Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Are you out of your mind ? The reaction is exothermic, you know what that means right ?
In fact, one could say that water is LESS than the sum of it's parts.
is water more than the sum of its parts ?
- Thread starter thinking
- Start date
Are you out of your mind ? The reaction is exothermic, you know what that means right ?
In fact, one could say that water is LESS than the sum of it's parts.
yes!
but i can stay focused on one point of reality; such as the first postulate
"no h20 from H and O without 'x'...."
most of you still can't face that straight up
you are about to put el'foot'o in el'mouth'o.......like another did
i have been licking my chops awaiting for someone to bring that up....
you get the 'atta-boy'...
(and smilie face)notice, i was all over the awareness of the 'release': light, heat.... momentum to mass (kinetic).
are you sure you want to go here?.... keep in mind, when you share the exo- of energy, 'heat' must be defined
meaning , what is the 'x' being released and where did it come from (remain causal)
let's finish with the 'x' addition to make that water from its base elements, then i will assist with the next part, (the release once the threshold is reached)
stay focused, ok............ cuz in science (pursuit of truth) there is nothing casual about maintaining causality
would you like to start at BEC cold with both our H and O?
as now the pregression is from an element, (no energy what so ever; absolute cold), thru the increased temp (lower pressure) to become H2 and 02, to the combining with that other missing 'x' (i call 'the' catalyst)........
and now you asking about the release (exothermic reaction) that is from the combining of H and O (plus x) to the result of h2o and the energy (another 'x')released.......( do you realize that now you will need both chemistry and qm physics to even come close (in the current models) to address this)
don't you just love working on the fun stuff.... i feel like a kid again!
Bishadi's posts should probably be removed from this thread as he only wants to take about how H2O is formed, not about water being more than a mix of H2O molecules. It is, as I have explained in couple of prior post.
He also want to redefine "catalysis" to include anything that was necessary to start a chemical reaction but not needed or used by or to sustain the reaction.
For example, a match that has been in the trash can for hours, while natural gas burns in a kitchen oven. Or to go back further in time, the drill bits are catalyst as they too were essential earlier to making the gas flame burn in the oven. Matches and drill bits are NOT catalysis as not needed by the reaction but were needed earlier to get the gas flame to burn.
He also want to redefine "catalysis" to include anything that was necessary to start a chemical reaction but not needed or used by or to sustain the reaction.
For example, a match that has been in the trash can for hours, while natural gas burns in a kitchen oven. Or to go back further in time, the drill bits are catalyst as they too were essential earlier to making the gas flame burn in the oven. Matches and drill bits are NOT catalysis as not needed by the reaction but were needed earlier to get the gas flame to burn.
Last edited by a moderator:
And the point you seem completely ignorant of is that at certain temperatures, and partial pressures of Hydrogen (or rather, a range of them, and it is quite large) mixtures of Hydrogen and Oxygen will spontaneously ignite with no external input required.
And once again, we come back to the point that you're not talking about catalysts.
The polymeric forms of water to which you refer, to the best of my knowledge, are simply the result of the strength of the hydrogen bonding between Water molecules. And they're still just water molecules, there's just many of them stuck in a particular arrangement of slightly positive Hydrogen's and slightly negative Oxygen's.
Of course, if you have some refferences that suggest that they are of a more dative nature, or 3 center two electron bonds, then please do share.
Of all of them, the Dimer is the most important, but the Bond energy is negligible - around 14 kJ/mol, and Hydrogen bonds last around 200 femto seconds. They're not so much a seperate chemical entity (although they do have some interesting properties) they're just a transient arrnagement.
I thought "hydrogen bonding" was sort of the sharing of electrons in molecule's permitted orbitals without much permanent electric dipole attraction being involved. My understanding of the xH2O complexes is that the bonding between the various H2O of the complex is mainly electric force attraction, between the negative O-- and the two positive protons both on one side another H2O molecule. Much more like the electrical force binding in a NaCl crystal, but much weaker, of course. I.e. unlike true hydrogen bonding there is no electron shared - only electrical attraction between H+ and O-- but neither of these is the full strength ion indicated by this notation as the negative charge that the O in H2O molecules gains is not 100% (time average) of the H's electron. I.e. the hydrogen in H2O molecule is partially giving up it electron (hydrogen bonding like) to the oxygen in H2O.
