Taking Action Against The Action Lab

In this video, I review a recent video from The Action Lab called "Why Does This Powder Only Dissolve In Cold Water?"
James makes several mistakes throughout his video, and I address them one by one.
Link to the video in question - • Why Does This Powder O...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links to people’s channels:
Chemiolis - / chemiolis
Thy Labs - / thyzoidlaboratories
Styrene from polystyrene - • Recycling polystyrene ...
Advanced Tinkering - / advancedtinkering
Cesium synthesis video - • The Most Dangerous Obj...
Cesium synthesis playlist - • Isolating Cesium
Cody’s Lab - / thecodyreeder
Cesium Syntheses - • Isolating Cesium Metal
• Cesium Play Button For...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support the Channel on Patreon - / thatchemist
Join the Community Discord! - / discord
Second Discord link if the first one is borked - / discord
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Original Paper from Henry - royalsocietypublishing.org/do...
Calcium Acetate Hydrates - pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/je60...
- www.doi.org/
Solubility of gases in water - www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ga...
NaOH hydrates - doi.org/10.1039/CT8936300890
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A huge thanks to all of the creators and scientists who looked over the initial drafts of this video, including Chemiolis, Thy Labs, ImKibitz, and all of the amazing people in the That Chemist Discord!

[@TheActionLab]

A few comments on this. 1. Thanks for the critique. I don’t mind it. 2. I will stick by my claim to call something dissolving in water a reaction:) There is no good line to draw with chemical reactions vs physical reactions. But I get that people will disagree on where that line is. 2. Exothermic vs endothermic is only part of the story as you explained in the video, you are correct. But I definitely wouldn’t call it wrong, but rather incomplete (For example here is an excerpt from a text on this exact subject “As temperature increases, the solubility of a solid or liquid can fluctuate depending on whether the dissolution reaction is exothermic or endothermic. From Biochemistry, Dissolution and Solubility by Lu JX, Tupper C, Murray J.) I try to distill information into a digestible chunk for people who don’t know understand in depth information like Gibbs free energy and entropy. Sometimes I go into it but it usually takes over the main point of the video. It steals the thunder from the point I’m trying to make. 3. The speed of a reaction: This is semantics in my opinion. If you end up with less product in the same amount of time this, can be said to “slow the reaction down” even though it is true that both the forward and reverse reaction may be going faster. Colloquially this is how we speak. 4. Gasses dissolving in water is usually exothermic. That’s what is said in the video, and that is true. There are examples when that isn’t true, but the norm is exothermic. So I’m not sure why that is a problem.

[@therealchimp1516]

Big ups to you

[@WildeRaze]

You a real one action lab, your content is real educational and the work you put in deserves recognition, keep it up man :]

[@psikoexe]

Man this is respectable that you justify your claims and back them with actual sources, I was not hoping this... It would be better if you put this on a community post, but this itself deserves respect

[@minacapella8319]

The scientific process at work.

[@billymonday8388]

As for point 1, he specifically targeted the "sugar breaks bonds" thing

[@kaidwyer]

Physicist: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Chemist: Every reaction has a completely different explanation.

[@bloodleader5]

@@theuncalledfor I've never heard anyone say that it doesn't exist, but the fact of the matter is that it's not a force. That's just how we describe it in casual speech, but by definition centrifugal "force" is not actually happening. You aren't pulled away from the center of a rotating object, it actually accelerates you in a straight line from the point where you contact it (you are being thrown sideways in the direction of the spin, not the opposite direction). What people call "centrifugal force" is torque which can only be felt if you are rigidly attached to the rotating object, because the sideways momentum imparted by the object is stopped and converted into rotational momentum. But there is no unique "force" happening, that's an inaccurate way to describe the property.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

@@theuncalledfor The centrifugal force is not the equal and opposite force to the centripetal force you oaf

[@greg77389]

@@theuncalledfor The centrifugal force is caused by the object's inertia. It's the same principal with bullets and how they apply force to what they hit. They have momentum and will transfer a force, and thus energy to whatever they come into contact with. But by all means, if you're ever shot at, go ahead and imagine that "the force the bullet applies isn't real", I'm sure that will turn out well for you...

[@pyropulseIXXI]

@@theuncalledfor You have seen the Light, my student. I welcome thee unto my warm embrace

[@greg77389]

@@theuncalledfor So despite my explanation you still say it isn't real. Please take a high school physics course and get back to me.

[@alexanderbrady5486]

I studied salt dissolution in water as a post-doc, and I am strongly in favor of considering it a chemical reaction. Electrons are exchanged and atomic forces in the first atomic shell are critical, all features characteristic of chemical interactions. The strength of the chemical “bonds” involved are weaker than, say, most carbon-carbon bonds. However, if you consider the transformation of Manganese Chloride tetrahydate (a solid) to manganese chloride mono hydrate (a solid with a different crystal structure) a “chemical reaction,” which I think most scientists do, then you should consider salt dissolution a “chemical reaction,” as the atomic forces involved are extremely similar.

[@arthurtapper1092]

So your Phd thesis, which I can only imagine as not only being extremely tough but also probably pretty expensive ... is about salt dissolving in water? Am I getting this correct? If so, why? EDIT: It has just dawned on me that "salt" in this context is probably a class of chemicals and not sodium chloride like I originally assumed. But still... what was there to discover?

[@picardcook7569]

@@arthurtapper1092 I don't know, I guess a deeper understanding of how extremely common compounds react. Not every thesis is a nobel prize, that's not how scientific progress works. I'm also interested in op's motivation and findings in their dissertation, though.

[@Bunny99s]

Yes, that whole topic doesn't seem to be well defined. A change in "state of matter" is a purely physical reaction. So when you boil salt water, the water becomes vapor and the salt gets left behind. So it doesn't seem like a chemical reaction to begin with. Though there are some physical reactions that involve some chemical reactions as well.

[@alexanderbrady5486]

@@arthurtapper1092 My PhD was actually on battery cathodes. However, my post-doc research was on salts dissolving in water. It is a more complex topic than it may appear for a number of reasons. First, a lot of substances become charged ions in water, so research on salts is applicable to a wide variety of substances (including most minerals). Second, dissolution and sedimentation is a major way that rocks move around on the earth surface, and that process often involves salts (minerals) dissolving in water. The behavior of these salts depends in a non-trivial way on temperature, pressure, and concentration of various salts. Hence, why this topic has seen continued study for the past century.

