Thanks for checking out this movie review video So this is for the 1982 film a highly revered film poltergeist In the pantheon of horror films It is one that pretty much everyone knows even if they're not a horror fan and most likely has probably seen so I'm not gonna go crazy into detail about all the scenes that I love in this one Like I kind of do with some other films because this is such a such well trodden territory So I'm just gonna point some things out that come up to me to come up when I most recently watch the film But one of the biggest things that kind of sticks out with this film nowadays when you watch it Especially if you're you know deep into the horror Genre and you've seen a lot of horror films when you're watching the film nowadays You just keep thinking about all the other films that have taken things from this film because when it came out It kind of was its own thing it was definitely very very new for what it was doing and From that there's been a lot of inspiration drawn for like paranormal investigation films and just ghost stories in general So when you're watching the film you just keep seeing all these parallels of like this scene looks a lot like this scene and in a more Recent film and there's just so much of that and that became very clear to me when I was just watching it recently And by the way when I'm doing this review It's available for streaming on Netflix, which is where I watched it. So this is directed by Toby Hooper Yes, this was directed by Toby Hooper not Steven Spielberg This is a very common misconception that Steven Spielberg directed the film He was involved in writing the screenplay and I bet you he probably would have directed the film Except for the fact that he had he had it in his contract for making that for directing the film Et that he was not allowed to direct another film at the same time. He was directing et So for that reason he was not allowed to direct poltergeist He was involved and some say there there are a lot of conflicting stories Some say that he was involved in writing all the storyboards Some say that he was heavily involved in influencing what Toby Hooper did with shots and that Toby Hooper consulted him a lot and Some people even go so far as to say that Toby Hooper was abusing drugs During the filming time and he was so out of it that Steven Spielberg basically was doing the directing I don't know what's true and what's not there are a lot of conflicting stories out there But there's a lot of information about it on both sides so you can go out and check it out So the big thing is there's been a lot a lot a lot of debate on who really did it But Toby Hooper's name is on it. It was his contract as director I'm saying he did it and I'm gonna give it the benefit of the doubt that he was the influential director in this with this film So just saying and I also find it kind of crappy that Steven Spielberg Has made comments in public that have kind of he has alluded to the fact that he actually directed it and It's just crappy So anyway moving on but oh, but if people don't know things to Toby Hooper has directed Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That's when everyone knows Salem's lot the fun house life force and toolbox murders That's just a few just saying Like I said written by Steven Spielberg who also wrote scripts for close encounters of the third kind and AI Artificial intelligence which that was a Kubrick film while half Kubrick and I think Spielberg finished it because he died during the making of that one Also involved in the script writing were Michael Grace and Mark Victor who also wrote scripts for death hunt Marked for death poltergeist to the other side and cool world So it wasn't just Spielberg. There were two other writers with this it had 10.7 million dollar budget and ended up making 121.7 million dollars. That is a cash cow Unbelievable the other interesting thing to point out is a lot of people called That time period of when this film came out the summer of Spielberg because one week apart E.T. came out and poltergeist came out. So two big Spielberg projects the guy was looking good at that point Initially Spielberg actually wanted to call the film night skies and he wanted to make it a horror version sequel to Encounters of the third kind But Toby Hooper actually suggested that it would be much better is just doing it as a ghost story And that's why it ended up being a ghost story I'm glad they went with that route because having it be a horror sequel to Cliffs and counters of the third kind I mean it may have worked, but we wouldn't have gotten what we did which is obviously a very important film a very influential film So this ended up spawning poltergeist to the other side in 1986 as well as poltergeist 3 in 1988 and then there was also a remake of the original poltergeist in 2015 and then there was also a Novelization that came out not long after the film came out the original film came out in theaters in 82 So that's interesting Jerry Goldsmith we do need to talk about this the a lot of people talk about the soundtrack when they watch this film Or when they talk about this film and the soundtrack is very grandiose It sounds really really good although I would kind of argue that a lot of the times It's it's very over the top now I say that but I also realized that that's kind of what film was back then especially because this was a big budget film That's what script. That's what it was, you know It's to be expected that it was that way now when I look at it and I say that I think it's over the top I think it's over the top for now and I'm very very glad that we've kind of you know pulled things back quite a bit especially with Soundtracks in the horror genre. I think kind of less is more is to is a type of thing But for that time for 1982 that was an unbelievable soundtrack and the music itself when you separate it from the film is Unbelievable. It's so good. It's so grandiose. It sounds so amazingly done Intricate and Jerry Goldsmith is the one who did that soundtrack And he was actually nominated for an Oscar for the soundtrack at for best original score is what the Category was but he ended up losing to the people who did the sound or the score for ET there you go originally Poltergeist got an R rating But then Hooper and Spielberg went to the MPAA and they did an appeal and they won on the appeal to get it taken down from an R To a PG which if you watch the film, I don't know how they did that probably some of this a lot of influence from the big studios, but Some people may say well, why wasn't it just downgraded to a PG-13? Actually PG-13 as a rating didn't exist until two years later in 1984 So it probably would have been a PG-13, but that didn't exist So it went all the way down to PG But it holds at a PG right now even though it probably should