is water more than the sum of its parts ?

[Bishadi]

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.

what you shared is found in many a book but still, per my opinion, addressing the thread....

i support the growth of thinking folk and offer ideas of thought to assist in the progresssion of knowledge rather than go back to the old bibles for absolution

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.

so the 'sum' would be greater than the addition of the parts?

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.

agreed

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.

i am not aware of any stove that starts without a catalyst......

i thought any 'outside' addition could be the catalyst; perhaps that analogy is unconventional?

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.

perhaps when i observed the thread i was mistaken when believing the question was asking about just the H and O combination for water to exist.

i did not know anything about the doping of the water with another element; the effects and what it does to change the association with other mass.

I thought it was about H and O and the sum of the total parts of water....

:shrug:

 

[Trippy]

Ignition Source ≠ Catalyst.

 

[leopold]

billy, (to post 60)
some of that energy is bound in the molecule itself, some liberated as heat, some as light.

 

[Read-Only]

Ignition Source ≠ Catalyst.

Absolutely correct!

This "Bishadi" joke uses terms - and swears by them - without even knowing what they mean.

Several things about him and his "knowledge" are painfully clear: He's never set foot inside a lab of ANY kind in his entire life; he's only read about a few technical things - and then gone on to form his own, erroneous opinion of what they are with no basis and while understanding practically nothing along the way.

Even a child of 16 is more aware of the proper use of the term "catalyst" than he is.

To put it simply, he's nothing but BAD science personified! We sure don't need him here because just about all he ever does is introduce error and confusion.

 

[thinking]

so where know is this thread ?

 

[thinking]

so know I know

but why put this thread here based on some bizzare comments , which has nothing to do with the thread its self ?

just trying to understand

thinking

 

[Bishadi]

Absolutely correct!

sharing that H and O plus C to make h2o

so what is the sum of the parts?

This "Bishadi" joke uses terms - and swears by them - without even knowing what they mean.

Several things about him and his "knowledge" are painfully clear: He's never set foot inside a lab of ANY kind in his entire life; he's only read about a few technical things - and then gone on to form his own, erroneous opinion of what they are with no basis and while understanding practically nothing along the way.

Even a child of 16 is more aware of the proper use of the term "catalyst" than he is.

To put it simply, he's nothing but BAD science personified! We sure don't need him here because just about all he ever does is introduce error and confusion.

all your BS and all you did was confirm what I WAS saying............ that H and O cannot combine without x............

see the first post i made

you just don;t have the yahoos to be honest and admit when you are wrong

but while not knowing anything about me, you attack like a rabbid dog

typical insecurity of your own ignorance....

stop the attacks as this is the pseudo section............ in this section we are allowed to go a weeeee beyond the normal complacency of knowledge

such as common sense shares entropy is a joke too,

i suppose that would just bug you to know end but yet you probably accept evolution.

i cannot live with 'accepting' without comprehension and that is the difference between you and I.

so no water without a catalyst when H and O are combined as isolated elements!

so water has more to address than just the sum of the parts known as H and O.

you lose............. again!

say Oaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Billy T]

...i thought any 'outside' addition could be the catalyst; perhaps that analogy is unconventional? ...

Very "Unconventional." I can go along with an expansion of the conventional use of catalyst to include anything that is essential to the reaction, but not something that plays no part in the reaction, except very briefly earlier.

For example, a match that lights my gas oven, which then burns for several hours after the match is in the trash can, is NOT a catalyst any more than the drill bit used even earlier to get the gas out of the ground is a catalyst. Everything, A, had some prior thing B essential to getting something C to happen later.

Do you call the earlier used (and essential) drill bit a catalyst of the fire in my gas oven? If not, how far back in time do you go before deciding not to call essential items a "catalyst" to the reaction taking place now?

 

[Bishadi]

so know I know

but why put this thread here based on some bizzare comments , which has nothing to do with the thread its self ?

just trying to understand

thinking

some folk will not allow anything beyond the accepted to be pursued in certain sections....

many of these 'folk' really do not like me

 

[Bishadi]

Very "Unconventional."

that is fair

and thanx for the additional material to observe

I can go along with an expansion of the conventional use of catalyst to include any thing that is essential to the reaction, but not somethat that not only plays no part in the reacation except very briefly.

almost like hitting a ball into space: once the momentum is started it goes on until the environment changes

Every thing, A had some prior thing B essential to getting some thing C to happen.

Do you call the earlier used and esential drill bit a cartalyst of the fire in my gas oven? If not, how far back in time do you go before deciding not to call essential items catalyist?

now you're talking

and can be drilled down to the final resolve that the idea is just a 'spark'

hence 'we' can create....... (another chapter)

 

[John Connellan]

Wouldn't that be a given?

Yes, most molecules are like this with emergent properties.

 

[Read-Only]

sharing that H and O plus C to make h2o

so what is the sum of the parts?




all your BS and all you did was confirm what I WAS saying............ that H and O cannot combine without x............

see the first post i made

you just don;t have the yahoos to be honest and admit when you are wrong

but while not knowing anything about me, you attack like a rabbid dog

typical insecurity of your own ignorance....

stop the attacks as this is the pseudo section............ in this section we are allowed to go a weeeee beyond the normal complacency of knowledge

such as common sense shares entropy is a joke too,

i suppose that would just bug you to know end but yet you probably accept evolution.

i cannot live with 'accepting' without comprehension and that is the difference between you and I.

so no water without a catalyst when H and O are combined as isolated elements!

so water has more to address than just the sum of the parts known as H and O.

you lose............. again!

say Oaaaaaaaaaaaa

That's dumb, absolutely dumb! It's YOU that comprehends so very, very little !!! You think you can pop in here with your obnoxious half-thoughts and POORLY written sentences and tell true professionals "how it really is" is nothing short of sheer stupid ignorance coupled with practically NO understanding at all.

