Assalamu Alaikum,

Another question that comes up over and over in my mind:

Is the purpose of teaching chemistry to help students learn how to be efficient with their hands or with their minds?

You could argue both come hand in hand, (no pun intended) but the way a teacher designs a lesson can heavily impact what students take from it.

Do I want to teach chemistry as something that they should remember as formulas, math computations and information tables? As a subject that when they leave the class, they can do practical chemistry (as in lab techniques)? As problem solvers that no matter what discipline they study, they can use the analytical and critical thinking skills they have learned in chemistry? As a prerequisite to something else (organic chemistry, etc.)? As a science and simply learn how the world works?

In some ways, I think it boils down to this: Is it more important for students to be able to use the knowledge for some practical application or for them to develop as intellectual beings? (Back to square one!)

I don’t know. =) Other thoughts are welcome!

—

—

Obviously a little bit of everything up there matters, but when I thought about it some more, I began to wonder just in general:

What is the purpose of studying chemistry?

(Person I know: Because it is fun!)

Is it to learn more about the world? Find solutions in chemistry to world problems (as in energy usage, material production, finding remedies)? Learn to become more developed thinkers? Do people study chemistry for the sake of itself or as a means to another end?

And then a realistic chemistry education student’s mind echoes: Will any of my students really care? Why should they care?

What I am throwing out there for you readers:

Why care to learn chemistry and what is its purpose to you?

I think it is important to think about why we do things and why we should care. I guess this post is meant to make you think more than me saying something I learned.

Assalamu Alaikum,

I had read recently a book entitled, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes. The book was a historical account of the events that led up to the making and use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were many social, political and ethical conflicts/themes addressed in the book and one to really think about (in terms of chemistry) is the ends vs. the means.

In the book, there was a constant pull between the ethics of making the atomic bomb (because it can destroy everything in a couple mile radius) and the justification of using it to end the war sooner and ‘save more American lives’. Personally, I still don’t see the need to use the bomb, but the conflict pulled me back to think a bit more broadly:

*Are the negative impacts and damage to the global environment justification for researching advancements in chemistry?*

For example, the research in atomic energy (not for the use of the atomic bomb) requires tons of coal to be burned to fuel laboratories, barrels of gasoline to transport chemical materials and waste, a crazy water supply, and loads of materials to make machines, etc. etc. This does not include the use of atomic energy to make generators or bombs, but to simply research it for the sake of science.

If the intended end result is to help improve human being’s standard of living, in what people perceive is the most efficient way of using environmental resources, does it make it okay?

If yes, then wouldn’t that be kind of be counter-intuitive at some point? You are using more resources to research ways to use less of them. Or in the name of science, we can destroy the world. That means that ultimately, researching science in itself is an ethical decision. (Although it is an amoral subject.)

If no, then would we say science has a limit? That after using too many resources to research things, that we have to simply stop? What if by trashing so many resources we come across the cure for cancer? By stopping the study of science, could one argue that we are ‘losing more lives’?

I don’t know. My logic can be completely wrong, but I don’t see any major holes. But it is something to think about. Until I figure out the answer, I’ll just have to settle with being more efficient with what I have, rather than being excessive with my resources in lab.

Assalamu Alailkum,

One day I was walking in the science building at school and I passed a research lab labeled: photochemistry and catalysis.

(I love how it is the photochemistry lab and the lights are almost never on.)

I was thinking about experiments that must be done in that lab. It must involve atomic behavior in the presence of light (photochemistry–>photo=light). So when results are taken by whatever was done with light and compounds, the conclusions must be made with assumptions about the known behavior of light. So in my mind, what would you make your conclusions based off of? Light as a particle or light as a wave? Looking at the results from either point of view can affect what conclusions you want to make.

Naturally, I had to ask a professor. He said something that blew my mind: the experiment being done decides how you’ll look at light or other subjective definitions of things. So if you did a diffraction experiment (basically shining light through slits of paper) you would look at the change of wave behavior and not look at light with mass. But if you did a photoelectric effect experiment (shining light on a metal to get it ‘excited’), then you would have to see light with mass in order for photons to be absorbed by metal.

(So what if you shine light through a slit of paper at a piece of metal?)

