birch 🌳 please!!! at my place w e sing that 💩 out loud. profess your excitement for dave 😉 😉 with the level of enthusiasm it deserves. loudly and with the whole family. I'm just kidding you do you at whatever volume and gusto as you like. i just wanted to make your comment about internal monologue and intro tunes more exciting. turns out it ended up making me sound like a a 🍆.
my teacher in science and chemistry always recommend this channel so why not to subscribe 👍 indeed he deserved because he explains clearly every topic💜
Cramming for an AP chem quarter exam and trying to take a break with videos between re-writing notes and doing practice problems...starting to loose steam but I really appreciate your content and thank you for being so engaging ✌️
thanks to my chem teacher, just finally fixed my pc and wifi so i see all this work i gotta do plus 5 other classes. yes i would like to extend my stress by wtv the heck this is, but thanks to professor i finally learned som about chemistry ig. Edit: my laptop is fucked again, shit
"He knows a lot about the science stuff Professor Dave Explains" ---------------------------------------LEGEND---------------------------------------------------
4:45 - 4:59, postulate 5: it should be molecular kinetic energy, not speed. Because Ek is NOT directly proportional to molecular speed, and T is directly proportional to Ek, not speed??
I am confused about the explanation of Charles's Law - you said that the particles move faster (and therefore have more kinetic energy) but hit the container wall with the same frequency. Surely this would increase the pressure since they are colliding with greater energy at the same frequency. I would have thought to maintain the same pressure - if the speed of collision increases, then the frequency must decrease?
Woahhh! Dave you are my hero not only for the science stuff but also because I play bass and you seem like a cool down to earth guy who I could grab a beer with and nerd out about teaching, astrophysics, chemistry, and calculus. That and favorite prog bands. Keep making the absolute best educational videos I know I’ll keep coming back to watch them. You have a serious gift breaking down complicated stuff in a clear straightforward way ;)
Do they travel in straight lines only... And do they not spin in its axis or move in a curly path... ?How did they observe this straight line phenomena?
Why are the assumptions like slightly different than the Kaplan MCAT books. Im studying for the MCAT and have seen a different version of the 5 postulates from multiple sources. like I thought that KE and momentum are conserved because the collisions are completely elastic
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Postulate Five... you say , "average KE is proportional to the temperature", but average KE IS what temperature is. You're saying something is proportional to itself, which is painfully self-evident and correct for every single entity in the universe.
They are not the same thing. Energy is measured in units like joules. Temperature is measured in degrees or in Kelvin. It would not be correct to say that the average kinetic energy of a gas particle is 300 Kelvin, and it would not be correct to say that the temperature outside today is 4.2 kilojoules. The concepts are intimately linked, but not identical.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Does temperature not measure average KE? If not, what is it measuring then? The unit of measure doesn't change what is being measured. Meters and feet aren't "intimate linked but nonidentical". Bars and Pascals aren't "intimate linked but nonidentical". They're all measuring the same thing, using a different unit doesn't change what is being measured.
Yes it measures average kinetic energy, but they are used in different contexts, one microscopic the other macroscopic. Average kinetic energy is a scalar, temperature is a scalar, and they are proportional, that's all I stated. It's not quite as trivial as two different units of length, as there is no context in which meters would be used where feet wouldn't be, or vice versa. I get your point, but I think you're splitting too many hairs with this.
For instance, if you are using an air compressor to supply a requisite amount of air to a manufactured product, and you need to know how much to pressurize the tank, prior to discharging the air to your product during manufacturing. As an example, tennis balls are stored in a container that is slightly pressurized when they come brand new. If you were manufacturing the tennis balls, as part of the design of your manufacturing processes, you'd need to keep track of pressure in the supply tank, to know how to cycle its spray cycles and replenishment cycles. Knowledge of the ideal gas law, that is derived from Kinetic Molecular Theory, is what would enable you to calculate the pressure setpoints.
@@littleeustace4643 Did I address the question you had? I'm not quite sure I understood your original question completely. I interpreted it as you were asking for a practical application of this course material.
@prof Dave, Just want to ask questions for clarification. According to the Kinetic Molecular Theory "particles of matter constantly move". Kinetic Energy by definition is often defined as the energy of an object due to its motion. At a macroscopic level, we identify and differentiate Kinetic energy and Potential energy based on the observable motion of an object. Simply, if it's moving there is KE (energy in motion). Otherwise, PE.(energy at rest). However, at the microscopic level, as per the KMT, particles that make up matter move constantly, and this is where my understanding of KE and PE becomes a bit fuzzy: Considering KMT - particles of matter are always in motion, does Potential Energy form really exist? Hope you could give clarification on this.
