|
|
Post by snj90 on May 2, 2021 10:31:34 GMT -5
A thread dedicated to the science of chemistry.
I remember this experiment in high school (done by the chemistry teacher). Sugar and sulfuric acid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benfxmth on May 2, 2021 11:38:48 GMT -5
I'm surprised a thread like this wasn't started before. As a kid, I found it pretty cool to watch potassium permanganate react with glycerin, especially with the potassium ions giving the flames a lilac color; I've seen it for myself a couple of times a few years ago.
FWIW, the reactions that take place are, in case you'd like not to watch the video above: 14KMnO4 + 4C3H5(OH)3⟶7K2CO3 + 7Mn2O3 + 5CO2 + 16H2O—which is a redox reaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 2, 2021 12:05:22 GMT -5
The extreme viscosity of pitch is the subject of an ongoing experiment:
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 2, 2021 12:08:33 GMT -5
That's unfair, in here for the students labs we are definitively not allowed to show any reaction which triggers a spontaneous combustion, or that risks to send graphitised carbon impregnated with sulfuric acid on the face of some student. The most pyrotechnic experiment we did as student was probably the classical metallic sodium in water, performed outdoor several meters away from us :/
One of the most memorable experiments I can remember from the years as a student was the synthesis of the triboluminescent copper complex, during the third year of university. (Triboluminescent means that it shows a luminescence, ie the emission of visible light, when the crystals of the salt are broken or subjected to other strong mechanical forces).
|
|
|
|
Post by Benfxmth on May 2, 2021 12:37:03 GMT -5
Oh wow, I watched NurdRage's videos a lot a few years ago. AFAIC, europium tetrakis (dibenzoylmethide)-triethylammonium is the triboluminescent substance currently known (although, it emits red light as mentioned in the orig. video of triboluminescent copper thiocyanate complex crystals). Here's a more recent video of the triphenylphosphinebis(pyridine)thiocyanato-copper(I) (blue smash glow  ) crystals being ground in a blender. |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 5, 2021 3:41:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 5, 2021 4:00:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 13, 2021 16:22:51 GMT -5
A bit more on the biochemistry side of things. The ability to metabolize alcohol is essential to life. The human gut produces approximately 3g of ethanol every day, which is equivalent to about the fifth part of a standard alcoholic drink (which contains about 14 grams of ethanol, according to US definitions).
Alcohol dehydrogenase is found in some quantity in the stomach, but is maximally concentrated in hepatocytes (liver cells).
The alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme drives this chemical reaction.
My enzymes have certainly dehydrogenated many, many ETOH molecules, and are doing so as I speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 15, 2021 12:37:55 GMT -5
An overview of the differences between beers which are "carbonated" versus "nitrogenated." Guinness is one of the most well-known examples if a nitro brew, but nowadays an increasing number of nitro brews have emerged. Personally, I really like the mouthfeel of a Guinness, so I certainly do countenance the use of nitrogen, but it's certainly not for every beer. Drinking a Guinness now.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 31, 2021 8:16:37 GMT -5
Just did a little chemical reaction here this morning. I noticed my kitchen sink wasn't draining as fast as I'd like. So I went out, got some baking soda (sodium bicarbonate - NaHCO3) and white vinegar (about 5% acetic acid - CH3COOH). First, I poured a kettle full of boiling water down the drain. Then added about a cup of baking soda, pushing some of it down manually. Waited about 7 minutes. Then poured a cup of the white vinegar down. Cool watching it react. After about 10 minuted, poured another tea kettle full of boiling water down the drain.
The chemical equation is: NaHCO3 + CH3COOH → CH3COONa + H2O + CO2(g)
Producing some new water molecules and releasing CO2 gas (sorry greenies), along with sodium acetate.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Jun 12, 2021 6:16:35 GMT -5
Cool stuff. I only disagree when he mentioned man's existence being more than ten thousand years old
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Jun 12, 2021 15:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Jun 13, 2021 8:31:19 GMT -5
Usually people mostly consider chemistry to be a science centred on mixing stuff to make them either change color or explode,
That's the fun part.
Absolutely!
Radiometric dating really isn't useful in establishing minimum ages for things. Doing so makes too many unwarranted assumptions, such as a starting point where the daughter elements or isotopes were not present, and has been shown to be unreliable. However, radiometric dating can be used to establish maximum ages for things. The presence of carbon-14 in fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and diamonds, for example--which are supposed to be much older according to evolution, and in which carbon-14 would have long ago decayed to undetectable levels--can be taken as proof that these things are not as old as claimed by evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Jun 13, 2021 10:59:23 GMT -5
Usually people mostly consider chemistry to be a science centred on mixing stuff to make them either change color or explode,
That's the fun part.
Absolutely!
Radiometric dating really isn't useful in establishing minimum ages for things. Doing so makes too many unwarranted assumptions, such as a starting point where the daughter elements or isotopes were not present, and has been shown to be unreliable. However, radiometric dating can be used to establish maximum ages for things. The presence of carbon-14 in fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and diamonds, for example--which are supposed to be much older according to evolution, and in which carbon-14 would have long ago decayed to undetectable levels--can be taken as proof that these things are not as old as claimed by evolution.
