About thirteen minutes into the above video, the YouTuber shows a screenshot from the Corning Museum of Glass's website...
...that asks whether the PYREX stamp in all caps definitely tells that the PYREX item was made with borosilicate glass - something I'd been told was a definitive tell.
According to the Corning Museum website, "the change from upper to lower case signified a re-branding of the trademark Pyrex® in the late 1970s but is not a conclusive way to determine, historically, what type of glass formulation the product is made from."
So that's apparently out the window.
The video does go on to explore the various other ways of differentiating borosilicate from soda lime pyrex: the blue tint, visibility in mineral oil, even a not-very-scientific drop test onto a patio block.
In the end, the best that the host came up with was to look for a made in France mark. Apparently the French know to use only borosilicate glass.
At some point in my material science and chemistry courses, I speak bluntly to my students that most research suggests that man-made polymers are bad for us.
Some are worse than others, but most research on the effects of polymers on humans seems to suggest that there are bad effects from most man-made polymers. Some are minorly bad, but others - like the family of PFAS - are more obviously and persistently bad.
The video above is short and has a direct message: DuPont is bad (or has acted badly).
The longer video below - from Veritasium - is far longer but is much, much more informative.
If this sounds familiar, you might've seen a semi-recent movie about this story, Dark Waters.
Today you get a whole bunch of videos about making salt (all different from previous salt making videos.)
It seems like such a simple thing - talk salt water from the ocean and boil it down - but there's a lot more to the science of making salt including removing the calcium and magnesium impurities, allowing the crystals to grow to the desired size, and sorting those different crystal sizes.
Who knew that the rate of crystal growth would affect the size of the crystals?
I can vouch for that Harold McGee book referenced toward the beginning. I have it on the shelf in my living room - though I'll admit that I've barely read more than a third of it. There's a LOT of science happening in there, and it's a dense read.
Adam explains the basics of heat conductivity, reactivity (leaching ions to make whipping egg whites easier), reactivity again (to pull sulfur out of the vapor distillate in alcohol distillation), malleability (peening the copper bowl), ductility (making copper whisks), reactivity another time (such as the health hazards of drinking acidic cocktails like mules from copper cups), and conductivity again (useful for making jams and candy).
And then he throws down the possibility of testing a pure silver pan...I want him to buy one, but I'm not going to support him to make that easier for him to do.
How have I missed posting this in the blog? I've been using this video for a couple of years to explain that pyrex =/= Pyrex.
I would explain, but honestly, the Consumer Reports host up there does a great job explaining that consumer pyrex isn't the same as lab Pyrex and hasn't been for decades.
Tl;dr - don't take your pyrex casserole dish from the freezer to the oven or from the oven to the countertop.
But copper pots always seemed like an industrial commodity to me, though I guess I understand that they must've been hand-made originally.
This video isn't necessarily about material science, but the use of three different metals to produce single piece with different properties in each part would allow for a good wrap-up of a metals chapter.
The copper is a great conductor, so it's a great choice for the body of the cookware.
But copper is reactive, so the inside of the pot is coated in tin - a not terribly active metal with a lower melting point.
And a copper handle would be too hot too quickly, so the cast iron handle is riveted onto the copper body.
Apparently different metals have different properties. Who knew?
Well, yeah, who doesn't turn a meteorite into a chef's knife in their spare time?
Bourdain visits with Bob Kramer, a master chef's knife maker who goes through the smelting, forging, and heat treating of some pretty spectacular knives.
At about 5:38 (explanation starts) then at 6:18 (actual visual) is one of the - if correctly described - most stunning things I've ever seen in material science. Kramer explains that there is a 'shadow' that moves through the steel as it - as I understand - undergoes the phase change from FCC to BCC, squeezing the carbon into the harder, BCC form of iron.
I am currently looking for confirmation from a second source, however, that what we see is actually what Kramer says it's showing.
We've been hearing for a few years that Pyrex isn't what it used to be, that the quality control from the overseas manufacturing might be a little less strict than that in typical American manufacturing.
And now we know all about it thanks to Theodore Gray's Gray Matter column, which he largely has turned into his two, thoroughly entertaining Mad Science books. I even really like the legal disclaimers from the books (which I sadly can't find online for the linking). Lots of good reading there - along with some pretty spectacular photos of chemical reactions.