have been adjusted after the fact to being a PG-13 Which is just the MPAA is kind of weird or very weird So the beginning of this film I think is actually really weird and kind of clunky and there are actually some clunky things about this film in general That a lot of people don't talk about or think about but when you're gonna sit down and like really dissect the film These things kind of pop out to you one of the things is the beginning is weird Because it's the dog kind of just going around from person to person I think it's kind of a way to just show how many people are in the family and just be like Okay, this is everyone in the family. This this is who our main characters are gonna be plus the dog But it also indicates that the dog has a connection with the paranormal stuff That's going on because it seems like the dog is hearing it and then kind of trying to alert the family somewhat and then that comes into play later when the dog can kind of can hear Carol Ann But you know and that's another thing though the name Carol Ann is said so freaking much in this film It is beyond annoying Especially nowadays But I take it to the nth degree because after I watch it I always walk around the house and Annoy my wife by going Carol Ann Carol Ann She's not gonna hear the end of it for about a week. I'll tell you that But my point with the dog is it's a weird beginning. It's just a weird way to begin the film. It just seems like Why you know And like I said, there are a few things that just like why The shot of the back of the girl of Carol Ann's head when she's looking at the TV. That's all static That's a very iconic thing. They often when they're in like documentaries or Films when the referencing poltergeist they'll show that portion because it looks amazing like the shadow like the silhouette of Her against the static and the light of the TV just looks unbelievable And that's one of the great things about this film is that it looks really good And it does hold up looks wise not just from a cinematography and directing standpoint But also from a practical effects standpoint a lot of the practical effects look great They still look great even some of the special effects such as these like the spirits Especially like that skeleton spirit, which you all know what I'm talking about the one with like the kind of animal Like long face with the horrible teeth Awesome, and that's the thing it still holds up. It looks so good so the to have the scene with The silhouette against the static on the TV is a really good one to do kind of early on because it sets a really nice creepy tone to the film With the way it starts in the neighborhood. It's actually kind of points out How interesting the soundtrack is because it sounds very whimsical when they're kind of showing the neighborhood And they're showing people out doing all their whatever they're doing the guy on the bicycle with a case of beer under his arm Which I thought was really funny The sound tracks Particularly over the top at that point and it sounds very whimsical and it sounds like a Spielberg type whimsical film Which I just kind of thought was interesting Yeah, I wrote down the dude biking with the case of beer was great The tree so the first indicator that there's something other than the static on the TV the first physical indicator that something is There's a presence. There's a creepy weird presence is really that tree and how crazy it looks and the way they design that thing It's so weird-looking. It's so creepy-looking. It feels and looks very out of place there but it's kind of a it's a foreshadowing because it's right there on the property and it's the weirdest most messed up looking thing when everything else looks so normal and so nice and so Americana and You have this tree that's so out of place and it's just that contrast of even though everything on the surface is looking So normal and good look in the backyard and you see this tree and there's really something creepy and dark that's there and Then later on obviously the tree attacks, which is an awesome scene a great scene They executed that so well and you know someone seeing that for the first time probably never see that coming really well done The fear of the dark and storms is such a classic for kids and I think that a lot of times it's used in films just as like Oh, that's you know kids are just afraid of the dark and afraid of storms But in this it's actually used as yet another Portion of the foreshadowing that something's about to happen in this instance kids are afraid But they're afraid for a very good reason because there's actually something behind that And that's another thing is nature is used a lot in this film as the tormentor For these individuals. It's like the spirits the evil entities are Manipulating nature in order to do the bidding for trying to get rid of these people basically Either by killing them potentially or you know driving them away, which happens in the end or just sucking their whole house and do Some sort of spiritual portal, which is what happens in the end and looks really great by the way But I just found that very interesting now, I don't know What the reasoning would that would be for that? I guess it's the it seems like maybe the most benign thing, but it's but it also seems like there's kind of this tie of the people when they were living are Dominating nature and then when they're dead they basically become one with nature because they get buried they get absorbed into the soil in essence and then It becomes an intermingling of the human and the nature so in the afterlife I Guess maybe there it's it's an idea that they're so closely related that if they're going to reach into the real world For you know, whatever reason in this in this instance to do bad things to other human beings They're going to use nature because they're so tied to it at that point. So but you know just a point Carol Ann is creepy by the way too Especially how she acts in the beginning of the film she becomes more of a victim later on but in the very beginning She just seems off and weird and creepy. I don't know if anyone else feels that way, but yeah When Carol Ann's watching the static and the mother changes the channel and says that she'll ruin her eyes She ends up turning it to a movie that's on TV. That's a war movie That's very very violent and I feel like this is a very interesting way of kind of Pointing out how parenting is slipping and they do that a few times in this film Like when they're getting high and not really paying attention to the kids and then also this moment that I'm talking about where she's like Oh, you'll ruin your eyes but watch this super violent war movie which will Mess you up potentially like this is stuff you shouldn't really be seeing but she walks away from it then showing how she doesn't really