video, e.g., at (1:38). I was really missing that, even if it’s something one might have hard time to model correctly. It wasn’t even attempted even if we know that the devil is in the details:) I’m sure that “the appropriate angle” is a wide range of angles in which the probability of reaction forms a curve. Is it meaningful and even possible to formulate an experiment to actually draw that curve with considerable precision? Worst of all, this curve is actually a surface, because an additional dimension, the energy (and frequency) of the collisions comes into the picture, not to even mentioning the potential other factors affecting the chance (and even the potential structure) of reactions that are happening.
I’m also wondering what is supposed to make the distribution of the covalence electrons residing at the outside of molecules creating those crucial “patches of charge” that creates the slight attraction, which is pictured as a random fluctuation in local outer charge can possibly create a combined effect of general attraction as we hear at (3:25), and whether that fluctuation can or cannot be described as a wave, with frequency and even possibly amplitude. This is the first time I actually realise that the behaviour of nuclei are perfectly linear (they are evenly repelling the other nuclei while a reaction happens) while the electrons have that constant “fluctuation” of charge in themselves, which is crucial for the interaction with another entity to happen forming molecules and, later, complex molecules. Electrons, unlike protons and neutrons, are supposed to be fundamental particles. The question might automatically come: how can something so fundamental have such a complex behaviour like developing patches of different charge?
There are many parts to this question and I'm going to keep this brief, so this is just a starter:
You”re absolutely right that reactions are, in general, much more complicated than I showed here, but:
1) This is why I chose an inherently simple system. You are right that there is a correct cone of approach, but we can simplify that to a simple line without losing much information. However, detailed calculations would take that into account.
2) There are actually many ways reactants can recombine to make the products but we focus on the lowest energy path because energy appears as an exponential in the equation for determining how fast the reaction goes. In short, that means that the difference between the lowest energy path and the second lowest energy path makes a huge difference to the reaction rate, and the second lowest energy path is *usually* insignificant.
3) The fluctuation of electron density is known as Van de Waals interactions. Electrons in molecules can do this because they ‘move’ much faster than the protons. Similar situations do occur on the atomic and molecular scale, however, with temporary patches of relative positive and negative charge causing static electricity and lightning, for example. I did a video on static and another about lightning so check them out if you’re interested!
@@ThreeTwentysix Thank you for caring for random viewers! 3) I will, most definitely, watch your video on static electricity, and will have a better look at the works of Van de Waals. 2) I wonder if we could just handle the steps of chemistry (disregarding particle physics for now... forming of compounds and molecules, forming of amino acids, combinations of monomers into polymers, proteins folding themselves into molecular machines... disregarding biology for now) as black boxes, and then ask ourselves in which particular box does emergence happen and guided by what factors? Can we “blame” those virtually random fluctuations, and usually insignificant events, that are equally happening in each above organisation level, for this emergence to apparently exist?
I was hoping you would get into how all that relates to Gibb's free energy and solvation shells, and connect the dots a little more with homp,lumo and orbitals...
That's all in the pipeline!
In the recent experiment about gravity effect on antihydrogen atoms in gas phase apparently they don't form H2 readily as I would have believed. I don't know if it is because collisions are very rare but I would have expected 100% reaction success in case of collision. Apparently that's not the case. Would love to understand better.
Just found your channel. I asked a question under a different video and I apologize if I've missed that and asked a repeat...
Why do most chemistry videos show a beaker full of liquid, and a spinning magnet stirring the liquid, and then a series of "precipitate this, precipitate that" steps, and finally some interesting powder...
I'm expecting the kind of reactions that happen in ATP-synthase. You know: the motor that sits in the skin of mitochondria adding one phosphate at a time, as the motor goes round... (I'm trying to describe part of the Calvin cycle, in case that's not clear. ;-)
Why can we apparently only DRAW pictures of biochemistry, while being unable to actually DO biochemistry...? I did notice that a recent Nobel went for Attosecond lasers, so now we can almost see what happens. Are we still so far away from mimicking mitochondria? I would have thought that every engineer in there place would be building little 3-part machines to build molecules. 👀🤷♂️
insane amount of molecules in everything, will take a long time to synthesize compounds one-by-one, much easier and faster to do it in bulk with stirred fluids in beakers
You might be interesting in looking at supramolecular chemistry, where chemists often try to mimic these processes. But the simple answer to your question is that biological systems are insanely complex. It's no coincidence that the biology, biochemistry and chemistry departments are typically housed separate buildings. It wasn't a conscious decision but it's actually based on tiers of complexity.
@@ThreeTwentysix Thanks! I'll search it. Yes I've noticed people talking about molecules as if they end up with their own orbitals. And my fave description of ATP synthase includes what looks like bending the molecules, kinda like you can bend wood. I'm definitely at max curiosity.
@@ThreeTwentysixAfter reading and watching and reading and watching. A lot. I finally ran across a description of methane PYROLYSIS to produce H2 and carbon powder.
Next I went to the Wikipedia entry for Haber process and then searched why they "need" CO2 for ammonia production in 2024, and it looks like they DON'T "need" CO2. I had simply misunderstood it in my first 17 attempts to read up.
