is water more than the sum of its parts ?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

being this is 'your' thread in which you are asking questions, perhaps it is best i only answer you.

in my view, water IS more than just the elements of H and O

that the chemical descriptions are incorrect

observe the energy upon the mass..........

like you i questioned a long time back how 2 gases become a liquid......

water was one that tripped me out, then to see a gas cool and become a liquid just freaked my out (25+ yrs back)

it made me realize that in many frames of science 'room temperature' was a benchmark in chemistry and that removes the assessment of the energy 'state' of the mass.

such that propane in a tank is liquid, then when released to the burner, the tank gets frosty (cold).......... that meant that as soon as the 'pressure' was reduced the propane is capturing energy from the environment. Then shut off the value and no more frost.

so when adding H and O at zero temp, there is a huge exchange between the environment and the 2 elements. As well for them to ever combine a threshold must be met or NO water. Them elements cannot combine without an addition (outside of just the elements)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so how does every cylinder in your car fire them chemical reactions?

NO water will come from H and O without an addition........... whatever you want to call it is your business as we all can see 'x' was just too complicated

as well a catalyst is basically 'the spark plug', that releases the 'spark' to start the auto (reaction)


think of putting hydrogen in your car for fuel............ does the car need spark plugs to run?

say 'yes' and my argument is closed................

this is not my thread

nor is this a chemistry class

this is a thread by a 'thinking' person who wants an answer that the standard models can't provide

and why it is in pseudo................... he is not the first one to realize the errors of current models.........as the current sciences CANNOT answer ALL the questions

and the issues with water phenomenon has been going on for centuries

 

by a spark plug.
you are aware of the fact that IC engines can be designed to continue running without spark plugs once started, right?

okay.

wrong.
a catalyst IS NOT a "spark". a catalyst (if needed) IS REQUIRED for the reaction to proceed.
you can think of a catalyst as a "substrate".

and what is the answer?

did anyone anywhere say science had all the answers?

i guess.

 

the characteristic of both is that the catalyst takes no part in the reaction itself, all of it can be recovered after the reaction completes.

i believe that a catalyst should be required where as an "accelerator" speeds up a reaction. my opinion of course.

 

I see the blind and mindless continues to stagger in the same circles - being unable to learn the simplest of things.:shrug:

 

Trippy and Read-Only

is it not possible that the dipole electrics of the water molecule stimulates some sort of latent energy ( within the space of the atoms themselves , the distance between the proton(s) and electron(s) ) within both atoms to produce a liquid as a consequence

is it not possibility ?

 

Short but accurate answer: no.

 

“

why though ?

as well are you saying that there is literally nothing at all in the space of any atom really , between the proton and electron , its just empty space ?

 

Yes often but most bond types cause the centroid of negative and positive charges to separate. To see that the hydrogen bond does not necessarily create a polar molecule one need only consider H2 molecule. (Has hydrogen bonding and zero dipole.) I think that H2O's orbitals that force the hydrogens to be 105 degree separated (instead of HOH) are not common. For example, as I recall (from 40+ years ago) CO2 is a linear molecule OCO.

All such symmetric molecules are completely non polar in their ground states. They are dynamically polar in some of the "stretch vibration modes, such as O--C-O ---> O-C--O and in many of the flex modes. Stretch modes like O--C--O ---> O-C-O are not even dynamically polar as symmetry is preserved. Thus you are not always correct here:

H2 being one obvious exception of non-polar hydrogen bonding.

That is obvious. S is less electro negative than O. Both are in column 6 of the periodic table but S is below O and as you go down in that column the two "slots" than can accept two more electrons are farther from the positive nuclear charge. As I recall Hydrogen Sulfide is H2S and linear - I.e. really HSH with no dipole moment. If my memory is correct, that would be another example of hydrogen bonding with zero dipole.

Yes I spoke of these and even described that two Os of different H2Os could, if their triangular planes were roughly parallel weakly bond to a single H2O (Its H+ s each "grabbing hold" of the O-- of one of the attaching Os of the two other H2Os. I also mentioned that many of the xH2O complexes were 3D molecules, not the 2D chains I could illustrate. I did this when noting that it is often the shape of the 3D molecule, which determines it biological activity, more that the elements making it up.

I have no reason to think that any complex 3D shapes of xH2O are stable at room temperature, so in all probability homeopathic medicine is ONLY placebo effect, but it is at least a possibility that some 3D configurations could be stable. If I were to guess what they might look like, I would put my money on a nearly spherical cluster that had only Hydrogens on the outside "skin" - that probably would make hydrophobic (oil like) or just try to grow by adding an O-- of H2O which would soon get thermally torn loose again. I.e. a complete spherical "skin" with protons only on the outside might be stable as to knock one off you need to break the strong H-O bond of water. Aslo such a large 3D shpere would have many internal vibration modes to absorb the energy of a collision and it would not need to absorb much as the colliding H2O would mainly just elastically bounce off the much more massive 3D complex.

Again let me state that I think Homeopathic medicine is ONLY placebo effect, but a deeper than usual understanding of water does not proof that is the case. Only a shallow understanding of water as only a mix of H2O molecules leads on to that conclusion.

 

Billy T

does a single H2O molecule have the ability to produce one molecule of water ?

 

eh, what i know of chemistry comes mostly from pre 1950s texts.

 

answer depends entirely on what your definition of water is.

Definitions are quite a complex philosophical problem if each is only a set of other words (Really a circular system) For definitions to have any meaning outside of circular reference, one needs to examine how humans use the words.

There is a very famous set of papers about "Twin Earth." (Search and you can probably find reference.) Everything on or about "Twin Earth" is IDENTICAL with Earth, except the stuff they drink, call "water." (Yes it is so identical that they speak English, and all of Earth's other languages. Also an exact copy of you lives there and posts in Twin Earth's sciforums, etc.)

Twin Earth's water boils at 100C has greatest density at 4C and freezes at 0C, when 80 cal / gram are removed, etc. -I.e. operationally, biologically etc. it is identical with H2O but it is not made of H2O.

Now the philosophical discussion centers on question: Is Twin Earth’s water or is it not.

Another similar discussion takes you back a few hundred years when it was not know that the "evening star" and the "morning star" were both Venus. We now claim that "evening star" and "morning star" are the same, but back then they were different. Recall that all definitions built only on words are in essence circular and meaningless. Usage is what gives meaning.

Bet you expected "yes" or "no" or at least a definition that would answer. Not this philosophical reply. But the question: "Is a molecule of H2O water?" is complex and even depends on where asked (Here on Earth or on Twin Earth)!

 

the short answer is yes it's a "molecule of water".
i think the question is about properties.
does that molecule exhibit the properties assigned to a group of water molecules?