How long they last is surely a function of temperature. Quite a long time for the dimer (and larger complexes) in liquid water below 4 degrees C, I think. Long enough that there begin to be voids - I.e. these larger complexes, mainly chains, do not pack as efficiently together as only H2O molecules can. So below 4C, as the void fraction increased water becomes less dense. - That is not something lasting only "femto seconds."
I am not a chemist (and think you may be) so if you have discussion of why water expands below 4C that conflicts with model, I will accept that alternative if most chemists do. Perhaps your 200 femto seconds dimmer life time is for room temperature water? Recall in my earlier post I suggested looking for the larger complexes, even possibly some rings, in 1degree C water as I agree the bonds between the units (++H2O--) of this complexes are weak and easily broken in hot water. But in 1 degree C water surely there are some complexes like:
(++H2O--)(++H2O--)(++H2O--)(++H2O--)(++H2O--)
and
(++H2O--)(++H2O--)(++H2O--)(++H2O--) but not as straight as shown here. When these short strings of "H2O spaghetti" are randomly jumbled together in great numbers, there naturally occur voids to lower the density.
If you think about it, the ability to Hydrogen Bond, and the presence of a permanent electric dipole are related.
In otherwords, it's my understanding that if the H-O bond wasn't polar, there would be no Hydrogen bonding - one way of thinking about this is considering the Hydrogen bonding of Hydrogen gas to other things - AFAIK it doesn't.
But yes, your understanding is essentially correct, what you've described is the reason for the presence of the dipole, and the presence of the dipole allows the Hydrogen bonding to occur (if that makes sense).
Consider why the Hydrogen bonding of Hydrogen Sulfide is less than the Hydrogen bonding of Water.
Essentially your correct here, yes, I perhaps should have stated that the figure I quoted was measured at STP. But, if you think about, the temperature doesn't affect the energy required to make or break the Hydrogen bond - only the number of molecules who's kinetic energy is sufficient to overcome that value.
My understanding is that the water tends to form polymeric clusters, rather than chains, and that different cluster sizes become more important at different temperatures, but yes, essentially it's the increasing prevalence of these polymeric units as the water cools, and their tendency to arrange themselves in open hexagonal clusters at lower temperatures that leads to water behaving the way it does as it cools.
Essentially, the 'easiest' explanation (at least to understand anyway)is that at 4°C, the water molecules have almost exactly 16 kJ of kinetic energy each, so they're still moving around relatively freely, and because the Hydrogen bonds aren't sticking terribly well, they can pack quite close together, however, below 4°C, the number of molecules of water with less than this critical value of kinetic energy begins to increase, and so the prevalence of these polymeric clusters, and open structures begins to increase, which, obviously, has the effect of pushing the water molecules further apart, and so the density begins to decrease until the water reaches its freezing point.
I hope that's helpful?
Bishadi
can you sum up how you think water is not only more than the sum of its parts but manifests
all this banter between you and others leaves me confused as to what you are thinking in the end
for me to understand water more throughly than just about bonds is important
thanks
thinking
look people we know that H2-O manufactures water
we also know , atomicly , that neither H2 or O changes their form or disappears and that seperately they only become in a liquid form at very cold tempuratures ( -256C and -236C )
now the challenge is to explain why , when combined , a liquid is produced at room temperatures
we also know , atomicly , that neither H2 or O changes their form or disappears and that seperately they only become in a liquid form at very cold tempuratures ( -256C and -236C )
now the challenge is to explain why , when combined , a liquid is produced at room temperatures
Sorry, but that has already been fully explained AND at great length! You just don't have what it takes to even begin to understand it.
GET YOURSELF BACK INTO SCHOOL where you belong!:bugeye:
Find them your own silly self!
The problem is that you would NOT understand them if they were spoon-fed to you. You've already made it quite clear that you don't understand the first thing about chemistry and/or physics. Just go back and play with your toy cars or paper dolls or whatever. You'll never get a grip on the discussions here - they are WAY over your head!
