• MataVatnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

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

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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

  • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

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

  • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

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

  • BreadOven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    Or freezing and types of ice formed.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

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

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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.

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I remember the first time I saw 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.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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?

        • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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?