care That much and so this is showing this kind of like parents so in their own world that they're not even paying attention to The actual dangers to their kids Until those dangers are physical until those dangers are the tree and the dangers are the the spirit portal and all that stuff And then they jump into super protective mode and they're they're there So for that reason, I think this movie actually ends up touching a lot on The idea of fears of being a parent How hard it is to be a parent but also how you can kind of lose track of what you should be looking at But then also capitalizing on the fear of What happens if something does happen to your children because that's always a fear for people who are parents from I mean I'm not a parent, but from what I hear there There's this low level of fear that parents always have of something bad happening in the other kid and What happens if spirits are after your child? Terrible all the tree stuff looks extremely good and the closet vortex Happening simultaneously. It's kind of like this amazing double whammy of like great practical effects great practical effects intercutting going back and forth Um, and it made me think like either at this point They're trying to intentionally go after both of the kids or they start with the tree attack To have it as like a red herring to go after Robbie for the parents to go after Robbie Well, they then abduct Carol Ann through the vortex because they're dealing with the Robbie situation and then carol Ann gets abducted So I don't know if it was intended to be they're actually going after both of them Or they were really just going after carol ann because it appears that she's already sensitive in the beginning to The spirits being there that she's like maybe a little bit medium-esque a little bit of a conduit in a sense And Robbie didn't seem to be that I don't know that the comedic aspects of this film actually help it There are a few comedic moments, especially when the paranormal investigators are first introduced into the house They throw some small comedy moments in in there and they just feel Like they don't fit and I understand that like with a PG movie There's kind of this con this idea that like there should be some light moments There should be some, you know, kind of funny moments But it's just the comedy moments didn't really land except in the beginning where They're having like the the remote control wars between the two houses in the neighborhood. That was I enjoyed that. That was funny So when they had paranormal investigators talking to Robbie about kind of where spirits go and You know spirits being trapped between the real world and heaven or hell or whatever The look of her is super freaky because her her face is partially in the dark and partially in the light And she has like these This light in both of her eyes That just looks so weird and creepy and it really made me think to some of the the the imagery in the Exorcist like that moment where you see that I think it's supposed to be like a Pazuzu type face in the Like partially in the dark partially in the light It kind of took me back to that and it looked very similar I don't know if it was kind of ripped from that or inspired by that I don't know but it's something that made me think about but regardless she looks really creepy during that The crazy meat scene followed by the dismantling of the face where the guy's like tearing his face apart in front of the Mirror that is some intense stuff. It's very interesting. It's very cool Once again, it looks really good The concept of the souls Getting stuck is a pretty frightening thing For living people but also for the souls themselves Like when you think about not only what's the impact to these people living here But what's the impact to those actual souls being stuck what they're going through and obviously carol hands one of them at that point zelda rubenstein Tangina I don't such a weird name. I don't get it. She is one of my favorite parts of the film Actually, she is my favorite part of the film other than the practical facts. I would say Her acting in this is really good. Her character is really good. She's like kind of creepy you kind of don't know if she's really good or or bad because she's Saying like She's giving like mixed mixed messages about tell her to go towards the light or tell her to come here And she's like changes So you you are kind of suspicious of her and kind of not and the way she plays the character too and delivers the lines like it's very dramatic and very I don't know. She just she just seems kind of like Forboding in the way that she delivers lines and I love it. I think she's the best part of the film It's a real brave thing for the mother actually to go in through that portal. I was That's a surprising moment that she would just be like I'm going in but you know once again That's kind of the the power of I'm going to save my child type deal It does not make much sense that they wouldn't immediately leave though after all the events of you know Finally getting carolin out of that portal I don't think Realistically they'd be like oh, well, we'll wait a little bit so we get everything packed up and They would be out they would be out of there and then the other thing is too the way it's shot It's like they kind of go back to normal life. Like it's like oh everything's done. We're fine now. Everything's good It doesn't make sense and I think that's a plot hole There's foreshadowing though. This is the interesting thing when everyone's kind of acting normalish There's some really interesting foreshadowing when Carol Ann's laying in bed and she's got her little doll and she kind of like hugs it And the head falls off. That's a foreshadowing that here come Problems again, which I like that. I like that little moment Once again that spirit skeleton thing looks great still. I love it I'm always waiting for that moment in the film when I watch it And the reveal of the bodies that were left behind from the cemetery coming out of the ground Is awesome. Uh, and then it also makes me think yeah, that sounds about right for Real estate developers that they would do something like that. It's very very believable You know, obviously that's the big twist of he was telling them Hey, we we moved the cemetery and then built all these houses. Well, no, they just moved the headstones They left all the bodies and that is why you have the problems that you do because that's messed up That is hallowed ground. Oh my gosh So, you know, when you see that film for the first time that is an amazing twist to it. It is One of those moments where you're just like, oh my gosh, like everything clicks And it things seem even more messed up and seem even scarier. So it was a very effective twist How does anyone in the family get back to any semblance of a normal