[ “ Originally Posted by thinking
can you give me the posts that FULLY explains this
It seems I've missed them [/quote]
inotherwords there are no posts here that fully explains what I asked
apparently I hit a sore spot with you
once the tantrum is over I'm sure you'll come to grips
can you give me the posts that FULLY explains this
It seems I've missed them [/quote]
inotherwords there are no posts here that fully explains what I asked
apparently I hit a sore spot with you
once the tantrum is over I'm sure you'll come to grips
yes I know about bonds and nothing actually changes , hydrogen2 and 1 oxygen are still present of course
both together manufacture water or produce water
but since neither atoms transforms from a particle to another state.... liquid
what is water ? its a tough question , really
for instance does one molecule of H2-O have the ability to produce 1 drop of the liquid we call water ?
both together manufacture water or produce water
but since neither atoms transforms from a particle to another state.... liquid
what is water ? its a tough question , really
for instance does one molecule of H2-O have the ability to produce 1 drop of the liquid we call water ?
“ Originally Posted by thinking
can you give me the posts that FULLY explains this
It seems I've missed them ”
Sure.
“ Originally Posted by thinking
I've said this before ;
we know what constituents water , H2O , we seem to know the chemical reaction
yet what we don't know is why the chemicals , (2) H -hydrogen and (1) O- oxygen , together , should produce a liquid at room temperature
( remember H , is a liquid at -256C and O is liquid at -236C ) ”
“ Originally Posted by Trippy
Water is seldomn neutral in nature, but then, pure water is seldom found in nature.
Water is neutral in pH because the same molecule that gives a proton, leaves behind a Hydroxide ion, this 1 to 1 stoichiometry gives it a neutral pH.
Water is electrically neutral, yes, however an individual water molecule has an over all electric dipole - the Oxygen atom holds the electrons more closely to it then the hydrogen atoms do, giving the hydrogen atoms a slight positive charge, and the oxygen atom a slight negative charge (see electronegativity).
Water is liquid at room temperature, unlike the other Group 16 Hydrides (or the Hydrides on either side of it) because the dipole moment is strong enough, and the water can form hydrogen bonds enough that it has a substantially elevated boiling point.
Ammonia and Hydrogen Fluoride also form hydrogen bonds, however, Ammonia has fewer free non bonding electrons then water, and Hydrogen Fluoride has fewer hydrogens.
Water just happens to fill that niche where the Oxygen is small enough and electronegative enough that it can form a strong dipole moment and the molecule can form more than one hydrogen bond per molecule (as opposed to Ammonia and Hydrogen fluoride which can only form one per molecule). ”
“ Originally Posted by Trippy
****MODERATOR NOTE****
The question that is being posed has been answered.
Why is water a liquid at room temperature? Because of a combination of its strong electric dipole moment, and ability to form multiple Hydrogen Bonds - both of which are simply products of its location on the Periodic table.
It's a second row element meaning it has a high electron affinity (or electronegativity) this results in a strong dipole moment, because Hydrogen has a low electron affinity (demonstrated by how easily oxidized it is).
This combines with the fact that each molecule has two lone pairs, and two protons to give water particularly strong intermolecular bonding, as can be seen by observing the trends in the surrounding hydrides.
Any questions as to whether Water is greater than the "sum of it's parts" (whatever that actually means) are of a pseudophilosophical nature, as such, this thread has been moved to the Pseudoscience forum. ” [/QUOTE]
THANKS Trippy
appreciated
Trippy
I have a hard time thinking that particles ( H2-O ) with their charges can produce a liquid , while at the same time keeping their particle structure
is this not a contradiction ?
why would you not just get a particle clump of H2-O as a solid because of the bonds ?
I have a hard time thinking that particles ( H2-O ) with their charges can produce a liquid , while at the same time keeping their particle structure
is this not a contradiction ?
why would you not just get a particle clump of H2-O as a solid because of the bonds ?
face what straight up? that a spark is not a catalyst?
the defining characteristic of a catalyst is that a reaction will stop or slow to a crawl if the catalyst is removed.
this does not happen when you remove the spark, the reaction continues unabated until the reactants are used up.