When Did We Discover that Hydrogen Produces Water when Burned? | Earth Science
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 03. 2017
- Brian Cox illustrates the 1796 experiments of Henry Cavendish, when he discovers that Hydrogen gas is a discrete substance, producing Water when burned, the property for which it was later named. Subscribe: bit.ly/SubscribeToEarthLab
Watch more: bit.ly/EarthLabOriginals
Best videos: bit.ly/TheBestOfBBCEarthVideos
'In Search Of Science'
Professor Brian Cox is going in search of the best of British science. Introducing his science heroes, Brian visits the places where they made their discoveries, recreating their experiments and examining their legacy to their scientific descendants.
Welcome to BBC Earth Science! Here we answer all your curious questions about science in the world around you. If there’s a question you have that we haven’t yet answered let us know in the comments on any of our videos and it could be answered by one of our Earth Science experts. - Zábava
so is this entire channel just clips ripped from a bbc tv channel? it's always clear that there's more to the videos.
WCGwkf mostly, yes.
We post two videos every week. On Tuesday we upload clips from cool BBC Science shows and every Thursday we post originals videos - here is our latests - czcams.com/video/uXWtf6O1A9M/video.html
2:04 that smile :)
(◔‿◔)
i was sent by my Science teacher, coooool
So hydrogen lives to its name of “generator of water”.. cool stuff.
Thats why its called hydrogen my dude.
Too bad english is so lazy and uses loanwords from greek and latin that are not translated thus native speakers have no idea what they mean. Hydrogen should be called "waterstuff" similar to the german word "wasserstoff". English should get rid of these dumb latin and greek loanwords and replace them with germanic words.
@@Ignisan_66
English has German roots, true. It also has a huge vocabulary that is derived from Latin and its successors. Getting rid of all the vocabulary that doesn’t come from German sources is not only impractical, it is also impoverishing.
This is even more so when you are talking about scientific vocabulary. Yes, Germanic and Slavic languages have their own derived words for hydrogen. That means they understand easily only those words with common roots. Which is not bad for everyday language, but it makes little sense for scientific language.
The sad thing is that people’s education and experience doesn’t tap enough on the Latin and Greek roots that are the common heritage of science.
In Venezuela, you don’t go to the “lung doctor” or the “liver doctor“, we go to the pneumonologist, or the hepatologist, even though Spanish has “pulmón” and “hígado” as perfectly good formal words in its vocabulary. Even if we are only laypersons, we just learn more words. I see that as a win.
But its nomenclature doesn't mean the hydrogen is a constituent of water 🤣🤣🤣
One of the best videos I have seen in a long time. Very well produced and conceptually provoking as well!
Are you daft? this is utterly contrived magic trick. doesn't show water is h2o at all. it shows condensation on a cold surface. the moisture in the air condensed due the temperature difference when the hydrogen was ignited. Water is medium its not H2o at all. As for electrolysis, the gases come from the salt solutions and the breakdown of the electrodes. water is inert for crying out loud!
I sometimes wish I could have been around in this era. When you could gather some materials at your bench and make scientific discoveries that were foundational and opened up whole new fields. Holding a prism up to a telescope (which was probably done as a lark) created a new field in astrophysics. Today, all of that low-hanging fruit has been discovered and known for generations and to make truly remarkable discoveries in the vast majority of fields requires multi-million or even multi-billion dollar equipment to be able to take measurements at the fringes of our understanding.
i thought i was the only one who thought about this
@@nurulain-ic6ti At the very least, it is you and me both lol
@@nurulain-ic6ti I just thought about this comment and remembered something you may find interesting. This reminds me a lot of a discovery that would have been made 200 years ago, even though it was just made about 2 years ago. So I guess there are still some things like this out there. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190730092630.htm
@@dacypher22thanks man and do you have a theory about atlantis
@@dacypher22 and yk i wish i have my own lab or place alone where i can focus on investigating stuff that ive been questioning but i aint rich.😭
Thanks for your contribution for every curious living being . you helped me with a big question I had now I have a conclusion :-) thanks
This is the best video I’ve seen making water… stunning video. All the other ones I’ve watched they were already using water in the experiment which didn’t really show me anything
Brian - Always delivering scientific clarity with a smile.