life after this? Any of them I like the touch when they finally get to that holiday in motel Which they make a very big point of showing that it's a holiday in I like that touch in the end where they wheeled the tv out because that's how everything got started So we're not going there. We're not even going to give it the opportunity So that's obviously already showing some trauma That will carry along with them. Will they ever own a tv again? I don't even know But it does beg that question at the end. How do you rebound from that? Any of them you probably don't and the mother at least she has a physical reminder with those gray streaks in her hair just saying Once again soundtrack amazing. Love it There are some really abrupt cuts in this. This is one of the other problems that I have and it's it's not just like Because I've seen movies where it's like it's an abrupt cut But the scenes make sense. It's like, okay, I know the scene ended and then this one's beginning It's these abrupt cuts where it seems like there was still more to that prior scene And they just accidentally cut it too early or you jump into another scene and it's like already in progress at a point where You're coming into it late And it doesn't happen a lot, but there's at least two moments earlier on in the film before the halfway point where it happens I can't remember exactly them one of them actually one of them has to do with when the canary is going to go into the toilet There's like a really weird like edits there like really weird and it's Disorienting and it doesn't work and then there's something later that's not like tied to any particular scene Where it's like something's going on and then cut and it's like wait a minute I feel like there was more that we should have seen And then we're moving into this scene and it feels like we're behind like what what's happening So just a few problems with it The things uh, sorry Excuse me This actually brings up a lot about the fears of the concerns of parenting which I already talked about but also home ownership That's one of the big things that if you are a homeowner or you're looking into being one You know that one of the big fears is you're going to move into the house And you're going to find out there are problems that you didn't know about prior to buying the house Well, this is a very messed up very Exaggerated version of that because could you imagine if you moved into a house and found out? Oh, they're you're actually built on a cemetery That would freak a lot of people out that would cause some problems I mean similarly, you know, everyone wants to know there weren't any murders here. Nobody died in this house, right? That's another big thing that people look at which is kind of you know tied in So I think this kind of plays along with those kind of home ownership fears that everyone has of What do I not know about that's going to be a problem here? And usually it ends up being things like, you know, the age fact system is really old and it ends up going up Or there are leaks in the roof that nobody really knew about things like that And the last thing I wanted to bring up is it's very interesting They put a lot of americana into this film very early on From how they show the layout of the neighborhood and how everyone's running around playing The the guys drinking beer and watching football The kid robbie's reading a captain america magazine The father is reading a reagan book You know, they throw all this americana in there and I think it's kind of a way to Symbolize that the family is america in a sense and their home is built on The ground of people who have already passed And I think this is kind of maybe a little bit of a tie-in to The issue of america being built on land that wasn't theirs that it was native american ground And they moved in and just built themselves on top of it And yeah, I mean take that for what it is Maybe I'm right on that. Maybe I'm not right on that. Maybe that's not fully fleshed out But that's what I got But anyway, this is a good film. I don't think it's the best film It doesn't obviously it's super influential like I talked about, you know, when I watch it I see all these parallels between that and movies that came after it all these things that were borrowed or inspired other films so It is a good film. There are some problems with it. The other thing is watching it now It's not nearly as entertaining because it's a lot slower but that's kind of a product of Over time we kind of spend things up in film to keep interest So anyway, I think out of five stars. I'm going to give it a four star rating. It's obviously quite good I was between four and four and a half, but I think it's a little more towards the four range It's a good film. It's a quite good film. I You know, obviously everyone knows about it, but yeah, that's about it That's all I have to say about it put some comments down there your thoughts on this And we'll chat about it But do me a quick favor and hit that subscribe button if you like this video or any video I do That's your best way to repay me because it means a lot to me personally I really appreciate that and for you it's literally a second to just click it But if you are going to do that or you have done that also hit the notification bell So, you know, whenever I'm putting up new reviews or unboxings because I'm doing a little bit of that Or doing a live stream, but regardless, thanks for taking your time to check this out and until next time keep it brutal


All right, so we've seen the freezing point depression, the fact that the freezing point of a solution is lower than the freezing point of the pure solvent. The presence of a solute solution will also affect the boiling point of that solution. So the next step is to understand how that works. So from a qualitative point of view, the reason we have a freezing point depression is if we plot the chemical potential of a solid liquid or gas versus temperature, they look like this. In a solution, the chemical potential is lowered. So the lower chemical potential in a solution compared to the liquid means that the freezing point got shifted to a lower temperature. The freezing point got depressed. Likewise, for exactly the same reason, the chemical potential of the liquid got lowered. So that shifts the boiling point of the solution over to a higher temperature. So while we have freezing point depression, we end up with boiling point elevation. The equation here reminds us what we know about freezing point depression, proportional to the log of the activity of the solvent, or if we assume dilute solution and make some approximations, proportional to the molality of the solute. The question then is what can we determine likewise about the change in the boiling point of the solution? And the derivation is going to be essentially