is water more than the sum of its parts ?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Possibly yes. Certainly not just mix of H2O molecules with a few molecules split into H+ and -OH ions.

From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1900272&postcount=98 (18June2008):

" Here are a few words to help you (and others) understand water better:

Water is really xH2O where x is a distribution of small integers. This is because both the hydrogens are on the same side (separated by 105 degree) of the oxygen. Their electrons spend much more time near the O than near the H, which are basically just positive proton "bumps" electrostatically bound to the now negative O ion.

Two H2O can thus easily join in a chain with the O ion of one "nestled" between the two proton "bumps" of the other. In this case, x = 2. This x= 2chain can grow and x > 10 occurs until the water is very hot. The average value of x increases with cooling as the thermal collisions with sufficient energy to break the longer chains are less frequent. I.e. at low temperatures the average x of the distribution of x is larger. I am nearly sure "vigorous shaking" of (or passing very high frequency sound waves thru) water would change the distribution of x while this "non-thermal" energy source is available to break the longer (x >10) chains into two shorter ones. I.e. shift the distribution of x to that corresponding to a higher temperature than the true temperature. Once this non-thermal energy source is terminated, then in less than a second, the distribution of x would return to be than corresponding to the true temperature.

Below 4 degrees, the chains are so long that as they are jumbled together significant voids occur. These voids occupy an increasing percent of the volume of the container. So the water stops contracting with temperature and begins to expand as the temperature decreases below 4 C. I forget the correct value for the density of 0 degree water, but it is more than that of ice but less than that 4 degree C water. - Water's densest temperature."


And below is from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1900470&postcount=104 (same day)

H2O not only forms short chains of various length but can disassociate into positive protons, +, and hydroxyl radicals, -OH. If I remember correctly the pH of pure water is 7 where pH is the negative log of the hydrogen ion (proton) concentration. I think that 7 means that in pure water the percent that is protons is 10^-7. By logic and assuming that is correctly remembered, then when you add something to water that also liberates protons , for example H2SO4, the there will be more free protons. If 100 times more, then the concentration would climb top 10^-5 and the pH would be 5. (I can never remember if less than 7 is an acidic or a base, but working it out from the definition is easy and hopefully correct here.)

I assume that a few of the xH2O chains do tend to have a net positive charge, a proton, weakly bound on the "head of the chain." i.e. the leading O ion has an extra proton bound to it for a total of 3, on rare occasions. {Added now: Or be negative with a -OH ion instead of the negative O end of another H2O molecules "nestled" between the two proton bumps. It is also possilbe that both happen and the chain is neutral and not be as "Polar."}

I do not know if it actually happens but if x is great enough, as water is polar (for reasons explained in my prior post {98 above now}) I would also suppose that there could briefly be bent chains that close on themselves to form very small loops or circles. Never have heard / read of this, but it does seem possible. As they would be self-stressed by the curvature there is probably a minimum x for this to be possible and they would break with collisions more easily that the open ended chain of the same x value, I would think.

{Inserted now: When I wrote this I was only "thinking in 2D." I now realize that each of the positive proton "bumps" of one H2O molecule could have its own negative O of another (pair) of H2O molecules attached electrostatically, IF these two had their triangular planes roughly parallel and both were roughly orthogonal to the first H2O molecule (the one “owning” the two H protons). I.e. not only 2D chains but very complex 3D structures with two different H2Os joined to the same H2O are possible (and likely). Some of these shapes may be relatively stable thermicly. Some of these shapes may mimic the shape of molecules with therapeutic properties.

It is well accepted that on cell surfaces there are many different selective sites and that they mainly select by shape, not what the 3D molecule that has "their shape" happens to be made of. For example, most of the drugs block heroin do so by having the same shape and occupying sites the heroin would. Likewise many drugs in development have a shape to fit some specific site, found only on cancerous cells, with perhaps a toxin attached to that shape, etc. Shape is more important than chemistry in some biological processes. Thus, homeopathic medicine may not be “pure nonsense” if water can be induced to take certain desired AND STABLE shapes.)}