You don't even deserve to be in the presence of educated and intelligent individuals because ALL you ever do is muddy the water through the misuse of terms (catalytic action being the most recent) and your misrepresentation of garbage as true fact. You are a boor, a beast, an uneducated barbarian and do nothing but waste people's time here! GO AWAY AND STAY GONE FOREVER, YOU USELESS TROLL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[James R]

catalyst (n.): a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical*reaction without itself being affected.

Hydrogen and oxygen do not require a catalyst to react to form water. All that is needed is an initiating energy source, such as a spark.

 

[Bishadi]

That's dumb, absolutely dumb! It's YOU that comprehends so very, very little !!! You think you can pop in here with your obnoxious half-thoughts and POORLY written sentences and tell true professionals "how it really is" is nothing short of sheer stupid ignorance coupled with practically NO understanding at all.

You don't even deserve to be in the presence of educated and intelligent individuals because ALL you ever do is muddy the water through the misuse of terms (catalytic action being the most recent) and your misrepresentation of garbage as true fact. You are a boor, a beast, an uneducated barbarian and do nothing but waste people's time here! GO AWAY AND STAY GONE FOREVER, YOU USELESS TROLL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in person, with your foot in your mouth, you couldn't say all that.

but on the internet you can rant with your key board...

:bawl:

 

[Bishadi]

catalyst (n.): a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical*reaction without itself being affected.

Hydrogen and oxygen do not require a catalyst to react to form water. All that is needed is an initiating energy source, such as a spark.

please make a spark without mass

would be a neat trick

 

[Trippy]

please make a spark without mass

would be a neat trick

Once again, as has already been explained to you.

A spark is not a catalyst, it simply provides the energy to overcome the activation energy of the reaction - usually as a result of the fact that in order for a chemical reaction to occur, you must first break bonds, before you can create new bonds.

When it comes to combustion, an electrical spark is effective at initiating the reaction, because combustion reactions typically generate free radicale (that is, uncharged molecules with at least one unpaired electron - I say at least one, becaus eit is possible to create radicals that have two or more unpaired electrons). These radicals, are for obvious reasons highly reactive, but they ARE NOT CATALYSTS because they get used up by the reaction. An electric current, being a flow of electrons is one easy way of creating radicals, which then initiate a chain reaction that we call combustion, I say chain reaction because, if you think about it, if I have an odd number of electrons going into a reaction, then I must have an odd number coming out of it, and so new radicals are produced (but these aren't the same ones that I had to start off with so NO CATALYST). There are terminating reactions, for example, a Radical can react with the walls of the container to potentially form an Ion, or the free radicals can react with each other, in which case a normal molecule is produced, but no new radicals are (You know, 1 + 1 = 2).

In the case of Hydrogen and Oxygen, the most common radical produced is the Hydroxyl radical, and a Hydroxyl radical can be taken out of circulation by either reacting with another Hydroxyl radical to produce Hydrogen Peroxide, or a Hydrogen radical (probably produced by another Hydroxyl radical reacting with a Hydrogen molecule to produce water).

 

[Read-Only]

in person, with your foot in your mouth, you couldn't say all that.

but on the internet you can rant with your key board...

:bawl:

I would GLADLY say it to you in person! You're nothing but a total waste of human protoplasm when it come to anything scientific. You do nothing but run off at the mouth like a senseless, rabid animal. You've contributed nothing of value here and just waste our time when we read your pathetic drivel - OFF WITH YOU!

 

[Bishadi]

i think i understand what the Dali must be going through.

Having my own following

my public....

is water more than the sum of its parts?

H2o has 3 parts, 2 H and 1 0

but if we have a bunch of H in one bucket and a bunch of O in another and put them together, we have no h2o.

so what is the missing part?

perhaps me using the term catalyst is just toooo far out there for some to use

is there another term that can assist?

or are we all to just leave it that the magic spark that begins the reactionary threshold is just to be 'magic from God', and not to be debated anymore?

as it seems everyone who reads this thread can ALL agree, that no H and O combines without an outside addition of some sort

call it what you will but this thread has run its course since all that is occuring is my following is simply Loving me and not the comprehension of the question observed of the thread....

is water more than the sum of its parts?



so this is what the feeling is like!

do you think i should get a ring for the public to kiss?

 

[Enmos]

i think i understand what the Dali must be going through.

Having my own following

my public....

is water more than the sum of its parts?

H2o has 3 parts, 2 H and 1 0

but if we have a bunch of H in one bucket and a bunch of O in another and put them together, we have no h2o.

so what is the missing part?

perhaps me using the term catalyst is just toooo far out there for some to use

is there another term that can assist?

or are we all to just leave it that the magic spark that begins the reactionary threshold is just to be 'magic from God', and not to be debated anymore?

as it seems everyone who reads this thread can ALL agree, that no H and O combines without an outside addition of some sort

call it what you will but this thread has run its course since all that is occuring is my following is simply Loving me and not the comprehension of the question observed of the thread....

is water more than the sum of its parts?



so this is what the feeling is like!

do you think i should get a ring for the public to kiss?

Look, why don't you just remove the first molecule of water (the one that your spark enabled to form) from the bucket.
The rest is just plain old H[sub]2[/sub]O (as was the first one, but you seem bent on incorporating that spark into the equation).

 

[Bishadi]

Look, why don't you just remove the first molecule of water (the one that your spark enabled to form) from the bucket.
The rest is just plain old H[sub]2[/sub]O (as was the first one, but you seem bent on incorporating that spark into the equation).

how sick of me to observe causality....

to actually be scientific about observations and accounting for each step; how rude of me!


so it seems to you, i should just accept the magic and be done with it, right?


you guys are funny