My daugther in third grade is doing a small science project. The question was "Which solution will boil first?". We boiled 1/2 cup of wine, soda, water, salt water, and syrup, and timed how fast they boiled. The wine boiled in 1:15 min, the soda in 1:05 min, the water in 1:42, the salt water in 1:29 and the syrup in 0:53. We simply used a stop watch and stopped the timer, when bobbles reached the surface (which I read was as measure of things boiling). Unless I went about this all wrong, my question is why did the syrup boil faster than the other liquids?
202939
It is because the varius atoms and molecules have different sizes, shapes and weights. This means it take different amount of energy to make them vaporize.
202660
If you're going to boil your potatoes in rapidly boiling water, be sure to use enough water so it doesn't evaporate out of the pan and scorch your potatoes.  The reason for using vigorously boiling water in cooking pasta is to keep it moving in the pan so it doesn't stick to itself and come out in one big ugly glob of starch.  To shorten your potato cooking time, cut them in to pieces, and let them gently boil.
264363
Okay, I'll try this one -\n\nRun this experiment twice (or more times), each time with a piece of metal having different density.  The metal piece should be of adequate size (a sewing needle isn't going to do it), it needs to be big enough to significantly affect the temperature of the water.  You will need to know the mass of the metal (i.e., weigh it) and have a thermometer capable of reading from room temperature up through boiling or so.  Please note this is not going to give you a highly accurate answer, but can give you a ballpark idea (I'm guessing you're probably not doing this in a 500 million dollar lab).\n\nThe procedure:\n\n1)  Measure and record room temperature as T1.\n\n2)  Weigh the metal, call it M1.\n\n3)  Bring a known quantity of water (weigh it, or measure it and convert to weight, call it M2) to a temperature just short of boiling (say 180F to 200F, use the same temperature for each run of this experiment).  Record the temperature as T2, and remove the heat source (take it off the burner, etc.).\n\n4)  Drop in a metal piece at room temperature.  Allow a couple of minutes for heat to exchange.  Make sure you use \nthe same amount of time for each run of this experiment.\n\n5)  Measure and record the new temperature of the water as T3.\n\n6)  Repeat with your other metal samples.\n\nYou can now estimate the specific heat capacity for each metal.  It will not be super-accurate (heat escapes your system, and temperatures won't have completely equalized), but should give you some idea.  Just assume all temperatures did equalize and that no heat escaped for calculational purposes.\n\nSince (you are assuming) the heat which left the water went into the metal, then the product of mass, specific heat capacity, and temperature change should be the same for both the metal and the water (but in opposite directions).\n\nThis means that:\n\n(M1)(c1)(T3-T1) = (M2)(cw)(T2-T3)\n\nwhere c1 is the specific heat capacity of the metal, and cw is the specific heat capacity of water (look it up on Google to get the units you need).\n\nSolving this, you get:\n\n......(M2)(cw)(T2-T3)\nc1 = -----------------\n........(M1)(T3-T1)\n\n(sorry about the dots, I'm trying to keep everything aligned)\n\nRepeat the calculations for each of the metals.\n\nYou will need to calculate (or look up) the densities of each of the metals.  Then, graph density vs. the specific heat capacities you calculated, and see if your hypothesis is true.\n\nHave fun!
78277
1. No it's the methanol is a highly explosif gas.  It absorbs heat very quickly which is what makes the flame change color\n2. the whoosh sound is created by the oxygen trying to get in and the methanol trying to get out very quickly from a very small hole\n3.The jug is extremly hot because the methanol would explode if it was in contact with oxygene.  Since inside the jug, there is practicly no oxygene, it holds heat.  This is why the jug gets hot because inside it is holding heat in.\n4.  If we didnt wait for the methanol to vaporise, it would create an explosion and you would prolly die.  \n5. For a fire (explosion) to happen, you need 3 elements, heat, a burner and a burning (soryy i dunno if those are the rigth terms, i learned them in french)  The thing getting burned is always the oxygen (alone or with an organic material such as wood or paper)  Without oxygene the metanol wouldnt explode\n6.  I'm not too sure about this one, but it's probably with the moleculs.  Water is H2O and carbone dioxide is CO2.  Methanol must be a mix of those two moleculs.  Did the teahcer give you the molecular equation?\n7.  The water comes from the reaction.  You have to look at you molecular equation ( each prodoct at the beiginning and at the end)  Water is H2O  so it means that the reaction seperated moleculs from the methanol and those moleculs got paired up with some others that creat H2O. Basiclly a reaction is just moleculs getting broken and reformed with other moleculs.  Im not sure but i would guess in the methanol's moleculs, there is hydrogen (highly explosif, what creates the burning) and that hydrogen moleculs would form water with the oxygen that is burnign
162198
Sounds like you've got too much time on your hands to me!  The ions in solution keep the water molecules farther apart from eachother on average than they would be in pure water.  Therefore the hydrogen bonds are weaker and the water will boil at a lower energy level.  At least that's what I'd guess.
