How DO Molecules Store Energy?

[@hristohristov2882]

criminally underrated channel

[@theWinterWalker]

Agreed

[@Killerkraft975]

I like his videos which go in depth with explanations, but simplifies them enough for those with basic chemistry knowledge. I hate how some channels act as the viewers know nothing.

[@Aarush.A.S]

Ya

[@room5245]

Nice pepe also yes

[@MaherSabbagh-de2vl]

Yes

[@steliosjaj]

I just got my bachelors in chemistry. You have by far the highest quality chemistry-information related content on youtube. Your explanations always amaze me. You seem to have such a deep knowledge in so complex topics.

[@dis_guy7]

@AIraper i found your next victim

[@miffylova]

Im thinking of getting a bachelors chemistry, how was it? What are you doing for work now?

[@kamalibrathwaite]

​@@miffylova Biochemistry Major. Have done a couple of Chem courses. Chemistry is fun, the only area of Chemistry that I had challenges with was *Physical Chemistry*

[@steliosjaj]

​​@@miffylovaI am not working yet, in my country opportunities are very limited. I will be starting my masters in September and then I will leave abroad. If you are just trying to do the bare minimum and just pass the courses with low grades, you are not going to face severe difficulties. If you are trying to get good grades though, just like I did, good luck with that. It is going to be really difficult. Labs sometimes are graded based on your yield (in synthetic labs) or your error (in analytical labs). This makes it almost impossible to get good or perfect grades consistently. In subjects such as biochemistry we needed to know the whole metabolism by heart. They would ask us for example in the finals, if an aminoacid would be radioactive after giving radioactive CO2 to a plant and to name the radioactive carbon of said aminoacid. Madness. My program was 4 years in duration. During the final year I had to do lab work everyday for my thesis. Since I chose OChem it would usually take me 5-7 hours of lab work daily, without accounting for the courses that I had each day. I would go to the uni for at least 6-8 hours each day, some times even 10+, for the whole last year. It burnt me out.

[@Olivia-wg8gv]

@@miffylovanot the og commenter but I’m currently doing a chem degree and it’s awesome and fascinating!! A few people I know who graduated with just a bachelor’s now work in the polymer industry, and one person ik who had a bachelor’s in biochemistry worked on genetically engineering fruit using CRISPR. I personally plan on continuing to grad school. There are a ton of areas of chemistry so really you could probably find a way to apply it to any interest!!

[@HenriqueCSJ]

Hi Andrew, I am also a chemist here in Brazil, conducting my research using computational chemistry. I’d like to congratulate you on the excellent content you’re creating. Your videos are not only entertaining but also retain the interesting details that make chemistry so fascinating. The presentations are very well balanced (see what I did there?) and are useful even for more experienced chemists. Whenever I watch such quality videos, I am reminded of why I love this field so much. Thank you.

[@jerrycornelius5986]

Excellent very clear and deep. Too many scientific “experts” get a KZbin following by being contrarian and making scientific arguments against commonly held explanations. But they don’t quite get to the full explanation because they lack the depth of understanding for all the topics they cover. Three twenty six has a deep understanding of its subject and explains it clearly.

[@brucegoodwin634]

Clearly, or with greater clarity? Apologies for niggling, but I think the good doctor is trying to make this point.

[@evilotis01]

@@brucegoodwin634 same thing, mr nitpicker

[@DarthCalculus]

I'm a high school physics teacher. I am always very gratified to see that my explanations are consistent with what I see here. Thank you!

[@videos_not_found]

That' s called confirmation bias😊 No insult, no one came up with an idea how to avoid it ..

[@volta2aire]

*Well done young man!* Carbon dioxide is actually able to release energy if you react it with magnesium metal after ignition. 2Mg + CO2 --> 2MgO + C The loosely held electrons in Mg end up back in the carbon atom or rather between carbon atoms. *The energy is stored in the potential for this rearrangement.* MgO is quite stable and it would of course take lots more energy to move the electrons from O= back to the Mg++. *Mg++ and O= are held tightly by ionic bonding* in a lattice.