RESPECT, man! I knew chemistry was hard. Now I might be seeing a couple of the layers of how it's hard.
(Funnily enough, UA-cam suggested clips from "Breaking Bad," which I had been too busy to watch when it was first out. So I've binged that on Netflix now. Ah well. It was a good break from studying...)
I may be starting to have an appreciation for the trial and error involved in catalysis. And maybe a suggestion for you... I'd love it if you'd walk us through how to hook up pyrolysis to haber bosch...? As I read this Wikipedia article, it looks like a lot of the cleaning and purification steps would still be needed, but maybe with the carbon "gone" it would be easier? Similarly, without carbon are the catalysts easier or harder? What is the deal with lithium binding to nitrogen so easily. Is that true? Would it help here? Thoughts?
This is a long way of saying thank you for your channel and your replies to my silly questions. 👍
Would it be possible to control the speed of a reaction by shaking it up with ultrasonic sound, instead of heating/cooling it?
Ultrasound can be used to accelerate reactions but it's because 1) ultrasound tends to heat up the solvent and/or 2) it breaks solid particles into smaller pieces. It's a common technique used to get relatively insoluble solids into solution faster.
Chemistry and biology/nature are BASICALLY MAGIC AND CHEAT CODES TO THE UNIVERSE.
4:15 is this the ideal gas law? Is 'in-elastic deformation' ONLY at low temperatures? I think I'm asking if hot gas is still as in-elastic as colder gas?
No, the energy weakens molecular bonds making them more reactive. Oxygen will react with most things at higher temperatures e.g.
Can molecules have capacitance and inductance similar to AC analysis of electrical circuits
Inductance, certainly but as for reversible capacitance, that's a very interesting question. I think the closest thing would be reversible redox, where molecules can gain or lose a certain number of electrons. If I were working in molecular electronics, you would have given me a great idea!
Would rhis relate to why phase partitions are based on equilibriums?
Absolutely. This series is building up to talk about equilibria, so make sure you catch that one.
this viddo is sooo fucking good
Sawdust and sawmill explosions happen alarmingly often too.
11:54 Reminds me of radioactive half lives.
Precisely! You can use chemical kinetics to estimate, and even directly calculate, radioactive half-lives. This is because half lives follow a logarithmic curve, so they are considered a first-order chemical decomposition reaction
if you are have trouble with solid chemistry. just put it in a ball mill it will work but be careful it might work too well and go ka boom.
I have not exploded any bicycles but I have used glacial acetic acid as a solvent.
Very interesting dope video, but am I tripping or does plug look like Werner Ziegler
I'm going to say yes, while expecting you to tell me that I'm somehow dumb for listening to my chemistry teacher.
I don't know what you're talking about here but you're certainly not dumb for listening to your chemistry teacher. More people should listen to their chemistry teachers! That said, chemistry is a phenomenally complex science, so we learn different explanations at different times. That often means we have to unlearn our high school chemistry when we get to university.
@@ThreeTwentysix I was just trying to be cute, in that reality rarely works out as neatly as described in the classroom.
friday night mechanics. the more people come to the club with the right level of energy, the higher the chances some will bond. there are intermittants of course, only stable for a night.
Is the name "Three Twenty six" a reference to the avogadro-constant (~6x10^23)?
Nope. Take a look at the Periodic Table!
@@ThreeTwentysix Ah got it, the numbers of avogadro backwards might be a second match then 😉
Ooh, I'll remember that one, thanks.
Off-ten is the archaic pronunciation of "often." Listen is not pronounced "liss-ten," nor glisten pronounced "gliss-ten, for example. Who decided to bring back the archaic pronunciation of "often." It would be interesting to find out who decided to start teaching that in recent history.
You should write a book about general chemistry. I will be the first to purchase.
Whoops, didn't quite make it. Better luck next time! 😄
@@ThreeTwentysix 🥲ah well
amazing video regardless as always, please never stop making them
What does 326 means.
Check out the channel page by clicking on the bit 3-26 icon at the top of the comments. There's a big hint there.
Custard powder factories were famous for exploding!
My bicycles have tendency to rather evaporate than explode.
Orientation of what?
Orientation of the molecules which are about to collide, because improper orientation will not give the product as well regardless of all other conditions being satisfied.
You give the anwsers to questions that are said to be stupid and irrelevant by teachers in school 🎉
I beg to differ, if it was like las vegas all the molecules would lose 😂
20th like!
I haven't exploded a bicycle, but I have used hand warmers and that's pretty close, I guess.
I have not exploded a bicycle but I have rusted one!
seiko
Strictly speaking, fine powders are more like to deflagrate than to explode. This is because the technical definition of an explosion requires the reaction to create a shock wave. No shock wave, no explosion.
But a fireball in a flour mill is still a big heap of no fun.
You are right of course, thanks for the comment. If I'd thought of the word 'deflagrate' I would have used it. Making a note...
If the fire reaction doesn’t produce a shockwave, why do flower mills break up with high velocity splintering when the powder flash occurs?
It looks like they explode, sending shrapnel in all directions. Is that shockwave a secondary effect of rapid temperature change in a relatively confined space driving up the pressure?
