Making Oxygen

Deane shows how to make oxygen in a glass and illustrates some of its properties..
SUBSCRIBE NOW
kzbin.info_c...
CONNECT WITH CURIOSITY
Facebook ➤ / curiosityshow
Twitter ➤ / curiosityshow
Curiosity Show ➤ www.curiosityshow.com.au

[@sarahdaviscc]

Rob and Dean are legends. They were the forerunners to all the KZbin science channels we see today.

[@electronwave4551]

The way Antoine is looking at his wife (Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze), it isn't oxygen he is burning.

[@deleteduser3749]

Ha. Looks like he figured out a name for oxygen to get away from his wife

[@electronwave4551]

I remember that brand of mineral salts (antacid). It was hygroscopic, and the coarse grains of crystals would bind together inside the container, so you had to use something to bust them apart to get 'em out.

[@jc1124]

This show is wonderful.

[@walksonland1977]

Mum always had the cabinet locked! I had to wait until high school!

[@secondarycontainment4727]

Plants actually produce very little breathable oxygen, especially when compared to phytoplankton of the ocean. Some generous estimates place plants at producing 30% while it's more likely they produce less than 13% of the breathable oxygen on Earth. This means that with even the most generous of estimates, phytoplankton are responsible for most of the oxygen we breathe.

[@Johny40Se7en]

Once again, that's bloody wonderful. So why does mixing the hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate create oxygen? arranges molecules in a certain way or something 🤔

[@Maninawig]

While this is interesting each time I watch it, this time I am reminded of a comic I saw mentionning how plankton makes the vast majority of oxygen in the world.

[@89horizon]

Try it on your friends with gas!

[@spindoctor6385]

Ironic that the question on the actual one and two dollar coins would be complicated now, given the two dollar coin is much smaller.

[@AaronHahnStudios]

3K views , 3 days ago, 300 thumbs up .. I like round figures 😎

[@pglink]

Is Deane gaslighting us?

[@johnfasanoii4382]

This is also creating hydrogen

[@ncw7219]

Save the plants for plant-based oxygen.

[@antonliakhovitch8306]

Rob! If you are reading this - please please please post and pin a comment linking to some resources on climate change and why plants aren't enough to stop it. Heck, it would be AWESOME if you could record and post a short video explaining it, I'm sure you could do it wonderfully. A lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of "gocha!".

[@spindoctor6385]

Why are you scared of change? The climate does nothing but change, constantly.

[@batbee7427]

Seconded. Not enough plants left in the world for that job, and we keep reducing it. While we also increase carbon production. It's also not just about carbon. Plenty of pollution.

[@antonliakhovitch8306]

@@batbee7427 On the topic of "not enough plants" -- it's actually a lot worse than that. When plants decompose or burn, almost all the carbon they captured is released as CO2 again. Carbon is naturally taken out of the system when plants turn into coal and oil, but that process takes many millions of years. So - a forest actually stores a constant amount of carbon, releasing and reabsorbing it in a neverending cycle. Even if we completely stop burning fossil fuels *right now*, the CO2 that's already in the air will linger for a very long time.

[@spindoctor6385]

@@batbee7427 The world's surface has increased in plant coverage by 15% in the last 50 years. It seems that you just want a video telling you what you already believe.

[@batbee7427]

So, we need the plants to be eaten and thus the carbon sequestered in animals/the food chain? I guess we need to stop overfishing then.@@antonliakhovitch8306

[@jec_ecart]

So basically carbon is good for plants. We don't need to worry about carbon?

[@greenjelly01]

I bet you are a product of the US education system.

[@antonliakhovitch8306]

I think you meant carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon is part of CO2 and it's essential to ALL life on earth, but once carbon binds with oxygen to become CO2 it takes a lot of energy to get it back out. Nature has always had a sort of balance, where plants would limit the amount of CO2 in the air. The problem is that we, by burning fossil fuels, are releasing CO2 much much faster than what all the animals in the world would normally release by breathing. The plants can't possibly keep up, so the amount of CO2 in the air keeps rising. We aren't anywhere close to the point where there's so much CO2 that the air is unhealthy to breathe, but this imbalance of gasses does upset the delicate weather system and cause climate to become more extreme everywhere around the world. We're already seeing the effects in a very direct way. The horrifying thing about it is that it's so slow. By the time tsunamis are destroying cities every day and worldwide drought causes mass starvation, it will be far too late to do anything. It's already too late to avoid massive death tolls, but the longer we wait without doing anything the worse it will be. I hope that answers your question, please ask if you'd like to know more.

