Dr. Wilson, your videos are well oriented and clean, with great quality. Please consider solving a couple of word problems on the video to learn from your approach to solving problems. Again, great informative videos, thank you for the helpful content!!!
I'll see what I can do. This year I was teaching online and focusing on getting the information out there (and teaching a new to me class on top of it). This next year I'll be making more inorganic and analytical content.
A question: Why do you have to put Y=0 in the end to find [X]i? After all [X]ì is the only unknown value in the equation, so you could just simply solve the equation.
You are correct, you do not have to determine the x-intercept and then solve. With a spreadsheet it is fairly simple to extract the unknown value. However, solving for the x-intercept does reduce the number of variables that you are looking at at the same time. Maybe this is something that is left over from before computers. There is often a quest to generate a linear relationship sometimes at the expense of accuracy. Lineweaver Burk plots are an example of this. In our chemistry department we have noticed that fitting a polynomial is much more accurate (the lineweaver burn plot emphasizes higher error data points). Fortunately this is not the case for standard additions.
Dr. Wilson, your videos are well oriented and clean, with great quality. Please consider solving a couple of word problems on the video to learn from your approach to solving problems. Again, great informative videos, thank you for the helpful content!!!
I'll see what I can do. This year I was teaching online and focusing on getting the information out there (and teaching a new to me class on top of it). This next year I'll be making more inorganic and analytical content.
Thank you sir, you shed some light on the topic.
Glad it was helpful!
A question: Why do you have to put Y=0 in the end to find [X]i? After all [X]ì is the only unknown value in the equation, so you could just simply solve the equation.
You are correct, you do not have to determine the x-intercept and then solve. With a spreadsheet it is fairly simple to extract the unknown value. However, solving for the x-intercept does reduce the number of variables that you are looking at at the same time. Maybe this is something that is left over from before computers. There is often a quest to generate a linear relationship sometimes at the expense of accuracy. Lineweaver Burk plots are an example of this. In our chemistry department we have noticed that fitting a polynomial is much more accurate (the lineweaver burn plot emphasizes higher error data points). Fortunately this is not the case for standard additions.
@@Chemistryuniversity Thanks!