Anyway, the point to think about is that how you write a procedure and purpose of an experiment is just as important as carrying it out. What you are looking for affects how you look at your method of proving/disproving it and what you are going to use. Somethings might be objective like the distance between two nuclei in a bond of a compound (NaCl) is the same no matter of those compounds you have (1, 2, or 1000 NaCl’s). But where electrons are exactly between the two nuclei can get a little fudgy.

So the experimenter is just as important as the experiment. If the experimenter is looking for something, that perspective affects the reaction too. You don’t read that in your lab book!

Assalamu Alaikum,

I was looking at some kinetic and equilibrium related notes from last semester and I had a reaction written down:

2C6H14 + 19O2 <–> 12CO2 + 14H2O

(in language for Spiderman or non science people)

simple gasoline + air <–> CO2 + water

At room temperature, (and exposed to air=O2) what happens to an open barrel of gasoline?

It just sits there. You don’t see water flying everywhere and CO2 fuming.

But according to my notebook calculations, that reaction is product favored at room temperature. Product favored means that at equilibrium, there is more CO2 and H2O than gasoline. Equilibrium means when the concentrations of both sides of the reaction are not changing anymore. So why isn’t there water flying everywhere when you open the nozzle to fill your car up with gasoline?

And then I remembered I asked something like that in class and my professor looked at me with a half-comical facial expression–(half quoted)

—

Professor: “What did we just learn from last chapter?”

Faith786: “kinetics…?”

Professor: “So the reaction is product favored. What does kinetics tells you about the reaction?”

Faith786: “…”

Professor: “Speed. It is a product favored reaction and will have more products at equilibrium, but it is *slow* to get there.”

—

Having that really weird flashback, I had another appreciation for chemistry gifts moment: What would happen if product favored reactions that ran slow* could go fast or fast reactions could slow down?

(*ran slow/fast: meaning that it gets to equilibrium–be it reactant/product favored–slowly or fast)

Well, you couldn’t drive a car, that is for sure. You would pump out water and stuff you exhale.

But think about this a little more–how would you eat? How long would it take you to digest food if your body didn’t have a relatively quick metabolism? Or if it was too fast, how much food would you have to eat to keep sugar in your body at a stable level?

Would the earth erode faster (if things sped up) or would life fall apart (if things slowed or sped up too much)? Would survival of the fittest work here? Because it would be chemical composition of animal’s bodies, not living habits that would decide if they can exist.

Would we even have food? If reactions ran too slow, maybe nothing would bear fruit or  if it was too fast, the plant cycle would be too fast that we couldn’t pick the fruit/vegetable out to eat, let alone if it would decay before we can digest it with our super slow bodies.

It amazes me how certain reactions run slow and certain reactions get to equilibrium faster. And the world works. If a couple reactions ran too slow or too fast, the earth would evolve in a really REALLY weird way.

Another thing to consider is that what affects reaction rate is temperature. So natural chemical reactions that happen on earth are fast or slow *at the temperature the earth is at*. If the earth was too hot or too cold, that would change reaction speed dramatically. And the earth has a wide range of temperatures but it still works–we still have life, we still have the means to sustain life and it has for many years.

So today’s two-part chemistry gift:

Be grateful that certain chemical reactions run fast or slow and that the earth maintains a temperature range for those reactions to occur at those speeds.

Maybe some of this mad kinetics math is driving me nuts, but I am happy gasoline doesn’t evaporate to CO2 and water droplets at room temperature immediately. And that my body can digest food at a rate that keeps energy in my body but not too slow that I become sluggish or too fast that I have to keep eating all the time.

Well, I should stop eating so much, but that isn’t a kinetics issue– =)

Assalamu Alaikum,

Often when hearing the term ‘polar’ the arctic comes to mind. Polar bears, anyone?

***To really get to the point of the post, get past after the two breaks***

But polarity in chemistry refers to a molecule’s electron distribution and intermolecular forces between molecules of the same type. So let’s use water—

Water is H2O. (Really, Faith786?)

The oxygen has a single bond to each hydrogen with a remaining 4 electrons around it. So what happens? One side of water have hydrogens (associated with being a positive (+) charge) and the other side have a load of electrons ( which have a negative (-) charge). The overall molecule is neutral (meaning, there are no added or subtracted electrons–what oxygen and hydrogen originally had are accounted for) but one side is slightly positive and one side is slightly negative.

So if one water molecule met another water molecule, the side that is partially positive (hydrogens) will be attracted to the partially negative side of the *other* water molecule (which is oxygen). So water would line itself up that way and be happy. It is polar.