[@michaelwilson3980]

Are not salts already ionized, just in a crystal lattice? The electrons have already changed atoms as part of the chemical reaction to create the salt. In the case of sodium chloride, isn't water just substituting its polar intermolecular forces for ionic attraction in the crystal lattice?

[@kylieschuttloffel1261]

Things are heating up in the chemistry fandom (which means calcium acetate is having difficulty dissolving into it)

[@Flamberge1999]

LOL

[@elvingearmasterirma7241]

"And go over what he got wrong, which is almost everything." My chemistry teacher when they get to my papers

[@That_Chemist]

:(

[@elvingearmasterirma7241]

@@That_Chemist At least I have some theory down pat. Its just difficult to learn chemistry properly when your small town doesnt even have a lab in the highschool. So I live vicariously through KZbinrs

[@That_Chemist]

the internet is a good place to find science - but we have to hold each other accountable

[@elvingearmasterirma7241]

@@That_Chemist especially since my grade depends on that now So thank you for the informative videos, and even the story ones. Ranking ones. They help me a lot when I need to study for my exams, keeps chemistry fun.

[@ExaltedDuck]

Brings to mind Wolfgang Pauli's famous criticism of one of his undergrad's attempts at a paper on Quantum Mechanics: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" or "This is not only not correct; it is also not even wrong."

[@cezarcatalin1406]

Actually, sodium hydroxide dissolving isn’t always exothermic, in really concentrated solutions is endothermic.

[@wildfyr89]

The important point here is that solubility is a very complex phenomenon that pretty much defies broad explanations. Anyone who’s ever tried to recrystallize a novel compound can attest to the head slapping futility of getting things to dissolve according to “rules”

[@cezarcatalin1406]

@@wildfyr89 True. The logic behind “solids dissolving is an endothermic process” and “gasses dissolving is an exothermic process” is because solids (especially crystals) are much more ordered than liquids which are much more ordered than gasses. You would expect that when you are dissolving a solid, because the overall entropy of the solid-liquid system increases, the temperature will go down but when you are dissolving gases, the entropy of the gas-liquid system decreases so the temperature should go up. However, when you factor in stuff like the heat of hydration (which is a LOT for sodium hydroxide, for example) you end up with completely different results. I mean, dissolving sulfur trioxide vapours in water is an insanely exothermic process but dissolving methylamine in water is slightly endothermic (if I remember correctly, don’t quote me on that last one).

[@enderyu]

Exactly, he seems to have dismissed Chatelier's principle; exothermic reactions (like calcium acetate's dissolution) are disfavored on higher temperatures since the heat absorption from the reverse reaction becomes more entropically favorable (dQ = T*dS) and the equilibrium will shift "left" to maximize entropy in the system. James did get the right idea.

[@GreenCaulerpa]

@@enderyu I was actually looking for this comment because I hoped someone else would point it out. The problem is that upon dissolution there are many factors that come to play apart from (for crystalline compounds) lattice energy, we also have stuff like hydration energy that’s highly variable and substance specific. We can’t just reduce it to absurdity (as pointed out above) and only look at how entropy would change upon dissolution of any compound. And I would believe that although he generally disregarded Henry‘s law (and the van‘t hoff relation) when it comes to gas solubility, applying the principle of le Chatelier to the dissolution of CO2 is actually possible and valid due to the CO2-carbonic acid equilibrium and associated enthalpies.

[@nnamrehck]

Indeed - when making 50% NaOH solution it becomes noticable.

[@danielhwang8207]

Simple (and grossly simplified) Summary: The Action lab calculated enthalpy but not Gibb's Free energy. He didn't account for entropy.

[@danielhwang8207]

@@BitwiseMobile Almost but Gibbs include enthalpy term and the entropy term

[@tycho6503]

@@BitwiseMobile Enthalpy change and Gibbs free energy are RELATED, but not the same. Gibbs free energy equals the enthalpy change, ΔH, SUBTRACTED by the product of the temperature and the entropy change. It should also be noted that if the free energy change is not negative, the reaction is not feasible under those conditions and will not occur spontaneously.

[@Salaaran]

Then I was not the only one thinking "surely he will include entropy and temp to calculate Gibb's free energy". I mean that is high school level chem after all.

[@Sameer-es9vs]

@@BitwiseMobile g=h+t^s

[@TheJudge1933]

I dont think he accounted for anything but thier ad revenue

[@minacapella8319]

Never thought sciencetube would turn into a beefing ground lol

[@minacapella8319]

Like it's good to make this video to point out what he got wrong it's just kinda funny.

[@zackpumpkinhead8882]

That's kind of always been the case with scientists.

[@ipodtouchiscoollol]

bro the entire history of academia is just scientists, philosophers and other experts in their fields beefing with each other to see who's theory holds up the best.

[@Hati321]

There are exceptions for gases being more soluble at lower temperatures. Nitrogen's solubility in n-hexane and in triethyl aluminium increase as the temperature increases.

[@wow-roblox8370]

Is n-hexane or triethyl aluminium water?

[@henryrroland]

Yes, but you're changing completely the chemical environment... Therefore you are changing completely the thermodynamics of the mixture

[@ivantimofeev2233]

@@wow-roblox8370 since when do you need water to have solubility....

[@prateekkarn9277]

@@henryrroland is it chemistry if there isn't an exception at every half a step?

[@henryrroland]

@@prateekkarn9277 Hahaha In this case, we have no exceptions, it's thermodynamics. But to do the things right we have to consider the right ΔH, ΔS, 𝛾, 𝜑

[@plshelpme_noobs3838]

One tip I've heard for recording and taking photos of yourself in general, is that having your camera slightly above your head, pointing down at you, looks better than a low camera pointing up at you. Having a lower positioned camera just doesn't capture the best looking angle

[@RileyBuilding]

"so there is something involved here called entropy" this killed me 🤣

[@valentin_te]

I'm studying biology and due to my studies I've had lots of chemistry until now. I think I've learned it the same way at the University than action lab explained it. So thanks to clear up my misconceptions. 🥳

[@BackYardScience2000]

You'll find that James seems to make things up from time to time and I have no clue where he gets his information.

[@That_Chemist]

We need to normalize references in educational content, maybe that means YT needs to put disclaimers on educational videos without references

[@BackYardScience2000]

@@That_Chemist couldn't agree more.