If I were to search experimentally for evidence of these “tiny water donuts,” it would be in water at about 1 degree C or less. Perhaps a careful study of the scattering or absorption of sound would show a slight inflection in the value (of absorption or scattering coefficients) as a function of sound wave length nears a wavelength that resonates with the smallest possible closed loop? Also interesting to think about is possible enhancement of the “anti-stokes” line in laser scattering from water subject to strong sound waves with wave lengths in this region. Perhaps something resembling NMR (now called MRI, as the word “nuclear” in the original name, scared people) could be used to observe these tiny donuts. Perhaps even just very careful measurement of the AC dielectric constant as a function of frequency would show their effect. The nice thing about all of these attempts is the effect, if any is observed should weaken as the temperature is increased and these tiny donuts are destroyed by collisions. "

SUMMARY & COMMENTS:
Pure Water is a VERY COMPLEX SUBSTANCE containing many dynamically changing molecules of various molecular weights. I strongly doubt it, but it is even possible that by adding molecular scale substrate to bias the size and form of the molecules that do form, some new stable shapes could assemble on these surfaces.

I.e. homeopathic ideas may not be entirely nonsense, but the idea that the homeopathic therapeutic strength INCREASES with dilution surely is; however that is mainly a misunderstanding of how "homeopathic dilution" is achieved. (They do NOT just add more water. - I will not go into more details, which are easy to find, as that could give the impression I am somehow supporting homeopathic medicine, which I am not. -I know of no serious scientific evidence that it has more than placebo effect.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"BMW has developed a prototype 7 series car which runs on either hydrogen or gasoline"

it is in operation

as well the reason it is not in use is because some are a little less educated and fear change

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but you always put your foot in your mouth

but without a spark nothing happens............... that last piece is what the fool just cannot comprehend................

you can put them 2 fluids together, but without a catalyst.......... no water!

that is the 'X' .............. the read-only kind of science major forgets before putting the el foot'o in the el mouth'o


say Oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Ha! Still just as dumb as ever while trying to pretend otherwise!:bugeye:

There is absolutely NO catalyst required - and only a very tiny amount of energy since the chemical process is so HIGHLY exothermic! Which is precisely why a mixture explodes and is useful in providing thrust for a rocket.

Bishadi, you came in here like a bull in a china shop pretending to have all sorts of scientific knowledge. Yet practically every single time you speak you succeed in only making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself. Seriously, you would do well to just slink away quietly and never return!!:bugeye:

 

Agreed.
Letting Oxygen and Hydrogen react to form water actually produces energy.
I think someone didn't pay attention in chemistry class !

 

They have built nuclear submarines that run on enriched uranium..

 

Just to put some real numbers to it, I reached over into my bookcase and picked up some old lab notes from long, long ago.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The heat of formation of water is 68.4Kcal and the free energy change is 57.7Kcal. Very, VERY explosive release of energy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yep. I wonder what kind of catalyst he had in mind though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He didn't have a clue!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Probably something very stupid like platinum since it's so commonly use as a catalyst in many applications.

(That guy is almost totally ignorant. All he does is post little snide remarks on many subjects - most of which (just like in this case) don't even apply in the most remote sense. He's nothing but a wannabe that just can't cut it. Pitiful, really.) :shrug:

 

Most of the time half of his posts is just gibberish. I already half wondered if I just misunderstood him, or if it was some kind of language problem..

 

ahhhhhhhhhhhh

my own peanut gallery of followers who sit around and pick up crumbs

can anyone share anywhere in chemistry where H and O will combine without a catalyst?


as the read-only fool just realized yesterday the amount of energy the reaction releases...... (almost 3 X the BTU of gasoline)

as well just like any ICE engine........... a catalyst (spark plug is 'required) to fire each reaction.

Whether it be the space shuttle to a fart............ no reaction without a spark.

