Note (12/2015): Hi there! I'm taking some time off here to focus on other projects for a bit. As of October 2016, those other projects include a science book series for kids titled Things That Make You Go Yuck! -- available at Barnes and Noble, Amazon and (hopefully) a bookstore near you!

Co-author Jenn Dlugos and I are also doing some extremely ridiculous things over at Drinkstorm Studios, including our award-winning webseries, Magicland.

There are also a full 100 posts right here in the archives, and feel free to drop me a line at secondhandscience@gmail.com with comments, suggestions or wacky cold fusion ideas. Cheers!

· Categories: Chemistry, Physics
What I’ve Learned:

Avogadro's number: That's a lot of MOOOOOOOOOLEcules!
“Sometimes, even a huge number can leave you wanting MOOOOOOLE!”

Contrary to popular belief, Avogadro’s number is neither the first item in a guacamole recipe, nor the less-successful Italian sequel to Schindler’s List. In fact, modern science says it isn’t officially a thing at all any more, like Pluto’s planethood or Steven Hawking’s dance moves.

Too soon? Sorry.

What is a thing is the Avogadro constant, which is closely related to the measurement known as a ‘mole’. The mole is a very important scientific concept, defined as the amount of a substance in grams equal to the atomic weight of that substance.

For pure elements, figuring a mole is easy. Take carbon, for instance. Carbon’s atomic weight is 12, so a mole of pure carbon — no radioactive isotopes, please — weighs 12 grams. Hydrogen’s a pipsqueak: atomic weight of 1, mole weight of 1. Californium is a beast of atomic weight 98, so a mole of that weighs a hefty 98 grams.

Must be all the Avogadro trees weighing it down.

Since larger atoms weigh more, every element — actually, every substance — has the same number of atoms in a mole. That number is Avogadro’s number, roughly equal to 6.022 x 1023.

(The “Avogadro constant” is basically the same as “Avogadro’s number”, after a bunch of snooty international standards paper-pushers got together and slapped official units on it to make it look pretty in scientific journals. What’s the precise relationship between the “number” and the “constant”? According to Wikipedia:

“Avogadro’s number is a dimensionless quantity and has the numerical value of the Avogadro constant given in base units.”

I know, right? It’s like reading Vogon poetry. Just say they’re the same thing, already, chem-nerds. Jesus.)

Calculating the amount, or molarity, of substances is trickier when they’re more complex — like cyclohexane or gummy bears or Chevrolet Impalas. But it’s still possible. You just figure out the average atomic weight of the molecules involved, plop the stuff on a scale and then calculate the number of moles involved.

(Well. You and I don’t. But other people do. The kind with lab coats and safety goggles and scientific calculators with the fancy buttons worn down.)

The key is Avogadro’s number, which is a pretty amazing thing itself. It’s a universal link between the mysterious world of atoms, which nobody understands, to the everyday world of grams — which only drug dealers and metric Europeans understand.

Also, it’s huge: six hundred and two sextillion, give or take a few quadrillion molecules. That many meters would equal 60 million light years, as far as the Virgo galaxy cluster. If it were gumballs, six hundred sextillion is almost — almost — more than Rachael Ray could fit into her mouth at once. So yeah, it’s a lot.

Yet all those molecules are jammed into 12 grams of carbon, less than half an ounce. It boggles the mind. And the Avogadros.

It even boggles the scientists. Chemists have taken to celebrating “Mole Day” each year, between the hours of 6:02AM and 6:02PM on 10/23. Because they haven’t received quite enough wedgies for sustained dorkiness, apparently.

You’d think they’d at least take it seriously — and not use it as an excuse to make constant “Mooooole!” jokes like a bunch of giddy four-eyed Austin Powers fanboys.

You would be wrong. Score one for Team Avogadro. Yeah, baby.

Image sources: Sturff (call me, Avogadro), Denver Westword (Rachael Ray piechasm), The Virtual School (molar eclipse), Lake Bluff Homebrew Club (Savage mole)

· Write a comment
· Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


· Categories: Chemistry, Physics
What I’ve Learned:

Jabba the Deen don't need no hydrogen bonding, y'all
“Hydrogen bonding: If you can’t keep it in your pants, keep it in your electron cloud.”

Hydrogen bonding is one of the most important chemical forces holding molecules and matter and us together. Without the power of hydrogen bonding, we’d all blob out into big piles of disorganized goo like Jabba the Hutt. Or Paula Deen.

(Hey, they’ve never been seen in the same room at the same time. I’m just saying.)

As attractive forces go, hydrogen bonding isn’t especially strong. A molecule could probably pull more electrons with Axe body spray and a couple of subatomic guitar lessons. If covalent bonding — solid, strong, crazy hard to break — is like a marriage, then hydrogen bonding is the “I’ll call you” after hooking up in the alley outside a downtown bar. Not exactly a sign of a committed molecular relationship.

Of course, there are advantages to keeping your options open. I’m not saying it’s a playah, chemical-interactionally-speaking, but hydrogen bonding gets around. Almost every substance critical to life on Earth — proteins, DNA, cronuts, you name it — contains hydrogen atoms. And those things are constantly getting busy rubbing up against each other, switching partners and saying to their hydrogen friends, “well, I ‘bonded’ him, but I didn’t ‘bond him, bond him’, you know?