[@chrstfer2452]

"From time to time" ie every time

[@magusperde365]

@@That_Chemist the only way youtube knows to do that stuff would be shitty neural networks deciding what isnt or isnt a source. I don't want youtube doing that lol

[@BambiTrout]

It's always seemed to me like he's just a guy fiddling about with cool science stuff because it's cool, rather than someone who actually comes from a science background. His explanations always come across as very "I'm paraphrasing a NewScientist article and understood about 70% of it" - and there's no problem with that, because afaik he hasn't claimed to be an actual scientist, but when you have such a big platform it's probably best to put in either a disclaimer or do a fact check first.

[@Sondergarden]

I feel like on such scales, the difference between chemical and physical gets a little fuzzy

[@cginclude]

Why make a target video to cause controversy instead of talking to them directly, or at the very least replying to his comment he made? Very strange

[@poquer]

I follow you both, and recognize the value of both you guys. But i see that James has a more wide variety and reach with his audience, and therefore the "simplification" of ideas is more intense there. Me for example, i graduated in biotechnology and currently im a PhD student in the field of plant biochesmistry, and taking another grad at nightshift, chemistry. So i consider your content way more specific, and as i said, both you guys make incredible educational content. Yes there were some misconceptions in the ActionLab video, and its is important of you to help aprimorate the ideas, but sometimes i feel your were a bit harsh. Once again i am a fan of both, and this kind of situation is what makes science evolves, thank you both for this, and sorry for my bad english, it is not my mother language.

[@saaros]

i find the approach of this video more than just harsh, almost smug, for a situation that seems to fall within debate as to what's completely correct. im an outsider when it comes to chemistry, only enjoy watching content of it, but im not entirely certain the approach this video had was the best.

[@rosecitytid1631]

He was definately being an asshole. Almost like he thought action labs was purposely getting it wrong for some great conspiracy. He got it wrong. Correct him, but you don't need to be an ass about it but I guess it gets you views.

[@saaros]

@@rosecitytid1631 it only helps him and others drive this narrative that all "pop" science is misguided and purposefully sharing information wrong, it's pretty unfriendly and doesn't entice many to join the community.

[@justinwatson1510]

@@rosecitytid1631 there is a lot of scientific misinformation on the internet, and I think that if someone is going to work as a science communicator, there should be an expectation that the person doing the communicating is also doing their due diligence. I havet finished the video yet, but I don't think I have seen anything I would describe as asshole-ish.

[@claude2571]

I agree, I was put off about how much action lab was.. almost vilified? In the video and comment section. Making mistakes about this sort of thing is completely understandable, it's not like he just accidentally made a bomb and killed 30 people. I would bet that people who are so harsh about other people's inconsequential mistakes probably either harbour a lot of self hatred or lack self awareness.

[@sharpfang]

If exothermic reactions were slowing the reaction down, fire wouldn't work.

[@That_Chemist]

true lol

[@ayyydriannn7185]

WE wouldn’t work. Our metabolisms are fueled by the same oxidation reactions fires are

[@That_Chemist]

oh my gosh, that is also true lol - we also are exothermic machines

[@henryrroland]

Actually, not really... The synthesis of NH₃ is exothermic, and its definitely decrease the production in high temperatures, but its still happens.

[@henryrroland]

And fire is not a reversible reaction

[@maxmuenchow]

His explanations kinda sound like he read a couple of wikipedia articles, mixed some of the chapters and just presented it as fact. For most of his content that's probably enough (pouring metal x into substance y doesn't require a deep understanding of chemistry) but this was just bogus. Thanks for the correction

[@That_Chemist]

I think that the bigger your audience is, the more responsibility you have - think about how many human hours are spent on a video for a channel even of my size - this weighs on me heavily

[@maxmuenchow]

@@That_Chemist I 100% agree with you there. I feel like he could've found someone to give him the proper explanation. Or get a consult or something

[@ShmoeBoe]

​@@That_Chemist Audience size matters *far* less then the actual importance of the subject. While 90,000 people might have been misinformed, the info may have been useful for maybe a dozen people. Most, if not all, of those dozen would already know he is wrong. Not to say it isn't important to be right, but the stakes here are *really* low for such a niche, and mostly useless, subject. I would say him talking about this, even erroneously, is a net positive as I was now brought here to more factual information.

[@JimC]

​@@ShmoeBoe "I was now brought here to more factual information." And if Action Lab had provided that information *in the first place,* you wouldn't *need* to come here. How many of his errors have you unknowingly accepted?

[@michael.a.covington]

Old-time photography enthusiasts like me have encountered the fact that sodium thiosulfate (photographic fixer) is much less soluble in hot water than in cold water.

[@MAZEMIND]

Take action against the action labs voice. Nails on a fucking chalk board.

[@TylerSmith-qx6uz]

The craziest thing to come out of action labs was finding out he has a wife, I thought for sure he was batting for the other team after I heard that voice.

[@domvasta]

Most non-chemists don't understand what conditions drive reactions forward. They see heat flowing one way and the rules for Gibbs free energy and think that it's due to temperature, rather than entropy.

[@adamrak7560]

But thinking with entropy is quite difficult, and the pop science explanation of entropy is usually subtly wrong. (I am a not chemist I just develop a quantum chemistry software)

[@nikkiofthevalley]

@@mattmurphy7030 -It is also nonsensical.- -"Quantum chemistry" sounds like some buzzwords smushed together without a single thought into if it's actually sensible.- -Quantum Related to "Quanta", usually referring to the dynamics of atomic scales and below.- -Chemistry Related to the study of substances and their interactions at a atomic level.- -These two fields -_-can-_- interact in a multitude of ways, but "a quantum chemistry software" doesn't make sense. There's no description of what the software actually -_-does,-_- it's just somehow "quantum chemistry".- Edit: I didn't think to look it up beforehand. Sorry to Adam Rak, it is actually a legitimate field.

[@blubberbernd2347]

@@nikkiofthevalley quantum chemistry is a legitimate field. Just because you think it sounds sonsensical doesn't mean it is. Maybe look up if your criticism is valid for 5 minutes before posting it online...

[@nikkiofthevalley]

@@blubberbernd2347 I honestly have no clue why I didn't think to that up.

[@blubberbernd2347]

@@nikkiofthevalley granted. We all act a little rash from time to time

[@dukeradwardthe5th843]

this is like listening to the teacher explaining why the answer someone gave was wrong and I'm just glad it wasn't me that did :3

[@That_Chemist]

or like when a student corrects the teacher in front of the class

[@user-kh1es5gg9m]

@@That_Chemist I had to do that once with a wrong formula in the whiteboard. It was so awkard after he admitted to being wrong.