You can test that if you like but be careful as you might burn your butt.

guys, not a one of you has the integrity to admit when your wrong and combined you 'three' could not hold a candle to me.

can anyone share anywhere in chemistry where H and O will combine without a catalyst?


so when you can show me that............. then you have a case

otherwise all three of you fine folk of the newly coined 'peanut gallery'

can all go lay by your dish!

the thread is on whether water is more than the sum of its parts........


and when you take the base elements of H and O, there is no water without the last part..................... and you guys just can't see it, won't admit it

and down right rude about it! :shrug:

how can any one of you three, when reality is slapping you in the face with every basic piece of logic and evidence and you still fib through your teeth just to hang out with the rest of the peanuts


if you don't like me, then step aside because i don't like any one of you three

:bugeye:


at least there are a few who can see what has happened to our sciences

folks are inquiring and the complacent shut em down because they just don't understand

You kids out there......... don't worry.............. just keep your chin up

we have the internet, we can do the homework without the old timers and their complacent ignorance.

just always be honest about what is true

p/s ............... can anyone share anywhere in chemistry where H and O will combine without a catalyst?


as to answer that will show exactly what i mean!

 

As usual, nothing but erroneous statements and gibberish. (Not to mention the fact that you STILL cannot construct proper sentences and thus appear nearly totally illiterate!!!):bugeye:

All you ever do is waste people's time. Nothing but a lowly troll !!!!:bugeye:

 

without much debate............... you be the troll!

not a once do you answer direct questions

all you do is troll around and tell folk how stupid they are

just like this thread and most you gather in

answer the questions or troll your butt down the road

can H and O combine without a catalyst? Yes or NO

and if 'yes' provide evidence............ otherwise (troll) go fishing in a different pond....

from what i undestand, what you are doing it why people get banned from this site

I changed how i deal with idiots like you, perhaps learn to develop or get lost

 

a spark plug is not considered as a catalyst in the chemical sense.

you are correct in saying H+O is not hypergolic.

 

Yes that first line is what the thread is about and in my post 42, I explained why water is much more complex dynamic mix of molecules than just H2O. _ I.e. was addressing the thread's question, but you are not, just trolling I would guess.

You are correct that because H2 and O2 are bound molecules there is some input energy requires to first brake at least the O2 bonds before H2O can form. I.e. a mix of two moles of H2 and one mole of O2 is stable at room temperature (does not exothermically convert to two moles of H2O) until some energy source supplies at least the energy to brake an O2 bond. That could easily be a cosmic ray or even radioactive decay of some element in the walls of the tank holding the mix, so it would be stupid to pre mix these two for combustion fuel, etc. This is true of every gaseous fuel I can quickly think of. For example the gas stove in the kitchen only mixes tiny amounts of CH4 with air just before burning it. In this case and in most others, including the 2H2O + O2 mix, no catalyst, as that term is usually defined, is required.

However, true as all that may be, what does this have to do with the question of the thread? See my post* to understand how complex pure water is. That it is even possible that homeopathic medicine is NOT only placebo effect etc.
---------
* http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2163449&postcount=42

 

ICE is 'internal combustion engine'

either compression (18:1 for diesal) or a spark plug is the catalyst for every cylinders 'chemical reaction'

it is why the frame is used

at least you are fair,

thanx

 

even a spark can be seen as "taking part" in the reaction, so a spark can't even remotely be a catalyst. once the reaction starts the spark can be removed and the reaction will still proceed.

a catalyst on the other hand does not take part in the reaction and will stop the reaction if removed.

 

Note that 2H2O + O2 ---> 2H2O is a reducion in the number of moles inside the container, but makes an explosion as a great deal of energyis released.

Does any one know of an exothermic gas reaction that implodes?

E.g. 2X + Y ---> X2Y but the energy release is not enough to compensate for the reduction of the number of molecules (in this case by a factor of two) inside the container? I am not a chemist, but a physicist; however, I bet such a "exothermic implosion" reaction does exist.

(Off thread, but related to my last post.)

Later by edit: I know of one, which makes this post very much “on thread” in view of what I taught in post 42.

Namely: Gaseous x molecules of H20 (usually called “steam” but note true steam cannot be seen.) with y more steam molecules. I.e.
xH2O + yH2O ---> zH20 liquid is very exothermic (940 Kcal/ gm as I recall) and is so implosive, you can use it to collapse steel cans (in atmospheric pressure or greater environments.) To be on thread you must accept what I teach in post 42, namely that most the liquid product molecules are NOT H2O but many different zH2O where z is many different small integers, but there sum Z = (x+y). I.e. Z is the sum of all the z.