Gas molecules do not turn around instantaneously. Relative to the travel time in the mean free path, it may seem instantaneous. And for the kinetic molecular theory, we simplify it with an assumption that it is instantaneous. However, in reality, it takes a finite time for gas molecules to crash in to each other, stop momentarily, and rebound. When stopped momentarily, the kinetic energy is temporarily exchanged for electric potential energy, and then restored to kinetic energy thereafter. Also, kinetic energy and potential energy are not mutually exclusive. An object can have both kinds of energy as well as numerous forms of potential energy coexisting at the same time. The kinetic energy of gas molecules is what is known specifically as internal kinetic energy. Define the center of mass of the system as the reference frame such that it is at rest, and then calculate the kinetic energy relative to that reference frame. That's why putting a sample of gas on a moving train doesn't increase its temperature; as that would only increase its external kinetic energy.
@@carultch, saying that the molecules of matter possess internal kinetic energy and solid matter is no exception (vibrational motion), the question now here is how do we define and/or differentiate K.E. from P.E. knowing the fact that even at the microscopic there is motion like the solid matter example. Macroscopically and visually, we don't see it, but there exists motion in the microscooic world of matter.
@@michaelgalario6655 Dave explains this difference in a Haiku: Kinetic is what? It's motion. And Potential? That is location. Kinetic energy is energy of the velocity and inertia of matter in motion. Potential is the energy that matter has by virtue of its position in a conservative force field. It represents the work needed for an external agent to bring the object to that point quasi-statically (meaning with negligible speed) from a location we somewhat-arbitrarily define with zero PE. When something vibrates, there is a perpetual trade between KE and PE. KE is maximum at the neutral position, and PE is maximum at the turning points. Like a pendulum swinging, where PE is maximum when it slows down toward the top ends of its swing when kinetic energy is momentarily zero. And as it swings past the midpoint, its kinetic energy is maximum, and its potential energy is minimum. The average of these maximum kinetic energies of vibration, which is also the maximum difference in potential energy between neutral point and turning point, is what comprises the internal energy of temperature in a solid object.
@@carultch this is a great explanation. Just one more thing though. If we have a ball and place it on top of a table, how do we describe its energy? Potential energy at a macroscopic level and the ground is our frame of reference, or it possesses both kinetic and p.e. energy because we know for a fact that the particles move in motion at the microscopic level. Its total internal energy (k.e. + p.e.)
@@michaelgalario6655 I'm glad my explanation went well for you. To address your follow-up question, I'm going to start with a rhetorical question of my own. Consider a 100 gram ball on top of a 1 meter table, on a floor that is 20 meters above grade. How much potential energy does it have? Does it have 1 m*0.1kg*9.8 N/kg= 0.98 J? Or does it have 21 m* 0.1kg*9.8 N/kg = 20.58J? Both answers are equally valid, but one might be more convenient for you to use in a given problem. If we are only considering it falling off the table and onto the floor, then we'd more likely define the floor as our datum of zero GPE. If we are considering it falling out the window, and onto the ground, then we'd most likely define grade as the datum of zero GPE. We certainly could do the latter, in a situation where the ball never leaves the room, but it would just introduce extra complication. On top of that, what if this building is in Denver Colorado, where the elevation is 1600 meters above sea level? You can continue to find lower locations that could be equally as valid to set as a datum of GPE. The lowest possible potential energy for it to have on this planet, would be if it were at the center of the Earth. But that's not the lowest possible potential energy of the entire universe. You can continue to find more energy than you think, in object, if you look deep enough, but whether it will be of practical use to you or not, is another matter entirely. Certainly we aren't going to expect that ball to escape the Earth, and fall in to Jupiter's gravitational well, which has much lower GPE. So how much potential energy does it really have in a universal sense? The short answer is, we don't know. We don't have all the data to know the minimum possible GPE an object could have anywhere in the universe. Universal GPE defines zero at a location infinitely far away, and assigns negative GPE to everything, but that is just for mathematical convenience. The fact that it is negative, just means it is bounded to other astronomical bodies, and not on a free escape path to the edge of the universe. It is just negative because it is below an arbitrary datum.