[@yty1941]

@@user-kh1es5gg9m My teacher be like: I have purposely written the formula wrong and congrats for pointing that out, +1 extra credit 😂

[@theslacksmith]

well done amigo this was an extrmely well made video and your in depth descriptions and links to sources is greatly appreciated

[@fyang1429]

A similar thing to dissolution (thermodynamically) is the temperature dependence of protein folding, which is controlled by terms of DeltaH and T*DeltaS of very similar sizes. It turns out that DeltaG of folding goes positive (meaning folding becomes unfavorable) at both very high and very low temperatures, meaning that protein can unfold (denature) both at high temperatures (e.g. cooking an egg) or very low temperatures if it remains unfrozen.

[@RichardBargloski]

I mean…he said “undissolving” instead of precipitate out of solution, so I’m not taking Action Lab too seriously.😂

[@mikewheeler9011]

It's a common thing to hear. Un-something and non-something can be good descriptive words for people to grasp a concept

[@fugz]

Lmao that's exactly what I said when I heard that

[@MadScientist267]

🤣

[@MadScientist267]

@@mikewheeler9011 and then there's just shit English

[@kunjupulla]

I had the same thoughts when I heard that 😆. Although, in his defence, maybe he said that cuz most of his audience have no idea about Chemistry 😕.

[@rdizzy1]

The dude has a PHD in chemical engineering, he should know this stuff.

[@SeanCMonahan]

a PhD *from BYU* , a university founded by and named after the second head of the Mormon Church, Brigham Young.

[@sethbettwieser]

@@SeanCMonahan a school which *does* in fact have good degree programs. The issue is that having a degree, whether from a prestigious school or not, doesn't guarantee competence.

[@myuzu_]

Action lab Guy ISNT just a random guy?

[@buixote]

There's a "good" video by the Chemical Safety Review Board about a massive explosion ay "T2 Industries"... The guys who ran it had degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering, but that didn't stop them from flattening the neighborhood. I think it's my favorite chemical name : Methyl Cyclopentadienal Manganese Tricarbonyl

[@anon69_q]

This reminds me of the M.D.’s promoting vaccine hesitancy.

[@robertb6889]

Thank you. I saw this an immediately it sat wrong because it’s entropy based not entalou based. Thanks for also explaining the mechanism behind why the entropy change is different due to the hydrate formations, etc.

[@Aracnifrond]

Theres nothing more satisfying than proving an idea wrong with straight facts. I appreciate the explanation, probably wouldnt have noticed myself, its really easy to miss if you dont have a well grounded backround in chemistry and thermodynamics. This is the sort of content I love, seeing misconceptions washed away with nice detailed explainations. Please do more videos like this!

[@riganman6959]

Check out action labs comment on this video.

[@joegillian314]

If I had made a mistake in giving an explanation that I presented to an audience, I would want to know. At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, it is the responsibility of the presenter to make sure that what they are presenting is accurate. These sorts of things aren't just don't on the fly. They are carefully planned and produced, so there is no excuse for introducing gross errors into one's presentation. The presenter should have checked their work before publishing it, and if in spite of that mistakes still get through, the proper thing to do is acknowledge them, accept the valid and constructive criticism, and then attempt to correct the error, because the presentation is for the sake of the audience, the presenter's ego. Anyone who cannot except valid criticism, immediately becoming defensive no matter what the criticism might be, is not a serious person. Even if no factual errors are made, there is still room for criticism. A person who truly knows their subject should be able to listen to criticism, and have the confidence to determine whether or not it's valid, and then either accept or reject it as appropriate, because the end goal is to educate the audience, and anyone who is serious wants to listen to any feedback that might better achieve that goal.

[@kid_missive]

If you ask me it's high school pedantry to differentiate between physical and chemical reactions. Even nuclear reactions can be modelled using the same reaction dynamics math to account for thermodynamic or kinetic parameters.

[@kid_missive]

just use "physicochemical" if you want to be trendy with the soft matter crowd

[@efelio2009]

Hi, i encourage my students to think, to have critical thinking. This is the perfect example to do that. I will show they the action lab video and then your video so they can learn how not to fall in disinformation. Amazing response, thank you!!!

[@That_Chemist]

Keep up the good work!

[@vappyreon1176]

I wouldn't call it disinformation, it's not intentionally teaching people the wrong thing to keep them from learning.

[@whisperz6662]

Very informative. New to your channel so I'll be watching more. Also while I was watching this video, I noticed your little blue octopus dude. I am at work right now with one sitting on the desk, but he isn't happy he is set to pissed lol.

[@wormbaby666]

Love your work. This (and other vids of yours recently) earned you a sub!

[@brunojambeiro6776]

Interesting. Just learned a very similar explation to the action labs's one in school. There was even a question on the test about it.

[@lukassorowka2672]

Same, they taught us that the temperature can favor exothermic or endothermic reactions, and that the shift in equilibrium is due to chateliers principle

[@lrizzard]

maybe its an outdated or oversimplified concept that the school system never updated. as _something of a science enthusiast myself_ , i remember being taught science that was outdated or over simplified to the point of being wrong, several times. if action labs gets his science from resources for the school system, then it is natural he would get some things wrong

[@brunojambeiro6776]

@@lrizzard Don’t think it is the education System fault in this case. This explanation is not on the book. I think it was the teachers fault in this case, I have seen he give other clearly wrong explanations(which were also not on the book).

[@hasnieking]

Why can I see you? I thought you were this ghost living and talking in every video.

[@idea-shack]

Nice rebuttal and thank you for making the correction video and the plug of my comment :)

[@fugz]

I actually really like action lab; he's discovered/shown me things I had no idea about, but this video is abysmal. Chemistry is CLEARY not his strong suit. We rarely if ever deal with "typicals" in the chemistry world. Rules of thumb need not apply lol. His use of "undisolving" physically hurt me. Your corrections are much appreciated and I see no flaw in them. Thank you for deconstructing this one so well.

[@camicus-3249]

I feel the same. I do enjoy seeing random science curiosities in my sub feed, especially when I haven't seen a lot of them done before. It's fine if you just take the demonstrations at face value as "this thing exists" (like I had no idea some things dissolve better colder), but yeah, for a full explanation maybe not. Hopefully he unlists the video / makes an update

[@00muinamir]

Whooo boy. I only occasionally watch Action Lab, had no idea he was packing whoppers like this in some of them.

[@TheMinecraftReloaded]

I think action lab is cool, that said, please continue these kind of videos, where you bring attention to popular scientific misinformation.

[@That_Chemist]

He has a platform, and I think it would be great if he was thorough before he uploaded a video (especially a sponsored one!)