The sources of your statements can only be tracked back to journals like "Creation Research Society Quarterly 7", "Origins", "Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism" etc... , which are quite infamous for not having any sort of peer review, for example from the people who can actually do some radiocarbon dating. Most of those results were associated with the contamination of the sample with "recent" bacteria or other living matter, bad handling of the sample, or interference with other radioisotopes undergoing beta decay in the sample (in short, wrong experimental procedures). The formation of "fresh 14C" from exotic radioactive decay routes in elements present in rocks was also pointed out, and could actually explain its presence is some kind of rocks or fossil sources. The all of this is well known in the labs that manage to pass the peer review process, which instead publish papers like: |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Jun 13, 2021 11:07:28 GMT -5
That's the fun part.
Absolutely!
Radiometric dating really isn't useful in establishing minimum ages for things. Doing so makes too many unwarranted assumptions, such as a starting point where the daughter elements or isotopes were not present, and has been shown to be unreliable. However, radiometric dating can be used to establish maximum ages for things. The presence of carbon-14 in fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and diamonds, for example--which are supposed to be much older according to evolution, and in which carbon-14 would have long ago decayed to undetectable levels--can be taken as proof that these things are not as old as claimed by evolution.
The sources of your statements can only be tracked back to journals like "Creation Research Society Quarterly 7", "Origins", "Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism" etc... , which are quite infamous for not having any sort of peer review, for example from the people who can actually do some radiocarbon dating. Most of those results were associated with the contamination of the sample with "recent" bacteria or other living matter, bad handling of the sample, or interference with other radioisotopes undergoing beta decay in the sample (in short, wrong experimental procedures). The formation of "fresh 14C" from exotic radioactive decay routes in elements present in rocks was also pointed out, and could actually explain its presence is some kind of rocks or fossil sources. The all of this is well known in the labs that manage to pass the peer review process, which instead publish papers like:
I thought you would say that. It's what the old earth side typically says. But it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Old-earth advocates repeat the same two hackneyed defenses, even though they were resoundingly demolished years ago. The first cry is, “It’s all contamination.” Yet for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated brutal treatments with strong acids and bleaches to rid them of all contamination.6 And when the instruments are tested with blank samples, they yield zero radiocarbon, so there can’t be any contamination or instrument problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on Jun 13, 2021 11:30:48 GMT -5
A Chemistry debate between a professor of Chemistry, and a New Jersey pizza enthusiast. This is why the Internet was invented |
|
|
|
Post by Benfxmth on Jun 13, 2021 11:40:07 GMT -5
A Chemistry debate between a professor of Chemistry, and a New Jersey pizza enthusiast. This is why the Internet was invented Lol, indeed |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Jun 13, 2021 11:47:09 GMT -5
A Chemistry debate between a professor of Chemistry, and a New Jersey pizza enthusiast. This is why the Internet was invented LOL. Well, what if that NJ pizza enthusiast is right? I see nothing preventing that from being so. Anyway, I intended this thread for recreational purposes, and I like chemistry, and always have. I happened to watch the TED talk video I posted yesterday, and enjoyed it, and thought I'd share it. I only stated that I disagreed with a few statements he made, which really had nothing to do with the presentation itself. |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Jun 13, 2021 14:52:02 GMT -5
The sources of your statements can only be tracked back to journals like "Creation Research Society Quarterly 7", "Origins", "Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism" etc... , which are quite infamous for not having any sort of peer review, for example from the people who can actually do some radiocarbon dating. Most of those results were associated with the contamination of the sample with "recent" bacteria or other living matter, bad handling of the sample, or interference with other radioisotopes undergoing beta decay in the sample (in short, wrong experimental procedures). The formation of "fresh 14C" from exotic radioactive decay routes in elements present in rocks was also pointed out, and could actually explain its presence is some kind of rocks or fossil sources. The all of this is well known in the labs that manage to pass the peer review process, which instead publish papers like:
I thought you would say that. It's what the old earth side typically says. But it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Old-earth advocates repeat the same two hackneyed defenses, even though they were resoundingly demolished years ago. The first cry is, “It’s all contamination.” Yet for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated brutal treatments with strong acids and bleaches to rid them of all contamination.6 And when the instruments are tested with blank samples, they yield zero radiocarbon, so there can’t be any contamination or instrument problems.
Find a source which doesn't have "genesis", "creationism" etc.. in the name, and that has passed a peer review, and maybe I can put some effort in a larger bibliographic search. Btw, in analytical chemistry, the brutal acid treatment and similar are one of the most source of contamination of the original sample. The other main point is also that for such old samples, the contamination with "fresher carbon" can also happen before being handled by any person, and that's all stuff that other labs takes into account by comparing with standards other than the blank. In those measurements they are really pushing the technique to its sensibility limit, generally speaking in those cases it's much more likely to get artefactual results than real ones in those cases. |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Jun 13, 2021 14:52:44 GMT -5
A Chemistry debate between a professor of Chemistry, and a New Jersey pizza enthusiast. This is why the Internet was invented btw, I'm just a postdoc, not a professor XD |
|
) crystals being ground in a blender.