Good question. There is a statistical distribution of speeds, called the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. There are three characteristic speeds of this distribution that you may want to know: For further information: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html#c3 1. The most probable speed. This is the speed at the mode of the probability distribution, with the most number of molecules experiencing, and is given by vp = sqrt(2*R*T/M) 2. The average speed. Because the distribution is not symmetric, the most probable isn't the same as the average. This is what you'd get if you added up all the speeds, and divided by the molecule population, and is given by vavg = sqrt(8*R*T/(pi*M)) 3. The RMS speed. This is a special kind of averaging that first squares values prior to averaging, and then takes the square root of them. This one is of interest, because it is the speed that directly relates to the kinetic energy. It is given by vrms = sqrt(3*R*T/M) R = gas constant T = Kelvin temperature M = molar mass
Avogadro's gas law, in my words: "The population of gas molecules is proportional to the volume of the gas, given a common temperature and pressure between samples being compared." This may sound like a statement of the obvious, because of course, if you cut a sample in half, you'll have half the molecules that comprise it, in each of the two halves. But what was the less trivial part of Avogadro's gas law, is that the constant of proportionality relating the molecule population and volume doesn't depend on what flavor of gas you have. Given two equal pressure and temperature samples of two different chemical identities of gasses, the number of molecules per unit volume will still be equal between these two samples. This is why we only have one and only one value of R for the ideal gas law (the molar form of Boltzman's constant), rather than needing to look up a substance specific value of R. The fact that population of molecules played a fundamental role in determining the equation of state of an ideal gas, is what made Avogadro the namesake of the definition of a mole, and why he is the namesake of a gas law.
his mood is exactly how i feel during every chem period
ie;sooooo full of energy (obv)
r u being sarcastic? (hehe)
all the knowledge consumed
thanks professor
Who also sings along in their mind to the intro song 😅
birch 🌳 please!!! at my place w e sing that 💩 out loud. profess your excitement for dave 😉 😉 with the level of enthusiasm it deserves. loudly and with the whole family. I'm just kidding you do you at whatever volume and gusto as you like. i just wanted to make your comment about internal monologue and intro tunes more exciting. turns out it ended up making me sound like a a 🍆.
IKR! His intro is so catchy. Can we quantify the catchiness of science guy intros? Bill Nye’s song has to be up on that list lol
Evidence I’m a big nerd :P
🙋♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️
Me
Currently binging this mans videos. I’m taking an AP chem exam in 24 hours so I’m on that studying grind 💪
How did you do ?
yo bro how was it?
Guess we won't know when we're supposed to know
I have mine in 1 hour! AHH!
@@kylieberriwell955 howd u do
my teacher in science and chemistry always recommend this channel so why not to subscribe 👍 indeed he deserved because he explains clearly every topic💜
Cramming for an AP chem quarter exam and trying to take a break with videos between re-writing notes and doing practice problems...starting to loose steam but I really appreciate your content and thank you for being so engaging ✌️
notes for future self:
4:50 - 5 postulates
Thank God for Professor Dave, Love from India
Lots of love from INDIA for you sir♥️
Thanks for making Closed Captions available.
Love from Uzbekistan
From Ethiopia thank You professor Dave!
Greatest professor of all times!!💐
That was so clear. I understand it so much better now. I can not thank you enough.
Thank you, Professor Dave. That was a nice explanation.
Thank you for the great content Professor Dave!
thanks to my chem teacher, just finally fixed my pc and wifi so i see all this work i gotta do plus 5 other classes.
yes i would like to extend my stress by wtv the heck this is, but thanks to professor i finally learned som about chemistry ig.
Edit: my laptop is fucked again, shit
how's it now?
@@miglani5148 I’m in summer break, it’s been a whole year, in which I did ap physics, it was very fun
@@honestlyimaliveandvibin2761 good to know... ig?
U saved my assignment
Exactly what i needed
"He knows a lot about the science stuff Professor Dave Explains"
---------------------------------------LEGEND---------------------------------------------------
4:45 - 4:59, postulate 5: it should be molecular kinetic energy, not speed. Because Ek is NOT directly proportional to molecular speed, and T is directly proportional to Ek, not speed??
I love your intros
I am confused about the explanation of Charles's Law - you said that the particles move faster (and therefore have more kinetic energy) but hit the container wall with the same frequency. Surely this would increase the pressure since they are colliding with greater energy at the same frequency. I would have thought to maintain the same pressure - if the speed of collision increases, then the frequency must decrease?