[@jdohn15]

I would have to dig through my example questions, but while studying for the MCAT this summer I remember seeing a question related to this. The question was related to heat and Le Chatelier's principle, whereas addition or subtraction of heat shifted the reaction to the forward or reverse. Is it usually the case this is not correct?

[@KingJellyfishII]

This isn't his first offence, either. he made a very misleading video about the physics of lasers, claiming that they have a negative temperature and some other bullcrap about thermodynamics that wasn't true.

[@drdca8263]

I’m trying to remember what I read about the conditions required for negative temperatures. A system having negative temperature, is equivalent to having negative coolness (where coolness is inverse temperature), and... Ok, looked it up on Wikipedia, which reminds me the fact what I read and was trying to remember, which is that for a system to be capable of a negative temperature, there must be a small(er) number of possible high energy states, such that adding high energy to the system (above a given amount of energy) reduces the amount of possible states it could be in. The Wikipedia article does mention [something about lasers] being an example of a system with negative temperature, but I don’t understand enough to be confident, without reading further, that it means that lasers in general have negative temperature, or just something like “with certain kinds of lasers in certain situations, there is something with a negative temperature.”. I know that lasers are coherent, and so, aiui, the photons are... hm, I want to say that they are approximately in a symmetric state, but I’m likely getting mixed up with a Bose-Einstein condensate, And maybe the coherent state thing is more like, uh, Being approximately an eigenstate of the annihilation operator? So, a superposition of states (with different weightings) which are each the result of applying the creation operator some number of times to the vacuum state, and uh, where each of these states are therefore symmetric states? Like, I want to say it sorta corresponds to a Poisson distribution of how many photons there are? But... I’m also not sure how that all fits in with the uh, whole “particles moving” bit, or where these photons are in space. I would expect the photon creation operator would create one with a given momentum with completely undefined position, and only by integrating that over different momenta with different phases would you get something in a beam, but I’m not sure how that works out with like, the coherent state just being an infinite sum of applying it different numbers of times. I’m clearly forgetting something. Ah, probably what I was taught was about coherent states was using the raising and lowering operators for a quantum harmonic oscillator, and I was *told* that something similar is going on with photons in lasers, but I wasn’t *shown* the details of how that works.

[@KingJellyfishII]

@@drdca8263 Interesting, i wasn't aware of most of that. i think i need to do some more research on that. I'm pretty certain at least some of the video i mentioned was questionable, perhaps I'm forgetting the details.

[@remanjecarter2787]

In all honesty in the realm of performing science as an example i've been leaning towards channels like the ones you linked to, lots of previous experience and research into the specifics. Not having all the information is just the name of the game when it comes to research and experimenting, but it's up to the creator to acknowledge that to the audience as well as trying to find as much as possible about it (hell I'm one of the people who would watch a several hour long series where a good chunk of it is just making corrections to the previous video like what Artefexian is doing for their planet building series) It doesn't have to be perfect the first time and with stuff like this it should have the professionalism of peer review like what you have done but it should also be presented to the audience that more information would become available through the process. And a follow-up is always good as you find out more, right?

[@BS-bv5sh]

The point about hydrates was really interesting.

[@That_Chemist]

its an important consideration! Calcium salts tend to have poor solubility, and having water definitely helps their solubility (even in water) - its kind of weird, because we talk about solvents like they just totally swamp a molecule, but they need to get and stay really close if they are going to form a stable complex - it's *complex*

[@jasperberry678]

Learnt more chemistry in this video than a whole term of chemistry class…

[@miklov]

I am glad The Action Lab made that video. (I didn't actually watch that one in particular), but if he hadn't then this video would have not existed and as someone with quite limited chemistry knowledge this video was helpful in how to think about certain reactions. Like that the equilibrium of the reactants/products is just an emergent property of all the various reactions taking place. I also never really thought of how "more energy" is a double edged sword in that it can both make things less stable but also help crossing various energy barriers required for forming certain bonds. And I almost certainly never even consider how much physical confinement such as high pressure can affect what happens chemically. Thank you for the video! It may still be a mess in the chemistry department of my mind but at least it got a little bit more organized.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

I'm 100% in the physical process camp, but I don't have any problem with the idea that he was going with (i.e. dissolution of sugar/salt is endothermic). He also didn't say (in the clips you showed) that it was a chemical reaction. We don't normally talk about physical reactions, but it isn't super weird or anything, and not all reactions are chemical (i.e. nuclear reaction).

[@timoch4099]

Well if you are talking about the dissolving part, you should be in 100% in both camps, because both cases are oberservable and some cases are "in between" (meaning depending on the definitions you are using you are able to label the process as chemical or physical). The real problem is that there often is no absolute definition out there, the closed being to absolute definitions is the IUPAC golden book I'd say, but even with their definitions there might be some problems sometimes.

[@Dqtube]

Thanks for the review, good idea. The action lab is a bit goofy, it often makes mistakes. I only follow it because it sometimes has early access to not very well known products like "Musou Black", which didn't have many English speaking creators at the time.

[@That_Chemist]

He is capable of doing better - I want to see him become his best!

[@manyirons]

@@That_Chemist Did you send him your video (or at least your conclusions) privately to give him a chance to make corrections before you went public with it yourself?

[@Lyoishi]

@That Chemist I am glad I found this comment. I didn't get the impression of wanting an improvement or wanting to help from the video. It felt more like a straight callout post for the first half. I have been enjoying your videos for a few months. Keep it up man. I hope AL does his best to take responsibility for the size of his audience and the effect he can have.

[@dnuma5852]

goofy 💀

[@jasonreed7522]

I find that using the quality of the community (comment section) is a decent litmus test for the quality of a creator, and Action Lab doesn't have a good community so i actively avoid him.

[@jpolowin0]

The week after my first-year lab students had done an exercise in purification by recrystallization, I gave them a pop quiz. I described one of the calcium compounds whose solubility in hot water is much lower than in cold water, and asked them to briefly describe how to purify it by recrystallization. I was hoping that they could generalize their experience to "start with conditions in which it's highly soluble and change to conditions where it isn't" -- in this case, dissolve in minimum cold solvent, heat to make the substance crystallize, and filter. Only a couple managed to get there. Several just gave the standard procedure, ignoring the detail: dissolve in hot solvent, let it cool, filter. Several said that it would be necessary to find a different solvent.

