I think the difference between conversion and yield was poorly explained. Yield is how much of the input is transformed into the desired output. Conversion is how much of the input is transformed in any way (whether into the desired output or not). To use the cake example, burned crumbs would lower the yield (less cake), but not conversion rate (the crumbs are still transformed). Leftover butter (e.g. the recipe requires 2/3 of a bar) would lower both yield and conversion, as it did not get transformed.
Wait, but why does the leftover butter reduce the yield and conversion? If it was never used in the first place. Like when I make a coffee, say I use 2 tablespoons of coffee grounds from the coffee bag/pouch that has for example 227g of coffee (standard amount of coffee sold in a bag) per cup of water, when I put my coffee grounds in the coffee machine, but there’s still the rest of the coffee in the coffee bag/pouch that I’m not using, but that doesn’t reduce the yield or conversion? Or am I mixing something up or missing something altogether? I understand that yield = the desired result, in this case the amount of coffee I get in my cup, and conversion = stuff like the soggy coffee grounds after the brew is made, and the water absorbed by the coffee grounds that didn’t end up in the cup, or the vapour that’s lost throughout the process etc etc, but I wouldn’t have thought that the unused, untouched coffee would count as conversion Thanks you in advance if you get back to me (or thank you to anyone who feels up for clarifying this)
@@HeyItsKora In your example what was left in the bag was never input. You're only counting the 2 tablespoons that were put IN the coffee. In your example what would lower conversion and yield is any dry coffee grounds remaining in the filter and water that did not pass through, because even though they were put into the machine neither of them contributed to the resulting coffee or it's byproducts.
I am obsessed with this series. I love relearning the basis for the science that I am trying to get a degree in. All of the fields are just amazing to me and I love how they are approached here in the realm of solving problems.
"Alchemy: the science of understanding, deconstructing, and reconstructing matter. However, it is not an all-powerful art; it is impossible to create something out of nothing. If one wishes to obtain something, something of equal value must be given. This is the Law of Equivalent Exchange, the basis of all alchemy. In accordance with this law, there is a taboo among alchemists: human transmutation is strictly forbidden - for what could equal the value of a human soul...?"
This topic reminds me more of economics than engineering, similar to the the work carried out by the production-accountants at the gas company I worked at once.
This may seam obvious, but that's its magic. The biggest problems I've faced in Environmental Engineering and Hydraulics become overly simple when you write them in these simple terms.
Im an adult, and watch crash course all the time. I know nothing about engineering, and generally have no idea what she is saying. But my god I could listen to her talk alll day. Her voice is so soothing
Your example of burning coal to make electricity omitted the major mass byproduct of coal combustion, carbon dioxide. The three byproducts you named, ash, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, are, by mass, minor byproducts. There is another, often ignored byproduct, waste heat. In coal fired power plants, about 55-60% of the energy produced by combustion comes out, not as electricity, but as waste heat, usually dumped into surrounding air or water.
Energy and mass are conserved, yes, but it's specifically energy and mass together, not seperately. One can be converted into the other, and generally is in chemical reactions.
Not without a huge yield of them cramped into a same space, as we know it. Most engineering correctly doesn't care about this, as it's both inefficient and impractical in everyday used.
That's why it's better to think in terms of molecules instead of mass. But even if you don't do it- the mass/energy change (chemical bonds) is very small.
We live better than other living things , knowing causalities , acting on causes and getting desirable effects. However , in the world , there are causal networks of multiple causes , multiple effects , interactions , cyclic process or long chain of causalities including many uncertainties , like butterfly effects. Reality is complicated. However , engineering can solve problems tackling such complexity , in other word , practically 💖.
*_...Application 1. black hole engineering: as you can't contain gravity entirely in a BH so you can't do 100%-efficient BHE... Application 2. charge particle engineering: you can't contain charge entirely in a CP, but-can you do 100% efficient CPE, (How does an atom capture a photon bigger than itself)... So how do we define the measure of 'localized-conservation'..._*
Actually, there is no way even for a perfect system to convert 100 kg of iron ore into steel, because ore isn't 100% iron atoms. At the very least, you have to account for oxygen contained in the ore.
