Discovering molecular realities via beer

If you walk to the fridge for getting a Heineken or Amstel you are also anticipating the future. You know that there is a beer in the fridge, and you know that when you go to the fridge and open it can get it. That is also anticipation of the future. Most higher animals can do this, however humans are top. (But if I think of AGW not top enough...)
Well it was so far off topic I decided to start a new thread. :cheese: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry to go off topic but GbB your mention of beer brought up a memory I been wanting to share with you for a long time. A couple month's back I was at a brew pub that made an IPA with nitrogen rather than the traditional CO2. Remember that is the UK stout style of beer created by substituting nitrogen for carbon-dioxide when brewing. Nitrogen "Stout" are the beers that pour all foam, then in your glass the liquid slowly settles out of the bottom of the foam before your eyes. Interestingly it gets more fascinating to watch as the evening progresses, go figure. Since IPAs are my preferred beer I had a line-up of 5 tasters, including one of a stout style IPA where the bubbles were nitrogen rather than the usual CO2. As it happens the evening before I'd watched a global warming science course session (https://www.coursera.org) by Professor David Archer and had gotten a question wrong about the ultimate source of heat at the atomic level (can't even quite remember the specific question), but remember that the correct answer seemed very counter intuitive thus on this day long relaxed sightseeing day it remained on my mind. Now I find myself sitting next to a young guy (well thirty-ish) who turns out to be a Chemistry PhD (in industry) (by and by sharing that he was wrestling with his wife's desire to have a child… but that's a whole different story.) Back to the chemistry stuff, I remember the main point he liked returning to: "Forget the nucleus - all the action is within the electrons. In any event, as we're discussing that and my understanding about why CO2 is a greenhouse gas and nitrogen which makes up a huge majority of our atmosphere has no such GHG ability, I'm sipping my tasters and more and more the substantial texture difference between the nitrogen IPA and the regular CO2 IPAs becomes obvious and somehow the covalent shell difference between CO2 and nitrogen made visceral sense... It was one of those wonderful BINGO moments where something beyond my understanding achieves a certain visceral level of awareness. I can't even explain it, but I know I can't wait to try the experience again, with another wonderful soul who actually understands how chemistry works and is into trying to explain it while doing a couple well selected beer tasters. This may all sound very weird, but I encourage you, next time you're in the mood pour a regular brew and a nitrogen stout - the closer to other ingredients the better (such as my test of all IPAs). Then sit around discussing the difference between gases and atomic structure and what makes a greenhouse gas… I dare say you will be in for a sensual, as well as intellectual treat. Cheers, CC lookie what I just found, but I don't have any time to check it out just now. http://www.craftbeer.com/craft-beer-muses/good-beer-gas-nitro-beers-explained

I’ve discovered and rediscovered the secrets of the Universe via beer CC.
Not to mention all kinds of molecular realities… :slight_smile:

Hey, hey, hey
I’m trying to keep it to covalence shells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond

… :coolsmile:

Not liking beer is probably what has kept me from getting the Nobel Prize in chemistry. I can see no other reason for it. But you guys drink beer and you don’t get one either.
Lois

I agree. I can understand white wine or even electric brownies, but beer??? It would take religious idiots like the monks to put something as bitter as hops in anything that humans are supposed to ingest. :lol:
Occam

I agree. I can understand white wine or even electric brownies, but beer???? It would take religious idiots like the monks to put something as bitter as hops in anything that humans are supposed to ingest. :lol: Occam
Hey, monks invented whiskey. Give them credit for that.

OK, I’ll buy that, but thank goodness they didn’t get the idea to put hops or quinine in whiskey. (I don’t recall, but I seem to remember that Scotch was spelled one way and others were spelled the other way - with or without an e.)
Occam

When referring to Scotch, use whisky. All others are known as whiskey.
And good beer is not bitter.

I didn’t say nothing about a Nobel Prize, :grrr: I was talking about “Covalent bonds” and attempts at grasping why some gases are “greenhouse gases”
GdB, do you find my post as incomprehensible as others seems to?

OK, while almost all of these gasses are transparent and colorless in the visible range, some are not. Nitrogen has been around forever, makes up about 80% of the atmosphere and is pretty inert. Oxygen makes up about 20%, and reacts with carbon and carbon compounds often easily. In doing so, we get energy and the oxygen and carbon compound change into carbon dioxide.
Since we started usng coal and petroleum as energy sources we’ve been dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. while it’s transparent to visible and short wavelength infra-red (much of the energy from the sun), it’s not particularly transparent to longer wavelength infra-red, which our earth’s surface radiates back when it’s heated by sunlight.
So, sunlight radiation comes in and much of it is radiated back out into space. And we had a nice equalibrium that allowed plants and animals to thrive. Now, as more CO2 gets into the upper atmosphere, less of the energy radiated from the earth’s surface can escape so we get heat build-up (global warming). If you’re familiar with the structures growers use to keep their plants warmer than the outside temperature, they are called greenhouses. So, these gasses, e.g., CO2, methane, fluorinated organic compounds, etc. which stop more of the sun’s energy from going back out into space, are called greenhouse gasses.
Don’t worry about the “covalent shell”. That goes into fancy areas that don’t help general understanding of the process.
Occam