This is the first video I've found with a actually zoom up of there being actual water (Small amounts), Soooooo if hydrogen and a heat reaction only makes that little water? WHAT THE HELL MUST OF HAPPENED TO GIVE EARTH ALL OF THIS?
Maybe during the big bang. It was said that when the big bang happened, LOTS of atoms were projected and those started matter. They later then became the minerals and shit like that. Also, didn't the Earth was very hot or sumn? Sorry if my reply is inaccurate, it's been a while since I studied science.
"must have happened" or "must've happened" NOT "must of happened." Sorry to be pedantic about this grammatical error, but it drives me crazy every time I see it. :)
hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.
@@John_Doe27 right, now all you need is high heat which is also common in the universe.
@@alucardnolifeking789and oxygen
Seeing Brian Cox recommended instantly improved my day
Such a great teacher.. amazing video and production too.
Thankyou for this experiment 👍
So Brian Cox. immediately clicked the video
What if you mixed the hydrogen with pure oxygen in a 2 by 1 ratio?
Would the flask survive?
1) Kaboom.
2) maybe
Not sure, but from Everyday Astronaut's video on the SpaceX Raptor engine, hydrolox rockets like the ones on the space shuttle burn it at ~2.7:1. Sounds like a recipe for an interesting experiment, just try not to get too close ;)
Unless there was someway to vent the pressure from the combustion I’d say no. Although it would make you a ton of shrapnel
Glass grenade
meanwhile me collecting water from the lid that covers boiling water
Basically the same thing going on
Incredible
big up brian absolute mad lad
That was great.
I enjoy Brian Cox as a science communicator.
Perhaps you think he's cute...but his presentations center on "him" instead of the subject matter.
There's no reason to see him walking down the street (unless you're trying to spot an object below
the belt line) or him driving or him looking in windows. Millennials make everything about THEM!
I don't, I think he talks like he's talking to children. How old are you?
@@PeterPete old enough.
not old enough to know Brian Cox is talking rubbish!! Water being hydrogen and oxygen is a dream, it's fantasy. @@CanDoo321
More please
Ok this is the first time I'm happy with the channel change.
I find these little videos gems, all about how we understand the world today, thanks to people like Cavendish.
Too bad its simple condensation due to rapid temperature change rather than him “creating water” creating water is impossible😂
@@mo1stjusto146 He proved water was made up of two gases! They thought that water was an element prior to this great scientist; put things into perspective, will you!
The video seems to end quite abrubtly.
Anyway, great video, demonstrating what science (at least experimental science) is all about.
Many of them do because they're pulled from TV shows.
Nah, it's because it's their signature…
How can we tell if the water droplets aren't from the normal state of condensation. This often occurs as a result of sudden changes in the temperature of air,as it comes into contact with various surfaces, often glass.
It is condensation. The guy seems to be a conman. Water cannot be produced, it just is or is not.
@@vrcristian explosion = heat. Heat rises. Colder air created a vacuum at the mouth on the glass, forcing the heat out. Colder air rushed in to equalize the temperature to room temperature. Simple condensation
@@tonyhawking2193 exactly
@@vrcristian Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble but water *can* be produced. From hydrogen and oxygen. Or oxygen and any hydrocarbon, methane for instance. When natural gas which is mainly methane burns, the two main products are carbon dioxide and water wapor.
@@Ignisan_66 and your evidence for this claim? Would like to see a demonstration where you burn methane or anything else you'd like in a vacuum chamber and produce water. Obviously, before you do that you also need to show the "oxygen" as well as the gas/material burned are not containing water or water vapours already.
That's cool.
So that white smoke was HCL fumes and water vapor. Hydrogen is invisible. Also, That glassware is fantastic.
That white "smoke" would have been purely water vapour. There was no Chlorine in the experiment...
Hydrochloric acid is HCL. Not chlorine gas but acid vapor. Not lung friendly.
lol "...no chlorine in the experiment..." Check again, Slicksilver. Having done virtually this exact experiment myself at the tender age of 14, (With magnesium rather than zinc and without a fancy tube and 2 hole stopper and soap bubbler) there is a great deal of HCl gas evolved when using concentrated hydrochloric acid.
Since then I have learned the error of my ways; and yes, Brians too. See, concentrated hydrochloric acid is by definition a (very nearly) saturated solution of hydrogen chloride (which is a gas) in water. In general, solid solutes are most stable in hot solvents and gasses are most stable in cold ones and hydrochloric acid is no exception.