[@antonliakhovitch8306]

The shorter answer -- Plants ARE carbon. Growing a plant captures carbon from the air and turns it into more plant. Burning a plant (or the animal that eats it) releases that carbon into the air. In addition to burning plants, we're also burning stuff we dug up from the ground. This means there's more carbon going up into the air than there is going back into the ground. This is a problem, because the weather system depends on a delicate balance of gasses. If the balance changes too much, we get crazy apocalypse weather and we all die. (Read about the Greenhouse Effect for more detail)

[@ralphrotten1905]

@@antonliakhovitch8306 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@ralphrotten1905]

@@antonliakhovitch8306 the world has been going to end in 6 or 7 years for nearly 40 years that i remember.

[@michaelkeller5008]

wish someone would have shown this to the folowers of the church of the holy greta. bc now, to "reduce co2 footprint", germany chop down whole forrests to build their windparks (following the blond truants lead)...

[@smadaf]

Your choice to describe people in this way says much more about you than it does about them.

[@michaelkeller5008]

(sry - yt making it hard to post an answer, they seem to not like something in here, so i have to make changes to the words) imagine - all people like "them" believe CO2 being "not good", forgetting everything they've learned in school about photo,.,syn,.thesis and that without plants (who live from CO2, thus: would end without it) all life on earth'd be gone. also (can't post directly) pls. search the article "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds" from NASA, published apr 26th, 2016. For how many years did we hear the deserts to be growing? In 2016 they found out: plants reclaming the area for the slight rise of CO2... (also - in Switzerland, melting glaciers "unc..over" a) buildings "iced" around 1870s as shown of photographs back then b) giving free old roman streets over the alps built before they were covered ...I'm not against taking care of nature, mind you, but what they do to red,,uce CO2 - like taking whole forr,.ests do-n to plant windmi_ls, OR even ignoring new technologys who could make use of the wa,.,ste produced by the old fis.,sion-rea,.,ctors (reac,,.ting that down so it's no longer dang-er,ou..s for 300'000 years but only 300, see article "Schweizer Firma entwickelt revolutionären Kernreaktor" published on bluewin on oct 9th 2023, run it through a tra..slator) while producing electric from it... (i wish i'd know which word was "the cause") edit: did it work now? edit 2: still not tru...sting yt

[@ralphrotten1905]

Australia is doing the same. Destroying the the land for $$$ not the climate.

[@andymerrett]

only idiots chop down trees to build build wind farms and if they're doing it, shame on them.

[@antonliakhovitch8306]

I actually share your opinion about Thunberg, to an extent. A prominent face with a strong personality gives people someone to hate and blame when climate change should really be a simple, true, boring fact that everyone learns in school. Climate change is a matter of scientific consensus. It's not just governments and activists - practically every researcher on the planet agrees that it's real, it's a big problem, and it's caused by humans. Do you really think that a kids' show would teach them something they don't know? Anyway - you can Google "why is climate change a thing if CO2 is good for plants" and find the answer, or if you prefer you can ping me and I'll try to give a concise explanation.

[@ralphrotten1905]

All the Co2 alarmist need to see this.

[@greenjelly01]

You are an example of a failed education system.

[@ralphrotten1905]

@@greenjelly01 I bet you're a just stop oil protester.

[@antonliakhovitch8306]

The person above said it rather rudely, but they have a point. Please take a moment to think about this. This is a children's educational TV show. Why do you trust them? You trust them because they did their research; they read textbooks and scientific papers. Human-caused climate change has scientific consensus. That means that practically all researchers on earth agree that it is an indisputably proven fact. These are the same researchers who might have written the textbooks and papers that this show is based on. So, a good question to ask would be - "How can it be that CO2 is beneficial to plants, but also threatens worldwide extinction? Someone probably already thought of this, maybe I should look it up". The show is literally called The Curiosity Show, and you missed a good opportunity for it to spark some curiosity.

[@antonliakhovitch8306]

​@@ralphrotten1905You don't have to read this, but I'll also answer the question in case someone is curious -- The problem is that, by burning fossil fuels, we produce CO2 much much faster than all the plants in the world could possibly consume it. Read about the Greenhouse Effect to learn why this is bad. There is one other problem. When a plant consumes CO2, the carbon actually becomes part of the plant. When the plant is burned, the carbon turns back into CO2 and goes into the air. So - if you burn all the wood in a forest and then replant that forest, you haven't actually removed any C02 from the air -- but you haven't added any, either. The way CO2 is *actually* removed from circulation is when plants turn into oil and coal. This takes millions of years, but burning that fuel to put the CO2 back into the air is fast and cheap. That's the problem -- millions of years worth of animal breath is suddenly being put back into the air very very quickly. (And a random sidenote - the idea of biofuel is actually based on this concept! Biofuel doesn't actually produce any less CO2 than fossil fuels. However, because it's made of plants, the carbon it releases was taken from the air anyway so it doesn't really add anything that wasn't there before! It doesn't really work super well in practice but at least that's the idea.)

[@greenjelly01]

@@ralphrotten1905 Even your comebacks are not original...