Thank you so much Professor Dave. I've been struggling to understand this and your video really helped! ❤
I take the ACS National Standardized final exam tomorrow...Thank you, Professor Dave!
If Dave Grohl was a chemist instead of a rocker.
actually this Dave is a rocker too!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I KNEW IT
@@zachsmith3 LMFAO
Woahhh! Dave you are my hero not only for the science stuff but also because I play bass and you seem like a cool down to earth guy who I could grab a beer with and nerd out about teaching, astrophysics, chemistry, and calculus. That and favorite prog bands. Keep making the absolute best educational videos I know I’ll keep coming back to watch them. You have a serious gift breaking down complicated stuff in a clear straightforward way ;)
one of the most funny intros i have EVER seen
Thank you so much!!!
Thank you for your help, Chemistry Jesus
plz explain rates of reaction more, also keep up the good work.
LOVE THIS DUDE!
The inflection on his explanations is like telekinesis
This is helpful👌
Very helpful👍
Do they travel in straight lines only... And do they not spin in its axis or move in a curly path... ?How did they observe this straight line phenomena?
@Anish Bhadani can I clarify? ☺
Conservation of momentum
Pleasee explain molar kinetic energy and how its derived from kinetic molecular theory
Literally what I want for know
I love you dave 0:03
Great video
good 👍
Please explain the basic assumptions of the kinetic molecular theory of gases.
Hahahahha gago jovany
That's...what this video does...
Thanks sir❤
Thank you sir
Yo!🤘Thanks for the video dude... it is helpful..
Very helpful for me.. Thank you 🙂🙂
Thank u uncle dave
Why are the assumptions like slightly different than the Kaplan MCAT books. Im studying for the MCAT and have seen a different version of the 5 postulates from multiple sources. like I thought that KE and momentum are conserved because the collisions are completely elastic
Amazing
You say increased velocity causes temperature to increase, but temperature is increased velocity. Something can't cause itself to exist
I don't think I said that.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Postulate Five... you say , "average KE is proportional to the temperature", but average KE IS what temperature is. You're saying something is proportional to itself, which is painfully self-evident and correct for every single entity in the universe.
They are not the same thing. Energy is measured in units like joules. Temperature is measured in degrees or in Kelvin. It would not be correct to say that the average kinetic energy of a gas particle is 300 Kelvin, and it would not be correct to say that the temperature outside today is 4.2 kilojoules. The concepts are intimately linked, but not identical.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Does temperature not measure average KE? If not, what is it measuring then?
The unit of measure doesn't change what is being measured. Meters and feet aren't "intimate linked but nonidentical". Bars and Pascals aren't "intimate linked but nonidentical". They're all measuring the same thing, using a different unit doesn't change what is being measured.
Yes it measures average kinetic energy, but they are used in different contexts, one microscopic the other macroscopic. Average kinetic energy is a scalar, temperature is a scalar, and they are proportional, that's all I stated. It's not quite as trivial as two different units of length, as there is no context in which meters would be used where feet wouldn't be, or vice versa. I get your point, but I think you're splitting too many hairs with this.
Love from India
लुव फ़्रोम ठा ग़ूनीटड स्तैत्स
Soooo goooood 😁
Thank you so much sir
Does it matter if i write 1st postulate instead of 2nd and 2nd instead of first? Like do they have to be in order?
hmm no i think the order is pretty irrelevant
Thank you, Chemistry Jesus. You saved my buns from harm.
Thanks Jesus, You made me got A in Physics and Chemistry.
man expains better than most teachers lol
Love from india
Good morning,pls I want to understand more about solid state in kinetic theory of matter
Sir can I ask an example of activity of man that is related to KINETIC MOLECULAR THEORY and why?
For instance, if you are using an air compressor to supply a requisite amount of air to a manufactured product, and you need to know how much to pressurize the tank, prior to discharging the air to your product during manufacturing. As an example, tennis balls are stored in a container that is slightly pressurized when they come brand new. If you were manufacturing the tennis balls, as part of the design of your manufacturing processes, you'd need to keep track of pressure in the supply tank, to know how to cycle its spray cycles and replenishment cycles. Knowledge of the ideal gas law, that is derived from Kinetic Molecular Theory, is what would enable you to calculate the pressure setpoints.