Now lets look at hexane. Hexane is essentially gasoline (oil) with the formula C6H14. All the carbons are connected in a straight chain and the hydrogens are attached on each side. Carbon makes four bonds so the end carbons on the chain will have three hydrogens attached to them and the middle carbons will have a hydrogen attached to the top and bottom. Like a caterpillar.

Hexane’s electrons are perfectly distributed. The carbons don’t have any electrons left over and all the hydrogen-carbon bonds are being shared and angled from each other nicely. It is nice and neutral and leaves everyone alone. If one hexane molecule sees another hexane molecule, it would simply chill rather than getting attracted on one end. The intermolecular forces are far weaker here and the molecule is considered non polar.

Now if you mixed hexane and water, (which is essentially oil and water), what is going to happen?

2nd grade science teacher demonstration dictates they will not mix. Typically you might hear that one is more dense than the other or one is ‘heavier’ than the other. The reason they don’t mix is because of the difference in polarity.

The water molecule has that partially positive and partially negative sides to it so it wants to line up with another molecule to its partially negative and positive sides respectively. Hexane doesn’t have that so that water molecule will get close to another water molecule. Hexane was denied. =) So all the hexanes will be together because they are don’t bother anyone and the water molecules will be with their crowd because they can get closer with their partial positive and negative sides.

—-

—-

(For the thermodynamic diehards in the audience)

I have been hearing that some of you believe that the separation of polar and non polar compounds somehow go against the second law of thermodynamics. Second law states that things tend to disorder and the disorder content in the universe is always increasing. So by separating out two different types of molecules (polar vs. non polar), it make more order.

Wrong.

By the two types of molecules separating out, it actually lets them move a lot more freely in their solutions making A LOT of energy and in turn, A LOT of disorder. If a water molecule was in a hexane solution, it would get stuck and it would be hard for it to move around. Not moving=less disorder.

—

—

Moving on, So what is the point?

What would happen if the world didn’t work like that? What if oil could mix in water?

How in the WORLD would you clean that out of the Gulf of Mexico?

This is something to actually think about. If polar and non polar compounds could mix, the world would get really messed up. Your body would become a load of mush because if polar and non polar compounds could mix, it would dissolve your muscles and bones to a slushy puddle with blood, carbohydrates and other weird complicated bio stuff I never understood.

You could not separate out a load of chemicals from plants that are used to make herbal remedies. You would just have to get the good and the bad in your pills.

Plants would have a super hard time separating water from their cells and they wouldn’t be able to release oxygen gas because it is mixed in the sugar they produce. The basic process of photosynthesis:

CO2 + H2O —speed up with sunlight—> sugar (C6H12O6) + O2.

The plant would have a hard time making the reaction go if the H2O is mixed with its cells and O2 would have a hard time being released if it is stuck in a sugar chain/ring.

The melting point and boiling point of everything would pretty much go out of whack–non polar compounds will make polar compounds boil at a lower temperature–>so water would boil at a lower temperature and you would have to cook your eggs longer.

But there would be even heavier implications.

If they could mix, it would mean electrons are more versatile than we think they are. That would me the world would be a lot more reactive than it already is.

Everything would pretty much die. We wouldn’t be able to eat, think, let alone keep our bodies together. The planet would fold on itself because if electrons can move like that, add energy of the earth’s core and electrons would go everywhere and then you’ll have this huge radioactive puddle/cloud in outer space.

(I know there are a lot of assumptions being made, but you get the point)

At times, it seems annoying why it is hard to figure out how things work a certain way but often it is better that it works that way. Maybe it is hard to clean oil off your hands at the sink, but it is better than having the whole universe collapse on itself. Something to think about when studying science–it might be hard, but I am grateful the world is the way it is.

Today’s chemistry blessing: polar and non polar things don’t mix!

Assalamu Alaikum,

This warranted its own post just because I felt like I took two different classes with lab and lecture (probably because I had a different professor for lab than for lecture). Looking back at it, this semester in lab was in some ways even more messed up than last semester although last semester I broke more things.

Gen Chem Lab Part II: Revenge of the Volumetric Flasks

—Apparently wearing a head scarf can be a safety hazard. Actually, I am the safety hazard.

—I believe when synthesizing alum crystals not to use steroids. I believe in 100% organic alum crystals!