[@tabunes2097]

It basically boils down to (1) the difference in electonegativity (EN) between atoms and (2) how many electrons are "shared" between the atoms. Since oxygen has the 2nd highest EN, it always favors those atoms with the lowest EN since these atoms beg to give their valence electrons away. In case of your example above, in CO2 one O-atom "shares" 2 electrons with the C-atom as it is the same within MgO. But since Mg has an EN of 1.2 and C "only" 2.5, Mg can easily reduce CO2 to C by stripping away the 2 O-atoms. While CO2 is held together by polar covalent bonds, MgO is already an ionic bond which is much stronger than the covalent bond.

[@MisbahUlHaque-bh4cr]

Actually MgO can also release energy on reaction with acid like HCl

[@dannyannet154]

chemically underrated channel

[@PabloA64]

About forty years ago, I had to repeat a year of high school because I had a teacher who couldn't explain chemistry and I ended up hating it because of him. But I never imagined that I liked it so much until I saw this channel, like so many others. How I wish I could tell this teacher that this is the way to teach. Thanks you.-

[@arisingh4867]

I'm sorry you had that experience dude. And tbqh if your teacher couldn't teach, then you didn't have a teacher 😭

[@minhhoangvo4759]

​@@arisingh4867you act like it a tragic story😂

[@coreyyanofsky]

1:06 "chubby wittle kitty" is a wild choice for this illustration

[@조재의-i6n]

Your channel makes me born again in many ways. Deep and very clear. English Learner from the S. Korea

[@Qefyan]

Straight to the point, highly informative, well detailed, lovely animations and images for reference, and most importantly no annoying background music that enhance distractions. Thank you sir!

[@leroyzack265]

The best explanation. Even a physicist need to visit this channel for a deeper explanation because chemistry is really a whole complete branch of science on it's own.

[@SecularMentat]

I love this explanation. That 2700 kJ/mol in decomposing glucose as a single step is enough to blow apart a cell's membranes. But it's done stepwise in little isomer changes and decarboxylation steps.

[@sarathkumar4343]

Your simplicity in explanation indicates the vastness of knowledge you have sir... Keep making good content like there sir

[@vikaspoddar001]

He is back with another banger

[@huailiulin]

agree

[@jdata]

The last few minutes of this video explain really well why I watch this channel to begin with! We all need accurate models in our head to understand the world. If you're a chemist this is obviously important for your career. I'm just a huge chemistry nerd and getting this kind of detailed and accurate information on the nature of chemistry is just SO entertaining and fun! Thanks for another great video!

[@AySz88]

To be honest, I think the part at 17:45 - that students end up so confused by the "paradox" of why carbon dioxide and water release energy as they form their bonds, rather than absorbing it - summarizes why "energy is stored in bonds" is such a misleading shorthand. (And don't get me started about similar energy misconceptions when you don't realize kinetic energy is relative to frame of reference in physics!) But I appreciate the video - even if peoples' confusions are ultimately more about semantics, each non-contradictory viewpoint on the same thing should improve understanding.

[@dominictarrsailing]

basically, when it becomes co2 and h2o the atoms sit closer together than when it was glucose and o2 and that's where the difference in energy come from. I think that is explained very nicely in this channel's video on activation energy? (but just to be safe I recommend watching them all)

[@issholland]

We simplify when we teach because it's easier, not necessarily better. Students become empowered because they know the teachings, not necessarily the application of said theories

[@AySz88]

​@@issholland I'm no expert in didactics, but surely there's a retort here on the value of an informed citizenship capable of distinguishing between populist BS and truth.

[@davidvarkey1]

my words exactly

[@frankcastle1862]

Wait potential energy depends on frame of reference Kinetic doesn't

[@siglec1]

Your content is exceptionally clear and invaluable! It's so rare to find on KZbin.

[@WAMTAT]

Amazing video, the perfect blend of humor and science presented well.