You have a problem with conservation of mass in your example. Which is rather ironic, of course. If you recycle 30kg, you did not actually put 130kg into the system, only the same 100kg. Hence: output=91kg, "waste"=9kg. The example assumes, of course, that yield = conversion (selectivity=100%), which is never the case, obviously, even more so after recycling. Keep also in mind, that chemists usually use only the main reactant as a reference for yield/conversion. This of course could lead to values >100% and to prevent that equivalents (=molar quantities, usually) are actually used in calculations. Source: used to calculate these "for a living".
Based on the explanation provided here I don't understand how conversion and yield are different.. what is then the point of differentiating between them?
As I understand it... Conversion means the amount consumed from the initial input in the process (... And converted in to something) So, 60% conversion means that the 60% of the initial raw material is used in the process and rest of the raw material i.e. 40% is intact, not used at all, liyin in the box (which is why she explained it as 40% leftover). Now, whereas yeild focuses on the final amount of derised/useful outcome of the process, steel in this case, with respect to the initial amount. Which means this process with 30% of yeild rate will always produce 30% steel of the any amount of raw material given as input. So, In this example iron raw material input is 100kg so,steel output is 30kg and rest is the waste. Important thing to note here is that the waste generated will be more than the leftovers (ie intact raw material inside the box) because waste also contains another component called byproduct (unuseful/undesirable output). Leftovers of iron raw material can be collected and used as input in next cycle but not the byproducts.
I got the answer. Inside the cube is the space stone. It can provide an infinite amount of sustainable energy. Oh, wait. I forgot Thanos broke the cube and stole the space stone and killed Loki.
Well, they often are used similar in engineering. Still, as an electrical energy engineer, I'm kinda irritated that they didn't focus more on the way more useful energy conservation. You can calculate so much great stuff with it.
Hmmm this got ne thinking... if I start reusing toilet paper by washing it in my drinking water, ill SAVE money AND no matter goes to waste, bcuz I'm reusing my waste thru ingestion. Plus I'm pretty sure my digestive track never gets ALL available nutrients the 1st time. AMirite?
I think the difference between conversion and yield was poorly explained.
Yield is how much of the input is transformed into the desired output. Conversion is how much of the input is transformed in any way (whether into the desired output or not). To use the cake example, burned crumbs would lower the yield (less cake), but not conversion rate (the crumbs are still transformed). Leftover butter (e.g. the recipe requires 2/3 of a bar) would lower both yield and conversion, as it did not get transformed.
Thank you! I was confused as to why in the video they sounded exactly the same. This clarifies things.
Like displacement and distance traveled?
Wait, but why does the leftover butter reduce the yield and conversion? If it was never used in the first place. Like when I make a coffee, say I use 2 tablespoons of coffee grounds from the coffee bag/pouch that has for example 227g of coffee (standard amount of coffee sold in a bag) per cup of water, when I put my coffee grounds in the coffee machine, but there’s still the rest of the coffee in the coffee bag/pouch that I’m not using, but that doesn’t reduce the yield or conversion? Or am I mixing something up or missing something altogether? I understand that yield = the desired result, in this case the amount of coffee I get in my cup, and conversion = stuff like the soggy coffee grounds after the brew is made, and the water absorbed by the coffee grounds that didn’t end up in the cup, or the vapour that’s lost throughout the process etc etc, but I wouldn’t have thought that the unused, untouched coffee would count as conversion
Thanks you in advance if you get back to me (or thank you to anyone who feels up for clarifying this)
@@HeyItsKora In your example what was left in the bag was never input. You're only counting the 2 tablespoons that were put IN the coffee. In your example what would lower conversion and yield is any dry coffee grounds remaining in the filter and water that did not pass through, because even though they were put into the machine neither of them contributed to the resulting coffee or it's byproducts.
I am obsessed with this series. I love relearning the basis for the science that I am trying to get a degree in. All of the fields are just amazing to me and I love how they are approached here in the realm of solving problems.
Same here buddy.
I read your comment and cried. I never felt so grateful
I'm currently taking my Master's degree in Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. This crash course is super helpful! I love the host!
"Alchemy: the science of understanding, deconstructing, and reconstructing matter. However, it is not an all-powerful art; it is impossible to create something out of nothing. If one wishes to obtain something, something of equal value must be given. This is the Law of Equivalent Exchange, the basis of all alchemy. In accordance with this law, there is a taboo among alchemists: human transmutation is strictly forbidden - for what could equal the value of a human soul...?"
Alan Telemishev reciting Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. I see you.