exactly the same as the freezing point depression, derivation for the freezing point depression. Clearly, since one of them, the freezing point gets depressed and the boiling point gets elevated, there's going to be a sign difference that pops up somewhere. So the math itself is not all that useful. I'm going to go relatively quickly through the derivation. You can perhaps use this as a check to make sure you understood the steps in the freezing point depression to make sure you understand the steps in this derivation as well. But the key thing to watch for is going to be where the sign difference comes in that results in a boiling point elevation as opposed to a freezing point depression. So we're going to start in the same way if we have a solution of some solvent A and a solute B. Except now, instead of talking about freezing that solution, we're going to talk about boiling that solution. So we have equilibrium between the solution phase and the gas phase. The chemical potential, if we're at equilibrium, is equal in the gas phase and in the solution phase. And the chemical potential of the solution itself is related to the chemical potential of the liquid with an additional term involving the activity of the solvent in that particular solution. So if I rearrange this equation, chemical potential of the gas relative to the liquid with this log activity term, if I rearrange that to solve for the activity, I'll end up with chemical potential of the gas minus that of the liquid over RT. But if we remember chemical potential, that's just partial molar Gibbs free energy. So the numerator looks like partial molar Gibbs free energy of a gas minus partial molar Gibbs free energy of the liquid. And since those are pure phases, molar energy and partial molar energy are the same thing for the pure gas and the pure liquid. So the difference of Gibbs free energy for a gas minus Gibbs free energy of the liquid, that's exactly the vaporization Gibbs free energy. If I have the reaction of liquid boiling and converting into gas, the reactant is the liquid, the product is the gas. So this is Gibbs free energy of the product minus Gibbs free energy of the reactant. So that numerator I can write as the Gibbs free energy of the reaction, not just of any reaction, that particular reaction is the vaporization reaction. So the Gibbs free energy of vaporization divided by RT. And I suppose it's worth pausing a minute to make sure we understand what T we're talking about here. This is the temperature at which the liquid, the solution, is in equilibrium with its vapor. So the temperature at which the solution is boiling. So this temperature that we're talking about is the vaporization temperature in all of these equations. And as we'll see in just a second, that vaporization temperature is not the same as the vaporization temperature of the boiling point for the pure liquid. So this is the vaporization temperature of the boiling point of the solution. All right, so next step is to use the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation. If I take the derivative of log A with respect to the temperature, derivative of delta G over T with respect to temperature, according to Gibbs-Helmholtz is negative derivative of delta H over T squared. Now what I do with this expression, and here's where I'll skip a few steps worth of the math, is to separate the variables, get the temperatures over the right side, integrate that expression. So when I integrate on the left side, I'll get log of activity. On the right side, integral of minus 1 over T squared becomes positive 1 over T. And if I do that in between the pure solvent and the solution, I'm going to have delta H over T. Sorry, I've got R that I've left out. Delta G over RT, when I integrate, becomes RT squared. Delta H over R, the 1 over T, I'll write as 1 over T minus 1 over T naught. Or I can rewrite that as delta H over R. If I combine these into one fraction, it's going to look like T naught, boiling point of the pure solvent, minus T, boiling point of the solution. And then in the denominator, I have a product of those two, the boiling point and the pure solvent boiling point. Next step is I can do two things. Number one, I can define this temperature difference. So the boiling point elevation we're interested in. We've convinced ourselves that the boiling point in the solution is going to be a higher number than the boiling point, the lower boiling point of the pure solvent. So that amount of elevation of the boiling point is going to be by how much the boiling point has increased relative to the boiling point of the pure solvent. So with that definition, I've defined it this way because I know the boiling point will be higher than the pure solvent boiling point. This numerator, therefore, is going to be negative. The boiling point of the pure solvent is a smaller number than the boiling point of the solution. So this difference is negative. That makes sense because the activity of the solvent is less than 1 and this logarithm is going to be negative. So both sides of this equation are negative. So I'll write down negative delta t in the numerator. This difference in the numerator is negative delta t in the denominator. Rather than writing boiling point times pure solvent boiling point, I'll make the same approximation we did for freezing point depression and say in a relatively dilute solution, those two numbers are very close to each other in order to be able to solve easily for the boiling point. I'll just approximate it in the denominator of this expression by the boiling point for the pure solvent. So we have this expression. Log of the activity is negative enthalpy of vaporization divided by the gas constant times boiling point elevation divided by the pure solvent boiling point squared. That is the equivalent of this expression. In fact, if I rearrange this equation algebraically to solve for the boiling point elevation itself, that's going to look like minus RT squared, boiling point squared divided by the enthalpy of vaporization multiplied by log of the activity. And that expression looks just like this expression. Note a couple of things. There's no sign difference. The amount of the elevation that we've defined here has a negative sign in these constants. The amount of the freezing point depression also has a negative sign in the exact same constants, except it's freezing point and enthalpy of fusion rather than boiling point and enthalpy of vaporization. The sign difference I mentioned, boiling point elevation, freezing point depression comes because of our definition of what they mean. This is the boiling point elevation. We defined the freezing point depression assuming already that the freezing point is decreasing. So the sign difference comes in the definition of these quantities. In this derivation, the place where