Unit Conversion & Significant Figures: Crash Course Chemistry #2

2640 lumens. 1 foot.
2.3 kilograms. 9 volts. Aaah! I just closed the circuit with my tongue and
I felt all 9 of the volts. So what do all these things have in common? They’re units. Yes, but they’re also absolutely,
completely arbitrary. [Theme Music] You know who decides how much a kilogram weighs? A hunk of platinum and iridium known as the
International Prototype Kilogram or IPK. The IPK isn’t just how much a kilogram weighs.
In a very real sense the IPK is the kilogram. Every other kilogram is exactly the same as
the IPK, and the IPK is the lump of metal that decides
what that mass is. A kilogram is defined as being the same mass
as the IPK. We made kilograms up just like we made up
seconds and weeks and volts and newtons. There’s nothing about these things that makes
them them. Someone just decided one day that that was
a kilogram. Now the fact that I find units fascinating probably says more about me then it does about units, but I can talk about them all day. For example, did you know that the International
System of Units only includes seven base units and every other unit is derived from those
units? Speed is length divided by time. Acceleration is speed divided by time again,
so meters per second per second. Force is that acceleration multiplied by mass,
cause F=ma remember? Work done in joules is force multiplied by
distance. And power is work divided by time, so how much work can be done per unit of time. Makes sense. It goes pretty deep, and it’s absolutely correct to say that there are an infinite number of possible derived units, just most of them aren’t useful enough to
name. But here’s a bit of trivia for you. When I say watts or hertz, those things are just regular words. No special capitalization necessary. But Hertz and Watt, they were real people
with like last names that were capitalized. So what’s up with that? Well, getting a unit
named after you is kind of the holy grail of science. To quote Richard Hamming: “True greatness is when your name – like hertz
and watt – is spelled with a lowercase letter.” Of course when these geniuses were first piecing
together how the world works they had no idea that there were fundamental
basic units beneath it all. They were basing all of their units on arbitrary
values because, well, how could there possibly be a fundamental
amount of mass or distance. Interestingly, one of the standard base units is derived from an actual value though not a universal one. The second is 1/60th of 1/60th of 1/24th of the time it takes for the Earth to rotate a single time. That’s something, at least but it also illustrates
an interesting point. As fundamental as that seems, when you get down to the dirty details things start to get kind of cloudy. The Earth’s rotation for example is slowing
down. Does that mean that seconds should also slow
down? No. That would mess up every calculation ever. So seconds are slowly becoming less and less
based on reality. Now don’t worry. It’s gonna take forever for
the Earth to slow down noticeably. And when it does we’ll just keep adding leap
seconds to keep things balanced. But units are extremely important in chemistry
and in sciences in general, as we learned when the Mars Climate Orbiter
crashed into Mars because instructions were inputted in the
wrong units. Next time you get a B instead of an A because
you didn’t keep track of your units, just remember at least you didn’t destroy
a 300 million dollar mission to Mars. But what do I mean when I say keep track of
your units? Well. I mean watch them. Do not let them do anything you didn’t tell them to do because they’re sneaky. And a lot of chemistry is just converting
between units. So say you are in a car, and the car is going
60 miles per hour. Now right now everyone who doesn’t live in
America is like: “Boo, miles are terrible. Convert to kilometers
Hank!” Well I’ll do you one better. From a scientific
perspective, kilometers are terrible too. They’re just as arbitrary. We should use something
more universal. Like lightyears. The amount of distance light can travel in a year. And hours, hours is no fun. So let’s convert to lightyears per second.
60 miles per hour. When you say it it sounds like a whole number
with a single unit. But it’s not. It’s actually a fraction. 60
miles over 1 hour. Let’s start with the easy part. Getting to
the seconds. So first we’ve got to get to minutes. So there’s 60 minutes per hour. And also 1 hour per 60 minutes. That fraction once we have it can flip either
way. We want it with the hours on the top, on the
numerator. Why? Because we want the units to cancel. We want
to destroy the hours. We don’t want them in our units when we’re
done. And then the same thing happens again with
1 minute per 60 seconds. Now we go to lightyears. I asked Google, and there’s 1 light-year in
every 5.9 * 10^12 miles. Looking at this we see that the hours cancel
and the minutes cancel and the miles cancel. Leaving us with lightyears per second. That’s
really what matters. We’ve come out with the correct units. The rest is just hammering at the calculator
to discover that a car going 60 mph is also going 9.3 * 10^-12 lightyears per second. Now we perform an important test. The “does
this make sense?” test. And yes indeed it does because 9.3 * 10^-12
is a very, very, very, very small number. Which makes sense because when you’re traveling
in a car you’re going a very, very, very, very, very, very, very
tiny fraction of a light-year every second. Now there are probably gonna be fifty to a
hundred thousand people that watch this video. And I’m gonna guess that maybe a solid seven of you did the math along with me with your calculator out. Now I’m not giving you a hard time. That’s
just my guess. If you want to follow along with your calculator
in the future that might be helpful. It would at very least be very nerdy. But if you have been following along with your calculator, you might maybe have noticed something interesting. I said 9.3 * 10^-12. When your calculator… Your calculator probably said something like