[@RobsMiscellania]

The idea of using a different solvent is a much, much better answer than cookie-cutter recrystallization (dissolve in hot solvent, allow to cool). Just saying "recrystallize normally" demonstrates no understanding of the process whatsoever. Trying something else, on the other hand, is an instinct that every chemist must cultivate, even when (especially when!) there is no clear understanding of why the original idea isn't working.

[@5FT6MAN]

tbh this is confusing as it depends on the impurities you are trying to remove.

[@NoahGooder]

I love how I was thinking of linking possibly one of the action lab videos as a suggestion in one of your previous videos only for this to show up in my reccomends. I guess someone had the same idea.

[@Lontrin]

I love drama

[@bobtheboneboy6531]

If you’re decent, learn not to.

[@parkpatt]

I've never liked Action Lab. I love science communication on YT but Action Lab always felt fake and not well-researched. Glad to see him being held accountable.

[@magusperde365]

Just felt to me like he was extremely enthusiastic and went at it too fast

[@my_unreasonably_long_username]

He's greedy for ad revenue, and his nasal voice is grating. Floods the shorts section of the site with garbage. Glad someone is calling him on his poor research.

[@u.v.s.5583]

@@my_unreasonably_long_username The nasal voice is ok by itself as long as his science is right. Which it isn't.

[@obsessivecorvid]

@@my_unreasonably_long_username yup, while making the videos ridiculously long

[@losttownstreet3409]

Is there anything about using negative absolute temperatures (lower then 0K) for reactions. (You could burn stuff but there might be some nice reactions which should not possible before aside form nuclear fusion). To the time I was in school there where no real cheap means to generate temperature under 0K (hotter than infinite temperature).

[@michakrzyzanowski8554]

So if you heat up gasoline, it burns slower?

[@lavoisier4480]

for the dissolution of CO2, did you or that other guy check to see if the pH lowered to confirm it was dissolving? or would the pH change be to low to detect by cheap pH paper. I'm sure it did dissolve it would just be nice to see as a confirmation

[@CreamAle]

well poop time is over time to get ready for tonight's show. youve earned a sub my guy. ive always had issues with AL and getting things wrong. i get that he's doing a VERY simplified version of the things explained and i appreciate the fact that his channel can and does bring new folks into the world of science. but man, i really cant with false information. this isnt the first nor the last time for AL to be doing this.

[@That_Chemist]

I hope my other videos are useful for you as well!

[@CreamAle]

@@That_Chemist oh I've watched a handful today. great work bud.

[@gregwhite6998]

@@CreamAle Are you drunk?

[@SpoiledBread24]

@@gregwhite6998 ?

[@Qualicabyss]

They're drunk on science!...okay that pun was bad even for me

[@scriptorpaulina]

It’s so funny that you made this, because I made the captions for the CrashCourse video on Enthalpy and Entropy (which explains all this much more clearly) TEN YEARS AGO! TYSM for explaining it again 8)

[@AlexWaardenburg]

I love that Cody's lab and other KZbin channels are referenced in the same way as Henry's Law paper. Makes science feel so current and relevant.

[@tcarney57]

Current and relevant, or ephemeral, opportunistic, and merely popular? Certainly not relevant to anyone but KZbin viewers, and by style, presentation, and attitude indistinguishable from crackpots. Just another self-referencing echo chamber.

[@AlexWaardenburg]

@@tcarney57 That's true of all science dude.

[@tcarney57]

@@AlexWaardenburg If that's true, then climate-change deniers and other right-wing anti-intellectuals are justified in believing science is all just opinion, interpersonal competition, and bias. Making it into a side show hurts trust in science.

[@pedroff_1]

Not first time Action lab has said some sketchy stuff (I'm still _salty_ over when he talked about adding salt to ice not "melting" it because technically you're just preventing the reverse fase shift from liquid to solid due to the solute, and thus shifting the equilibrium point. AKA, he was being super pedantic for the sake of clickbait). If I get it, he oversimplified the effect of entalpy and temperature on the Gibbs Free Energy equation, which does mean exothermic reactions tend to be favoured on lower temperatures, IIRC. But he really botched a ton of science on this one, getting to really wrong conclusions regardless. That part on slowing down the reavtion speed... just horrendous

[@expertoflizardcorrugation3967]

at a glance the explanation given seems to make enough sense, and considering its not important enough to most people to check, it's easy to just go on believing what they said. I wonder how many myths propagate by that way. I appreciate you giving a proper explanation.

[@That_Chemist]

Thanks!

[@saxassoon]

What's the over-under on Figueroa decreasing the solubility of Azetes by stirring ACN to reflux?

[@Nick-dj5bx]

Just a small correction: You said Lithium has a higher redox potential than Caesium, which isn't true. Lithium has a lower redox potential and thus is being oxidized and reduces the Caesium in the process (Richardson-Ellingham diagrams are a big help in seeing what reduces/oxidizes what). Otherwise great video!

[@zeuehcucu4847]

Bro you are exactly on my wavelenght, thats why I love to watch your videos. His videos have been in my recommendations to me for the last few months and I had the exact same opinion about everything you said.

[@samblackstone3400]

They’re fun to watch if my brain is off but it’s definitely pop sci. Action Lab’s ferrofluid video is kind of neat if just for the shots of it moving.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

Even more obvious for a contrary example to "exothermic reactions slow down at higher temperatures" is fire. Does fire calm down and stop when you heat things up?

[@JGHFunRun]

Wouldn't it be exothermic?

[@enderyu]

Fire is not a reversible process, so you cant apply Chatelier's principle. The reverse reaction should balance out the continuous forward reaction, but the theoretical temperature necessary to reach such equilibrium is way too high to happen in practice.

[@OmicronCoder]

do you mean exothermic??

[@JGHFunRun]

@@enderyu even so TAL made his thing sound absolute

[@jasonpatterson8091]

Yep, I meant exothermic. Brain fart. Thanks for the correction.

[@timoch4099]

At 8:33, why is the higher redoxpotential of Li connected to "entropically favorable to go to caesium" - why entropically? I would be greatful, if someone could explain this maybe. I'm thinking through equations I know, but couldn't find it :/

[@wscamel226]

Cool microphone, what is it?? Where can I buy this?

[@That_Chemist]

Shure SM7B - it’s what most KZbinrs use, and you can buy it almost anywhere you can buy audio equipment (music store, Amazon, etc)

[@user-vy1kz1co9p]

i do not want to be the person distilling cesium lmao

[@That_Chemist]

me neither

[@giganetom]

As a non-chemist I find this video very interesting. Thank you! What is also interesting is that I've heard an explanation of reverse solubility similar to the on put forward by Actionlab before, it must be some kind of a myth, and not an isolated case. I wonder if there is a bogus high school textbook somewhere or something.