the sign change originated is right here. In the derivation of the boiling point elevation, our delta G of vaporization involved products minus reactants, gas minus liquid. When we were talking about freezing point, when we're talking about a fusion process, a melting process, that's solid converting to liquid. So the difference there was products or liquid minus the reactants which are the solid. So in this case, the liquid is the product. In this case, the liquid is the reactant. And so the sign of this numerator was reversed in these two cases. So that was the origin of the sign change mathematically that led to boiling point elevation rather than freezing point depression. So we have this relatively accurate expression for the boiling point elevation. We can do the same thing that we did for freezing point depression and make a few approximations in a dilute solution where the log of the activity is similar to the log of the mole fraction. And that's mole fraction of solvent, which is the same as 1 minus the mole fraction of solute. This ends up being, again, using the same steps we used for freezing point depression after approximating that log of 1 minus mole fraction of solute with its Taylor series, we can say this is at least approximately equal to in dilute solution this collection of constants times the concentration of the solute in units of mole fraction. And if we'd rather write that in units of molarity rather than mole fraction, that ends up introducing an additional molar mass of the solvent. That should be not melting point, but boiling point of the solvent squared denominator has enthalpy of vaporization. So again, that's making some additional approximations to replace mole fraction with molality. And lastly, I'm sorry, this negative sign should not be there. Log of activity becomes negative mole fraction of solute that absorbs this negative sign. So the negative signs are not here. This quantity, then, that I'll put in parentheses is what we call the boiling point elevation constant. So the term I put in parentheses is labeled k sub b. So we can compute that boiling point elevation constant. Again, just like with freezing point depression, that boiling point elevation constant is different for every different solvent because every solvent has a different enthalpy of vaporization and a different boiling point and a different molar mass. But if we combine those constants, we can calculate this boiling point elevation constant and use that to calculate the magnitude of a boiling point elevation for a solution with a particular concentration. So that's what we'll do next.


Semiconductors are very, very strong. That's probably the most, I would say consistent, right? Isn't that the best way of saying it? Probably the most consistent group in the market. And again, if you look at some of the semiconductor names. Welcome to Access a Trader, the number one community for those who are committed to taking control of their trading in order to achieve success, profitability and longevity. Thank you for joining us. Here's Dan Shapiro to help you find your edge, master your process and own your future. Hey guys, good morning everybody. Welcome to another edition of the Access a Trader.com. We get update show, hope everybody is doing well before we get to all the goodies about the stock market, all the baddies and all the stuff that's completely indifferent. The boys, Kyler and Ken Yun who run the ship here told me to give you guys a couple of tidbits. For all you guys, do we get a lot of emails to support about different components of the PS60 theory? There is a seven hour, three, seven hour, something like that, something free that you can literally break down the PS60 theory. There's a lot of moving parts. It's an advanced way to trade. There's a lot of moving averages in the Bollinger Band and linear regression lies. A lot of moving parts that you really have to understand it's pretty advanced, but it is pretty cool. And there's something if you click the link somewhere, anywhere here, you will see there's a link. You put an email and you get a three hour, you get the three hour workshop. Also, if you'd like to take advantage, if you're kind of trying to figure out if pivots are for you, there's a year end, well excuse me, summer end. Kind of a trial, I don't know what exactly it is. It's a kind of a trial for 30 days to kind of see everything play out. So if it is for you, if you're thinking about it, two cool things, start definitely with the workshop, watch the workshop over and over and over again. It's like three hours, three and a half hours, kind of break down the theory. And then if you'd like, there is a 30 day, there is a 30 day access to the webinar. It's only like 47 bucks to see, to kick the tires, to see exactly if it fits for you. So you just kind of want to make that announcement and let's move on. So summertime trading, we got about what, two and a half weeks, everything's kind of going sideways. So you can see the market is just slowly maturely melting up, going sideways, cold aesthetic, right? Every single day. There's some good things. There are definitely some bad things. There's things that you kind of scratch your head. But overall, this past week was pretty solid, right?  We'll get to Tesla in a second. I was a little disappointed of the price action on Friday. You had NVIDIA, right? NVIDIA is another one that I love, love, love, love, this whole week, had a really, really nice move to the top of the channel. It took out the $200 area, finally, of several areas of rejection, finally reclaiming the trade at all the way up to the 207 and change level. I still think the stock has a shot at this 208.75, 209 area ahead of earnings. We'll see. At this point, it really doesn't make a difference. Bitcoin exploded, taking everything with it. You have the coin stop moves, right? You have the coin stop that's attempting to come out of the range. This is the highest close in this whole formation. Names, for example, like Roku, that even though came out with, it looks like pretty crappy earnings, they didn't look horrible, right? They had that big move lower prior to earnings. There's still a wall within the range, a name like Netflix that didn't have a great earnings quarter, but it's kind of sitting in the middle of this range. So the market is still holding fairly well. Facebook woke up this week. We talked about the Facebook range off the 10-day moving average. There's a lot of pluses, right? There's definitely a lot of pluses. And somebody could turn around and say, well, nothing's going to materialistically change. We should melt up till Labor Day, and the real market should start there, right? It should literally start there as I joke around all the time, especially on social media when there's a hot stock running. And I just say, just