[@tapiomakinen]

Yes. I want to know more about energy and molecules. Somehow I seem to understand your explanations better than those of Veritasium and that Asylum guy and all the others.

[@MadScientist267]

They're more concerned with fluff for views. I ditched "Veritasium" a long time ago, and the ward is amusing and all, but... nah

[@derpingflamingo]

"and that Asylum guy" haha

[@frankcastle1862]

I found the wave video from veritusiam cool af

[@ADITYAKAR-g5s]

your way of speaking is very awesome

[@jeremiahreilly9739]

Love love love your presentations. ❤🖤💛💙💜 More more more please.

[@samabdi2255]

His gift is in teaching with a great sense of clarity….well done⚡️

[@antoninbesse795]

This video is a masterclass in good presentation. And I learned a lot too.

[@aosidh]

Eugene K also has a really nice video demonstrating how to think about temperature as momentum stored in linear + angular momentum

[@satyajeetbose2931]

Could you please give its link?

[@aosidh]

@@satyajeetbose2931 oops, I can't post a link? It is called "Molecular temperature and degrees of freedom"

[@satyajeetbose2931]

@@aosidh Thank you🥰

[@ElPsyKongroo]

I only recently learned the voice over isn't ai 😂

[@aosidh]

@@ElPsyKongroo it gives me so much admiration for that woman! Apparently a professional voice actor 🫡

[@calminera6097]

God, everywhere I look for information about chemistry, they're exactly as you've described towards the end, a process labeled with an abstraction, which is terrible! If I can't develop an intuitive understanding of the process I'm supposed to be learning about, then I'll forget it, its as simple as that. I liked and subscribed within 3 minutes of watching your video and am genuinely interested in watching your others as well. Thank you for what you're doing!

[@jonaszkubik6550]

I really love the dynamic of this video. Also super informative

[@GuillotinedChemistry]

Great explainer for students who want to dig a little deeper into a surprisingly complex idea. Keep up the great work!

[@flavio-viana-gomide]

Very interesting. ❤

[@enumaukpabia7677]

Game Changing Channel 🙌🙌

[@komitetgosudarstvennoybezo5216]

Would love to have your explanation on thermodynamic terms like entropy and enthalpy too...

[@Voyager602]

Great channel. Keep yourself well and please do not stop making videos.

[@Suman-up2lw]

You are a great teacher ❤

[@MichaelRodgers-q5v]

The question of how much energy is stored is only defined relative to some lower floor. With gravity, it is answered by how much the object hasn’t fallen, but still can. It’s stored in its relationship to the floor,not the chair in isolation. So in chemistry, would the stored energy be in the bonds the atoms have not yet made, but could?

[@MichaelChenP]

I just discovered this channel for the first time. It truly amazed me, and I really wish I had found it earlier.😊

[@PersonManManManMan]

This channel will grow, the topics are interesting and research done on them is deep, great work!

[@bryandraughn9830]

Im fascinated by everything to do with these concepts. The electrons themselves having momentum and the field from which they emerge. Thank you for helping me to visualize these ideas on slightly different scales. Very helpful!

[@MattbyNature]

Really well explained!

[@OmniversalInsect]

I recently finished chemistry at A level and will be doing it at university, these videos are great to watch.

[@Asaad-Hamad]

Wonderful deep detailed explanation in exquisitely clear method. 👍

[@architech5940]

Your videos are pretty good compared to the other chemistry related channels. You should do a longer video on material science, more specifically, graphene and carbon lattice structures and their potential properties.

[@SystemScientist]

Great explanation

[@federicoderosa6113]

You answer every question that textbooks simply gloss over and don’t even bother to explain it really helps to understand what you’re doing. But I have a question, where does that lost potential energy, that turns into kinetic end up? Who absorbs it? Is it radiated, or converted into heat, or vibrations, etc or does something else happen?

[@jondo7680]

Probably heat. Not an expert but lost every turning into heat is like always the answer. That's also why we can't have nice things like perpetuum mobile. I might be wrong here so wait or search for a better explanation if you want.

