it is very interesting that an international committee - not having enough to do - comes up with these changes. Do you remember, when the basis for atomic weight was carbon? Do you remember,that the enthalpy of elements are set to zero? Our world is relative, IUPAC cannot change that - but they try. This is a meaningless tweak on the periodic table. Poor professor had to be PC in this video and do not say it's bullcr@p...
@tszailer The basis for atomic weight is *still* carbon, one particular isotope of carbon (12). It may be a minor tweak but acknowledging and listing the ranges that atomic isotope distributions may have across the earth is just another part of the accurate measures that are needed in every part of science.
@Darkonomist lol if memorization of atomic weights was the only thing you gained from 5 years of chemistry then I think those five years belong in the recycling bin anyways.
For carbon, the 12-13 ratio in limestone is different then oil-shale even when depositet in the same ocean. Limestone has the same ratio as the water it's formed in while "organic" biomatter take up more of one of the isotopes (I forgot which one, lol)
Congratulations on an excelently presented video. Very clear, a pleasure to watch.
If only other interviewers (in news media) would ask knowlegably "intelligent" questions like Bradies' question/input, and then allow the interviewe the time to reply, then perhaps the public might become more informed about the subject being discussed. But maybe thats expecting too much from the general public.
@PEA1222 it doesn't really fit perfectly into any position, so it's put in different places on different periodic tables, and in some it's put in two positions
Well, I've been vindicated. Ever since elementary school I've said that memorizing the periodic table JUST BECAUSE wouldn't be of much use, and right I was :P
@Xerotaerg: That would seem to be difficult as the light elements are being churned out in older stars all the time, and the heavy ones when those old stars finally explode. Percentages of isotopes presumably hang upon exact temperatures, element mixtures present, pressures, timings and so on
This could really get out of hand. Do other elements' isotopic distributions vary like this? Are there elements where there are five or six sources with different weights? The periodic table could become really massive if overly conscientious people have the run of things...
@SprodeBoy the main periodicvideos website has a link to all about studying chemistry at the university (bottom right of site)... check it out! there are certainly Americans who study here!
@canadafreakazoid: It must be interesting when your equipment not only determines, but actually creates the average atomic weight for an element throughout the known universe.
first off, the gravitation on the earth is different at different locations on earth, it also depends where those measurements are taken. gravity is not the same around the world.
@Tinteskou: Oh, there's a niche market for them, but the Prof has people all over the world scouring it for periodic tables. That's the upside of being a world celebrity, even if it's only within the chemistry geeks that like these videos. Make sure you see his birthday video this year.
Heh this is kind of stupid. Elements of the same isotope don't have some additional magic property which causes variation in atomic weight do they? If not, then periodic tables should explicitly state an atomic weight for a specific isotope (maybe the most common found in the earth's crust or atmosphere.) An average isn't very useful and neither is a range because neither is a range unless you're for some reason interested in those numbers as said near the end of the video.
@Ormaaj: Bull. The average is quite useful when doing precise reactions, trying to determine yields, when you are trying to figure out how much is a mole of sulfur, exactly. With a range, at least it becomes explicit that you need to assay your sulfur. I imagine that high-purity chemicals will begin to have assays of their weights printed on the labels in the future.
@puncheex The problem with giving an average is similar to false precision except a precise value is still actually known for each isotope, but a precise value for the average doesn't have a strong significance. A range is slightly better in that it gives precise values only where meaningful but still requires that you understand exactly what that means.
@Ormaaj: I don't argue with you over that. I only say that your statement above of "An average isn't very useful and neither is a range...". The average is closer, much closer, than just using a single "most-common isotope" number. The range let's you know how big your error bars are. They are meaningful, but if your experiment requires absolute precision then you're going to have to assay your supplies yourself.
The different isotopes change reactions in the case that some elements are heavier and so harder to move. Harder to move means they react last. And the isotopes are created by our star and its various ejections. Different stages of our star have created diverse concentrations of isotopes. You probably shouldn't have averaged them to begin with.
@johncrwarner: Did you see the video where they determined what the arrangements would be if they had 172 elements, and started filling in electrons in the t shells? The table starts getting weird.
