this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
674 points (98.4% liked)

Science Memes

10207 readers
4071 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 89 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Dare someone smarter than me explain what the ever loving fuck is going on there?

[–] [email protected] 99 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This is what happens when some kind of new compound is formed between these two, here it'll be series of sulfuric acid-water complexes. Same thing happens with metals when intermetallic compounds form, see titanium-nickel phase diagram. Normal case would be eutectic, see aluminum-silicon phase diagram

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I see. So these are actually many sulfuric compounds in a trenchcoat chart.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Some of which are probably only a bit stable and so only exist in a mixture

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Never mind between 80 and 90%, WTF is happening at 42.5%‽

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's a metastable phase somewhere out there and change of the most stable solid phase between 4-hydrate and 6.5-hydrate

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My uneducated understanding is that the chart shows at which temperatures sulfuric acid freezes depending on the concentration. Also in my very basic understanding of physics and chemistry I would have thought that it's linear or exponential or something predictable and not that jumpy.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In normal cases you'd see two curves going away from pure compounds downwards to a common minimum, which is eutectic point. It's generally only vaguely predictable, but always monotonic

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

Sulfuric acid and water has various H2SO4 and H2O ratios. So like 1 H2SO4 and 6, 3, 2, or 1 H2O it also has just the H2SO4 and H2S2O7. These are present as local points within solutions and with different prominence depending on the amount of water added. These 8 different ratios each have different freezing points.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I had to guess, I would assume that there are different molecular lattices that sulfuric acid and water can form at different concentrations and that these different lattices have different freezing points. I will now go look it up.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

What you're describing are different crystalline phases of pure compounds, but this does not give you new minima, you need some new compound to form for that

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 month ago

That chart stops at 100% what a noob. Back to the lab with ya!

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It could get a lot messier. Adding in a third variable of pressure would've made the measurements so much harder.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Would be interesting to use pressure to keep the curve as flat as possible

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The graph for that would be wild, presumably. Wouldn't the axes have to be extremely inconsistent?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Now it's the Z axis' time to shine!

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah, all the pretenders and management saying if you can't show it in extreme simplistic elegance you obviously don't understand it enough. Eat shit.

... what Im saying is that I would just make up my own pretty curve, the scientific community would disagree but the public would accept it & grants would roll my way easier.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Especially that bump right around 42%. You know they retested that multiple times with a “wtf is going on?”

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago

Not only that - you know they still got a bunch of "ok, but are you sure you measured it right" questions even after explaining it all in the paper.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I remember the first time I saw ~~Newtonian~~ non-Newtonian fluids in video. I feel like my brain broke. How much more science have I been taught inaccurately?

The real world is crazy weird. This multiple freezing points post is also fucking me up too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Newtonian fluids are just normal fluids, like water. The so not change their viscosity under sheer stress. I assume you mean non-newtonian fluids.

What were you taught wrong about those?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, you were right. Non-newtonian fuilds messed me up. I saw a gif of liquid that turn more solid when you hit it than if you ease into it. If that makes sense. I was confused by the change in density.

I just didn't know they existed. Is there a liquid that you could run over as long as you do it quickly?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, that exists. All you need is something that is attracted to itself. So to move it around slowly you only need little force since links can break an reform, but to move it around fast you need to break a lot of links at once. Simply put some starch in water and you have that.

The other way around would be something like toothpaste or ketchup.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Me at my job right now. Apparently titrations and loss on ignition is some of the hardest shit to ever do in science

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Titration is hard, I agree. But blowing glass with a custom glass composition is way harder imo

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The thing is these are established methods with clear instructions but I can't get the right numbers for whatever reason it's really making me question if I'm even a chemist. Blowing glass, now that sounds pretty fucking hard actually

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Chemistry and Physics combined make very interesting 'resonances' in molecular behaviour. That's as educated a guess I may make.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Wait until you see phase diagrams for liquids, not to mention liquids with different concentrations.

Or freezing and types of ice formed.