@@carultch Its a question 9 months ago, but I appreciate it. Thank you sir
@@littleeustace4643 Did I address the question you had? I'm not quite sure I understood your original question completely. I interpreted it as you were asking for a practical application of this course material.
Perfect
Sir then why P1/T1. Shouldn't it be P1 =kT1 as pressure directly proportional to temperature
P1/T1 = k is the same as P1=kT1
Use kinetic molecular theory to explain the origin of gas pressure.
Hi STEM 11, tinatamad ako, sana kayo rin
@prof Dave,
Just want to ask questions for clarification.
According to the Kinetic Molecular Theory "particles of matter constantly move". Kinetic Energy by definition is often defined as the energy of an object due to its motion. At a macroscopic level, we identify and differentiate Kinetic energy and Potential energy based on the observable motion of an object. Simply, if it's moving there is KE (energy in motion). Otherwise, PE.(energy at rest). However, at the microscopic level, as per the KMT, particles that make up matter move constantly, and this is where my understanding of KE and PE becomes a bit fuzzy: Considering KMT - particles of matter are always in motion, does Potential Energy form really exist?
Hope you could give clarification on this.
Gas molecules do not turn around instantaneously. Relative to the travel time in the mean free path, it may seem instantaneous. And for the kinetic molecular theory, we simplify it with an assumption that it is instantaneous. However, in reality, it takes a finite time for gas molecules to crash in to each other, stop momentarily, and rebound. When stopped momentarily, the kinetic energy is temporarily exchanged for electric potential energy, and then restored to kinetic energy thereafter.
Also, kinetic energy and potential energy are not mutually exclusive. An object can have both kinds of energy as well as numerous forms of potential energy coexisting at the same time.
The kinetic energy of gas molecules is what is known specifically as internal kinetic energy. Define the center of mass of the system as the reference frame such that it is at rest, and then calculate the kinetic energy relative to that reference frame. That's why putting a sample of gas on a moving train doesn't increase its temperature; as that would only increase its external kinetic energy.
@@carultch, saying that the molecules of matter possess internal kinetic energy and solid matter is no exception (vibrational motion), the question now here is how do we define and/or differentiate K.E. from P.E. knowing the fact that even at the microscopic there is motion like the solid matter example. Macroscopically and visually, we don't see it, but there exists motion in the microscooic world of matter.
@@michaelgalario6655 Dave explains this difference in a Haiku:
Kinetic is what?
It's motion. And Potential?
That is location.
Kinetic energy is energy of the velocity and inertia of matter in motion. Potential is the energy that matter has by virtue of its position in a conservative force field. It represents the work needed for an external agent to bring the object to that point quasi-statically (meaning with negligible speed) from a location we somewhat-arbitrarily define with zero PE. When something vibrates, there is a perpetual trade between KE and PE. KE is maximum at the neutral position, and PE is maximum at the turning points. Like a pendulum swinging, where PE is maximum when it slows down toward the top ends of its swing when kinetic energy is momentarily zero. And as it swings past the midpoint, its kinetic energy is maximum, and its potential energy is minimum.
The average of these maximum kinetic energies of vibration, which is also the maximum difference in potential energy between neutral point and turning point, is what comprises the internal energy of temperature in a solid object.
@@carultch this is a great explanation. Just one more thing though. If we have a ball and place it on top of a table, how do we describe its energy? Potential energy at a macroscopic level and the ground is our frame of reference, or it possesses both kinetic and p.e. energy because we know for a fact that the particles move in motion at the microscopic level. Its total internal energy (k.e. + p.e.)
@@michaelgalario6655 I'm glad my explanation went well for you.
To address your follow-up question, I'm going to start with a rhetorical question of my own. Consider a 100 gram ball on top of a 1 meter table, on a floor that is 20 meters above grade. How much potential energy does it have? Does it have 1 m*0.1kg*9.8 N/kg= 0.98 J? Or does it have 21 m* 0.1kg*9.8 N/kg = 20.58J? Both answers are equally valid, but one might be more convenient for you to use in a given problem. If we are only considering it falling off the table and onto the floor, then we'd more likely define the floor as our datum of zero GPE. If we are considering it falling out the window, and onto the ground, then we'd most likely define grade as the datum of zero GPE. We certainly could do the latter, in a situation where the ball never leaves the room, but it would just introduce extra complication. On top of that, what if this building is in Denver Colorado, where the elevation is 1600 meters above sea level? You can continue to find lower locations that could be equally as valid to set as a datum of GPE.
