I saw this same SciShow vid when it came out and it had me off balance for a day or so... but it's all a matter of where you define "zero" energy. The physics equations we use define zero potential energy at infinity (so, basically, the end of the universe or no bond). In biology, you never actually get to "no bond" because there are always chemicals, so it doesn't make as much sense to use the same zero. I've actually been meaning to do a video about this. Looks like you beat me to it ;-)

YOU GOTTA PUT MORE VIDEOS OUT! you're an amazing presenter/host!

I came here from Veritasium but I have to agree with Hank while seeing Derick's point. An energy bar contains energy even though you have to expend energy in digesting it.

love your videos! :D you give a great perspective on the topics at hand, hope to see more in the future ^^

***** made a really good video response to the interview as well. Check it out: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nZlpodp_0pa8lqs.html

You have awesome science videos!!

you missed half the argument, in my opinion. people usually say glucose is rich in energy and that this energy is stored in the bonds of glucose. but the energy that glucose isn't actually coming from there - it comes from the the carbon's and the oxygen's merging into carbon dioxide. it isn't that people usually say that the energy of environment A (=glucose + oxygen) is greater than that of environment B (=water + carbon monoxide). rather, they're saying glucose carries energy. the popular explanation never says "glucose and oxygen carry more energy than water and carbon dioxide", they say "glucose has energy". and that's wrong and misleading.

First! Mom will be proud

This video (and the one from The Science Asylum) quite enlightened me. Thumbs up!

Dude, what a community... ☺

Greatest explainer.

Great video. Next, all the mistakes in MinutePhysics videos!

so its true that the energy isnt in the bonds, but as a potential energy what can be made from creating more stable bonds

Derek is right as far as the point he was making is concerned. Any particular bond is a net loss of energy compared to the same atoms when broken apart from each other. Hank often said that "energy is released when breaking chemical bonds" which is precisely the misconception that Derek was correcting. But it is true that the molecule of glucose has more energy than the co2 and water that it came from, and that energy is indeed somewhere in the bonds of the molecule. But the point is that the entire molecule as a whole, the system of bonds, has more energy than the molecules used to make the glucose. Stronger and more stable bonds in co2 and water were replaced with a bunch of other bonds that when compared to the bonds in co2 and water, have more potential energy. Another caveat is that you need o2 to break apart the glucose and release the 23 or so atp molecules' worth of energy. That o2 also has a weaker bond than the bonds in the final product and thus contributes to the net energy output of the reaction. Meaning that it's not really correct to consider fuel to be the "source" of energy in a redox reaction (as we often think).

"really guys? doesn't it seem a little silly to argue about this?" [proceeds to present arguments]

I sure miss your making new videos.

Its all very conventional. Consider two situations where in the first case the object undergoes an exothermic process and second, an endothermic process. Case 1: Exothermic Object loses heat Medium gains heat. Case 2: Endothermic Object gains heat Medium loses heat. You see, if the object undergoes an exothermic process then it is an endothermic process for the medium and vice versa. So in a closed system where there is an object and a medium, there can never be an "increased" energy state or "decreased" energy state. It is very subjective, when we talk about this and we have adopted the convention that bonding means that the newly formed molecule has more energy than when its component atoms are seperated.

Why can't these guys just ask a *chemist*?

Hey have you have ever heard about ATP

It makes more sense to think of it as energy storage because it demonstrates the relative increase in potential energy in the system. I think you were too fair with Derek's argument. Simply put, if you put more energy into a system than you lose getting it to a stable configuration, the energy is being stored. Derek's view seems to ambiguate or ignore relative potential energy that's the only problem I have with it. It makes more sense to look at final potential change rather than based on change relative to the transition state. What do you guys think?

Dude I might recommend changing the music; it doesn't really feel like the right demographic.

3:48 U 2

It's not in the lowest possible ground state--the end!

No dislikes as it should be! Great job.

what is the third video at 1:57 like i doesn't have an hyperlink

I wounder if the sun will go dead out 1st or humanity. If humanity goes out 1st, it could be ww3, large meteorite, cosmic event (blackhole). Only time will tell, and in the end life is what we make of it. I'm glad to live in a time where the world is so interconnected more than ever, since the past 200 years.

verissassastium?

its physics vs biology

I see that someone's been listening to HI. :D Veristablium.

You're representation of of photosynthesis is wrong and not because it doesn't show the complex pathways. The oxygen that comes out of plants didn't come in in the form of CO2 like you show here; it came in as water and was split to supply hydrogen radicals. Since aerobic respiration evolved from photosynthesis, the oxygen you breath in comes out as water not CO2. Please don't promote this common misconception.

Ha, take that KZfaq

This is all beautifull and so but.....first make some basic videos that explain atoms and bonds.

Energy is lost

Brothers and Sisters, God loves us so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ for us, who, bled and died on a cross for us to redeem us from death, to gain life everlasting, for those who put their trust in him. And what's more, he has risen, and is willing to call you to repentance (correction) and as his witness, by his grace indeed. "For it is by grace you have been saved". Jesus loves you, God cares for you!