[@solconcordia4315]

Infrared radiation is what much of energy turns into. A collection of infrared photons has a high probability of being produced by many physical processes. An equilibrium state of photons including those of the infrared radiation exists in blackbody radiation. The scientific study of the spectrum of this radiation emanating from an oven in Berlin ushered in the quantum.

[@jhockey11liu91]

@@solconcordia4315 Great answer

[@Kel-d7v]

I'm glad I heard you make that final statement about Nick because I think - hope that he and his wife are the future of teachers for kids who deserve to learn safely.

[@mohammadasif-p3d]

"Why did the molecule break up with the atom? Because it was tired of storing all the energy in the relationship!"

[@leonstenutz6003]

😂😂😂 thx!

[@lukeli8750]

Very informative, educational and enlightenment. Thank you for a great video.

[@Mr.Zombie-Dad]

Love your channel. I would like to understand this more and how energy can become matter, and how matter can become energy. Knowing this could help me visualize how we get energy from molecules more. Thanks.

[@Evolouris]

Que vídeo incrível!! muito obrigado por proporcionar isso no youtube!! por favor, não pare!! abraços do Brasil.

[@mehrshadgafarzadeh2944]

I always liked deep understanding of chemistry and your channel is exactly what I need!! ❤

[@zack_120]

An exciting topic, looking forward to the conclusion :)

[@vasto2385]

I really like your content, are there any chemistry books/textbooks that explain these concepts exceptionally well?

[@blinkingmanchannel]

Yes: more please. Nice job with tough content. Thank you. I’ll consume as much of this as you care to produce. 👍 I’ll jump topics now. (Forgive my lack of transitions…) I’m trying to grasp why we can’t reproduce and experiment with components on the scale of, say, 10 to 20 nanometers. I realize that’s a stupid question but I’d love the stupid answer if you get bored sometime. Obviously “it’s too small” is both accurate and too simple… I understand that we have a pretty good idea of how to model ATP synthase within photosynthesis. But I understand we have a long way to go to understand nitrogenase at the same level of detail…? (So I’m asking why we’re struggling so much…?) My ignorance comes in part from thinking that we can study subatomic particles in an accelerator, so why can’t we do molecules? This is not a fair comparison, of course. But still it’s frustrating to me that I can’t just open a book and get the answer. Am I just looking in the wrong books, or is there really a gap in our knowledge about how protein chains “hold” a molecule of phosphate in order to push it into the end of an ADP? To ask the same question another way, why can’t we build an ADP synthase unit in a lab, mount it in a lipid, and then feed it phosphate molecules to assemble? What do we need to invent? Interestingly, right after I posted this note, KZbin gave me a video that referred to the cloud chamber everybody was using in the 1910s and 1920s to bombard everything with x rays! Okay, I knew about the cloud chamber but I am assuming that’s not good enough to use with whole molecules… Is that right? What kind of cloud chamber do we need? Also, the invention of the cloud chamber was good for a Nobel, but as I understand it, the tool was meant for studying weather phenomena, and it was an accident that it showed what it showed. I saw this in a James Burke BBC series called, “Connections.” What instrument do we need in order to “see” proteins in operation? Please tell me we have the tool and we’re not waiting for another accident on Ben Nevis?!

[@Fomites]

Andrew, this is such a wonderful channel 👍. I am learning chemistry again with a different perspective at the age of 72. As a teenage medical student in the Seventies learning was about getting through and there was insufficient time to indulge ourselves in deep understanding unfortunately. Having a deep understanding is much more satisfying and now I have more time 😊. Thank you 👍.

[@سندخضرخليل]

Thank you Dr. for this and other amazing explanations. I hope that you make a video of how one bond is influenced by whole molecule atoms.

[@h14hc124]

Just a small correction for 14:25 - the box, when it hits the floor, hasn't lost all of its gravitational potential energy, it's only the amount it gained from when it was originally lifted from the floor - it still has all the gravitational potential energy to fall through to the centre of the earth if only the floor wasn't in the way.