(In this lab, my professor put extra crystals in people’s beakers to get the alum to crystallize, but I waited an hour for mine in an ice bath beaker because I believed in them!)

—My scarf and I learned something about each other—my sanity in lab is directly correlated with the state of my head scarf so I always have to fix it before lab.

—Stupid student graders grading my pre/post-labs: STOP WRITING RED INK ALL OVER IT IF MY ANSWERS ARE COMPLETELY CORRECT!

—Stupid student graders grading my pre/post-labs: STOP GRADING THEM FOR TWO REASONS:

—->I know more general chemistry than some of you and someone who knows less gen chem than me should not be grading my papers. (This isn’t about me being smart/arrogant, rather some of you are shockingly ignorant and lucky if you were able to pass gen chem and think HF is a strong acid.)

—->And if you have to ‘correct’ my post-lab by rewriting my CH3COOH as C2H4O2, which is the SAME THING, then you should not be allowed to grade my papers and you shouldn’t be allowed in organic chemistry for that matter.

—Naphthalene (stuff in mothballs and toilet bowl cleaner) will be in hell. That is how hell will smell like.

—I firmly believe the freezing point of pure naphthalene changes every single time you go test it. Water may have a set melting point of 0 degrees C, but naphthalene’s melting point changes based on its mood.

—It is official from last semester and this semester: spectrophotometers hate me. HATE me. =)

—And I still don’t know how to say that word. Spec-tro-pho-to-me-ter….

—Law of Faith786 in lab: when testing the concentration of solutions after diluting it 9 times, on the 10th and final run, I will spill it right before I will test it.

(And then I have to make a whole new batch and dilute/test that 10 times)

—Law of Faith786 in lab: It is universally accepted that the kinetics lab is the worst gen chem lab known to man and I still don’t know which part was worse–the actual lab that ran over four hours and I had to come back another day to finish it, or the 6 hours of calculations.

—pH meters are so inaccurate, I don’t know how the manufacturers were able to sell them to universities or make any profit with such a faulted product.

—The difference between last semester and this semester in lab: last semester, I was wrong and the chemistry equipment readings and theoretical values were correct. This semester, I am right and all the chemistry equipment readings and theoretical values are wrong. LOL

—I only care about how much I measure out or numbers I record only if I need them in the post lab. If I am not doing any calculations, I don’t care how much concentrated sulfuric acid I use.

—Dicholormethane really likes me. It is kind of scary actually. (Dicholormethane gets sucked up by your skin)

—Faith786′s observations of a chemical reaction: First a white chunky solid formed and then turned slightly black on the edges of the solid while dissolving rapidly into evil brown gas. The solution turns dark yellow and the beaker is really hot. It smells like a mixture of rotten salt and expo markers.

—Why is it that my lab set up never looks like the one in my lab workbook?

—I firmly believe that after 4 pm in lab, I forget what the purpose of the experiment is.

—The end of the semester reflected my whole life in a nutshell–I spend three hours ‘meticulously’ trying to extract calcium carbonate from an antacid (basically tums) tablet and right when I go to weigh it for the final step, someone knocks into me and I spill it everywhere.

—I think I get graded more for grammar on my formal lab reports in chemistry than on any other paper for any other class.

—Actually, I think my professor cares more for the grammar than if my class’ results, calculations and conclusions mean anything or if we understood any of it.

—The one time my professor comes to check on me in lab is the one time I have food under my desk that does NOT belong to me.

—Law of Faith786 in lab: My hotplate will always take longer to heat up than anyone else’s in lab and my water/chunky solution will take longer to boil/melt than anyone else’s in lab.

—I manage to hit a glass pipette on the table, knock over my buret and drop my crucible on the table and none of them break. But when I firmly hold a baby flask while drawing out concentrated nitric acid, I will somehow break the *bottom* of the flask.

—Dark colored solutions are harder to work with than lighter colored ones even though the former look cooler.

—”Centrifuges are like chemistry belly-dancers” –person in lab

—The color of the alligator clips must match the colors on the volt-meter that I am attaching them to. Even though they don’t affect my volt reading, I must have the colors matching or I will suffer brain damage.

—

—

—

… I can think of many other things I learned, but I better not put them on the internet. LOL

Assalamu Alaikum,

(Warning: heavy chemistry content!)

Today’s chemistry dilemma, Ka vs. Ksp (Kb is being neglected because everyone likes Ka more than Kb–I am feeling chemistry politically incorrect at the moment.)

