The first question that was asked in my undergraduate organic chemistry course was as follows: What is the melting point of bread?
Normally, I wouldn’t insert a carriage return there except that such a statement has such aneurysm-inducing levels of stupidity within its words that I fear it may spread if not properly contained. Today I learned an interesting diagnostic for differentiating between an engineer and a scientist by asking each the above listed question of the damned and gauging their response. The engineer will look at you like you’re a moron, say “that’s a stupid question” and laugh. The scientist will look at you like you’re an idiot, say “that’s a stupid question” and glare. It appears to all be in the eyes.
Is that a stupid question? If you change it to “Why doesn’t bread melt?” then I think it takes more than a few semesters of chemistry to understand it. I can come up with two possible reasons:
1. It ceases to be bread long before anything starts to melt.
2. It turns to carbon, which, at atmospheric pressure, sublimes instead of melting.
Is that a stupid question? If you change it to “Why doesn’t bread melt?” then I think it takes more than a few semesters of chemistry to understand it. I can come up with two possible reasons:
1. It ceases to be bread long before anything starts to melt.
2. It turns to carbon, which, at atmospheric pressure, sublimes instead of melting.
Well, in that upon heating, bread forms a novel substance scientists have
classified as “toast” and as anyone who's burned toast knows, bread
decomposes and combusts rather than melting.
Terry Robinson
Well, in that upon heating, bread forms a novel substance scientists have
classified as “toast” and as anyone who's burned toast knows, bread
decomposes and combusts rather than melting.
Terry Robinson
Ok, obviously you char and burn it and it’ no longer bread. But after that, you’re left with soot which actually never melts, no matter how hot you get it.
Ok, obviously you char and burn it and it’ no longer bread. But after that, you’re left with soot which actually never melts, no matter how hot you get it.
I don't think it takes a semester of chemestry to determine that pile of ash /= bread.
Isn't combustion covered in 8th grade physical science?
Also, the “soot”, which is mostly carbon, will melt at about 4500K at a pressure of about 106 atmospheres. Otherwise, it just sublimates, so no bread melting under atmospheric conditions, even in the loosest of defitions.
Honestly, I really remember learning about chemical changes vs. physical changes in 8th grade. Was I weird?
I don't think it takes a semester of chemestry to determine that pile of ash /= bread.
Isn't combustion covered in 8th grade physical science?
Also, the “soot”, which is mostly carbon, will melt at about 4500K at a pressure of about 106 atmospheres. Otherwise, it just sublimates, so no bread melting under atmospheric conditions, even in the loosest of defitions.
Honestly, I really remember learning about chemical changes vs. physical changes in 8th grade. Was I weird?
Oh, and the people in an intro ochem class have already had a least two semesters of college level chemistry.
Oh, and the people in an intro ochem class have already had a least two semesters of college level chemistry.
I didn’t know about the properties of carbon under various pressures; I had to look it up. I’m sure 8th graders know the difference between melting and burning. But I bet if you asked 8th graders why bread doesn't melt, you wouldn’t get a satisfactory answer.
(And I haven’t taken ochem, but I do see why it was a stupid question in that context.)
I didn’t know about the properties of carbon under various pressures; I had to look it up. I’m sure 8th graders know the difference between melting and burning. But I bet if you asked 8th graders why bread doesn't melt, you wouldn’t get a satisfactory answer.
(And I haven’t taken ochem, but I do see why it was a stupid question in that context.)
Is that a stupid question? If you change it to “Why doesn’t bread melt?” then I think it takes more than a semester of chemistry to understand it. I can come up with two possible reasons:
1. It ceases to be bread long before anything starts to melt.
2. It turns to carbon, which, at atmospheric pressure, sublimes instead of melting.
Well, in that upon heating, bread forms a novel substance scientists have
classified as “toast” and as anyone who's burned toast knows, bread
decomposes and combusts rather than melting.
Terry Robinson
Ok, obviously you char and burn it and it’s no longer bread. But after that, you’re left with soot which actually never melts, no matter how hot you get it. In my opinion, scientists and engineers are the ones who overthink things, and this is exactly the sort of questions they should ask.
I don't think it takes a semester of chemestry to determine that pile of ash /= bread.
Isn't combustion covered in 8th grade physical science?
Also, the “soot”, which is mostly carbon, will melt at about 4500K at a pressure of about 106 atmospheres. Otherwise, it just sublimates, so no bread melting under atmospheric conditions, even in the loosest of defitions.
Honestly, I really remember learning about chemical changes vs. physical changes in 8th grade. Was I weird?
Oh, and the people in an intro ochem class have already had a least two semesters of college level chemistry.
I didn’t know about the properties of carbon under various pressures; I had to look it up. I’m sure 8th graders know the difference between melting and burning. But I bet if you asked 8th graders why bread doesn’t melt, you wouldn’t get a satisfactory answer.
(And I haven’t taken ochem, but I do see why it was a stupid question in that context.)