Reacting reactive metals with concentrated acids does certainly liberate hydrogen, but it also liberates a great deal of heat. So much so that the water in a case like this would begin boiling, both reducing the available solvent and massively shifting the solubility equilibrium from aqueous HCl(aq) to H2O(g) + HCl(g) (steam and acid gas). This also represents a major waste of reactants and as was pointed out, a respiratory and eye hazard. To get any sort of a reasonable yield or purity of produced gas the chemist would do well to use dilute acid, and either a bit of restraint or an ice bath. But that's no fun for tv or whatever.
@@whatelseison8970 sheesh
Hydrogen actually reacts with oxygen in air
Is that not just instant condensation, from the water already in that bit of air? 🤔
This scientist guy looks like dr well from flash series lol
Does that mean we can make engines fuelled by water and make water, with some loss, at the same time?
I don't know about water but we already have rocket engines fueled by hydrogen
1:10 I really thought he's going to say a very inappropriate word that gets beeped 😄 "inflammable air" !?
Same
I like this guy
Hi guys. I have a technical question if anyone could please answer. So basically I am wondering how much of the water comes back when you seperate it from oxygen to make hydrogen after burning that hydrogen for the elctricity and stuff. So basically what I am asking is, if we keep using hydrogen power, are we burning the worlds water????
That's essentially what is the byproduct of hydrogen fuel cell cars. The only emission from their exhaust pipe is just water. The difficult part is that hydrogen is extremely explosive (think hydrocarbons like gasoline) so containing them in a car or any place near living space is nothing short of a ticking time bomb if something goes wrong.
@@Typho0nify So the water is kept in cycle, but the problem you are describing is that if it is a faulty product, it is dangerous?
@@Typho0nify it's lighter than air so it will evaporate as it's floating away turning back into water it is way safer than gasoline even diesel .and it's been around you, all your life .
I just want to know if there's any smell when it explode since it's actually water.
I just don't see why we can't convert normal ic engines to H2. We already run them on C4H10
You can
coooooool
And how did he find out it was water, just went about tasting stuff? 😂
Good thing it wasn't distilled H2SO4
Cavendish also developed one of the better experiments for demonstrating gravity.
Two experiments shown
1) zinc + conc H2SO4
2) H2 + O2 = Water
no more james may?
series 2 aired recently here in the u.k. It was very good.
look so coollll
I do NOT know why Professor Cox reminds me of Johny Depp as Willy Wonka. No disrespect intended towards this brilliant man.
1:56 Inflammable means flammable?!?! What a country...
inflame + able
Maybe this is how we got water on earth
It's like they add water to make the reaction work. I want to see hydrogen and oxygen form a drop of water
Wasn't this called Science Britannica in the UK, not In Search of Science?
it was called science britannica in the uk
I thought so... thanks.
i was sent here by coffee 😃 drank coffee and can’t just stay still and not study
About after someone first burned it I'd guess.
What will he be repeating next?
Waow
Cavendish didn't grow potatoes :D Kidding. Thanks for the video!
Lightning is the spark that creates the water. Make sense
i have a question, how many water produce 1g of hydrogen combusted in ideal conditions?
about 0.5 ml i would assume
So what does the scientist do when he is stranded in an island?
It means when water makes it produces heat
Why did he call it "inflammable" air, if it's clearly quite flammable?
Ya Koujin because in english both inflammable and flammable means the same. that is flammable.
Ya Koujin One of many oddities in English, inflammable = flammable. Here in the USA, inflammable is a somewhat obsolete word. It is old fashioned enough that young people may be confused about its meaning. In technical writing, we are cautioned not to use inflammable, for that reason. When we want to say, "something that will not burn", we say non-flammable or non-combustable. As a first syllable, "in" has more than one meaning, and some cases where it may have no meaning at all or derive from another word. Inter means to bury or place in the ground. Since ter obviously comes from Latin for ground or earth, the in means put into. But, inter as a compound syllable means between, as in interrupt, intercede and inter-city. Inflammable probably comes from inflame, a word still in common use that means to set on fire (often in a figurative sense). Indivisible means not divisible. In the word "industry", for example, the "in" may come from a different origin, "indu" + "struere". And, of course, there is the extremely common preposition "in", a word all on its own.