9.3487658140029 * 10^-12. So why, when I had so many more numbers to give, did I only give two? Was I trying to save time? Well obviously not, because now I appear to
be wasting time talking about it. Do you think that it would be too hard for
me to remember all those numbers? Well obviously not, because I just did it.
So I will tell you why. When you’re doing experimental calculations, there’s two kinds of numbers. There’s exact and measured. Exact numbers are like the number of seconds
in a minute or the number of eggs in a dozen. They’re defined that way and thus we know them in effect all the way out to an infinite number of decimal places. If I say that there are a dozen eggs you
know that that’s 12. It’s not 12.0000000001 or 11.9999999. It’s 12. But that’s not true for the number of miles
per hour my car was going. That car wasn’t going 60.0000-out into infinity
mph. I only know the speed of my car to two decimal
places because that’s all I get from the speedometer. So the car could have been going 59.87390039 mph or 60.49321289 mph; the speedometer would still say 60. And no matter how well I measure the car’s
speed, I will never know it at the same level of precision that I know the number of eggs in a dozen. So that’s the second type of number, measured
numbers. Now the cool thing about measured numbers, because you never ever know them exactly,
is that they tell you two things at once. First, they tell you the number that was measured. And second, they tell you the precision at
which that number was measured. People often get their heads all tangled up
about this, but with a measured number you just have to remember that the actual number goes out to infinite decimal places, you just never know all of them. You can’t.
It’s impossible,. So when my scale says 175 lbs, that doesn’t mean 175.000000 lbs. It means 175.something lbs. And all those numbers after the five? We don’t
know them. And here’s the thing, a measured number can
be pretty unhelpful if you don’t have knowledge of the precision of the measurement. So you have to conserve the precision through
your calculations or else you might end up killing someone with
an imprecise dose of insulin or something. So we have a set of rules for what are called
significant figures: these are the digits in your number that you
actually know. With my speedometer there are two: 6 and 0. But 0 is weird, because sometimes it’s just
used as a placeholder. Like if I said that the fastest plane can
go 13,000 mph, which it can by the way. An unmanned military test glider did it in
2011. That’s not an exact number, those zeroes are
just placeholders. So when a number ends in a zero, or two or three zeroes, it’s hard to tell if those zeroes are significant. But this all gets so much simpler when you use scientific notation, which since it’s science we should. So 60 mph would instead be 6.0 * 10^1. We
get that zero is significant because we wrote it. Otherwise it would just be 6 * 10^1. We keep
that zero around because we actually know it. Scientific notation is awesome by the way,
once you get the hang of it. If you’re having trouble you can always just
type it into Google or your calculator to see exactly what number we’re talking about, but the number of the exponent just tells
you how many places to move the decimal point. So to the 1st power you move it one to the
right and you get 60. To the negative 1st power you move the decimal
point one place to the left and you get 0.60. To the fifth power, one, two, three, four, five, and you get six with five zeroes or 600,000. Of course your significant figures get preserved,
so 2.4590 * 10^-4 is 0.00024590 and you still get the same five sig figs. Now to the magic of figuring out how many
sig figs your answer should have. There are two simple rules for this. If it’s addition or subtraction it’s only the number of figures after the decimal point that matters. The number with the fewest figures after the
decimal point decides how many figures you can have after
the decimal in your answer. So 1,495.2+1.9903 you do the math. First you get 1,497.1903 and then you round
to the first decimal, because that first number only had one figure
after the decimal. So you get 1,497.2. And for multiplication just make sure the answer has the same sig figs as your least precise measurement. So 60 x 5.0839=305.034,
but we only know two sig figs, so everything after those
first two numbers is zeroes: 300. Of course then we’d have to point out to everyone that the second zero but not the third is significant, so we’d write it out with scientific notation:
3.0 * 10^2. Because science! Now I know it feels counterintuitive not to show all of the numbers that you have at your fingertips, but you’ve got to realize: all of those numbers beyond the number of sig figs you have? They’re lies. They’re big lying numbers. You don’t know
those numbers. And if you write them down people will assume
that you do know those numbers. And you will have lied to them. And do you know what we do with liars in chemistry? We kill them! Thank you for watching this episode of Crash
Course Chemistry. Today you learned some keys to understanding
the mathematics of chemistry, and you want to remember this episode in case
you get caught up later down the road: How to convert between units is a skill that
you’ll use even when you’re not doing chemistry. Scientific notation will always make you look
like you know what you’re talking about. Being able to chastise people for using the
wrong number of significant digits is basically math’s equivalent of being a grammar Nazi. So enjoy these new powers I have bestowed
upon you, and we’ll see you next time. Crash Course Chemistry was filmed, edited,
and directed by Nick Jenkins. This episode was written by me, Michael Aranda is our sound designer, and our graphics team is Thought Bubble. If you have any questions, comments or ideas
for us, we are always down in the comments. Thank you for watching Crash Course Chemistry.