[@nicholasjacobson3712]

Irrelevant because the floor is in the way. The potential energy you are describing doesn’t ever matter unless we had a hole to the center of the earth, and even then the mass of the earth is not a single point. This correction is pedantic and unnecessary

[@bismanaufa5618]

Why is this channel underrated?

[@toastothetoaster7949]

Great video! I’d love to see one on bond hybridisation.

[@4pharaoh]

Very well done. In the future This video will be played in many High School chemistry and physics classrooms.

[@konstantinkonstantinov7078]

Nice video. Just wanted to add that every molecule has associated electron energy - this consists of all the the energy of core electrons and valence electrons. In chemical reactions the inner electrons dont change their energy state (or negligibly compared to valence electrons), so one can assume that only the valence electron potential energy plays a role. Now, we can see the total electronic energy as a whole but for us chemists its easier to see it as separate bonds between atoms - there is a mathematical way of converting MO into localized 2-centre bonds which gives same results. What changes during reaction are actually these bonds - they get redistributed, and we all know some bonds have “more energy” than others so if the newly formed bonds (electronic energy of valence electrons) is lower, so excess energy gets released. Now comes the question why are different bonds different in energy - its because in different nuclei rearrangements these electronsare in more stable state than other cases (C=O bond is stronger than O=O bond for example). So if some of this potenital energy is “lost” it is given in the surroundings in the form of work/heat etc. So if You have a molecule with a lot of high energy bonds, if properly triggered, these bonds rearrange in other bonds and excees energy is given off. So in some sense, this energy is stored in the bonds (or valence electrons).

[@dibaldgyfm9933]

Can you make a video about the chemistry of cooking vegetables?

[@dominictarrsailing]

I've watched all your videos already, so this one felt like revision, but it was fun to watch while screaming "in the potential energy of the bonds!!!!". Yes I want to learn more about chemistry!!!!

[@fhciw]

Do please more Videos about it

[@jmdawlat]

Well done. Nailed it!

[@hamesparde9888]

You should do a video on super fluids!

[@markmeiri1518]

Hi - Thanks for the great video. What I would like to know is why molecules move/vibrate when heat is added

[@dannejendinger1847]

You sir… Need your own television show asap!! 🙏

[@pandaman9690]

The suggestions of AI seem like bait to test critical thinking. 180g of glucose (sugar) is 4 kcal per gram which multiplies to 720 kcal and it’s usually (1 mile/100kcal) so it would only be enough for about 1/4 mile Love this channel ❤❤❤

[@Quadr44t]

Oooo, I really felt the end of this video was begging for a dive into redox potential xD. Oh well, can't cover everything in one vid! This is the first video where I didn't learn anything I think. But I do have a BSc+MSc in molecular life science, specialised in organic (and physical) chemistry. So that I learned something new in all your other videos says enough I think.

[@phobosmoon4643]

awesome video and one of my favorite channels! Thanks, Doc!

[@anantakash]

Waiting for next video

[@Rick.Sanchez]

thank you for providing this high value content, that is well above some other elf-serving science-fluencers stuff ;)

[@AllYourMemeAreBelongToUs]

10:52 “He rightly says that making chemical bonds from _atoms_ results in a loss of potential energy.”

[@sarahtanovic]

Awesome video!! Keep up the great work

[@spinbulle5312]

i want to ask that how can saltwater liquid with lower temperature have more kinetic energy than pure water ice at 0 degree Celsius?

[@GuellaiFouzi]

You deserve all the support, i know how much energy you put to make this video, and yet you need more energy from your audience to make more 😊 😉

[@robertpawlsoky2910]

This is great and the instructor's graphics and explanations are really superb. I think I am taking in too MUCH energy. Wouldn't it be great if he could come up with a way to help not breaking so many of those bonds so I could loose weight.