@piedpiper1172 - yes, the explosion would be a side effect of the sudden increase in temperature of all the air inside it.
All of my bicycles have exploded at some point.
1:28 I wish they taught more of THIS in school.
How the established “wise ones” in their field are often complete imbeciles when it comes to new discoveries.
Rather than try to understand they do character assassinations and make people think their new ideas are stupid :(
We need more bold people that aren’t afraid of whether or not their ideas are accepted and to have that we must show how WRONG many “geniuses” were :)
is "kinetic" ment the same as "kinematics" and "dynamics", meaning movement?
The Chemical kinetic is about the speed of chemical reactions. How concentration changes with time.
Yes it is. The term 'kinetic theory' comes from the days before molecules were generally accepted, so it had to be made clear that that was what they were describing.
Oh... during my studies for my M. Sc. of chemistry I HATED the lectures in reaction kinetics.... 😂
6:02 So molecules are “obviously stupid”, particles are even more obviously stupid with definitely no hidden variables (let alone tendencies), as we were univocally assured by the Copenhagen interpretation, the rules of nature are even more reliably stupid, depending only on a few predictable factors, therefore everything we can ever experience in our discoverable universe is inherently, “obviously” and utterly stupid, right?
Absolutely not. Intelligence (or let's call it decision-making) is an emergent property. That means the elements can be 'stupid' (like neurones) but the assembly is 'smart' (like... well, most humans).
@ThreeTwentysix I hope you don’t find this off-topic: If we just scientifically have a look at a YT comment, like this one, regardless of its validity or credibility, we will immediately have to face with a set of information that delivers a perfectly specific message to anybody who cares to read it. When picturing a closed system, like our discoverable universe, as something fundamentally free from any kind of outer source of information, and has a fully predictable internal scientific system, then what discoverable procedure has the transcendent power to create my comment from random primordial fluctuations? Could information really emerge from a predictable system that have never received information from anywhere outside of itself? Isn’t it against common logic, science aside? Is “emergence” a procedure that can be scientifically defined, because it has a finite number of factors that keep it working, or is emergence the collective name of all things in our discoverable universe that we cannot explain scientifically - therefore we named it, and by naming it we have created our sacred father AKA emergence:) That’s not science then, that’s a religion now which I have never had and I turned towards science in order to avoid bowing at the smelly feet of an imaginary magician, and what do I find in science? I find the sacred transcendent rainbow energy of “emergence” that, in its quasi infinite glory, created everything on the scale from rage over a comment to love of the truth.
May I know the reason behind your channel name as to how analytical u are there must be a significant value to 326 🤔
Hint: take a look at the Periodic Table. Or just cheat and go to the channel page 😄
@@ThreeTwentysix oh if it's related to elements then I assume it represent atomic numbers then
• 326th element undiscovered since there are only 119
• half of it 163 still not possible
• In logo it has fire in 3 , we know Lithium ion batteries catch fire due to high voltage instability but I aint gettin any conclusn
• *Seems like h20 (the way 2 is placed)*
• individually
3 is Lithium
2 is helium
6 is Carbon
So 326 = Lihec but ???
Oh wait if I permute
I can take in pairs so
• 32 germanium (Ge)
So Gec is that your name ?? Sorry to offend but I'm new to this heartwarming channel
• *Another way
3 = Litium
26 = iron
So LiFe but ??? Oh wait*
Life nd water ....
I choose these 2 as my answers
Life or water(h20)
Given the backup of water being a channel name is insignificant infront of Life which indeed is biochemical
So more appropriately I would go for Life
Btw I just dirtied the comments as I 1st time wrote So many letters together but thank you for bringing my curiosity out Even if u don't know but it really established aromaticity in my life nd thank you for allowing me to resonate
😉
8:10 the molecules know what to make: tar
a very fitting shirt color for talking about chemicals making the wrong products
I sense an organic chemist. That was exactly my experience with the maleimide reaction I mentioned in the video.
@@ThreeTwentysix i’m not a chemist, i just find it pretty neat and i watch a bunch of chemistry youtube videos
R Henious
There is a universe in which every single molecule in a reaction collides at the wrong angle and not a single reaction happens and the scientists would be so confused cuz the math says it should be a 70% yield but its always 0%
If the yield is 0 then the universe doesn't simply exist lol, you just yeeted yourself
certain chemical reactions can produce radio waves. Some chemicals that can generate radio waves include: Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide.
Random, unrelated fact I looked up on Google.
How can you make your bicycle explode did he say? Easy strip the paint off, then throw it in a vat of fluorine and chlorine in an atmosphere of pure ozone at 100 ATM's at a temp of 1000'C. Instant explosion.
AP Chemistry semester 1 flashbacks 💀
My ap chem class wasn't nearly this interesting
I never set a bicycle on fire, but i'm still trying to figure out how the air bubble inside an egg i was cooking recently, popped and sent sparks flying out.
Methane trails from a bad eqg?
@@MarkShinnick it wasn't rotten though.. just a regular egg. I ate it and didn't get sick, afterwards. Seemed like there was a huge buildup of pressure in that bubble, I think it has to do with that somehow