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.
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
@@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"
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.
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.
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.
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 )"
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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."
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
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
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.
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!
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Scientists discovering water is a compound and not an element is like the bartender discovering that tall man he’s been serving is actually two kids in a trench coat.
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
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"
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
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!
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
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
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.
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 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.
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
I love learning how scientists in the past figured stuff out. It's very enlightening.
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
awesome job! I'd love more of these history lessons/stories
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 )"
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.
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 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
Fun to see you work in the little tidbits of the phlogiston theory and the Hermetic alchemical influences on Dalton’s notation.
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
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
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
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
Ah! Perfect timing! We are learning about atoms in science!
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.
2:48 that wasn't a very satisfying explanation... He just figured it out ?
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.
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
I wonder how this works in differing atmospheres, places where o3 build up and the hydrogen gets binded to other organic structures.
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.
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.
1:27 wasn't expecting an undertale reference lol
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
0:42 this is what ember means by “elements don’t mix”
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??)
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
the benefit of minuteEarth video: you learn something new, or update your information bank(brain), and get yourself some pun
1:27 bottom-middle of the screen, UNDYNE REFERENCE!!!!!
NGAAAAAAHH!!!!!!
Me who watches Avatar : "Liar, how many other lies have i been told by the council?"
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
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
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.
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
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
3:39 Cute sketch of Misty there
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.
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.
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.
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.
1:28 UNDYNE! LESSGOOOOOOO!
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
2:55 In equally sized boxes with slightly different shades of blue, there will always have the same amount of boobs and butts.
I want to know how these guys were getting pure hydrogen and oxygen back in the 18th century
You're now officially my favorite channel for adding an undertale reference
1:29 Bullet Bill and Undyne!
Crazy stuff. Really impressive how far we've come.
3:00 the molecules on the left be looking kinda sus 🤨📸📸📸📸
How did Avogadro determine that gases with the same volume have the same number of particles?
Nice, I want more of videos about how our knowledge evolved over time
1:27 I see you Undyne.
Wait you're telling me water's NOT an element? Next you're gonna say air isn't one either 😂
Who else with a science degree watched this and still got something out of it?
You would face the wrath of the orb of tornami if you said that to Omi.
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?
1:28 UNDINE!? (I have no idea if I’m spelling that right)
You got my thumbs up for the "H2-wow" line ^_^
Thank you, chemists, for figuring this stuff out so I can sit here watching TH-cam eating whatever chemical magic made these Doritos.
Science history is the best!
I knew water’s the best “element”. It’s literally in a class of its own. *whispers “Water Tribe”
HO! HO! HO!
Santa Claus is so old he still thinks that's the chemical formula for snow.
1:30
Battle against a true water
2:46 Is that true for real gases or just ideal gases. Cause it feels like one of those things that would only be true for ideal gases
It applies to real gasses as well (not perfectly, but good enough for being useful to scientists). - Ever
3:03 this looks very sus😅
You just have a dirty mind.
It took me a while to realize what you were talking about.
I love the art!!!!
Arcadi made the beautiful illustrations on this one. I loved them too! - Ever
Neat video, I like the animation style. Brand new subscriber here :)
Very well explained, thnx!
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.
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.
Scientists discovering water is a compound and not an element is like the bartender discovering that tall man he’s been serving is actually two kids in a trench coat.
Are you telling me Avatar The last Airbender is a Lie
I love how you stay in the comments to answer questions. :)
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”?
Minute Earth's puns in the end >>>>
1:27 undyne is there
Undyne has equivalent strength to:
A piano
A miner
And a Bullet Bill
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
1:27 andine?
why is undyne there at 1:27
3:41 "And that makes me go..."
I don't know why I was bracing myself so hard for the next word to be "apeshit".
0:42 What is the "peculiar gas" that produced water somehow, and why?
hydrogen gas (it was known as "inflammable air" at the time). The name "hydrogen" means "water maker", because it produces water when burned. - Ever
@@MinuteEarth hydrogen produces water when you ignite it? The fire merges the H2O together?
I didn't know it.
@@MinuteEarth How did they get it though?
With this I further understand some Mistry's of chemistry
I like Misty chilling in the corner there.
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
Just remember guys, fundamentally all our technology is either to move water or move a wheel, and everything else thay benefits from it
Holy fuck
Undyne... UNDYNE!??!?!?!?
IK
1:27 is that Undyne
yes