100 thoughts on “Unit Conversion & Significant Figures: Crash Course Chemistry #2

  1. Just so no-one gets confused, we don't use IPK anymore, we use magnets, we stopped using IPK in late 2018 I think

  2. A second is actually 9192631770 periods of radiation that gets created by the transition of the two hyperfine levels of the ground condition of the atom cesium-133 (13th CGPM-1967, Rés 1)

    We banned that arbitrary definition more than 50 years ago, apparently. Also, I don't fully comprehend what I just said yet. I just translated it from my BiNaS, a handy piece of literature we get to use on our exams here in the Netherlands. Stuff like the periodic table is in there and all. Also all formulas secondary schoolers (ages 16-19) are expected to be able to use.

  3. "There are probably gonna be 50- to 100-thousand people who watch this video…"
    Six years later, the views count is at 2.57 million and still rising. 🙂

  4. Can someone give me clarity here. Using Hanks methods for Sig Figs for something like:

    Decimal points of accuracy 7
    SIG FIGS 4
    2.314 x 10 to the power of 4

    A small page l went on to brush up more on Sig figs say the scientific answer is 2.314 x 10 to the -4.

    What did l miss? I thought moving the decimal to the right and it would be "power of". And to the left it becomes negative.

    But this page l looked at, l got the answers in reverse. So when the point moves right its negative and to the left its standard power of…

    What have a missed?

    My answer: 0.0002314= 2.314×10 power of 4

    Theirs: 0.0002314= 2.314×10 negative 4.

  5. I like your science liars quote, but, wanna say that it’s not always true, since Pons, and Fleischman weren’t offed for their “discovery” of cold fusion.

