FINALLY someone is addressing this. Sulfur and phosphorous make no sense through the octet rule lens! Once the D orbital gets involved things get weird.
Hi professor , an viewer from India .... i find your videos incredibly helpful and i am currently preparing for jee (an university entrance exam in India) which focuses on chemistry as a part of it. I encourage you to produce more such videos these are incredibly helpful and i find it intriguing these don't get much views .So glad to have you here in this RU-vid platform 😊
I liked your short about helium and watched this video, that’s how I found your channel and I can already tell you’re what we call, “good people”. Much ❤ Love 🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️
Just discovered this treasure trove for chemistry😀! I'm from Singapore and I'm currently preparing for my A-level chemistry, much of what you talk about is relevant to my syllabus. My Chemistry notes have the reasoning that those in Period 3 and below have energetically accessible vacant orbitals (I think it was 4s) so that they can expand their valence electron shell. I'm hoping this explanation helps someone doing the A-levels too, cause its regularly tested in my school😂
It's one of the best and most important videos I ever watched so far, in my 3 years as an ongoing chemistry student, I'm mindblowen, in how great yet simple your explanation is. I should have stumbled on your videos sooner, it would have made my life certainly easy, and chemistry, more fun!
Every model is wrong, but some are useful. Not sure who said that but it is true. Too often I have seen people latch onto a model and take it for an explanation of how the universe works, instead of recognizing the model for the predictive tool that it is, not an explanation.
Sir, please make a video explaining quantum mechanical model, as it is very confusing what does magnetic quantum no. (m) and spin quantum no. (s) stands for?😢
Hi Professor, this was an amazing video. I am currently working on a project regarding the invalidity of expanded octets. I have read a couple of articles but I was wondering if you have any opinion on it. It would amazing if you could possibly make a video talking about it, I think it is a super interesting topic and gives a different perspective on the octet rule. Even if the octet rule is not a rule.
I've done a video on expanded octets, so why not check that one out? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FKmQgpTj9ro.html I'm also now working on a video about molecular orbital theory which solves that problem. If you've subscribed, you should see it in a couple of weeks.
I love the way you grapple with unknowns. Thanks for the key word "supramolecular" in one of your recent replies to my comment. I think I'm ready for the next bite at the apple: I need a skeptic to answer this one...if you please Sir... I'm laying out my assumptions so that you can set them aside of they are wrong, etc... I like science much better than politics or religion. OBSERVING that (1) the oceans cover about 75% of earth, rounding for convenience, and (2) that the oceans are the most efficient handlers of CO2, as compared with rainforest or other non-ocean surface... and (3) assuming oceans absorb an estimated ~20 gigatons of CO2/year... then I infer that if earth were 100% ocean, the absorption figure would rise to, say, 25 gigatons? (Stay with me...) AND Assuming that our cumulative CO2 imbalance is roughly 1,000 gigatons of CO2, or 1 trillion tons more than we had in the year 1780 or so, and getting worse at an accelerating rate... (I don't care the current CO2 density, but I've understood it's roughly 400ppm.) AND that we have a lower bound in our total emissions, which is the CO2 produced by making fertilizers, plus whatever else we can't stop burning... THEREFORE ...we need to remove CO2 faster than nature can do it...? AND Any manmade CO2 Removal (CDR) process that removes less than, say, 20 gigatons/year, net of its own emissions, is a rounding error in our current context... THUS We need a prospective solution that at least makes sense in the overall thermodynamics of its inputs and outputs, and... (big question 1) Is it fair to say existing beaker chemistry process has all of its unknowns in the puzzle of how to reach scale without using hydrocarbons as inputs somewhere, defeating the thermodynamics? and if so (big question 2) What if we start with known scale and thermodynamics -- the Calvin or Krebs cycle -- and work backwards through the unknowns of industrializing the nano-machinery? At least this way, we know the thermodynamics and scale are gonna stay solved until the end... I'm assuming we can use nuclear power (rather than sunlight) to produce electrons and protons, and then replicate the final process as often as we want. Thoughts?
There are more than a few complexities with that line of reasoning, and that means that assumptions and errors can cause a lot of trouble. Very simply, as you say, we are generating CO2 faster than nature can remove it. Removal of CO2 from the atmosphere fundamentally means using far more energy than was used to generate it in the first place, which means that, fundamentally, if we can generate that much energy without fossil fuels, we'd just be better doing that. And, yes, nuclear power will be one key component of that. The problem with artificial CO2 removal is that governments around the world are all assuming that someone else will somehow be able to do it before everything gets properly fucked up. There is only one reasonably efficient way to deal with this mess and that's to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible.
@ThreeTwentysix Thank you. I feel like I'm finally grasping the problem, so far as that goes... Nocera lands on solar power as the only variable that has a feasible scale, pointing out that nuclear plants don't scale up because they wear out too fast. (I hope I'm summarizing his point accurately...) So what's the equation for using 8 ATPs for each CO2 captured in carbohydrates? (I think that's the transaction, isn't it?) I'm trying to calculate the net energy gain from breaking the H2 off the water with sunlight, less the carbs produced. That's the entirety of storage in cellulose (plant fiber), right? Or is there any gain from soil nutrients? I'm trying to check my understanding... Nitrogen in soil comes from lightening strikes, if I understood that food chain. H2 from sunlight. We use the N to build carbs... There's something like 200 million years of sunlight accumulated in fossil fuels in the crust... We've reversed that accumulation in ~200 years. Uh, that's a solar gain of...1/1,000,000 per ADP-to-ATP reaction? I feel like we need to grasp the slope of this ramp to understand the hole we're digging. (Over a long enough time span, we have a grand total absolute energy budget, right?) And there's an implied max equilibrium workflow?
Thanks professor my teacher yesterday scolded me for asking doubt regarding this when I told him this is not a logical answer that 3rd period has 3d orbital so these elements can break octet rule. But I have doubt that what if we assume it is true then also how can making more bonds can be a reason for breaking octet,means I want to ask that if a atom is forming more bonds,will it means it is more stable??🤔
☕ Professor I have a question ⁉️ In this part of the video ( 5:37 ), you said "Then why don't period 3 atoms use their 4s orbital that's lower in energy than the 3d orbital ?" But I always thought that this was the case, I thought that first the 3p orbital and then the 4s orbital would get full but based on your question this isn't what happens?