[@MarkkuS]

I have understood it always this way too. That if something releases energy when dissolving, you need to remove the released energy to make it dissolve more. To drive the reaction forward as they say. I guess I should have known chemistry is not that simple.

[@estercabrera1908]

I stg..the smile on my face rn yall x) lol i first thought this to be a major freakin lawsuit and was like :OOOOOO ooh maaan....WHUT...then I read the desciption and was still very much like O___O but was having more of an oooooh, this gon be awwkkkwaaarrrrddddd haha...I loved the emotional rollercoaster and all the helpful bits of info in the vid as well [like molecular/compound pix as references or when you cite that table from a paper].. all very helpful especially when ur still a super n00b or bb [bby] chemist :3 thanks bunches dude! and the entropy loving side of me is pretty stoked and looking fwd to more vids of this caliber ^__^ i think a lil bit of confrontation is good for us sometimes heh >:))) ps. care to drop the author of that book back there?? I dont mean to pry but uhh..pretty big and attention calling font there :D i love itx)

[@That_Chemist]

Michael Gerald - www.amazon.ca/Drug-Book-Arsenic-Milestones-History/dp/1402782640

[@kolinmartz]

I don’t even watch anything from this channel long enough to catch any mistakes. I honestly just find the sound of his voice and how he talks grating.

[@fyang1429]

The interesting thing is that I remember being told that solubility was one of the things that people from the era of Gibbs used to learn about thermodynamics. It's unfortunate to see people who don't even have any idea about the G = H - TS equation trying to explain solubility.

[@mastershooter64]

LOL Henry would've never guessed his paper would be cited in a (very cool) youtube video 200 years after it was published

[@pyritenightmare]

"I do in-depth chemistry science videos about various topics" as if most people don't know them as "chemistry tierlist man"

[@kenny456100]

The most interesting and frustrating part of chemistry is that, the more you study it, you learn more about forces. For me, I stopped learn it when it started covering van der Waals force, metallic / ionic / covalent bond, hydrogen bond.

[@plainText384]

Chemistry when you get to blow things up: :D Chemistry when it turns out to all just applied Quantum Physics (but limited to only EM-force, and you never get analytical solutions) and statistical mechanics: :(

[@stevenlyle2151]

A fun compound to cover in this discussion is poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)! It's a polymer with some really interesting temperature dependent solvation properties (negative entropy of mixing with water) - it's often used as a demo for this reason! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)

[@robertlenders8755]

Yes, it's all about Entropy. Increasing temperature always increases the rate of reaction. However, the differential equations relating entropy to equilibrium include temperature so you get different equilibriums at different temperatures. The decreasing solubility of calcium salts at increasing temperatures probably has something to do with the entropy relationship of the calcium-water interactions given that calcium carbonate also has reduced solubility at higher temperatures.

[@robert-skibelo]

Thanks for spreading competence and accuracy.

[@bucketsaremyfriend]

I always thought this dude was a bit of a hack... I've watched a fair bit of his content, and it always feels like he's just reading some "facts" to us, and doesn't really understand or know what he's talking about. Glad to see my assumptions weren't wrong lol

[@That_Chemist]

We all make mistakes, but when we do we need to correct those mistakes as much as possible - I want him to improve

[@obsessivecorvid]

He also manages to stretch the videos out for like 10 extra minutes

[@gabrieldabriel]

that chemist not being a disembodied voice is so odd

[@wscamel226]

6:35 - so basically the higher the teperature the faster I can dissolve the CO2 in water but I'll be able to disolve less of it?

[@billymonday8388]

my new hobby is carefully and meticulously watching pop-sci videos

[@RobertSzasz]

Combustion is exothermic. Does it go slower when the reactants are hotter? 🤦🤦🤦

[@stephenjacks8196]

So heating the reaction un-dissolves the tar that then sticks to my flask?

[@CopyniumPastenium]

the logic for me is that the energy in the form of temperature is the culprit that cause chemical reaction, the higher it is the faster it reacts. the result where the temperature increases or decreases depends on what is being made. if temperature decrease means the reaction adsorb energy in form of temperature and if it increase, it giving of energy in form of heat. This knowledge is crucial when we work with powder material that has the potential to combust (different from being flammable) if the material that combust give off heat, this means that it will start the chain reaction and keep burning until the fuel get depleted which we will considered the material very dangerous to worked with. If it adsorb heat, it means the combustion will die off sooner or later when heats get remove by the reaction. not so sure if this is a good analogy but it works for me doing risk assessment.

[@laboratoriumdiscounter3225]

very well explained, thanks

[@henryrroland]

Acctully, I think he is right about it... Not about all (especially when he tries to talk about kinetics and the phenomenon is thermodynamic 😮‍💨). But he's right about increasing temperature in exothermic process, change the equilibrium, and it's more favorable to the products, because it changes 𝐾 constant. ΔG = ΔG° +RT•Ln(Q) At equilibrium 0 = ΔG° +RT•Ln(𝐾) Ln(𝐾) = -ΔG°/RT Ln(𝐾) = -(ΔH° -T•ΔS°)/RT Ln(𝐾) = -(ΔH°/RT) + ΔS° Considering an exothermic process in two different temperatures T₁ and T₂ and supposing T₂ >T₁ Ln( 𝐾₁) = ΔH°/RT₁ + ΔS° Ln( 𝐾₂) = ΔH°/RT₂ + ΔS° Then Ln( 𝐾₁) > Ln( 𝐾₂) for the same exothermic process, therefore it is better decrease temperature to make more products, in that case, solvateded ions.

[@Dheast]

acctully

[@photonik-luminescence]

To be honest, the physical change or chemical change dispute is hard to put an end really. My teacher told me that a chemical change means, when you get a new chemical with new properties. However, you can argue that salt before in water didn't react well with other chemicals like solids and now in water it can undergo chemical changes if other chemicals are added. Copper sulfate and sodium carbonate won't react in powdee form unless given into water. So, in the case of copper sulfate and sodium bicarbonate the water acts (and in most cases) like a medium. So yes, the copper sulfate and sodium carbonate can now undergo a chemical change in water to form copper carbonate and sodium sulfate, but in the end you still get the copper sulfate or sodium carbonate, just as ions to then react but separately... I still prefer to call salt dissolving in water a physical change because if the concentration is high it will recrystalyze to that salt. (Unless you account something like de hydrated copper sulfate. When dehydrated copper sulfate comes in contact with water, it trapes water molecules in it and then its copper sulfate pentahydrate) Also, sometimes i feel like The Action Lab leaves out some infos in his short that are important. Once he made a short of "bleeding plants", he didn't mention that he used acetone to get the chlorophyll out of the plant cells to get the cool orange fluorescence.( No wonder it didn't work the first time i tried). He mentioned it in a full video. Still, he could have sed that. I sometimes cut things from my short video, but now, i focus to make short interesting and not to cut down the important things.