Ka means the ratio of a chemical reaction of an acid at equilibrium. The ratio is the product of the concentrations of products (right side) divided by the product of the concentrations of the reactants (left side). So basically, if you have an acid reacting with water like:

HF + H2O <–> H3O+ + F-

The Ka is ([H3O+][F-])/([HF]). Liquid water is never written in because numbers get huge and slightly messed up.

So if you have H2SO4, sulfuric acid, and you wanted to write the Ka of it, there would be two because it would have to lose the first hydrogen and then the second–both cannot come off at the same time. (We are pretending H2SO4 is not a strong acid at the moment)

Ex:

1) H2SO4 + H2O <–> HSO4- + H3O+

Then the HSO4- reacts with water

2) HSO4- + H2O <–> SO4(2-) + H3O+

There are two separate Ka’s. The Ka for the first reaction is:

1) Ka= ([H2SO4-][H3O+])/([H2SO4])

The second reaction Ka:

2) Ka= ([SO4(2-)][H3O+])/([HSO4-])

So if you want the Ka of the reaction of H2SO4 + 2H2O <–> 2H3O+ +SO4(2-), (which is adding the first two reactions essentially) you would do:

Ka(1) x Ka(2)

Now that is all fine and cute, but when we start talking about Ksp, it is a different game.

Ksp if the ratio of a chemical reaction of a solid dissociating at equilibrium. The ratio is the same like Ka–products over reactants. But because the reactant is a solid + H2O, the solid is not written in the expression (solids mess calculations up). So really, it is just the products. But the HUGE difference between Ka and Ksp is here:

Ca3(PO4)2<–> 3Ca(2+) + 2PO4(3-)

Ksp= ({[Ca(2+)]^3}{[PO4(3-)]^2})

**Ca3(PO4)2 is a solid, so it is not written in the expression**

***The ^3 and the ^2 are there just because they are the coefficients in front of the ions. That would hold true for any K expression–Ka, Kb, Kf, Ksp, Kc etc.***

In case you didn’t see it, look at how the equation is written–it went straight from Ca3(PO4)2 to separate 3Ca(2+) and 2PO4(3-).

**You CANNOT tell me that for Ka you will dissociate it step by step and multiply the individual Ka’s and for Ksp you will not dissociate step by step.**

Further more, by having separate Ka’s, at least you acknowledge the solution has a bit of H2SO4, HSO4-, SO4(2-), and H3O+. By writing that type of Ksp expression, you have completely neglected that Ca2(PO4)2 (2-) and Ca(PO4)2 (4-) and other ions that exist in the solution. There is more than just Ca3(PO4)2, Ca(2+) and (PO4)(3-) in that beaker!

So today’s question-why do chemistry textbook authors cherry pick what goes into which different types of K expressions?

Why do I keep running into these ‘lies my chemistry teacher told me’ moments? (j/k) =)

(Noreen, pretend you understand this post.)

=)

Assalamu Alaikum,

This was written last fall between two classes on a white board at school. I never finished the poem because in the middle of writing it, I had to use the bathroom and when I came back, I lost my train of thought. =)

So here is my rough draft of my poem:

—

An Ode to Carbon

—

O carbon, o carbon, you are so very sweet.

Your intricate structures and shapes so neat.

Your bonds, so perfect; your weight, so light.

There are not enough words for you that I can write.

—

Even your name, to say it, is such bliss.

A compound without you is one I will surely dismiss.

The standard for atomic weight, that’s what you are.

Other elements simply aren’t up to par.

—

Bond with hydrogens, or oxygens if the former you cannot find.

Or with a halogen if you really are in a bind.

Add some heat, and mix well with oxygen gas.

I will always make sure to check your molecular mass.

Don’t ever hesitate; use water, heat or even electricity.

You will pretty much bond with any element of any electronegativity.

To calculate you, I would use atoms, grams or moles.

For one new discovery about you, many would give their souls.

With any element, you would make the perfect pair.

On a scale, I would weigh you after pressing ‘tare’.

—

—

I don’t know who was more disturbed after I wrote this–my friends who saw this poem on a random white board in the science building or the two organic chemistry professors who walked passed it and read it. LOL

Assalamu Alaikum,

This post was coming for some time, but I had to wait for the semester to end before I can fully collect everything. This post is strictly about what I learned from lecture. Lab will have a separate post:

What I learned in General Chemistry II (lecture):

—”Kinetics is not something edible.”