[@bernardsmith4464]

Great video. Could u do a video on "Energy?" It seems to be a topic everyone hand-waves around or defines it in some unworkable or gossamer manner. To say it is the capacity to do work is (to me) without substance. Maybe we need simply accept it as Leibnitz's Living Force.

[@tasimota]

I think 180 grams of sugar times 4 cals/gram gives 720 cals of energy, which is more 10k run space that say full marathon. But, I LOVE your channel, and I watch all the time.

[@passwordc17]

Brilliant

[@acidhousemouse]

Please do catalyst design! 🙏

[@Rob-w5p]

Very well explained, cheers 👌

[@shailjatiwari8068]

Please make a video on Surface Tension

[@dragonfly.effect]

Can someone please clarify this puzzlement of mine: I am sceptical of the notion that the potential (gravitational) energy of the box is literally "stored" in the box. It has, in fact, many different potentials: relative to the table, to the chair, to the floor, to the ground (if it's on an upper storey). They each may have positive, zero, or negative values, depending on which surface the box happens to be resting on, but they are all present (somewhere?) at all times. But is it meaningful or useful to say that all (or any) of them are located or contained or stored in the box per se? Wouldn't it be more correct to consider each potential as a property of the system comprising the box and whichever surface it's being compared to? To posit a "true" location of the energy, may be a convenient fiction for some calculations, but that would ignore the complications of "where" the energy truly exists. (This sort of ambiguity tends to plague essentially all descriptions of "potential" energy in physical systems.) So the ultimate question is this: if the box analogy is indeed valid for describing the energy in molecules, then how does the preceding discussion affect a consideration of where the "chemical" (or electrostatic) energy is truly located in the molecule? (I'm now going back to Derek's & Nick's videos to check whether between them and this one I can reach a satisfying understanding of how best to combine and clarify all these varying viewpoints.) 🤔

[@GeoffryGifari]

On energy storage, what about the comparison between single, double, and triple bonds? I remember that nitrogen N2 triple bond can obtained after nitrogen-containing compounds react, sometimes explosively to produce nitrogen gas. Can it be said then the stronger triple bond actually contains less energy?

[@Mulmgott]

Yep. You need to put in a lot of energy to break those triple bonds because the molecule already is at a very low (stable) energy level.

[@GeoffryGifari]

Content aside, I give props to the animation and visuals in the video

[@barriehemming1189]

another great video, thank you for the upload

[@LiborTinka]

I was wondering for a long time why most elements release energy when a neutral atom gains an *extra* electron (a property called "electron affinity"). How can a neutral atom capture extra electron and keep it? Aren't charges supposed to equilibrate? So I dug down and learned that my simplistic imagination of atoms does not iclude the effect of polarization. I tried hard to imagine how could that work to the point of having it in my dreams - I like the lights up moment when it finally clicks. I was stuck on the idea of electrons orbiting nucleus fixed in space while in reality neither are fixed - even though the nucleus is so much heavier than its electron cloud, it's positive charge can be more or less displaced from the "center" - then I finally grabbed the concept of "dielectric constant" and lot of things started making much more sense... Similarly, I though that electrons are spin-paired as if there was some kind of bond between them - but that's not case! I learned there is even something called "spin pairing energy" and indeed it may take a non-trivial energy to add a second electron to an s-orbital because one have to "flip" its spin in order to coexist in the same orbital (Wolfgang Pauli nodding...). Here is one idea on video: Could you shine a light on bonding in the oxygen molecule? It is the prototypical molecule for explaining the molecular orbital theory and I was reading and re-reading the explanation of why oxygen is a diradical even in ground state (!) but didn't understood how it works (self-learning chemistry is sometimes tough and I get stuck on some topic -- I must say that AI models are a godsend because who has a personal mentor with PhD in chemistry...).

[@waelfadlallah8939]

I would comment to that but you won't reply anyways so...

