is water more than the sum of its parts ?

[Trippy]

Trippy

at what point though in the bonding process do the bonds or dipole interactions between hydrogen and oxygen produce a liquid ?

When the water in its gas form cools down enough to form the liquid.
Or do you mean in terms of reaction intermediates and such?
Do you mean At what point does it stop being 2 hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule, and start being a water molecule?

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 ?

No, it isn't.

why would you not just get a particle clump of H2-O as a solid because of the bonds ?

What do you think Ice is?
The reason that you don't get a cloud of ice crystals when you combust Hydrogen in an Oxygen atmosphere is simply because the kinetic energy of the resultant molecules is enough to overcome the intermolecular forces between water molecules, including the surface tension of any liquid droplets that might exist (let alone solid state products) and so, the products of the reaction exist as a gas until they cool.

 

[Trippy]

And before you ask.

$$2H_{2(g)} + O_{2(g)} \rightarrow 2H_2O_{(l)}$$

Is what the call the standard state equation, it deals with the reactants and the products under STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure), and at STP, water is a liquid, but, the water produced by ignition of a hydrogen oxygen mixture isn't at STP (its temperature is elevated), and exists as a gas

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi

can you sum up how you think water is not only more than the sum of its parts but manifests

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

all this banter between you and others leaves me confused as to what you are thinking in the end

that the chemical descriptions are incorrect

for me to understand water more throughly than just about bonds is important

thanks

thinking

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)

 

[Bishadi]

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.

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

 

[leopold]

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

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?

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

okay.

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

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".

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

and what is the answer?

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

did anyone anywhere say science had all the answers?

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

i guess.

 

[Trippy]

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

Once again, you've got it wrong - Diesel Engin's operate without a spark plug, they compress the air to the point where air-fuel mixtures spontaneously ignite, then inject the fuel into the chamber.

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

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.

Ignoring the truth wont make it go away.

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

This has already been explained to you - how a spark plug can be used to initiate a chain reaction, but, a spark or source of ignition IS NOT A REQUIREMENT, and spontaneous combustion can in fact occur, with both Hydrogen/OXygen mixtures, and Fuel/Air mixtures.

In fact, four stroke motors that rely on the Otto Cycle are specifically designed to prevent spontaneous ignition, because when it occurs in an engine using the Otto cycle, it can seriously damage the engine.

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

The standard models can, and have provided the answer.

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

I've already made it abundantly clear why this thread was moved into Pseudoscience.

 

[Trippy]

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".

Technically speaking, a catalyst isn't required, most reactions that are catalysed will still occur...

Eventually...

Or under extreme conditions.

 

[leopold]

Technically speaking, a catalyst isn't required, most reactions that are catalysed will still occur...

Eventually...

Or under extreme conditions.

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.

 

[Read-Only]

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

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

 

[Trippy]

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.

Actually, Catalysts are involved in the reaction, usually as part of the reaction intermediates, but generally, they're in the same state on the reactant side as they are on the product side. Because of this, sometimes Catalysts can become degraded and loose their effectiveness.

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

You are, of course, entitled to your belief, however, in this instance you are also wrong - as an example, many reactions catalyzed by enzymes will still occur without the enzymes, simply over periods of millions of years rather than seconds.

Are you then saying we should discount Enzymes as catalysts?

Catalysts simply act to facillitate the reaction.

 

[thinking]

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 ?

 

[Read-Only]

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.

 

[thinking]

“

Originally Posted by thinking
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 ?

 

[Billy T]

If you think about it, the ability to Hydrogen Bond, and the presence of a permanent electric dipole are related.

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:

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).

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

Consider why the Hydrogen bonding of Hydrogen Sulfide is less than the Hydrogen bonding of Water.

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.

...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.

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.

 

[thinking]

Billy T

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

 

[leopold]

Actually, Catalysts are involved in the reaction, usually as part of the reaction intermediates, but generally, they're in the same state on the reactant side as they are on the product side. Because of this, sometimes Catalysts can become degraded and loose their effectiveness.


You are, of course, entitled to your belief, however, in this instance you are also wrong - as an example, many reactions catalyzed by enzymes will still occur without the enzymes, simply over periods of millions of years rather than seconds.

Are you then saying we should discount Enzymes as catalysts?

Catalysts simply act to facillitate the reaction.

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

 

[Billy T]

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

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)!

 

[Trippy]

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

Most of what I know of chemistry comes from having studied it and having worked in it for the last 15 years (please note I'm not claiming to have worked in chemistry for the last 15 years, a suibtle, but important distinction).

 

[leopold]

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?

 

[Trippy]

Yes often but most bond types cause the centroid of negative and positive charges to separate.

Partly correct - bonds between the same elements cause no seperation, hence the bond between (for example) two oxygen atoms is non-polar.

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.)

Hydrogen bonding neccessarily requires a polar bond. The bond between two hydrogen atoms in dihydrogen does not constitute a hydrogen bond. it is plainly and simply a covalent bond (to be precise, it is a 1σ bond).

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.

Yes $$CO_2$$ is a linear molecule. The explanation for the H-O-H bond angle has to do with the SP hybridization that occurs, and the way the non bonding electrons interact.

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:

More or less correct, yes, assymetric stretch vibration modes, and scissor modes have the ability to induce temporary molecular dipole moments, but stop and ask yourself a question.

Why?

The answer is because although the molecule is over all non polar, the bonds retain their polar nature, however, because of their symmetry the polarities (in the ground state) cancel out overall, and the molecule is non polar (as opposed to the situation with water where the bond polarities of the H-O bonds reinforce each other and strengthen the over all dipole moment of the water.

Consider that if you qould look closely enough at a $$CO_2$$ molecule, what you would actually see is this $$O^{\delta -}=C^{\delta +}=O^{\delta -}$$

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

No, the covalent bonding in di-hydrogen is not the same thing as 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.

Correct.

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.

Incorrect. The H-S-H bond angle in Hydrogen Sulphide is 92.1°

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

Mostly correct, the dimeric form of water has the planes seperate by an angle of something like 57° which probably has something to do with the anti bonding molecular orbitals of the water.

(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.

Fair enough although (at least, according to the information I have) water clusters $$(H_2O)_n$$ are limited to 3≤n≤60

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.

I'm going to pass on commenting on this, except to say that at STP (in terms of clusters) the best explanation of water's properties is given when we have $$(H_2O)_8 > (H_2O)_5 > (H_2O)_6$$ however the triple point requires invoking $$(H_2O)_{24}$$

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.

I strongly disagree.