19142
Distillation involves boiling water and then collecting only the vapor that condenses. The condensed vapor will not include salt or most other impurities. To distill, fill a pot halfway with water. Tie a cup to the handle on the pot's lid so that the cup will hang right-side-up when the lid is upside-down (make sure the cup is not dangling into the water) and boil the water for 20 minutes. The water that drips from the lid into the cup is distilled.
43120
13 and a third hours is the number i came up with...\n\nJust plug some fake numbers in, say, for example, the tank that these two pipes are filling is 500 gallans.  then you can figure out how much each pipe put into it, take that five hundred, divide by 8, then multiply by 3, that's how many gallens the smaller pipe put into the tank in 5 hours...   now, take that number and divide by the 5 hours, that's how much that smaller pipe can pour out into the tank in one hour...  to take that 500 gallens and divide by the amount that can be poured in one hour and it'll give you how many hours it'd take to fill at that slower rate...\n\nThis is not a standard way of figuring out this problem, but it seemed like it worked to me, it should have taken more then double the 5 hours, but less then 3 times...   does this help at all??
345229
Okay I think the other 2 answers you already had when I started this misunderstood your question so I'll get it right for you.\n\nTwo things happen in the 16 seconds.\n1. rock falls s meters\n2. sound travels back up s meters from water surface to well opening\n\nFirst let's deal with the #1 part, the rock's fall.  For this let's use a variable called t1 for time.\n\nWe need to use this formula: s = (v1)(t) + ½(a)(t)²\ns = displacement, v1 = initial velocity, t=time, a=acceleration\n\nSince the rock is dropped it has no initial velocity.  Let down be positive.\n\ns = (v1)(t1) + ½(a)(t1)²\ns = (0)(t1) + ½(a)(t1)²\ns = ½(a)(t1)²\n\nOkay so we figured out what we can in this step about t1.  Now let's go to step 2 and see what we can figure out about t2.\n\nThe sound travelled from the water up to the well opening (s meters) in some amount of time we don't know yet (t2).  We can describe the sound's movement with this formula:\n\ns = (v)(t) (we use this because the sound is not accelerating)\n\ns = displacement, v = velocity, t = time\n\nNow let's use our variables (t2, our s) and use v2 for the sound's velocity and see what we can put together with the sound.\n\ns = (v2)(t2)\n\nOkay so we know something about the sound and rock now, let's gather what we found and look at it.\n\n1. s = ½(a)(t1)²\n2. s = (v2)(t2)\n\nThere is something else we know too and can write down as an equation.  We know that the time it took for the rock to hit the water and the time it took for the sound of the splash to travel back up to the opening add up to a total of 16 seconds.  So we can write it as:\n\nt1 + t2 = 16s (let's isolate the t2 and call it equation 3)\n3. t2 = 16 - t1\n\nSo all together we have:\n\n1. s = ½(a)(t1)²\n2. s = (v2)(t2)\n3. t2 = 16 - t1\n\nWe have enough equations now to solve for the number of variables we have.  Start by substituting t2 from #3 into #2 to get equation #4.\n\n4. s = (v2)(16 - t1)\n\nNow set 1. and 4. equal to each other (because they are both s so they are equal so we can do that)\n\n(v2)(16 - t1) = ½(a)(t1)²       (expand it out now)\n\n16(v2)-(t1)(v2) = ½(a)(t1²)\n\nNow put in what we know (v2 = 345m/s, a = 9.8m/s)\n\n16(345)-(t1)(345) = 4.9(t1²)   (move it all to one side and it should look familiar)\n\n4.9t1²+345t1-5520=0  (it's a quadratic equation and we can solve those, stick it in your calculator)\n\nt1 solves to\nt1 = 13.436\nor\nt1 = -83.844 (forget this one, the rock didn't hit before you dropped it)\n\nSo t1 = 13.436m (we only know this to 2 significant digits)\n\nNow we can finally solve for s by using equation #1\n1. s = ½(a)(t1)²\ns = ½(9.8)(13.436)²\ns = 884.57m (only to two sig. digits)\n\ns = 880 meters
399457
Tap water. Dissolved salt raises the boiling point, so salt water  takes longer to boil.