put the stock at 1,000 and start from there. Well, a lot of people just think, just put the market at all-time highs at Labor Day and we'll start from there. They're not wrong, right? They're absolutely not wrong. But the reality is the market has its own way of doing things. And going into Friday's session, just to give you an example, my week was basically Tesla and the video for the first part of the week. And we kind of got the Friday. And I tell you, and this is where we say the market does whatever it wants. Our job is only to get ready for it, to kind of prepare for it. So we had so many value setups from Friday's session, right? Like I give you a perfect example. Tesla was building for four days in a row above the 700-day moving average. On every dip we saw this week, we saw deep out-of-the-money calls on any sell-off. So I said to myself, Friday's the day, right? Friday's the day. It's setting up perfectly, right? This is going into Friday's session. It's setting up perfectly for Friday. The weekly buyer is going to get paid, yada, yada, yada. I looked at Amazon, right? I looked at Amazon going into Friday. Look at this channel, right? Look at this channel. You have the monster, monster channel. Remember, this isn't an ordinary stock that missed their numbers. This is Amazon. The longer the stock market can embrace the quarter, eventually you're going to shake this off and move it higher. So I was watching Amazon go, wow, this thing is going to explode. I'm so ready for Amazon. We're waiting for Zoom. 52 eKIs, right? 52 eKIs are about to come. They're about to come on deck. It's about to get good, right? Yet, the video. The video's going to go to all-time highs. Again, eSingle still hasn't updated its split. But you can see the top of the range here. And economic numbers came out on Friday. Everything gapped down. But the one thing I've always maintained, especially in a bullish cycle, is any gap down is usually a high probability the channels back to the upside are going to reclaim and they're going to go again. And I was waiting for the video. I was waiting on Amazon. I was waiting on Zoom. I was waiting on this. I was waiting on that. I was waiting for the third. And yada, yada, yada, nothing happened. And I think out of all the stocks, and again, if you look at what happened on the indexes for the first part of the week, very, very strong. They all, everything, S&P, Qs, the Dow Jones industrial average, everything is up 1%. There's nothing really to read into the technical part. And again, if you believe in the whole theory, we're probably going to melt up all the way to labor day. At least the technicals kind of correspond, the action kind of corresponds. But the one thing that I was very, very disappointed in Tesla's price action. And the juries kind of see after that big Monday move on, I wanted to see a rest. We got the rest. But in between the rest, we were getting really good sneaky channels back to the upside. So it was a really good value on Tesla this week prior to Friday's session. And I kept on reiterating the point over and over, over and over. I would love to see that one washout. You guys remember that? I said that a few times throughout the week. I would love to see one washout trap on the bottom of the range, go red, the green, and go. So I was so convinced Friday this was going to happen. And it was already in my head. And the one thing you can do, again, you can't predict price action before it confirms. But you can do the research. You can be prepared. So when the price action plays out in your theory, you should be good to go. And Friday, you had Tesla opening lower. And it stopped perfectly on the five-day moving average. The five-day moving average rose. And it went right to green. So I bought at red to green the first time. And the stock was up like $2, right? Stock was up $2. And it got stuck. I didn't make any sales. The reason why I didn't make any sales, usually, I usually take some sales, get some cash flow and kind of manage the trade. But I was so convinced because we spent four days above $700 and kept on seeing order flow and collecting data that they were buying out of the money calls. I said to myself, well, let me get that big move. And at worst case scenario, at the top of the range here, this could be a macro full position, all go into the 780 channel. And it went up a couple of bucks. I didn't take it off. I broke even. And I saw the stock go red. And I go, well, that's weird, right? That's weird. But let's see how it plays out. And it started getting stronger again. And it tested the same channel. And it kind of came back in. So we already knew that, you know what? I don't want to short the stock off that 707 level just because I don't want to get trapped in my own theory and they finally make me whole. Let's watch from that 696. You guys remember we kind of talked about that 696 washout? Let's watch from that 696 washout. So it finally washes out. It finally washes out. But it didn't hit in the 696. It hit it like 97 and change, which kind of correlated with the low here from August the 2nd. And it went back higher, right? It went back higher, reclaimed 701. I completely butchered it, really, really butchered it. I got along with the 701 remount. And I did it too fast. I should have waited for that longer move down and then snap back over 701, but I didn't. And again, it wound up costing me only a buck. So it really wasn't the point of the money. It was more of the execution. So I wound up seeing a reclaimed 701 trade back to like 705 and change. At that point, I was really getting irritated. So I said to myself, I should really watch now for the red to green and yada, yada, yada. I've never got there. And then it closed at the bottom of the range here. So the jury on Tesla, I don't want to turn around from Monday's session and turn around and say, well, now that it closed below 700 bucks, the stock is assured. I don't want to go there yet because there's still an area here that it could test reclaimed and trap. Because think about this. We were in a channel from June the 24th all the way to July, July the 30th. So you had over a month and a week of distribution. The last thing you want to do, and again, keep this in mind, put up like an $80 move within that time. So the last thing you want to do is try to set it yourself. Well, now the stock is assured. It failed the 700 level. It closed below the 700 level. This whole 150-day moving average, I still want to watch. Because again, if we do get a gap down open and again, I'm just brainstorming. That's what I do. You have to play devil's advocate. If it opens down and they reclaimed the 150-day moving average, it goes red to green. Hey, maybe then we get what we wanted to see on Friday. So the jury is actually open. I want to see how Tesla trades Monday for me