Has there been an improved understanding of water ?

river said:
Introduce a barrier


True but the idea is to find how the atom of both behaves and the properties of both at extreme temperatures




Sure

I'll refrase , change in atomic properties




By the study of both atoms , individually

Its not a meaningless idea , I'm simply curious as to how the atom reacts on its own and the interesting thing is that nobody knows
Click to expand...

River, there are plenty of studies of atomic hydrogen. For example, it is very important in astronomy, because in the vacuum between the stars, not only is hydrogen the most abundant element but the distance between adjacent atoms is enough to prevent atomic hydrogen all being converted into diatomic hydrogen via interatomic collisions. But, if they do not collide, they are not statistically at thermal equilibrium, and therefore bulk properties such as temperature and physical state are undefined.

As to the study of how atomic hydrogen behaves, you are deluding yourself if you think this has not been studied. Below are 3 examples of papers, picked at random from the internet, on rate constants for the reaction of atomic hydrogen with various species:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00905740#page-1

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02084201

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102572841971

Furthermore the spectrum and structure of atomic hydrogen is by far the best understood of any atom in the whole of physics and chemistry, as it is the only system for which Schrodinger's equation can be solved exactly.

So if you want to make a new contribution in this crowded field, you are going to have to be far, far more specific as to what you think you are going to add to the sum of human knowledge.

Vague notions of trapping individual atoms behind a barrier(unspecified) in order to study something or other (unspecified) are simply going to make people think you do not know what you are talking about - a conclusion that a number of readers are evidently already reaching..
 
exchemist said:
River, there are plenty of studies of atomic hydrogen. For example, it is very important in astronomy, because in the vacuum between the stars, not only is hydrogen the most abundant element but the distance between adjacent atoms is enough to prevent atomic hydrogen all being converted into diatomic hydrogen via interatomic collisions. But, if they do not collide, they are not statistically at thermal equilibrium, and therefore bulk properties such as temperature and physical state are undefined.

As to the study of how atomic hydrogen behaves, you are deluding yourself if you think this has not been studied. Below are 3 examples of papers, picked at random from the internet, on rate constants for the reaction of atomic hydrogen with various species:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00905740#page-1

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02084201

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102572841971

Furthermore the spectrum and structure of atomic hydrogen is by far the best understood of any atom in the whole of physics and chemistry, as it is the only system for which Schrodinger's equation can be solved exactly.

So if you want to make a new contribution in this crowded field, you are going to have to be far, far more specific as to what you think you are going to add to the sum of human knowledge.

Vague notions of trapping individual atoms behind a barrier(unspecified) in order to study something or other (unspecified) are simply going to make people think you do not know what you are talking about - a conclusion that a number of readers are evidently already reaching..
Click to expand...

For the barrier Mg ( magnesium ) seems so far in the right direction , used in hydrogen fuel storage , not pure

Mixed with water it gives off H2 , yet can't any info. On whether Mg and H alone would react in anyway with each other

Other than that I've been looking into biology as well , hydrogen barriers within the body
 
Perhaps plastic as a barrier

The Solution: Powerballs


Powerballs are small solid balls or pellets of sodium hydride that are coated with a waterproof plastic coating or skin. Powerballs are stored directly in water. They can remain in water for months with little or no change to the coatings. As soon as a Powerball is cut in half under water the sodium hydride inside can react with the water to produce hydrogen.

NaH + H2O = NaOH + H2

The sodium hydride/water reaction is very exothermic and fast. A solid sodium hydride ball (with a 1 inch diameter), when cut in half under water, will react to completion within 10 seconds. Sodium hydride Powerballs react with water to release hydrogen on demand.

From

http://members.tripod.com/water_engine/powerball.html
 
river said:
I'm NOT interested in atoms of H but of ATOM of H , do you understand ?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes I get it. You have no clue and are bound and determined to remain dazed and confused. Carry on....
 
origin said:
Yes, yes I get it. You have no clue and are bound and determined to remain dazed and confused. Carry on....
Click to expand...

Actually you have no clue what I'm trying to understand

The understanding of H and O is collective understanding

What I want to know is what does the neutral H and O do at low temperatures

I find nothing wrong with question
 
river said:
Perhaps plastic as a barrier

The Solution: Powerballs


Powerballs are small solid balls or pellets of sodium hydride that are coated with a waterproof plastic coating or skin. Powerballs are stored directly in water. They can remain in water for months with little or no change to the coatings. As soon as a Powerball is cut in half under water the sodium hydride inside can react with the water to produce hydrogen.