The Pekka Pyykkö paper from the Chemistry Department of the University of Helsinki. The filling of the g shell electrons makes it much wider and the big question is the relative energy levels of the various shells - but it is still quite orderly.
The range of distribution of different isotopes of the same element may change depending upon which sample you analyze; does, however, the Universal distribution change?
How to determine the Universal distribution, or is that not necessary since distribution fluctuates depending upon which sample you analyze?
@periodicvideos Brady, you ought to link all those other videos that are mentioned here (deuterium, sulfur etc) , so the viewers could easily find them. Thanks!
I have some AS chemistry exams in June and January, and for these exams we will be given a periodic table in a data booklet, does this mean the table we will be given will have changed?
Also how would I apply the new weights to calculations? would you just take the middle value of the range or is some other technique needed?
@asasinator17 No it will not be changed, i have my A level chemistry exam next year as well. most of the time, we only use the relative atomic mass to one decimal place.
@Cube3Productions Thank you :) does anyone have any information on my other question though? about how to use a range of value's for a calculation instead of one definitive value?
@asasinator17 In most cases, you could just pick one. Unless you need extreme precision, it doesn't matter much whether you have 10.66 g or 10.67 g of a substance.
The difference between the values for Li is ~1%, but the other ranges are much smaller, on the order of 0.1% or 0.01%. So not much difference.
This video has finally answered my question if frozen D2O will sink in liquid H2O.
therealjammit 4 days ago
Thanks for these wonderful videos!
2DP71828182845904523 1 week ago
Why the heck do I got spanish subtitles? Nevermind... me gusta!
Spieleschummler 2 months ago
I laughed hard when he burst out "Is nothing sacred!?" at 0:28, about the periodic table changing.
CertifiedBad4ss 2 months ago
I bet he has had that hair do since the invention of the Periodic Table.
baalisgod666 7 months ago
why is it some atoms have two naturally stable isotopes, but some have only radioactive isotopes?
drewnickel 10 months ago
and i learned something new today. Ty)
masluxx 10 months ago
I dig the dew.
arbonac 10 months ago
i might go here someday and study :D
Trapmaker677 10 months ago
Comment removed
Ormaaj 11 months ago
Who of all of you, masters the Youtube channel and the Commentary?
Debbie321lopez 1 year ago
Thank you guys for making these videos, watching these videos helped me pass my chemistry final.
Ndizzyinthehizzy 1 year ago
I'm worried about his guy, he seems to have early signs of parkinsons and I believe it can be treated/controlled but not by conventional medicine.
imnotabear 1 year ago
I have a large new autographed nucleide chart on my wall, but without your video's I'd still be clueless.
Thanks.
Probewitch 1 year ago
the professor makes some good jokes!
lambogeek 1 year ago
Didn't they find that the mass of the proton was 4% less as well? Has that been accounted for?
smk2k2 1 year ago
oh thanks for keeping us up to date!!!!!!
sajibaby1 1 year ago 2
That was a GREAT question you interjected at 3:12!
I wonder about the differences in isotopes of elements sampled and analyzed on other planets, comets, etc.
pepsibookcat 1 year ago 8
@pepsibookcat thanks... don't often get comments about my questions! ;)
periodicvideos 1 year ago 5
I HAVE ONE OF THOSE CUPS :D I won it in my chem class last year <3
boiledcabbage06 1 year ago
@giantsquidrule Thank you for letting us know. When we started the project, I gave an interview on the BBC Russia service.
ProfWithTheHair 1 year ago
They just showed a few of your clips on Kultura channel in Russia.
giantsquidrule 1 year ago
I can imagine now solving a problem saying like find the enthalpy change for compound X from element derived from China from volcano X.
l3oss2u 1 year ago
Nice cup..!
Heartbreakhotel112 1 year ago
Why Scientists have long messy hair?
InnocuousAssassin 1 year ago
@InnocuousAssassin no time to take care of it... i guess ;)
BanderHM 1 year ago
I want that periodic table tea mug
meteorman96 1 year ago
Nice update!!!