to get a broader opinion on it. But for now, I want to give the bulls the benefit of doubt just for a couple of hours. And then we'll reassess there. A name, for example, like NVIDIA. Semiconductors are very, very strong. That's probably the most. I would say consistent, right? Isn't that the best way of saying it? Probably the most consistent group in the market. And again, if you look at some of the semiconductor names that have been doing really, really well, like the AMD. Again, who could have thought in their wildest dreams would run from 89 to, what, 123? Phenomenal. Absolutely phenomenal run. It's back-testing. Probably get a dip back here to this 103-104 level for maybe for a possible entry. But the semiconductor has been really, really good. The jury is still out on the video. Does it have one more run ahead of earnings? It looks really good. But names that look really good in the semi-space, look at Micron, right? Check out Micron. Micron is very close getting out of this whole channel. See how many times, guys, it's held this bottom channel? Again, part of the whole PS60 theory, the whole theory is stock straight from supply to supply and demand to demand. So you can see this was supply. And it hit supply here three times in a row, and it got rejected three times. If Micron could just get above this channel here, this thing could wake up. This thing could be really, really good. A name like CLAC that had phenomenal earnings, it's going sideways right now. The same thing as well. So I do think there's a lot of value in a lot of semiconductor names. And you, I'm definitely watching from Monday. CLAC, I'm definitely watching for this week. Again, you can see it just going sideways. The buyers are comfortable. The sellers are comfortable. Let's see if they could take out the earnings high and start its next leg up. Even names like Splunk, right?  Let's see if it wakes up again. A name like SNOWED that had this really big move. You guys remember, I think it was from Tuesday's session, finally took out that 275 level, just absolutely exploded. You could see the same thing in Splunk. And this is why it's so important. That's why a lot of new traders ask, hey, Dan, how come you have so many lines?  These are points of reference points that if you don't know they're there, you're gonna get rejected every single time. So the same way Micron got rejected three times into the same area here, is the same way SNOWE got rejected on this linear regression line three separate times. But if you don't have these areas plotted on your charts, you're trading blind. You don't know why they're stopping. They're just stopping. So you can see SNOWE as well. It's got rejected three times off the same area. If it reclaims, maybe this thing starts waking up. Even a name like IBM, which I'm not a big fan of, you can't deny this chart, right? It got rejected twice off the 50 day moving average. If IBM reclaims this 50 day moving average, you literally have a really good channel, especially if you're option trades. It might take a while, but you have $78 back to the next supply zone to kind of really engage in a pretty good swing. Obviously, give yourself some time, allocate proper tier size, but there's definitely value in a lot of names going forward. The names that you kind of want to stay away from, again, it's still these China names. They're just literally all over the place. I still believe names like AMC, names like GameStop, there's probably better value continuing through the downside. If you were kind of watching this broadcast for the last, even for the last week, we have tons of pivots to the downside on GameStop on AMC, again, are the snapbacks aggressive? Sure, you know, absolutely they are, but you can see here, they keep on getting rejected off this declining moving averages and when they kind of roll over and take out the previous days high, you start your next cycle of selling. So kind of going into this week, I do like to semiconductor names, some storage names look pretty good, some software names like a Snow looks really good. I don't know if they're cloud or whatever the case may be, they look good, look at the financials. What do you guys that trade financials? Look at a name like JP Morgan, right? JP Morgan, it looks just like IBM. If they have any type of rates that potentially could go start to rise, again, obviously financials are gonna do really, really well. So, JP Morgan is literally one day away. Again, if you go through the whole group, you could see Morgan Stanley, very strong city man kind of looks like JP Morgan. Goldman Sachs is literally breaking out, has one, literally if it could confirm this 400 area on Goldman Sachs, GS could fly, guys watch this Goldman Sachs, it's not on the watch list officially, but keep an eye on Goldman, this thing starts building about 400, you can get your next leg up as well. So I think we have to kind of accept everything in the market. The one thing you could only control is your trading, is your emotion, is your research from the night before. Like we said on Friday, it was disappointing on Friday, not because it was a snikey, right? I don't want to use the word.  It was disappointing on Friday because the channels that we were watching from the previous night's research didn't confirm. And that's kind of out of our hands. We can control our emotions, we can control our fear of missing out, we can control our tier size and risk management, all that exposure, but the lonely thing we can't do is manage what the market wants to do that day. Remember, we want to trade, but we don't have to trade. You think you need to trade, but you don't have to trade. Again, we want to make sure we're trading when there's value and not because the stock market is open. So going into this week, guys, I am bullish until I'm not, right? Until we start breaking down macro levels, you have to stay bullish, that there's no reason the indexes are telling us that we are about to collapse. Could we have aggressive polls in today? Of course, that's what happens when there's a linear market, but from the old tense of purposes, the signs and all the data continues to point to their sector rotations. And you can see just by what we talked about, they're going to storage, semiconductors, banks, maybe not the traditional names that we trade, but the point is the market is still humming along. So guys, have a great day. And again, for all you guys who are interested in pivots or just want to check it out, again, kind of revert to what we talked about at the beginning of the broadcast and make sure that, again, before you commit to a trading style, you get all the information about everything and see if it's the right for you. Guys, have a great day. Have an awesome weekend. Have a great week. And with God's help, I'll see you all tomorrow. Take care.