[@lewebusl]

Energy is stored all over the atom or molecule. By definition a chemical reaction involves the breaking or forming of a chemical bond. So when you do chemistry on a compound and energy is released or absorbed , that energy came from the change in configuration(3d shape of the chemical species) , and that physical change in shape came mostly from the areas associated with the bonds. There is also energy exchange from configuration changes on a single molecule or atom that has been exited by radiation. So most of the energy on the atoms or molecules is stored on its electronic configuration. It is when you change the configuration of the electronic clouds that most of the chemistry happens. ls it also very important to understand the concept of "work'. Work is usable energy. Usable energy is what we can actually measure or use.

[@Richardincancale]

Just watched a video by Cody’s Lab of him casting iron he smelted from Magnetite (Iron Oxide) and Aluminium using the Thermite reaction. Might be interesting to do a dive into the energetics of that, somewhat exothermic, reaction!

[@rossplendent]

I think the simplest way to explain "where is the energy?" is that energy is the potential to do stuff, and that potential is necessarily relative. The energy of molecules is their capacity to rearrange their atoms into arrangements that have less energy -- less potential to rearrange themselves -- and in doing so, they "release" energy. But that energy, of course, doesn't just disappear: it is transferred into something *else*, which then *gains* the potential to do stuff. That potential can then go on to be transferred further and further, often being converted into "heat," i.e. the movement of other molecules, or it's radiated away, or disperses in other ways, at which point we like to say the energy has been "lost." But it's not lost -- that energy is just not in a form useful to *us*.

[@nevzatalperdinc]

I would like to draw attention to the end of this video. I am a chemistry major and 100% agree that these theoretical models are there us for to debate and visualize. The reaction mechanisms taught in organic chemistry might not be even true, maybe in reality something much different occurs but we try to explain these as best as we can. I just stumbled upon your channel and hands-down one of the best science channels I have ever seen in a while. Thank you for the clean explanation and your efforts. Subscribed! PS: Did you use Spartan program to do these visualizations?

[@ThreeTwentysix]

Yes, it's Spartan. Shiny new 2024 version too!

[@jonadams8841]

Thank Dr Andrew - I so much disliked basic chemistry as an undergrad. (I think it was the profs and the observation that the near-500 kids in the lecture hall were only there for pre-med, and all of them “collaborated on everything…) I learned much later in my career that electrochemistry is critical to me understanding my engineering stuff.

[@Lee-haw]

Thank you Dr. Andrew Subscribed and following

[@BigSamthemanxXx]

How do atoms know how to assemble themselves into different elements perfectly, again and again?

[@jamesrizza2640]

always love your channel. Thanks for sharing you got my subscription and like as always.

[@EricPham-gr8pg]

Có 2 chọn lựa : 1 ) tương phản ánh sáng màu sắc ( cofee and nước )hay nhiệt độ ( muối và nước ) )như (nước và dầu) ( âm thanh và im lặng ) ( electron )

[@csmyfavoritecompany1213]

Is it best analogy to used rubberband when you held the two end of it stretch and then you used scissor to cut it in the middle the store energy will release and slap your hand

[@muscovyducks]

So the formation of molecules and their bonds from atoms both sheds and stores energy, and entropy leads to the formation of molecules rather than the separation of atoms. Couldn't say I had really grasped that before. I'm assuming this high-energy, purely atomic scenario at the beginning of Veritasium's argument is like a one-time deal that only exists in stars or immediately after a supernova, and that planets and everything on them exist entirely within a molecular framework - do I have this right?

[@TheMysticPete]

Very insightful!!

[@seanspartan2023]

In my day, energy was the capacity to do work. Nowadays you need a degree in philosophy to discuss energy

[@waelfadlallah8939]

Hahahahaha

[@draganradosavljevic8982]

Absoultely yes! How boring video

[@bingchilling4717]

What is work? What is capacity?

[@waelfadlallah8939]

@@bingchilling4717 those questions require some good frosty binchilling to answer

[@cesarkopp2]

Still is. He said "elements which could move stuff" and at 1:14. The video explains from where exactly the "potential to do work" comes. We usually learn in a more "engineeringy" way. Here we learn about the physics involved.