Intervene 1 year ago
Comment removed
artifactingreality 1 year ago
Interesting video, I must say, this change is quite logical.
crusiatusblack 1 year ago
In the thumbnail I thought the Professor was wearing a Santa hat, but it was just his hair..... :3
Necron3211 1 year ago
I wanan eat that yellow stuff, it looks delicious! D:
JonatanGronoset 1 year ago
heavy stuff.... :)
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago
it is very interesting that an international committee - not having enough to do - comes up with these changes. Do you remember, when the basis for atomic weight was carbon? Do you remember,that the enthalpy of elements are set to zero? Our world is relative, IUPAC cannot change that - but they try. This is a meaningless tweak on the periodic table. Poor professor had to be PC in this video and do not say it's bullcr@p...
tszailer 1 year ago
@tszailer The basis for atomic weight is *still* carbon, one particular isotope of carbon (12). It may be a minor tweak but acknowledging and listing the ranges that atomic isotope distributions may have across the earth is just another part of the accurate measures that are needed in every part of science.
MuneoPollen 1 year ago
This is just another case of a scientist justifying their existence so they get paid, just like the deal with pluto.
MrTechGuy1995 1 year ago
Wow What is this liberal nonsence? Just leave the periodic table as it is, Damn its fine!
MrTechGuy1995 1 year ago
@MrTechGuy1995 If it was fine, they wouldn't have to change it.
rathat48 1 year ago
I was wondering, why is there a Hydrogen on 7B? Is that "more into" the chemistry study or is it the "new implemented" one?
(I havent seen that Hydrogen on any P.T. that I've used/seen before)
blackjackel2 1 year ago
whyd the sound quality get so low when you were asked why the weight would be different from volcano a compared to crystal b
s4m5on 1 year ago
@s4m5on because the person asking the question (me) is not wearing a microphone, whereas The Professor is!
periodicvideos 1 year ago 3
5 years of high school chemistry... in the recycle bin!
Darkonomist 1 year ago
@Darkonomist lol if memorization of atomic weights was the only thing you gained from 5 years of chemistry then I think those five years belong in the recycling bin anyways.
GuavaJ3nny 1 year ago
@Darkonomist LOL!
tuvoca 1 year ago
Sounds like a good opportunity to pick up an older version on the cheap!
Oheeeoh 1 year ago
Great video. Thumbs up. Thank you.
o2me2 1 year ago
Your ties are now useless. Send them to me.
culwin 1 year ago
For carbon, the 12-13 ratio in limestone is different then oil-shale even when depositet in the same ocean. Limestone has the same ratio as the water it's formed in while "organic" biomatter take up more of one of the isotopes (I forgot which one, lol)
holsson85 1 year ago
Congratulations on an excelently presented video. Very clear, a pleasure to watch.
If only other interviewers (in news media) would ask knowlegably "intelligent" questions like Bradies' question/input, and then allow the interviewe the time to reply, then perhaps the public might become more informed about the subject being discussed. But maybe thats expecting too much from the general public.
trespire 1 year ago
i'm jealous of anyone who has him as a teacher.. if i had this guy as my chemistry teacher then i would come to class EVERYDAY
FiliPinoy95 1 year ago
Good luck updating the periodic table engraved on your hair. :P
ShortGuy1792 1 year ago 79
@ShortGuy1792 ha ha... nice one!
periodicvideos 1 year ago 11
Why is there hydrogen at 2 spots and not 1 like the other elements?
PEA1222 1 year ago
@PEA1222 it doesn't really fit perfectly into any position, so it's put in different places on different periodic tables, and in some it's put in two positions
Smokinsomebasil 1 year ago
The head of IUPAC lives and works in my city (Guelph, Ontario)... if i get to meet him.. I have a LOT of questions for him.
Pada007gangster 1 year ago
Great Video like always . If only I had money to study in Nottingham :s
koffypr 1 year ago
Isnt science the exact opposite of sacred??? lol
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago 3
Well, I've been vindicated. Ever since elementary school I've said that memorizing the periodic table JUST BECAUSE wouldn't be of much use, and right I was :P
MarkArandjus 1 year ago
you scientist are always changing thing's. next you're going to say that Pluto not a planet.....oh wait.
defect530 1 year ago
God is sacred....psht just kidding!
h2ophilter 1 year ago
Sulphur.
LizzyAston 1 year ago
IS NOTHING SACRED?!
grandexandi 1 year ago
@grandexandi No, nothing is sacred.
That is except the scientific method, which is sacred.
bobster451 1 year ago
@Xerotaerg: That would seem to be difficult as the light elements are being churned out in older stars all the time, and the heavy ones when those old stars finally explode. Percentages of isotopes presumably hang upon exact temperatures, element mixtures present, pressures, timings and so on
puncheex 1 year ago
I got a A on my chem test :D Thanks!
cwbh10 1 year ago
This could really get out of hand. Do other elements' isotopic distributions vary like this? Are there elements where there are five or six sources with different weights? The periodic table could become really massive if overly conscientious people have the run of things...
ghuegel 1 year ago
I am a sophomore (10th grade) and am interested in going to nottingham. How does it work for americans going? like how much is tuition?
SprodeBoy 1 year ago 2
@SprodeBoy the main periodicvideos website has a link to all about studying chemistry at the university (bottom right of site)... check it out! there are certainly Americans who study here!
periodicvideos 1 year ago 11
can anybody give me a link to the video @ 1:04 i want to fidn out about heavy water
Cheejyg 1 year ago
@Cheejyg it's on as an annotation, or just search heavy water periodic table of videos
periodicvideos 1 year ago 7
@periodicvideos haha i got tired of waiting for a reply and i did a search lol, i didn't see the annotationg just now :P
but thanks! =) now i know about heavy water aka D2O!! ^_^
Cheejyg 1 year ago
Zinc! aka 30th
BasherCoon 1 year ago
It could be shown that all elements have isotopes, except for the new ones and the Uu series
canadafreakazoid 1 year ago
@canadafreakazoid: It must be interesting when your equipment not only determines, but actually creates the average atomic weight for an element throughout the known universe.
puncheex 1 year ago
first off, the gravitation on the earth is different at different locations on earth, it also depends where those measurements are taken. gravity is not the same around the world.
onthecuttingedge2005 1 year ago
Seriously how do you get so many things with periodic tables on?
They're full-on awesome, I want some :(
Tinteskou 1 year ago
@Tinteskou: Oh, there's a niche market for them, but the Prof has people all over the world scouring it for periodic tables. That's the upside of being a world celebrity, even if it's only within the chemistry geeks that like these videos. Make sure you see his birthday video this year.
puncheex 1 year ago
Heh this is kind of stupid. Elements of the same isotope don't have some additional magic property which causes variation in atomic weight do they? If not, then periodic tables should explicitly state an atomic weight for a specific isotope (maybe the most common found in the earth's crust or atmosphere.) An average isn't very useful and neither is a range because neither is a range unless you're for some reason interested in those numbers as said near the end of the video.
Ormaaj 1 year ago
@Ormaaj: Bull. The average is quite useful when doing precise reactions, trying to determine yields, when you are trying to figure out how much is a mole of sulfur, exactly. With a range, at least it becomes explicit that you need to assay your sulfur. I imagine that high-purity chemicals will begin to have assays of their weights printed on the labels in the future.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex The problem with giving an average is similar to false precision except a precise value is still actually known for each isotope, but a precise value for the average doesn't have a strong significance. A range is slightly better in that it gives precise values only where meaningful but still requires that you understand exactly what that means.
Ormaaj 1 year ago
@Ormaaj: I don't argue with you over that. I only say that your statement above of "An average isn't very useful and neither is a range...". The average is closer, much closer, than just using a single "most-common isotope" number. The range let's you know how big your error bars are. They are meaningful, but if your experiment requires absolute precision then you're going to have to assay your supplies yourself.
puncheex 1 year ago
He cant even have tea without it having something to do with Chemistry :L
solarmaximumkade 1 year ago
@solarmaximumkade: I was wondering why he was demonstrating with that cup in his hand. I don't think he'd do anything that gauche in his classes.
puncheex 1 year ago
Does there is water in the mug?!
Cickarn 1 year ago
I call lobbying! They clearly want to increase the periodic table printing economy :P
Patrickssj6 1 year ago 2
The different isotopes change reactions in the case that some elements are heavier and so harder to move. Harder to move means they react last. And the isotopes are created by our star and its various ejections. Different stages of our star have created diverse concentrations of isotopes. You probably shouldn't have averaged them to begin with.
525047 1 year ago
*dramatisation*
-Time for another experiment !
/pours green liquid into blue one/
/it starts to fuzz and produce smoke/
-My calculations ! They are all...wrong !
/Explosion/
*curtain !*
30LayersOfKevlar 1 year ago 2
Errrm excuse me *puts his hands up. Could someone please ask me before going off on a tangent and changing things..... Thank you.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
The atomic weights are not as sacred as all that - it would be different if they moved elements LOL
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner: Did you see the video where they determined what the arrangements would be if they had 172 elements, and started filling in electrons in the t shells? The table starts getting weird.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
The Pekka Pyykkö paper from the Chemistry Department of the University of Helsinki. The filling of the g shell electrons makes it much wider and the big question is the relative energy levels of the various shells - but it is still quite orderly.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
The range of distribution of different isotopes of the same element may change depending upon which sample you analyze; does, however, the Universal distribution change?
How to determine the Universal distribution, or is that not necessary since distribution fluctuates depending upon which sample you analyze?
TomMarAlem1987 1 year ago
I want that mug, I want that tie and I want that hair cut!
imafirinmalaser 1 year ago
Man the prof really is so excited in this vid that he got me excited for this too
BecuzIt 1 year ago
@periodicvideos Brady, you ought to link all those other videos that are mentioned here (deuterium, sulfur etc) , so the viewers could easily find them. Thanks!
rageagainstthebath 1 year ago
Love your video, love your cup, Professor!
afhdfh 1 year ago
First Pluto and now the Periodic Table.. is nothing sacred?!? lol
DrSaxxy 1 year ago 110
@DrSaxxy That only means we're always learning :)
shizamura 1 year ago
@DrSaxxy Oh please, Pluto should Never have been a main planet ;)
solarmaximumkade 1 year ago
@solarmaximumkade: Yeah, if only those people back in 1930 knew what you know, eh? :)
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex No need to get arsey.
Take it up with Clyde Tombaugh :)
solarmaximumkade 1 year ago
@DrSaxxy: It makes you wonder how physicists felt back in 1905 when Einstein was saying the Newton was wrong. Can you imagine?
puncheex 1 year ago
@DrSaxxy
It's a Kuiper belt object!
berniebay 1 year ago
@DrSaxxy science always changes :P
alphatelescopii 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrSaxxy I, too was thinking about Pluto.
Films4You 1 year ago
@DrSaxxy If something was sacred, it wouldn't be science.
DevilMaster 1 year ago
Prof.'s hair periodic table definitely a KEEPER!
jakeweiq 1 year ago
I have some AS chemistry exams in June and January, and for these exams we will be given a periodic table in a data booklet, does this mean the table we will be given will have changed?
Also how would I apply the new weights to calculations? would you just take the middle value of the range or is some other technique needed?
asasinator17 1 year ago
@asasinator17 No it will not be changed, i have my A level chemistry exam next year as well. most of the time, we only use the relative atomic mass to one decimal place.
Cube3Productions 1 year ago
@Cube3Productions Thank you :) does anyone have any information on my other question though? about how to use a range of value's for a calculation instead of one definitive value?
asasinator17 1 year ago
@asasinator17 In most cases, you could just pick one. Unless you need extreme precision, it doesn't matter much whether you have 10.66 g or 10.67 g of a substance.
The difference between the values for Li is ~1%, but the other ranges are much smaller, on the order of 0.1% or 0.01%. So not much difference.
ghuegel 1 year ago
Lithium.
MinGophers 1 year ago
hydrogen! aka first :P
frosti0 1 year ago
@frosti0
Sorry, you were lithium.
Better luck next time
Cheeseboat20 1 year ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
That's the way science goes
TadRaunch 1 year ago
Wonderful video. I've heard of some studying on this done in my hometown at the University of Calgary.
StaupEimer 1 year ago