[@johannaverplank4858]

Thank you for explaining. My chemistry knowledge is only from high school, one college course, and watching tons of chemistry KZbinrs. I didn't feel his explanation was correct, but I couldn't pinpoint why. Thanks for clearing that up.

[@TheBlue_NL]

Good video. But why is your camera so low?

[@rue6914]

Thanks for the video! I'm fresh out of AP chemistry and his video confused the hell out of me- I definitely didn't remember learning about any of the solution equilibrium stuff he talked about...

[@lenger1234]

The Action Lab brings interesting scientific principals to people like me that do not need or want too many specific details or nuanced explanations. No one watches him to become a chemist, we watch him because he actually shows us interesting things in a wide variety of areas.

[@HouseTre007]

Exactly

[@i_initial_m]

It's True

[@ChannelSwimmingScientist]

😂 as long as it is entertaining for you lenger1234

[@killsmusic2503]

Hi I'm the one guy who watches him to become a chemist

[@Luka1180]

Speak for yourself, please!!!!

[@EXYZ3]

(off topic) why laser crystals are always doped with another element? (Er:YAG / Nd:YVO4) why can't it be just (YVO4) without the( Nd )? i know you are a chemist but i want a physical explaination (and about the energy states of those crystals, does it get more possible energy states if it was doped or is it just that the doping enables the reaction to occur?) edit: i was wrong because there are many crystals that we can directly use without doping (ruby/ KTP) but why is it that the crystals that takes a specific photon energy and lowers it (by wasting some of it using relaxational vibration) are doped?

[@gloobark]

no idea why this got into my feed a year late but this was great

[@brianstevens3858]

Oxidation of a fuel, {Fire} certainly provides evidence that the slowdown of exothermic reactions is not what he thinks it is, otherwise it would quickly extinguish itself.

[@samuelblackmon]

Except that there is an explanation of combustion equilibrium from Le Chatelier's principle. A reaction being exothermic or endothermic is just a question of whether you can consider the evolution of heat to be a product or reactant and so if a fuel is in an enclosed space such that the products of combustion accumulate, the reaction will slow down even if there is still fuel left because its concentration will have gone down

[@brianstevens3858]

@@samuelblackmon And if it's not in an enclosed condition? I see your point but don't think it's quite relevant to all conditions, if it's only under certain conditionals, it's indicative that the condition is the limiting factor and not the reaction itself.

[@samuelblackmon]

@@brianstevens3858 no, the point is that Le Chatelier's principle makes a prediction about the combustion reaction and you can test it and it proves true. A fire is constantly shedding heat and exhaust gasses. If you put it in conditions where it cannot do so then Le Chatelier's principle predicts that the reaction equilibrium will shift such that not all the fuel is consumed

[@brianstevens3858]

@@samuelblackmon What I am saying is that if the reactants are allowed to react in an open condition, then we can predict they will not extinguish themselves by being diluted by the post reaction product. This means the reaction itself is not the causative but rather having the enclosed local condition of being swamped by the reaction products, if going to go there, then the end result is that all reactions are going to be both endo and exo thermic because the products have properties too, where does it end? The reaction itself is not self extinguishing, by adding in the byproducts {or the results} you have changed the values of the reaction to include the exhaust gas and of course it will be limiting. I can smother a fire by adding halon by applying a limiting factor you have modified the result, it says nothing about the oxidation of the fuel reaction itself.

[@samuelblackmon]

@@brianstevens3858 I think I've lost track of what your point is. Your original comment seemed to suggest you had some problem with the idea of Le Chatelier's principle being applied to combustion and my replies were pointing out that they do in fact apply

[@webpombo7765]

If he sees this he will most likely correct himself, he's a nice guy that just likes science

[@That_Chemist]

I hope so

[@nefariousyawn]

@@That_Chemist I was thinking the same thing. I've never been crazy about his channel, but I think he really is trying to get other people interested in science. Maybe he would be interested in a collaboration with a real chemist for his correction video? Dude has a huge audience.

[@gabrielmalek7575]

Guys I watch the action lab too, but it's no veritasium, it's pretty much a kids channel, people dont watch the videos because of his eloquent explanations, he gets stuff wrong sometimes, but we still appreciate the videos.

[@Sillimant_]

what set me off was when he said "undissolving", precipitate is a word that exists for a reason

[@lefthandedspanner]

the equilibrium position is determined by the Gibbs free energy (ΔH - TΔS), something your man appears not to have heard of I do know of a few genuine example of inverse solubility; many ethoxylated surfactants, and certain polymers, become less soluble at higher temperatures but those are specific structure- and solvent-related effects rather than general thermodyamic phenomena

[@calyodelphi124]

I am VERY glad that you spent this entire video debunking without toxically ridiculing James, and giving TONS of very good knowledge and explanations of what's actually happening. I've seen too many debunking videos that just spend the whole time ridiculing and it's so unbelievably toxic.

[@SpecialEDy]

The vapor pressure increases as temperature increases. Both water, and the gases dissolved in it, would be more excited and tend to vaporize as the temperature increased. I imagine that since heat is kinetic action of molecules essentially bouncing off each other, as the temperature increases, it becomes harder for a gas molecule to cling to a water molecule. Ionic bonds are weak, and a collection of molecules are not as uniform as we think. As an example, cooling liquids off to near absolute zero involves pouring cryogenic liquid into a crucible, and waiting for excited molecules to go zipping out of the crucible, while the less energetic molecules stay in the crucible. With astronomical numbers of water molecules in a glass of water, at any moment, some of them are likely almost stationary, while other might get unluckily bounced around at some small fraction of the speed of light. Its only the average that gives us the temperature.

[@Heres_The_Thing]

I'm actually quite happy that there is a sudden trend in Chemistry KZbinrs committing to a sort of peer review. It will eventually lead to KZbin being a very credible source for scientific information due to the accessibility compared to scientific journals

[@felixar90]

I knew there was something that didn’t add up with his explanation.