NaH + H2O = NaOH + H2

The sodium hydride/water reaction is very exothermic and fast. A solid sodium hydride ball (with a 1 inch diameter), when cut in half under water, will react to completion within 10 seconds. Sodium hydride Powerballs react with water to release hydrogen on demand.

From

http://members.tripod.com/water_engine/powerball.html
Click to expand...

Question : why coat the Sodium hydride why not just live the powder without coating in a sealed container and then as you need hydrogen gas you drop some of the powder into water and you will have hydrogen to your desire.
 
arauca said:
Question : why coat the Sodium hydride why not just live the powder without coating in a sealed container and then as you need hydrogen gas you drop some of the powder into water and you will have hydrogen to your desire.
Click to expand...

Because the shuttle needed instant ignition
 
river said:
Once using homolytic fission to split H2 , into H - H , neutral atoms , that they don't come into contact with each other
Click to expand...

Have you been drinking or taking drugs tonight by chance? Are suggesting that we encase each H atom in plastic? You are really beginning to ramble....
 
river said:
Perhaps plastic as a barrier

The Solution: Powerballs


Powerballs are small solid balls or pellets of sodium hydride that are coated with a waterproof plastic coating or skin. Powerballs are stored directly in water. They can remain in water for months with little or no change to the coatings. As soon as a Powerball is cut in half under water the sodium hydride inside can react with the water to produce hydrogen.

NaH + H2O = NaOH + H2

The sodium hydride/water reaction is very exothermic and fast. A solid sodium hydride ball (with a 1 inch diameter), when cut in half under water, will react to completion within 10 seconds. Sodium hydride Powerballs react with water to release hydrogen on demand.

From

http://members.tripod.com/water_engine/powerball.html
Click to expand...

OK, I've done my best to keep this a discussion about sensible science. But you are so determined to talk ballocks that I have to concede I am defeated.
 
river said:
Actually you have no clue what I'm trying to understand

The understanding of H and O is collective understanding

What I want to know is what does the neutral H and O do at low temperatures


I find nothing wrong with question
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by neutral. The natural stable state would be H[sub]2[/sub] and O[sub]2[/sub]. Once ionized they are highly reactive. That's pretty easy to do with H[sub]2[/sub] which gave us the Hindenburg disaster. High concentrations of O[sub]2[/sub] are hazardous as well which is why you see all the warning signs around hospital oxygen supplies.

The idea is that it takes a small amount of energy to ionize a small quantity of H[sub]2[/sub] and O[sub]2[/sub]. But once that's happened, you produce H[sub]2[/sub]O with all of the energy back, which is sufficient to ionize another group, which explodes and releases the energy back, and so on. So you're guaranteed to get an uncontrollable chain reaction unless great care is taken to do this in a reactor, metering the reactants in a controlled manner. Or if you're NASA you do this in 10 story tanks with high temp alloys at the nozzle by delivering it according to some high reliability methods for preventing the tanks from failing and exploding. But then that's to achieve orbital velocity (17,500 mph) which burns half a million gallons of fuel and takes you 80 miles high.

The point I think that's relevant here is that a lot of chemicals do not readily exist in their elemental form. Elemental hydrogen and elemental oxygen are in that category. They are highly reactive so you can't isolate them into their elemental form. They will just double up into stable diatomic molecules.

Not sure sure what you mean by collective understanding. This is just basic chemistry. As for what they do at low temps? They achieve the liquid state (at most 33K for H[sub]2[/sub]) and then take it lower and they solidify (14 K for H[sub]2[/sub]).
 
Aqueous Id said:
Depends on what you mean by neutral. The natural stable state would be H[sub]2[/sub] and O[sub]2[/sub]. Once ionized they are highly reactive. That's pretty easy to do with H[sub]2[/sub] which gave us the Hindenburg disaster. High concentrations of O[sub]2[/sub] are hazardous as well which is why you see all the warning signs around hospital oxygen supplies.