The lowest possible potential energy for it to have on this planet, would be if it were at the center of the Earth. But that's not the lowest possible potential energy of the entire universe. You can continue to find more energy than you think, in object, if you look deep enough, but whether it will be of practical use to you or not, is another matter entirely. Certainly we aren't going to expect that ball to escape the Earth, and fall in to Jupiter's gravitational well, which has much lower GPE.
So how much potential energy does it really have in a universal sense? The short answer is, we don't know. We don't have all the data to know the minimum possible GPE an object could have anywhere in the universe. Universal GPE defines zero at a location infinitely far away, and assigns negative GPE to everything, but that is just for mathematical convenience. The fact that it is negative, just means it is bounded to other astronomical bodies, and not on a free escape path to the edge of the universe. It is just negative because it is below an arbitrary datum.
I’m I had to like the video as soon as I heard the theme song 😀
Great explanation. But, I didn't quite get clearly Charles's and Amonton's Laws.
THANK UUUUU GOD BLESS
He looks like ranbir kapoor😁😁
MR Finn lmao 😂
@@MH-jh8dh hell no
@@MH-jh8dh do you know him
Ranvir Kapoor 🤣🤣🤣🤌💯💯
Hey bros
epic
How does temperature translate into linear motion?
Good question. There is a statistical distribution of speeds, called the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. There are three characteristic speeds of this distribution that you may want to know:
For further information:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html#c3
1. The most probable speed. This is the speed at the mode of the probability distribution, with the most number of molecules experiencing, and is given by vp = sqrt(2*R*T/M)
2. The average speed. Because the distribution is not symmetric, the most probable isn't the same as the average. This is what you'd get if you added up all the speeds, and divided by the molecule population, and is given by vavg = sqrt(8*R*T/(pi*M))
3. The RMS speed. This is a special kind of averaging that first squares values prior to averaging, and then takes the square root of them. This one is of interest, because it is the speed that directly relates to the kinetic energy. It is given by vrms = sqrt(3*R*T/M)
R = gas constant
T = Kelvin temperature
M = molar mass
Sir make video on numericals parts please please please
I'm back here again
Do ideal gases travel in a straight line? Explain.
yes they do, since an ideal gas follows all the laws of the kinetic molecular theory.
thank you chemistry Jesus
Professor Dave explains😅
i wonder how many people are a ultra professor pal
Gimme answers
Is amonton's law is another name for gay lussac's law?
it is indeed!
I love you no homo. 23 Bad teachers disliked the video
570th like was mine tq sir
Thank you Jesus.
How to explain avagadros law
Avogadro's gas law, in my words:
"The population of gas molecules is proportional to the volume of the gas, given a common temperature and pressure between samples being compared."
This may sound like a statement of the obvious, because of course, if you cut a sample in half, you'll have half the molecules that comprise it, in each of the two halves. But what was the less trivial part of Avogadro's gas law, is that the constant of proportionality relating the molecule population and volume doesn't depend on what flavor of gas you have. Given two equal pressure and temperature samples of two different chemical identities of gasses, the number of molecules per unit volume will still be equal between these two samples.
This is why we only have one and only one value of R for the ideal gas law (the molar form of Boltzman's constant), rather than needing to look up a substance specific value of R. The fact that population of molecules played a fundamental role in determining the equation of state of an ideal gas, is what made Avogadro the namesake of the definition of a mole, and why he is the namesake of a gas law.
0:29 cant believe a professor has bad grammar
Dave can you show a calculation for the Ideal gas equation?
You read well but 1 proplem you don't clear 🤔full concept
soooooo anyone gonna mention how he replaced gay lussac's law with amontons law. likeeeee
Goodmorning Grade 10!
Grade 10st-john:As shit,here we go again
I don't understand... 😭
He look like Ranbir Kapoor
why do i see chris evans
Sir I'm in india... please put the subtitle...i can't understand your speaking English...
All of my tutorials have English subtitles. Press CC and turn them on.
O my god im not amaging to kinetic molecular model of a gas... Shee class 🤦🤦🤦🤯🤯😇
👍👍👍
Thank you Jesus..!
I thought it was Gay-Lussac not Amonton
synonymous
Charles Boyle lol b99
Sorry but he's so obviously reading a teleprompter that I can't focus
Yes, I read my scripts from a teleprompter. You know, like a professional?
one more button
you are god