Hi and welcome to my channel. I teach chemistry and make these videos for my students as well as for anyone who wants to learn more about the world around them. Don't hesitate to ask questions in the comments section-- I try to answer all questions as soon as possible.
This is the volume of the solution (as you said), not the solvent. The solution includes all components: the solvent, water, and the solute, NaF. So changing the volume of the solution is irrelevant to the molarity. It stays the same. If you halve the solution, both the amount of solvent AND solute are halved, so the concentration is constant. If you take 1 liter of 1.3 M NaF, half of it, 0.5 L, will have 1.3/2 mol NaF, or 0.65 mol NaF. Hope that makes sense.
I have a question,when they are revolving in the P orbital so the electorns are moving far and then coming near then going far continously from the nucleus.Then determining the shell would be difficult so how did they not confuse with it?
This is a common misconception, that the shell is synonymous with the orbital. The shell is an old word that refers to the principle quantum number, which is the number of the orbital in the common naming scheme 1s, 2s, 2p, etc. The 1 and the 2 here are the principle quantum numbers and so they are the shells. The letter refers to the shape of the orbital. The "shell" (principle quantum number) refers to both the size of the orbital and the energy level within which the orbital exists. The electron does not move in any defined path within the orbital. The electron movement can be thought of as occupying areas of higher and lower probability within each orbital, the probability being the probability of finding the electron in any one part of the orbital versus another part. There are areas within each orbital where there is a higher probability of finding the electron and other areas where there is a lower probability of finding the electron. This is the closest we can come to defining a path for an electron. Using a word like "revolving" really has no meaning when referring to electron movement.
Who else came up with this method on your own? I remember using this and then explaining it to a teacher who said it was not a good idea. I think a good teacher would have said "if it works for you, go for it".
It's a simple shortcut, and it works. Like most short cuts (cross multiplying in math for example) it allows a student to get the right answer without knowing why that is the right answer. The fact that you came up with the shortcut yourself likely means you understand why it works. So I think the teacher should have asked you to explain why the method works, and then if you offer an explanation that shows you understand it, to then say go for it.
This is absolutely phenomenal, I mean of course not the condition of the world but the video. This is such a clear explanation of the science behind global warming without making a person have to research on 50 something websites for the same information. And the clarity with which it has been explained is something I cannot put into words. Thanks a ton!!
Using Stefan-Boltzman in equilibrium, CO2, being 0.04% of the atmosphere, contributes little to the total Earth emissivity of about 0.95. CO2 alone doesn't give a warming result. Estimates of atmospheric H2O are all < 5% but even if atmospheric H20 were to double to 10%, Stefan-Boltzman gives the new equilibrium temperate increase at < 1C. Is that correct?
The fact that emissivity of CO2 is so close to 1 at relevant IR ranges supports its importance in radiative forcing as described in the video, and so supports its importance to warming. Atmospheric water vapor concentration is limited by the amount of liquid water (primarily in clouds and surface water) that enables condensing vapor to reach an equilibrium with evaporating liquid water, which is what we call 100% humidity. This equilibrium can get as high as 4% atmospheric water vapor in hot climates. If water reached 10% of atmospheric gases, that would likely be past water's tipping point and so the earth would be in a runaway warming, so likely no equilibrium would be reached, at least not before we are all dead. Quantifying emissivity will give the same warming values presented in the video.
There’s two electrons existing in one orbital right. Two electrons of different spin states specifically. So one electron interferes with itself to form a standing wave. But in an orbital, or better termed degenerate orbital, where the energy level is the same two electrons are existing. How are their standing waves not interfering?
de Broglie’s 1924 model was a description of electron behavior justifying Bohr’s quantum electron (1913). The mathematics of Schrodinger’s 1926 equation was modified by Pauli (1926) to include his exclusion principle, which creates degenerate orbitals to account for the existence of multi-electron atoms. These mathematical expressions I believe do not specifically address de Broglie’s idea of wave interference beyond the separation of degenerate orbitals. The flaw here is that all occupied orbitals overlap at some point since all orbitals converge at the nucleus. So while I have not really answered your question (sorry) I do think the answer lies in Pauli’s modification of the Schrodinger equation.
Rutherford had done prior experiments with different metals that gave the same result as gold. For Rutherford, these experiments confirmed Thompson's atomic model and strongly suggested there could be no other result-- he assumed looking beyond a 2 degree range would yield nothing. However, being the consummate experimentalist that he was, in addition to knowing the substructure of the atom was resting on indirect evidence, he understood that the model could be wrong, even if he did not believe that would be the case. Additionally, he wanted to strengthen his conclusion of the validity of Thompson's model by showing there were no deflections beyond the 2% range. So he went ahead and looked for deflections a full 360 degrees around the gold foil. The positive results strongly showed a revision of the model was required.
OMG. I`m a second-year biotech student, and FINALLY, I UNDERSTOOD THIS STUFF. I love that Mr. Crash explained it so simply, without all fancy words. My tutors are so furious that I don`t get all chemical names and that I can`t remember such basic things, and okay, sorry, it`s hard for me to get everything oral, I need pictures and simple words. THAT`S ALL I`M ASKING FOR. SO THAAAAANK YOOOOOUUUUU SOOOOOO MUUUUCHHH!!!!
Yes, but Heisenberg's (1926) model was the same as Schrodinger's (1926), based on the electron's energy manifesting as a wave. A mathematician (forgot who) in 1926 pointed out the the two mathematical expressions were describing the exact same atom, the same electron behavior, and in 1930 Paul Dirac combined the two into a single formalism.
Love the neocortex. Neocortical folds make for a manifold understanding of folds of atomic orbitals and folds of hybrid orbitals. For one more drupelet, I plan (soon!) on adding a video on molecular orbitals, for a final fold upon folds upon folds. By the way, love the drupelet metaphor. I never would have thought of it. Thanks! : ) BTW #2, if you really are lacking familiarity with electron (atomic) orbitals, see my video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ewf7RlVNBSA.html
Reading Peter Atkins book,”Atoms, Electrons and Change.” He used Faraday’s lecture on the candle flame to introduce the same principles. Your video was a tremendous help in understanding this phenomena.
I loved reading Faraday's lectures on the candle. The guy was too brilliant. I created an entire lab for my students based on his experiments. I also love reading Atkins. I'll have to take a look at that one.
Hi- sorry I just retired (!) and these files were on my school account which has been closed. I’ll have to dig them up and will post them ASAP! Thanks for asking!
I found them. This is the MSWord file, the formatting requires MSWord-- docs.google.com/document/d/1yUeVy6xfQ_50EK1dLCaa3SbjrlZjD0Yd/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116884422502737165564&rtpof=true&sd=true and this is a pdf of the Word file drive.google.com/file/d/1TX2Kzdsw1HQyIzsHsL6ZDaRCkvkKzftb/view?usp=drive_link
Thanks so much for a very gratifying comment. You should know (if you haven’t already noticed) that I pinned a previous comment and my answer regarding the potency of CO2 versus CH4, something that was not well considered in the video narrative.