375693
The answer is yes. And I bet you want more of an explanation, which gets a little tricky. It would seem evident that cold water would freeze faster than warm water. But there have been raging debates in scientific circles over whether that's true or false. The fact is a lot of different factors contribute to how fast water freezes, including its beginning temperature.\n    Physicists writing in the journal Scientific American have waded into the fray and have probably come the closest to a satisfactory answer. Quoting Paul G. Hewitt in the book Conceptual Physics, the Scientific American writers believe that hot water will freeze faster than lukewarm water, but not faster than cold water. (Except under certain circumstances.)\n    According to Scientific American, water at 90° C will freeze before water that is 60° C. Below 60° C, however, there is a switch and the cooler water will freeze faster. For example, 30° C water will freeze faster than 60° C water. It has to do with the water evaporation of the hot water immersed in a cold environment. The rate of cooling by evaporation is way higher for hot water than for the cooling of lukewarm water.\n    Now, for those certain circumstances. When you put a pan of cold water and a pan of hot water in a freezer (both pans have equal masses of water), the hot water experiences this rapid evaporation AND freezing from below, which cools water on the bottom of the pan. Because the surface water is already warm or hot, the water at the bottom just sits there instead of rising, getting colder and colder. The water at the top experiences evaporation. The combined effect could make the hot water freeze faster than the cold water.
464452
What I can see in your experiment is that at the moment you stopper the flask is like letting that water vapour condenses and a partial vacuum is created.\n\nAt the moment you cool the neck of the flask, there is a sudden change of temperature that lets that pressure vapor of hot water will be higher that the air below (due to the partial vacuum) and boiling begins again.\n\nI would like to read other opinions.\n\nGood luck!
399309
Time takes to dissovle same amount of sugar(sugar cubes and powdered) in water.  \nKeep the mass and temperature of the water constant and do not stir the solution.  Since powdered sugar has more surface area, it will dissolve faster.
91108
Eventually the liquid would boil
134687
Yes a big problem. Ever hear of the "boiling frog"? If you throw a frog into a boiling pot of water it will freak out, try to escape, and eventually die. BUT... if you put a frog into a cool pot of water turn the burner on and let it reach a boil, the frog will fall asleep in the warming water and then die as it boils. Wake up everybody, we're warming up, don't fall asleep! P.S. all you literal jerks out there.. this is a metaphor. Frogs biologically will respond. If they are able to jump from the container when it heats up, they will. Where are we gonna jump?
135217
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/teaching/CDHW/egg/\n\nRead the section about "Boiling Eggs on a Mountain." The simple answer is that since the boiling temperature of water drops, you have to cook the egg longer (since the temperature is lower).
43159
i believe its because the boiling point of water is only 212 at normal atmospheric pressure, so if the pressure is changed the boiling point does too.
39368
It depends on the specific heats of the compounds in the liquid.  Specific heat is a measure of how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of one gram of the compound by one degree (and consequently the amount of energy it will need to get rid of to cool back down), and is a property of the compound (i.e. it doesn't change unless you alter the chemical composition of the compound).  Basically, if you have something with a high specific heat, it has to get rid of a lot more heat (a measure of energy, not temperature) to reach the same temperature as something with a lower specific heat.  When the liquids cool, they have to give the extra heat to the air, and can only do so if the air they are touching is cooler than they are.  So it takes time for a liquid to transfer some if its heat to the air.  If there's more to transfer, it takes longer (just like downloading a bigger file).\n\n__________\nFreezing and boiling points and intermolecular forces are only relevent to phase changes.  The question is about a liquid that is staying a liquid and just changing temperature.  The above answers are all wrong.