It’s like Penthouse Letters meets Mr. Wizard. But slightly less disturbing.

The craziest hydrogen bonding of all is in water.

(Because everything is sexier when its wet. Except possibly Mr. Wizard. Try not to think about that too much.)

A water molecule is chemically simple — one oxygen and two hydrogens, bound together in holy covalent matrimony. But like any threesome, even the sparkly vampire ones, nobody in the relationship is really happy. So the atoms all doll up at night and go hydrogen bonding — oxygens prowling for other hydrogens, and hydrogens making the move on every oxygen with a dipole and a pulse. These things make Don Juan look like… well, like Mr. Wizard.

Or Jabba the Hutt. Or Paula Deen. Only wetter.

What’s more, these electrostatic horndogs are good at hooking up, one-night-bonding with up to four other water molecules at a time. That’s good for us, because it’s all this hydro-boinking on the side that gives water its high melting point, high boiling point and makes ice float instead of sink. All of which are pretty important for us to continue to live and maintain mostly-unblobby shapes and eat trendy breakfast-pastry hybrids.

So be glad that hydrogen bonding works the way it does. Life wouldn’t be the same — or probably, wouldn’t be life at all — without it. Just try to forget that there’s basically an atomic-level key party orgy going on in the glass of water you’re drinking.

And don’t even ask what’s going on in that cup of coffee. Trust me, you do not want to know.

Actual Science:
UC Davis ChemwikiHydrogen bonding
Northland CollegeA closer look at water (animation)
NatureChemists re-define hydrogen bond
io9The very first image of a hydrogen bond
DoubleXScienceWhy are snowflakes always six-sided?

Image sources: StudyBlue (hydrogen bonding), Ripoff Report and Gossip Rocks (Jabba the Deen), Laughing Squid (Mr. Wizard), Etsy/KnotworkShop (coffee sex mug)

· Write a comment
· Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


· Categories: Astronomy, Physics
What I’ve Learned:

Black holes: scarier than galactic Bieber
“Black holes: scarier than LiLo, galactic-sized Bieber or astrophysicists settling bets with encyclopedias.”

In science, “black hole” means something very specific; it’s not just a catch-all term for scary, life-sucking things like Congressional speeches or a trip to the DMV or Lindsay Lohan’s vagina.

A true black hole has certain characteristics. Unimaginable denseness and an irresistible gravitational pull, created by a star that’s given up its fire and collapsed into itself.

So, more like Lindsay Lohan’s career.

Cosmically speaking, it takes a special kind of star to form a black hole. It’s not like any old class K hayseed can fuse a few hydrogen atoms together and call itself a singularity. To go full-on black hole, you’ve got to be big. Like, Disney movie or Lollapalooza-ten-years-ago big. And then you have to violently implode — the violentlier, the better — and still keep enough mass to suck in all the matter and light and paparazzi for light years around.

Most stars never get the chance. Take our sun, for instance. It could appear in every edgy Sundance flick and Marvel comic blockbuster made in the next 5.4 billion years, and it still won’t go out as a black hole. Our sun is like the Larry the Cable Guy of stars. It’ll just hang around, getting fatter and occasionally shilling heartburn medicine, until it finally pops an aneurysm on the toilet.

Or engulfs the solar system in a baking-hot inferno. Whichever comes first.

Other stars are big enough to implode — that’s “supernova”, in star talk — but there’s basically nothing left afterward. These become neutron stars: reclusive, dim and not so interesting. Think Peewee Herman, or Tawny Kitaen. And then forget them again.

Black holes, though, are fascinating. It’s thought there’s a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, and most others. Ours is four million times the mass of our sun, with the entire Milky Way orbiting it. It’s like the Justin Bieber of black holiness. And nearly as dense.

No one knows what happens inside a black hole, but space physicists are working on it. Stephen Hawking figured out that one kind of energy can escape a black hole, so they named “Hawking radiation” after him. Later, John Preskill won a bet with Hawking that this radiation would contain information about the stuff sucked into the hole previously.

(That’s some serious shit, winning a bet off the guy the thing was named for. Especially when it’s Stephen Hawking. He’s the smartest thing on four wheels since the Knight Industries Three Thousand.)

Recently, scientists argued about whether black holes are surrounded by a giant wall of fire — as if black holes weren’t badass enough already. One camp says “yes”, because monogamy of quantum entanglement, duh; the other says “nuh-uh”, because Einstein’s equivalence principle, obviously. They flung a bunch of math at each other, Hawking declared black holes dead (sort of, though most people agreed they weren’t) and the firewall finally (probably) went down. In flames. But no one knows for certain.

I vote we load Captain Bieber on a rocket, point it at galactic center, and let him find out for us. Maybe he can even get his own autograph on the way down the gravity well.

Image sources: Sun.org (black hole), Scary Movie 5 (Lohan), Sky and Telescope and NYPost (Bieber galaxy), John Preskill/CalTech (Hawking-Preskill bet)

· Write a comment
· Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,