—”Rate laws. There is more than one.”

—I need more than one banana or soy milk to get through general chemistry II.

—For 90% of the class, doing the homework consists of reading our professor’s solutions and nodding in agreement. Me and two other people actually do the stupid problems.

—I still cannot do 100+ problem

—After a full year of general chemistry, I still don’t know the difference between a molecule and a compound.

—There is a K (equilibrium expression) for every letter in the alphabet. (Ex. Ka, Kb, Kc, Kp, Ksp, Kf, etc)

—If pH=pKa, then everything is somehow okay.

—Chemistry IS a philosophy.

—My professor is like a carbon atom in a molecule/compound–if he is not happy, NO ONE is happy….

—Apparently, if a metal is with an ion, things get more ‘complex’…. (Complex ions)

—People like catalysts more than heat. (Faith786: Just microwave it and everything should be okay!)

—Weird things happen at high pHs

—Apparently, “Gen chem and organic chem are different religions. You can’t believe in both of them at the same time.” -anonymous

—If an equation is named after someone, it somehow makes it more important.

—Faith786′s laws of thermodynamics: Things get worse under more pressure.

—Never judge a molecule by how it is drawn.

—For some reason, it is always better to be more polar….

—The term ‘spontaneous’ is treated like a swear word in class.

—Faith786′s laws of thermodynamics: No matter what, heat increases so we are all screwed.

—Nuclear chemistry should be taught in a physics class.

—Math will always trump chemistry even if it is completely counter-intuitive.

—If doesn’t make sense in lecture, it sure won’t make any sense in lab.

—Chemistry is a social construct. I mean, every test question is a ‘defend’ or ‘refute’–nothing is in absolutes.

—Gibbs free energy equation tells some deep inner truth about the human soul. I just don’t know what it is yet.

—Manganese and platinum have a special place in my professor’s heart.

—My professor can eliminate the whole universe by introducing water into the equation.

—Protons are shot callers. They don’t need to follow chemistry to do whatever it wants.

—In nuclear chemistry, there is no difference between 2,4 He and 2,4 He 2+

—Chemistry professors have interesting marker holding habits.

—Either you have to change chemistry to fit your mind or you have to change yourself to make chemistry make sense.

—In gen chem, lewis bond theory is a load of crap and yet only with that theory will organic chemistry make sense.

—Thermodynamics and equilibrium is like a video game. When delta G hits zero in a person, the person dies.

—Electrochemistry in a nutshell: if you throw a lithium battery operated car off a bridge into a lake, it will blow up.

…more later….

Assalamu Alaikum,

I was doing my typical twenty commute to school and I realized something: There are so many miracles in chemistry. (Well, they are explainable, some not too much, but I think it is amazing how things work together.)

Today’s Chemistry miracle: Acids and Bases and Ka’s and Kb’s.

For those of you who don’t know anything about chemistry and or care at all, K is the product/reactant ratio of whether or not a reaction is product favored or reactant favored. Basically, in 2H+O2–>2H2O, if the K is high, then it favors creating H2O. If K is low, it favors making H2 and O2. Ka just means K of an acid and Kb must means K of a base.

So I realized that there are very few strong acids or acids with a very high Ka. If those strong acids were not product favored, then the world wouldn’t be able to exist the way it does. And if weak acids weren’t weak, then the universe would go crazy. For example, in the body, we have weak acids that keep our blood in a certain pH (acidity) so things don’t go crazy. H3PO4 (phosphoric acid) is in our blood and remains at a steady pH. If you throw acid on it, its conjugate base (H2PO4-) will stabilize the acid and if you throw a base, H3PO4 will take care of it. (In certain amounts). But our body also has a strong acid that aids in digestion and it is important it is a *strong* acid so food can digest. HCl–>H+ + Cl- is a product favored reaction and that is very useful for digestion. (i read that somewhere but the chemistry got too complicated for me at some point).

But those are body chemistry examples. If weak acids were strong acids, then the atmosphere would have crazy things raining down on us and we wouldn’t be able to survive. if strong acids were weak, certain things would not dissolve and many products could never be created.

That may have been too nerdy for you, but I just realized that there is a unique balance on what acids are strong and weak and they kind of work together. Maybe I am on to something, or maybe I am not, but either way, it is a chemistry miracle. =)