How does this happen?

[bilby]

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Materials-through-Princeton-Library/dp/0691125481

You should also read his companion work, "Structures (or Why Things Don't Fall Down)".

This reminds me that there was a breakthrough a few years ago understanding what a breaking point is. Maybe I am in way over my head here.

Like most of reality, it's as simple (or as complex) as you need it to be. The super simple 'water boils at 100°C' is not wrong - for most purposes. But it's a simplification of a more complex situation, and so there are 'edge cases' where a deeper knowledge is required to explain why things happen the way they do.

This is true of all but the most trivial physical systems - the majority of cases can be explained in simple terms, but there's a much more detailed reality that needs to be comprehended if we are to grasp all possible cases.

At the end of the day, you could (in principle) explain boiling water completely, in terms of the quantum behaviour of each and every subatomic particle and field in the water, the container and the heat source; but to do so would require more computational resources than will ever exist over the entire period of the existence of the universe, so it's generally more practical to accept the simplified claim that 'water boils at 100°C at 1 atmosphere of pressure', and to just keep in the back of your mind that this might not be true in certain special cases.

I don't think that you are way over your head; you are just testing the limits of your current understanding - and that's a good thing, as it allows you to learn something new.

In the immortal words of House MD, "Everybody lies". Including your teachers. But they have to, because the whole truth is too big to ever be useful. So everything you have learned, and everything you will ever learn, is a simplification of a more complex reality.

It's not that your knowledge is wrong; it's just incomplete - and of necessity it always will be.

Flexibility and a tolerance for uncertainty are your friends here.

 

[ryan]

ryan's boiling point:

Start with 2 h2o molecules bonded together to give the smallest quantity of water possible. There is an amount of internal energy (enthalpy) that can be absorbed before the bond breaks. Let this quantity be x (I am too lazy to look up the actual number). Breaking this bond is the most basic form of vaporized water.

But, we know that intermolecular forces can add up or repel based on each configuration of each molecule. Let a random configuration of h-bonds have an average internal energy x also.

x moles should be the true point at which a body of water changes state per mol under 1 atm.

 

[ryan]

This reminds me that there was a breakthrough a few years ago understanding what a breaking point is. Maybe I am in way over my head here.

Like most of reality, it's as simple (or as complex) as you need it to be. The super simple 'water boils at 100°C' is not wrong - for most purposes. But it's a simplification of a more complex situation, and so there are 'edge cases' where a deeper knowledge is required to explain why things happen the way they do.

This is true of all but the most trivial physical systems - the majority of cases can be explained in simple terms, but there's a much more detailed reality that needs to be comprehended if we are to grasp all possible cases.

At the end of the day, you could (in principle) explain boiling water completely, in terms of the quantum behaviour of each and every subatomic particle and field in the water, the container and the heat source; but to do so would require more computational resources than will ever exist over the entire period of the existence of the universe, so it's generally more practical to accept the simplified claim that 'water boils at 100°C at 1 atmosphere of pressure', and to just keep in the back of your mind that this might not be true in certain special cases.

I don't think that you are way over your head; you are just testing the limits of your current understanding - and that's a good thing, as it allows you to learn something new.

In the immortal words of House MD, "Everybody lies". Including your teachers. But they have to, because the whole truth is too big to ever be useful. So everything you have learned, and everything you will ever learn, is a simplification of a more complex reality.

It's not that your knowledge is wrong; it's just incomplete - and of necessity it always will be.

Flexibility and a tolerance for uncertainty are your friends here.

Those are some good words, thanks.

You know what maybe is the problem here, it's that the school system has not evolved as fast as our increasing boundary of knowledge/understanding. In other words, if we keep using the same teaching techniques in schools, it is going to be harder and harder for people to catch up to the ever increasing pool of knowledge.

I always argue with my friend about this. He is a "practical" guy that thinks university is for suckers. His kid is being taught the new way of math, I don't know if you know but there is a better way of teaching math and the times table, and people like my "practical" friends are up in arms. It's causing a major divide in people's beliefs in education styles here in Canada and the U.S. They are trying to get kids smarter using more fundamental principles of math, but there is a large body of parents angry with a "we didn't need this new fancy system, so why should our kids have to suffer it" way of thinking.