  6. I only just started taking college level chemistry and thought my teacher was just being overly stern about representing significant figures. Now I realize he's actually trying to save my life.

  7. Sorry, love your videos, but there are a couple of errors here. At 6:45, you say that you only know your car's speed to 2 decimal places – that should be 2 sig figs. Also, at 7:01 you use the word 'precision' when it should be 'accuracy'. Actually, you use the term 'precision/precise' quite a lot when you really mean 'accuracy/accurate'. Accuracy is a term used to show how close a measured number is to a particular or accepted value, and is a measure of the performance of the measuring instrument; precision refers to how close a given number of measurements are to each other.

  8. This video is great! But it needs an update. Quoth Wikipedia: "The kilogram, ampere, kelvin, and mole will then be defined by setting exact numerical values for the Planck constant (h), the elementary electric charge (e), the Boltzmann constant (k), and the Avogadro constant (NA), respectively. The metre and candela are already defined by physical constants, subject to correction to their present definitions." So after May of this year, no more silicon dioxide weights that keep changing mass for reasons we don't understand. What a relief!

    Thanks for your attention and please keep up the good work!

  9. Oh cmon, did you really just use word "pounds"/lbs in chemistry? Cmon, real chemist would never do that…

  10. And you know what we do with liars in chemistry? We kill them!

    …by dissolving them in Hydrochloric acid?

  11. I’m failing Chemistry and completely lost and it’s like every crash course assumes that you know something and is just revision. I don’t know where to start and have no previous knowledge. Any help?

  12. When you have an AP test in two days and and you are anxious out the bazooka and then you see Crash Course coming out of the clouds with angel music and then you bow and proceed to binge.

  13. "Now there's probably gonna be fifty to a hundred thousand people who watch this video" Try 2.7 million.

  14. I think you need to update the definition of a kilogram…it has changed now and is no longer dependant on the physical "hunk of metal"…

  15. This is a bit inappropriate but it’s hard to watch your videos because you’re very attractive. Big ups to your S.O. ??‍♀️ In all seriousness though, loved the info! ?

  16. this would have gotten me into so much trouble in school with my teachers lol, im going to show this to my son to mess with his math teacher.

  17. jokes on you I haven't owned a calculator since before this video came out
    (but I do have access to google, which has free calculators galore….and didn't use it)

  18. my i phone calculator kept sayin 0.00000000003 or something and i was stressed cuz i wasn't getting the answer in the vid or the answer in the comments and i sepent 30 whole minutes and i started thinking OH NO WONDER I FAILED PHYSICS. then i flipped my phone vertically and got 2.8 x 10^-15

  19. I have a question regarding this problem you worked out.: 60 x 5.0839 = 305.034. Wouldn't 60 only have 1 significant figure, since there is no decimal place following it. So, then the answer would be rounded to 300?

  20. The addition (@9:40): (1495.2 + 1.9903) = 1497.1903, but becomes 1497.2 because of 1st decimal place precision. (One sig-fig?).
    The multiplication ( 60 x 5.0839 ) = 305.034, but because of "two sig figs", becomes 300, then 3.0 X 10^2.
    My question: Why did the first calculation ROUND to the required number of Sig figs, but the multiplication did not? (i.e. became 300, not 310.)

  21. I'm I the only one does understand chemistry, I don't know why because i really understand your biology from the first time i watch it, I'm really getting pissed off
    how do i even study this course

  22. 6:53 – Hank, why don't u just look where u are going & stop staring at me like that with the creepy background sound ???

  23. Tells everyone not to run away from Chemistry in the first episode. And says, "do you know what we do with liars in Chemistry? We kill them" in the second episode. Well, THAT escalated quickly,,

  24. The IPK doesn't define the Kilogram anymore

    *Previous definition*: The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.
    *2019 definition*: The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015×10−34 when expressed in the unit J⋅s, which is equal to kg⋅m2⋅s−1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and ΔνCs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *