Has there been an improved understanding of water ?

On the contrary, we know this extremely well indeed, because we know from the measured bond energies of H-H and of O=O that the single atoms are very thermodynamically unstable, relative to the diatomic molecules of both. Furthermore the inability to detect unbound H and O atoms in any chemical system shows there is no kinetic impediment to these bonds being formed either.

River, this is a very odd question from you and I can't hep feeling we (or I at least) must somehow be missing your point, because what I've just said is extremely basic chemistry with no mystery whatsoever about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My point is that by finding whether a single H and O , by themselves can produce a liquid form suggests that what forms the liquid or manifests the liquid is held within the atom its self

Knowing this one could investigate from where in the atom it originates

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What in the hell are you talking about? Do you think there is something special about a liquid element as opposed to a liquid made of molecules. We can have a liquid of the element titanium or iron or nickel. It doesn't tell us anything special.

We already know this. There is a certain amount of energy in a solid object due to the bonding. When you add enough energy to the solid so that the energy of the solid exceeds the bond energy the bonds break and the material becomes liquid. This can be quantified using the change in the Gibbs Free Energy.

No mystery here...:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is certainly the possibility that a single atom of either H and O can be special , if a liquid is found with each atom at extreme cold temperatures

 

Yeah I guess, I have no idea where you are heading and I don't think you do either, that's ok but I am bored with this so I will move along. Try looking up metallic hydrogen you might get a kick out of that.

 

Where I'm heading is a deeper understanding of H and O , is there a problem with this attitude ?

 

I do not believed you know what that term means, much less intended to suggest it.

Yes, it is known. Do you think chemists are idiots?

 

Yes. It assumes scientists are idiots, therefore enabling you to ask meaningful questions they have overlooked.

 

Scientist I assume are not idiots but that does not mean they have thought of every contingent possibility

Thats what a PHD , is all about

Come up with a new idea

 

Correct, but it does mean that they HAVE thought of pretty much every useful possibility a layperson could think of.

Are you working on a chemistry PHD?

 

Really

Then my hypothisis should be answered with experimental data

 

You apparently think you have a hypothesis in there somewhere, so answer it with experimental data!

I guess you didn't look up metallic hydrogen so maybe you could click this.

 

I did click

Nothing but speculation

Nothing has been proved

 

I have no answer

My point is though if this experiment has been done , present the data

 

More things are known about water than any other substance, but many things are still unknown. Here is a link to the known properties of water.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data.html

 

Nice

But nothing about H and O rrelevant to my extreme cold experiment

 

Wow long time since I have seen this data, pretty good.

 

You haven't presented either an hypothesis or experiment. I'm not sure you know what either of those words mean either! Unless this is some kind of joke!

 

No problem with this attitude per se, but there certainly IS a problem with an attitude that fails to learn what is already known - from basic physics and chemistry - before attempting to do so.

The physical state of a substance (whether it is solid, liquid or gas) is a BULK property, resulting from the attractive forces BETWEEN MOLECULES in bulk. To give you an idea of the scales involved, 18g of water has ~ 6 x 10^23 molecules in it, so 1 cc has ~ 3 x 10^22 molecules. Since a nanometre is 10^-7 cm, 1 cubic nanometre of water contains 10^-21 of this amount, in other words about 30 water molecules. Bulk properties only have meaning for amounts of substance where the number of molecules on or close to the surface is negligible compared to the number within the body of the substance and large enough for statistical mechanics to govern its behaviour - say for assemblies of a billion or so molecules or more. This would correspond to a water droplet about 0.03 microns across.

So an experiment designed to react individual atoms of H and O (to produce the H-O radical for example) is not going to provide any information at all about the physical state of any hypothetical fluid made of H-O radicals - or indeed anything else.

On the other hand, if you make a lot of H-O radicals and put them together, they will react (with considerable generation of heat) to produce water (H-O-H) and O=O (oxygen) and/or possibly some H-O-O-H (hydrogen peroxide). This is because the entity H-O is unstable, due to oxygen having an unfilled valence shell of electrons - it's what we call a "free radical". We know this: it's just chemistry.

I can only repeat what I and others have said: water is liquid at NTP due the unusual strength of the intermolecular attractions, which are called "hydrogen bonds".

There do seem to be some aspects of H-bonding that are worthy of further study and it is true that H-bonding arises due to the particular properties of H and O atoms, namely the small size of the H atom and the ability of the non-bonding electrons in the valence shell of bound oxygen to line up directionally (in what we call "lone pairs"). If it is that you wish to study, I suggest reading about the theory of hydrogen bonding - it's a very interesting topic, in my opinion.

But do not fantasise about supposed "mysteries" regarding why water is a liquid, or supposedly mysterious properties of hydrogen and oxygen. That's just Bermuda Triangle stuff.

 

If you look at oxygen, it is not uncommon for oxygen atoms to exist as oxide which is O-2. For example, iron oxide or FeO. Although oxygen has only eight protons, it is nevertheless stable with ten electrons.

The question is how can oxygen hold more electrons than it has protons, and why don't these extra electrons repel so oxygen goes back to atomic charge neutrality. Instead neutrality, the oxygen will strip electrons off most materials to become charge imbalanced.

The forces that binds electrons to atoms is the electromagnetic force. This is a composite force composed of both magnetic and electrostatic attraction. In the case of oxygen, the magnetic attraction aspect of the EM force dominates the charge repulsion allowing more electrons than expected of charge balance.

The hydrogen bonding between water molecules takes advantage of this. The oxygen can hold extra electron density all the way to oxide, so it steals electron density from its hydrogen to create a dipole. The hydrogen now have less charge and therefore needs to find more charge elsewhere. This is typically another oxygen on a different water molecule. It takes the hydrogen two oxygen atoms, to gets its fill of electrons resulting in significant binding forces within water.

The average H2O molecule in liquid water only lasts about 1 millisecond before it swaps hydrogen and becomes a new molecule. There is no such thing as ancient water molecules older that 1/1000 of a second. This breaking of strong bonds so easily is due to oxygen's ability to hold extra electrons to the point where the covalent bond with hydrogen is broken, with the hydrogen then opting for better electron hunting grounds by finding another oxygen. This results in the pH effect.