OK, while almost all of these gasses are transparent and colorless in the visible range, some are not. Nitrogen has been around forever, makes up about 80% of the atmosphere and is pretty inert. Oxygen makes up about 20%, and reacts with carbon and carbon compounds often easily. In doing so, we get energy and the oxygen and carbon compound change into carbon dioxide. Since we started usng coal and petroleum as energy sources we've been dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. while it's transparent to visible and short wavelength infra-red (much of the energy from the sun), it's not particularly transparent to longer wavelength infra-red, which our earth's surface radiates back when it's heated by sunlight. So, sunlight radiation comes in and much of it is radiated back out into space. And we had a nice equalibrium that allowed plants and animals to thrive. Now, as more CO2 gets into the upper atmosphere, less of the energy radiated from the earth's surface can escape so we get heat build-up (global warming). If you're familiar with the structures growers use to keep their plants warmer than the outside temperature, they are called greenhouses. So, these gasses, e.g., CO2, methane, fluorinated organic compounds, etc. which stop more of the sun's energy from going back out into space, are called greenhouse gasses. [...] Occam
Thank you Occam, though at the risk of sounding snippy it's a nice review of stuff I do know. … … I still think it's an interesting experiment connecting the intellectual with the visceral… if you know what I mean. :coolsmirk: My mind does work in mysterious ways, though from way out here in deep left-center field the view is pretty dang interesting. … and I can still deal within these four dimensions and build I pretty decent structure, loafing shed in this case. Though this image is a week old, the North section has been walled off, split into a tack room and hay storage doors. I may actually be finishing it today and will be sure to send a follow up image when I get one available. Sure was more fun (and having a picture window view of Sandia Mountain was a nice bonus) than the bizarre handyman fixits that get tossed in my direction. Though in their own crazy, obnoxious way they are exciting adventures in their own right too. :coolsmile:

Sorry, CC, when you wrote:

I was talking about “Covalent bonds" and attempts at grasping why some gases are “greenhouse gases"
and mentioned that you were sitting next to a young PhD chemist who apparently went into the chemistry of greeenhouse gasses in a way that you didn’t seem to be too clear on, I thought you were asking for an explanation.
Occam

OK. I’m off on a walk to a couple of the local churches, to further investigate this subject.

Sorry, CC, when you wrote:
I was talking about “Covalent bonds" and attempts at grasping why some gases are “greenhouse gases"
and mentioned that you were sitting next to a young PhD chemist who apparently went into the chemistry of greeenhouse gasses in a way that you didn't seem to be too clear on, I thought you were asking for an explanation. Occam
sorry on my part also. And fair enough. Furthermore, given my level of understanding any review is worthwhile… But, back to what started the whole thing - the sensual experience of the different kinds of bubbles on the palate. The nitrogen bubbles being much finer, which also helps explain why the liquid settles out so curiously. What struck me was that, damn it does make a physical difference you can sense… Consider the nitrogen atom (http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/n.html) vs. carbon dioxide molecule (http://www.gcsescience.com/a27-covalent-bond-carbon-dioxide-gas-molecule.htm) Of course, I'm making the assumption that the bubble size is intimately related to the atom/molecule structure/size.

I’d love to do a comparison tasting with you but I hate IPAs. Can we do this with Stouts?

OK. I'm off on a walk to a couple of the local churches, to further investigate this subject.
Good luck, whatcha drinking… must conform to experiment parameters :blank: Hey, send me a toast on the completion of my horse loafing shed, Man the stories I could tell. Particularly some of the happenings since the horses showed up Wednesday, You see I been sleeping out in the field (well this one is a yard more than field) (incidentally, the horses and I have known each other 2.5+ years, so there was that familiarity), well, this area (Corrales, NM) has a lot of horsie people with their horses, and holy moly (most of us are familiar with the dog telegraph a la 101 Dalmatians - and this area has that in overload…) But, ever heard of the Horse Whinny Telegraph? Because I witnessed it a couple nights running, as the two new comers became acquainted with the neighborhood - I think last night everyone was over it. and that was just the beginning of the interesting happening these past day. I never quite realized that whinnying is for real communication between horses. Ah but it's been many days of marathons and I'm good for another beer and the sack.

Drank Molson’s Canadian and Labatt’s Blue, seemed to accomplish the purpose.
I have no horses but one Black Lab and baby sitting my son’s pit bull. Still have to pick up the poop. :-S