Ah, I see your a man of culture as well
A banana?
this is much better than boring science
It costs an arm and a leg.I love how they used the expression and made it literally cost an arm and a leg.
This topic reminds me more of economics than engineering, similar to the the work carried out by the production-accountants at the gas company I worked at once.
Process Engineering basically, calculating yield and stuff. Process Engineering, a subset of Chemical Engineering is really about math and economics.
This may seam obvious, but that's its magic. The biggest problems I've faced in Environmental Engineering and Hydraulics become overly simple when you write them in these simple terms.
Erómeon I just v,c, Mac. Night reemgirmay1@Gmail. com
Im an adult, and watch crash course all the time. I know nothing about engineering, and generally have no idea what she is saying. But my god I could listen to her talk alll day. Her voice is so soothing
If they released CrashCourse: Phonebook, and it was just Dr. Somara reading the yellow pages, I'd still watch 20 episodes.
A lot of the comments are gonna be Fullmetal Alchemist references lol.
Yes! Talk about Industrial waste! We need to know!
I love this musical score for this series intro. SO MUCH OOMPF! 🙃
Thanks a lot for this week’s lesson, Shini
I like to think this way like how I think of audio, to get a quality mix.
Thanks!
These videos are so so so so sooooooo awesome!
Lol I read " law of conversation" 😅 but I'm still gonna watch the vid
post processing/color look much batter on this compared to the previous ones. Nice job on that, and the content :)
5:20 The answer to that is fiber
the presenter is so likeable! I love this series
Your example of burning coal to make electricity omitted the major mass byproduct of coal combustion, carbon dioxide. The three byproducts you named, ash, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, are, by mass, minor byproducts. There is another, often ignored byproduct, waste heat. In coal fired power plants, about 55-60% of the energy produced by combustion comes out, not as electricity, but as waste heat, usually dumped into surrounding air or water.
Wow ,this show comes epic and epic with the time
Ayyy nice fallout reference
Literally got an exam on this the day before this. Timing
Chemical Engineering 101
Energy and mass are conserved, yes, but it's specifically energy and mass together, not seperately. One can be converted into the other, and generally is in chemical reactions.
This engineering, except for nuclear reactions, you don't need to bother with thinking about mass to energy conversion. Not with chemical reactions.
You can't convert energy back into mass tho. Or can you. Hmmm~
Not without a huge yield of them cramped into a same space, as we know it. Most engineering correctly doesn't care about this, as it's both inefficient and impractical in everyday used.
That's why it's better to think in terms of molecules instead of mass. But even if you don't do it- the mass/energy change (chemical bonds) is very small.
Patrick Reding You’re wrong.
Love the Nuka Cola!
We live better than other living things , knowing causalities , acting on causes and getting desirable effects.
However , in the world , there are causal networks of multiple causes , multiple effects , interactions , cyclic process
or long chain of causalities including many uncertainties , like butterfly effects.
Reality is complicated. However , engineering can solve problems tackling such complexity , in other word , practically 💖.
Brilliantly explained
*_...Application 1. black hole engineering: as you can't contain gravity entirely in a BH so you can't do 100%-efficient BHE... Application 2. charge particle engineering: you can't contain charge entirely in a CP, but-can you do 100% efficient CPE, (How does an atom capture a photon bigger than itself)... So how do we define the measure of 'localized-conservation'..._*
Thanks a lot ma'am!
Can't wait for software engineering.
Actually, there is no way even for a perfect system to convert 100 kg of iron ore into steel, because ore isn't 100% iron atoms. At the very least, you have to account for oxygen contained in the ore.
I ❤ this course
great video! are you also going to include agricultural engineering in this series?
Hey Crash course, can you please update your playlist section to add these new playlist courses. It would be a great help
Thanks
This is basically 2/3 of a course in Mass and Energy balances on my university.
A magical box would be infinitely efficient.
❤👍🏽 great presentation 👏🏽👏🏽
I love these videos :-)
Cool, cool this gets posted 2 days after my exam ..........
Looks like you have a problem with colour correction. The video recording is desaturated and a bit cold. Please check the settings next time.
You have a problem with conservation of mass in your example. Which is rather ironic, of course.
If you recycle 30kg, you did not actually put 130kg into the system, only the same 100kg. Hence: output=91kg, "waste"=9kg.
The example assumes, of course, that yield = conversion (selectivity=100%), which is never the case, obviously, even more so after recycling.
Keep also in mind, that chemists usually use only the main reactant as a reference for yield/conversion. This of course could lead to values >100% and to prevent that equivalents (=molar quantities, usually) are actually used in calculations.
Source: used to calculate these "for a living".
Basically Fullmetal Alchemist
Based on the explanation provided here I don't understand how conversion and yield are different.. what is then the point of differentiating between them?
Nuka cola
This is actually reynolds theroem used for mass conservation right?
The lore of conservation
Yay!!
I didn't get the difference between conversion and yield, the examples look exactly the same only with different percentages
As I understand it...
Conversion means the amount consumed from the initial input in the process (... And converted in to something) So, 60% conversion means that the 60% of the initial raw material is used in the process and rest of the raw material i.e. 40% is intact, not used at all, liyin in the box (which is why she explained it as 40% leftover).
Now, whereas yeild focuses on the final amount of derised/useful outcome of the process, steel in this case, with respect to the initial amount. Which means this process with 30% of yeild rate will always produce 30% steel of the any amount of raw material given as input. So, In this example iron raw material input is 100kg so,steel output is 30kg and rest is the waste.
Important thing to note here is that the waste generated will be more than the leftovers (ie intact raw material inside the box) because waste also contains another component called byproduct (unuseful/undesirable output). Leftovers of iron raw material can be collected and used as input in next cycle but not the byproducts.
Conversion is how much butter is turned into a cake. Yield is how much cake you've got.
It's a bit ironic for the hostess to call it the _Lore_ of Conservation.
Finally
Is this a video on my habit of hoarding? Oh nvm.
World History With Dan and annalise was a wonderful trip
I got the answer. Inside the cube is the space stone. It can provide an infinite amount of sustainable energy. Oh, wait. I forgot Thanos broke the cube and stole the space stone and killed Loki.
But I thought that when you use energy, the mass changes because it is relative to energy.
I came for the Nuka-Cola
Someone : Industrial engineering isn't actuall engineering.
Me :
couldn't u mention the guy who came up with the Law of Conservation of Mass?
*All the world is my little box.*
Now we are talking, lets get to work..
Where's the part where we learn about the lore of conservation?
Lore of Conservation.
Hello from physics....it feels weird to lump all the conservation laws together like this.
Well, they often are used similar in engineering. Still, as an electrical energy engineer, I'm kinda irritated that they didn't focus more on the way more useful energy conservation. You can calculate so much great stuff with it.
You look like Indian shuttler pv sindhu mam
I think either the definitions for conversion and yeild are incorrect, or I just don't understand them
Pointing out in the title that this video is about the law of ENERGY conservation or the PHYSICAL conservation might have been helpful...
Can't the pan be boundary, the raw material for cake be system?
"styll"
I love her.
Woooo hooooo oh my
Was that a Nuka-Cola bottle?
Nuka cola?
💖.
Kept waiting for the "A-ha" moment. Was disappointed.
Nuka COla
Conservation sweet baby jeeeeezusss
This doesn't work with water !!!
This girl is so pretty and smart....her future husband will be a very lucky fella!!! :)
You are smart, *and* beautiful!
Horny boi
BOI
We need arabic translation for this videos
Is that thermodynamics 😂
mohamed magdy Thermodynamics uses this. A lot.
Melon Lord LOL way a lot however she only mentioned the open system and the closed system didn't bring up the insluated system 😂😂😂😂
Third
What is happening to this poor cake?
Is she MKBHD's sister ???
Why is the room feels so dark, can you brighten it up
18th
Nuka-Cola,you do know that is form fallout right...
Hmmm this got ne thinking... if I start reusing toilet paper by washing it in my drinking water, ill SAVE money AND no matter goes to waste, bcuz I'm reusing my waste thru ingestion. Plus I'm pretty sure my digestive track never gets ALL available nutrients the 1st time. AMirite?
FIRST!!!
I keep telling myself I wouldn't watch her if her videos weren't educational.
I would. 😍😁
background color choice is really bad, it promotes blending with the reporter's skin colour. i can't see where is the person talking :)
Might need to check your eyes.. Or buy a better monitor/ not watch in full sunlight.
this is so F***ING comfusing
Who else found her voice dull and boring 😴😴
You need to stop taking drugs
But if we believe in the theory of creation beginning with Luca, the first cell, the surely we have to imagine something being created out of nothing?