The wide variety of origins of English words is both a frustration, and a fascination. Part of the frustration comes from the variety of meanings of similar syllables and words that we have just mentioned. Another part is that we inherit a confusion of spelling patterns along with different origins of words. Compared to other European languages, English is quite a mess, but it is also a richness. We have a considerably larger vocabulary than other European languages. A skillful English writer can find words to express a very wide range of meaning, at the risk, sometimes of being misunderstood by those whose knowledge of the language is less complete. English spelling is just miserable compared to most European languages. Even well educated people often have trouble with spelling.
@@markholm7050 Theres something similar in german which we call "entflammbar" which basically stands for "inflammable" or able to be "ablazed".
Not that surprising knowing our languages are very much connected, even if english speakers have issues seeing that, for me as a german its very easy to see the connections. "Flammbar" isnt even a word in the german language but it would be the equivalent to "flammable". Theres also a word called "brennbar" which just stands for "able to burn". Quite interesting isnt it? Sorry for my english grammar btw ! Haha. I also gotta say that German has a lot of words too. But yes english can sometimes be misunderstood like you mentioned, its simple but complex. While german is more precise, and straight forward and very descriptive.
I like the english language but sometimes it feels very primitive to me, in comparison to german.
Iam not completely fluent yet, but knowing what i know, its way easier to communicate and actually get to the point of meaning in german.
That might be cause iam biased, who knows. Thank you for the lesson tho !
Inflammable isn't in + flammable. It's inflame + able. Inflame means to aggravate something or set it ablaze. See also inflammatory.
is there anywhere on earth that naturally combines oxygen and hydrogen to form water?
The amount of oxygen and hydrogen required to make a glass of water must be enormous and must be a HUGE explosion.
if you're reading this comment, you're procrastinating. back to work
Damn how’d you know😂
Lol
You don't tell me what to do
i always forget inflammable means flammable
That's how you know there's a God. When it rains(no thunderstorm) there's never a loud bang.
Are you serious ?
If there's a God, I hope he prevents you from reproducing.
Someone didn't pass their 1st grade science class
@JoaK yes, cope
This has nothing to do with raining. Thats completely different process.
And in that last line we have the problem (and the beauty) with science. Observations lead as much to right answers as they do to wrong answers if we fail to understand what the experiment is really about. Unifying the fields is so hard because despite many valid experiments and observations we simply fail to see what it is about. In 200 years it will be blatantly obvious like water being H2O but not today.
ratio
@@gracepena8821 You are not wrong.
What element is The Spark? 🤔
Friction or pressure eh?
AFRICA KNEW ABOUT ALL OF THIS ALREADY BEFORE THIS DISCOVERY
What if we could create oceans on other planets like mars with this reaction
can't because there isn't oxygen on mars to make h2'O'. can't make something burn with no oxygen
And how did he know , that this crystal bowl wouldn`t blow?
He didn't, hence the protective shield he was behind
"Wohl-tuh" = H2O
Converting Hydrogen into water is a good thing....
Let's make water from Hydrogen.
Can you make the water without explosion
Yes, if we use what is called a hydrogen fuel cell. A hydrogen fuel cell is kind of like a battery that needs a continuous input of hydrogen and oxygen gas to make electrical energy, with water as the only output.
@@NihangShah no
I though that hydrogen mixed with the oxygen in the air
Question: why does he say, “ What you saw there was the reaction with Hydrogen and air.” When the Hydrogen reacted with the fire.
Fire(heat)doesn't react it makes things react with oxygen.
Fire is a chemical reaction.
First thing I thought and he didnt use fire he used electricity
The hydrogen didn't react with the fire. Fire is one of the results of the reaction.
Oxidation releases heat, and when oxidation occurs very rapidly (as in the case of hydrogen) the heat is enough to briefly superheat the surrounding matter. As you ought to know, most matter progresses from solid -> liquid -> gas -> plasma as it is heated further (and, in the case of plasma, ionized.) Fire is composed of gas and/or plasma depending on what is burning.
Geeeeeeeez Rick
i also want to be a scientist
If Rodney Mullen was a scientist.
British keanu reeves😂
Also you proved with electricity water and hydrogen you could build a motor that would power a car, very intersting
Have you heard of hydrogen fuel cells?
They're essentially that, and cars that have them have already been made.
@@Xonovelixi yes I'm aware of that, mid 80s a hydrogen car was made..
Why he named it as hydrogen
He did not named it, Antoine Lavoisier did after redoing cavendish experiment!
Lavoisier named it such because Hydro gen refers to "water producer".
Jo Mr. White
why are we not powering our cars with this.....
Young hanibal lecture going to labs😂
differences in temperature between colder air on the outside and warmer air on the inside = condensation, dosent come close to proving the water is hydrogen and oxygen. Do the experiment in an environment when there is 0 moisture and I might be convinced. This is not a controlled experiment, to many variables.
The point is to show an easy experiment, if you aren't going to be convinced by real chemical science ie. Hydrogen + oxygen (aka burning) = H2O then you aren't gonna be convinced with any other method. They want to teach people who want to learn, not convince skeptics that science is real.
somebody awaken , finally!
Your argument makes no sense. If the air was cold enough to cause condensation it would occur before you performed the experiment. It would also condense on the colder /outside/ of the container and not on the warmer /inside/ where we see the water form.
What's in this video to be disliked hehe .
God bless you :)
His lips and the way he smiles is so creepy
thats how we got water on earth....it takes a small gas giant planet like Neptune and you need something to make this happen...the sun..closer i say...then ice giant starting to shrink and reactions results explosion when oxygen been produce with hydrogen was establish whats left after all this...methane water and water that sit on salty surface of residue whats left of the planet...we all born from gas planet...gas gives life in proper condition...accidents but not on purpose but life found a way forward by sacrifice
How does the formation of water on the glass prove that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen?
It doesn't. Its a con, we cannot create water
It doesnt lol because thats just condensation
And from where would that water be? Cant be from air cause it is room temperature glass not cold glass. Not enough temperature difference to condense air water vapor. Are we really doubting the fact that hydrogen and oxygen produce water? And I thought that after flat earth no conspriracy will surprise me anymore.
Because burning involves oxygen. When he burned the gas, oxygen reacted with hydrogen and a sound was produced forming water.
Chemistry rules.
So water is just burnt hydrogen bonded with oxygen 🤔
The chemical name of water is hydrogen monoxide. Oxygen is called that because it was formerly believed that all oxidation (and thus all fire) requires oxygen - this has since been found not to be the case.
So yes, water is literally burnt hydrogen, and that's why water doesn't burn and can be used to put out (some) fires.
Sorry suck at Chemistry; so it’s H2 + O2 = H2O, where does the remaining O go?
Thanks!
we balance the chemical equation, by reacting 2moles of H2 + 1 mole of O2 = 2moles of H2O
physics
can i drink it
You didnt make water, but I get it. Electric charge made the chemical reaction not fire, so I guess the sun is made of electricity not fire, thats cause the chemical reactions of water and the different colors of light in the sky in nature
As a plasma, hydrogen's electron and proton are not bound together, resulting in very high electrical conductivity and high emissivity (producing the light from the Sun and other stars).
By jove, why is this comment section full of weirdos ranting about "scientism"?
Dumb question but how would a man alive in the 1700s manage to make pure nitric acid?
dom dom even the alchemists had HNO3. The main difference was that a) it was fuming nitric acid, and b) they called it “aqua fortis” back then.
@@agekjrgardpayoutube2593 But how did they make it? What did they mix together to make it?
dom dom in those days, they mixed nitrate salts with sulfuric acid and distilled the mixture. They probably made the nitrates by bacterial action on manure treated with either wood ash or lime. The liquid leachate can be evaporated to yield nitrate crystals, and the sulfuric acid was made by distilling weathered samples of pyrite (fools gold).
Basically, manure juice crystals + acid made from weathered fools gold => nitric acid + sulfate salts
@@agekjrgardpayoutube2593 I see that's a great help, thanks, I see that Pyrite is basically mined and mining minerals etc has gone on since the first human civilizations.
@@agekjrgardpayoutube2593 isn't distilling a substance obtaining a purer form by evaporating it and then recondensating it? How did they get temperatures low enough to do that? Or did they create a vacuum to cool it, but I doubt they could do that if they didnt even have refrigerators
bruh
İn the sun everything is senthesized or created by hydrogen atoms!
..as if by magic
Aren't we doing just the same? Defining things wrong while measuring them accurately..
Hydrochloric acid and no fume hood sounds like a bad idea.
This the teach off Willy Wonka.