Anyways, I went off on a tangent because I truly believe that my lack of understanding how my face could have been melted off is because we have not incorporated better teaching methods, like that new math style, to deal better with the real world not to mention a better knowledge based society and knowledge based evolving economy.

 

[beero1000]

ryan's boiling point:

Start with 2 h2o molecules bonded together to give the smallest quantity of water possible. There is an amount of internal energy (enthalpy) that can be absorbed before the bond breaks. Let this quantity be x (I am too lazy to look up the actual number). Breaking this bond is the most basic form of vaporized water.

But, we know that intermolecular forces can add up or repel based on each configuration of each molecule. Let a random configuration of h-bonds have an average internal energy x also.

x moles should be the true point at which a body of water changes state per mol under 1 atm.

You can't define reality into what you want it to be. Matter will change state when it changes state, we can just record when and how it happens. It's basically guaranteed that any rule that is simple enough to state in a sentence or two will not handle all possible situations.

Here is another source for that article: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-water-does-not-boil-at-the-boiling-point.pdf

 

[ryan]

ryan's boiling point:

Start with 2 h2o molecules bonded together to give the smallest quantity of water possible. There is an amount of internal energy (enthalpy) that can be absorbed before the bond breaks. Let this quantity be x (I am too lazy to look up the actual number). Breaking this bond is the most basic form of vaporized water.

But, we know that intermolecular forces can add up or repel based on each configuration of each molecule. Let a random configuration of h-bonds have an average internal energy x also.

x moles should be the true point at which a body of water changes state per mol under 1 atm.

You can't define reality into what you want it to be. Matter will change state when it changes state, we can just record when and how it happens. It's basically guaranteed that any rule that is simple enough to state in a sentence or two will not handle all possible situations.

Here is another source for that article: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-water-does-not-boil-at-the-boiling-point.pdf

Right but we inch more and more with very small and simple theories/"axioms" that under ideal conditions are close to true or true. F = ma, 2nd law of thermodynamics, e=mc^2, gravitational constant G, speed of light c, to name a few simple but huge steps to sending a man into space or accelerating particles in the LHC. It all adds up to make some amazingly complex predictions and engineering.

It is everyone's internal desire to provide the next small step that gives us the steps like what we have today. Maybe one for every 1000 of me with this desire is what it takes for one new "step" to be made in science.

 

[Kharakov]

Keep in mind that the transition points of water at sea level are designed so that the human body's metabolic temperature averages around 37c. Whoever made up this sim likes the number 37....

 

[beero1000]

You can't define reality into what you want it to be. Matter will change state when it changes state, we can just record when and how it happens. It's basically guaranteed that any rule that is simple enough to state in a sentence or two will not handle all possible situations.

Here is another source for that article: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-water-does-not-boil-at-the-boiling-point.pdf

Right but we inch more and more with very small and simple theories/"axioms" that under ideal conditions are close to true or true. F = ma, 2nd law of thermodynamics, e=mc^2, gravitational constant G, speed of light c, to name a few simple but huge steps to sending a man into space or accelerating particles in the LHC. It all adds up to make some amazingly complex predictions and engineering.

It is everyone's internal desire to provide the next small step that gives us the steps like what we have today. Maybe one for every 1000 of me with this desire is what it takes for one new "step" to be made in science.

But there isn't a single x value for when water changes state at 1 atm (that's the whole idea in this thread - the article I posted mentions that there are at least 6 different phenomena that could each be described as 'boiling'). It seemed like you were deciding when water should change state based on your calculations, when you really should be informing your calculations by when water actually does change state.

100C steam at 1atm is a pretty good rule of thumb, even though it is still wrong in certain situations.

 

[Malintent]

your water is relatively free of dust and doesn't have a bunch of ions (salt) in it (mehh. not positive about ions... anyone?)

I'll bite....

I prefer negative ions.

 

[Jokodo]

Does anyone have any ideas on how this happens. I can't seem to find any good information on what exactly is happening molecularly.

Wikipedia does. I believe the link is in the first reply you got.

 

[fromderinside]

Some things one should never do as a lab assistant for a HS chemistry class.*

Never instruct students to look straight down on the bunsen burner while lighting it

Never instruct students to quickly remove the enclosure from a multi-atmosphere substance heating task while the task is ongoing.

Doing so can result in ambulance visits and hospital stays for students who don't read protocols before conducting them.

*^{_{notes from my 1958 TA manual from HS.}}