The idea is that it takes a small amount of energy to ionize a small quantity of H[sub]2[/sub] and O[sub]2[/sub]. But once that's happened, you produce H[sub]2[/sub]O with all of the energy back, which is sufficient to ionize another group, which explodes and releases the energy back, and so on. So you're guaranteed to get an uncontrollable chain reaction unless great care is taken to do this in a reactor, metering the reactants in a controlled manner. Or if you're NASA you do this in 10 story tanks with high temp alloys at the nozzle by delivering it according to some high reliability methods for preventing the tanks from failing and exploding. But then that's to achieve orbital velocity (17,500 mph) which burns half a million gallons of fuel and takes you 80 miles high.

The point I think that's relevant here is that a lot of chemicals do not readily exist in their elemental form. Elemental hydrogen and elemental oxygen are in that category. They are highly reactive so you can't isolate them into their elemental form. They will just double up into stable diatomic molecules.

Not sure sure what you mean by collective understanding. This is just basic chemistry. As for what they do at low temps? They achieve the liquid state (at most 33K for H[sub]2[/sub]) and then take it lower and they solidify (14 K for H[sub]2[/sub]).
Click to expand...

You are the nth person to have pointed this, but it seems to be water off a duck's back to our friend, who now thinks you can encase an individual, isolated atom in plastic (apparently unaware that most plastics are molecules made mostly of - wait for it - yes, HYDROGEN atoms), in order to study it at leisure. I'm beginning to wonder if the whole thread is just a wind-up, to be honest.
 
exchemist said:
You are the nth person to have pointed this, but it seems to be water off a duck's back to our friend, who now thinks you can encase an individual, isolated atom in plastic (apparently unaware that most plastics are molecules made mostly of - wait for it - yes, HYDROGEN atoms), in order to study it at leisure. I'm beginning to wonder if the whole thread is just a wind-up, to be honest.
Click to expand...

I now see I missed a big chunk of the thread when I read back through it.

Ah well maybe river is catching on.
 
Aqueous Id said:
I now see I missed a big chunk of the thread when I read back through it.

Ah well maybe river is catching on.
Click to expand...

Well at least the original notion of water being poorly understood seemed to have been tacitly abandoned, which is progress of a sort, I suppose.

I'm all for people who do not know much science to come here and discuss things. It's dogged persistence in absurdities, AFTER the problems with them have been explained, that defeats me.
 
exchemist said:
Well at least the original notion of water being poorly understood seemed to have been tacitly abandoned, which is progress of a sort, I suppose.
Click to expand...
river was pretty unconvinced of the state of science with that notion.

I'm all for people who do not know much science to come here and discuss things.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a valid question - why don't raw elements normally exist in nature. You can just about build a whole chapter of science out of a question like that. But clearly a very old question which lead to a ton of discovery since at least the time of Pascal. In fact we might have fun trying to scope out how the founders of early chemistry thought of this or who would likely to have been the first one to pose the question river is asking. And then that second one, about partitioning the atoms - it's hard to say whether or not that's ever been conceived of in the literature quite in that way, since it presupposes knowledge of atoms which was part of the mystery the early chemists were trying to solve.

It's dogged persistence in absurdities, AFTER the problems with them have been explained, that defeats me.
Click to expand...
I think most people would defer to the knowledge of chemistry that folks like you, Origin and arauca demonstrate with your answers. There are plenty of free sources on the web to verify what you guys say. I think river is struggling with some basic principles and couldn't find a reason to take wisdom at face value, although I suspect it's beginning to dawn on him.

Early in life I became interested in the names of the elements and wondered why they were only mostly available in compounds. At one time I had a small collection - some lead from fishing weights, a tube of mercury (probably unaware of the toxicity of either), some metal powders I'd refined by electrolysis, coins of various compositions, various metal foils, powders of sulfur and carbon, some small tungsten and neon bulbs - that kind of thing - and as I discovered I could not build a collection of raw elements it became apparent to me that they simply don't occur in nature. Reading the chemical formulas of various rocks I collected pretty much clued me in to the fact that this is simply not how nature works. I suppose I was ready to accept the answers I got by the time I took high school chemistry. I don't recall being so sure that people who took science classes more advanced than mine were likely to be wrong - just that I had all the facilities at my disposal to research my own questions and there was always way too much information out there for me to possibly absorb. I did get a chance or two in some academic papers to kind of challenge an idea here or there but it had more to do with expanding on something rather than undermining it. While everyone's experience is different I think my forays into science are probably similar to most of the stuff kids were exposed to at the time. I think a lot of this is universal. The more you learn, the more you respect the scope of work that's already been done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top