/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11123826
Spark

>>11123832
So, you don't know?

>>11123835
Imagine being this retarded

Fuel cell, it has a molecular matrix that lets you "burn" the hydrogen and oxygen in a little reactor and generate electricity, water is the waste product.

>>11123842
this is the proper way and
>>11123832
is the kaboom way

>>11123840
you gave me a one word answer that I don't understand which makes it look like you don't know how to answer my question then you responded like a dumb bully.

I think you faked your degree and your job. You don't know how to create water either.

>>11123842
I mean from a chemical perspective what type of hydrogen and what type of oxygen and what causes them to fuse.

>>11123843
I didn't want a one word answer >>11123840 I wanted something technical. "Spark" is the stupidest answer I've ever heard.


spark1
/spärk/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a small fiery particle thrown off from a fire, alight in ashes, or produced by striking together two hard surfaces such as stone or metal.
2.
a trace of a specified quality or intense feeling.

>>11123844
Thanks for the 44 odds of 1 in 100 posts 1%
>>11123847
Thanks for the timestamp 44 odds of 1 in 60 posts 1.67%.

>>11123840
Explain how a small fiery particle thrown off from a fire or produced by striking together two hard surfaces such as stone or metal causes hydrogen and oxygen to fuse into water.

>>11123844
Hopefully you are trolling but. Hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) in the presence of a spark will result in the rapid oxidation of the hydrogen causing a firey explosion and the product will be water.

>>11123863
Ok but why does it result in the rapid oxidation of the hydrogen?

>>11123867

Thanks for the timestamp 44 for the third time odds of 1.67& for the third time now.

>>11123862
Thanks for the timestamp 4. Odds of 20%.

>>11123871

Uh oh here we go again...

Thanks for the 71 again odds of 1 in 100 still, occurrence rate of 1%.

I would go so far as to say that in both of these threads I'm in right now there is a statistically unusual occurrence rate of her numbers.

>>11123867
Because the energy from the spark is enough to overcome the activation energy required for the combustion of hydrogen.

>>11123881
Which does what to the hydrogen that fuses it to the oxygen?

>>11123844
>>11123847
>>11123862
>"Spark" is the stupidest answer I've ever heard.
The formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen is energetically favorable, but needs an initial "spark" to overcome the potential barrier. The energy released by the formation of the first few molecules will be enough to cause a cascade.

>>11123883
Why are you asking such a specific question if you don't even understand the basic principles of chemical bonding?

>>11123889
What is the barrier preventing it?
I just want to see how hard it is for you to explain to me what I want to hear.

How is your French celestial girlfriend?

>>11123883
It doesn’t “fuse” it. There is the spontaneous formation of a covalent bond. Two hydrogens covalently bonded to an oxygen atom is a molecule of water.

>>11123897
If not set up by you or intended for by you, I would consider this significant at this point.

Out of the past two threads I've been frequenting the occurrence rate of her numbers 4 21 71 79 97 171 and 203 is definitely unlikely.


>>11123879

>>11123832
dont do this it makes mustard gas

>>11123904
Fuse is "to join to form a single entity" which is how we treat water with respect to H2 and O so it does "fuse" it.

Also, what barrier was broken, what exactly happens that pushes them together? Was it electromagnetic repulsion? Of course not, then what was it?

>>11123896
The potential barrier. A ball in a hole at the top of a mountain is in a higher energy state than it is at the bottom of the mountain (provided the hole isn't as deep as the mountain itself), but you have to give it an initial "kick" to get it out of the hole. See pic related.

>>11123917
Doesn't it want the lower energy state? What does the potential barrier mean?

>>11123910
In chemistry and physics when we talk about fusing atoms it is usually in reference to atomic nuclei fusing together not the fomation of chemical bonds, because chemical bonds aren’t really “becoming one” but dictionary definitions are also not always useful. The formation of the covalent bond is what causes them to be “together”. When and oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms form two single covalent bonds they gain a full outer electron shell which is energetically favorable. The barrier isn’t really a “barrier” it is just the activation energy of the reaction, so you have to put a little bit of energy in to get it started but then it release more energy than was necessary to get over that activation energy.

>>11123910
"fuse" in the context of atoms means to essentially combine their nuclei (see: nuclear fusion), which is VERY different from chemical bonding (e.g. the formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen).

>>11123923
Yes it wants to be in the lower energy state, but it doesn't just magically get there. You have to expend energy to get it out of the hole, then you get all that energy back plus some when it goes down the mountain.

>>11123931
Why does putting them close together not cause a bond? Why is energy required to put them into a lower energy state wouldn't they do that by default what is preventing it?

>>11123932
I don't get why they don't just naturally fuse then. What makes them want less energy if they don't even get there on their own. It's like they don't want less energy then...

>>11123934
Because it has to form an intermediate between h2+o seperate and h2o. That intermediate is at a higher energy state than either h2+o or h2o. You need to put enough energy in to get over that intermediate and then it will more often than not go towards h2o because it is at a lower energy state and more energetically favorable.

>>11123945
Still not sure, have you been trying to say, this whole time, that H2 and O2 need energy to fuse because before forming H2O for some reason they need to form something else and then go down to H2O after that step? Why didn't you say that in the first place if that was the case? Why is "Spark" going to teach me anything?

>>11123934
be really happy this guy is spoonfeeding you btw, you probably should know this if you're old enough to post here lol

>>11123939
Again not fuse. Fusion is another thing that is also spontaneous but it requires insanely high temperature/ pressure. But basically if you do get them close enough together (crazy high temp/pressure) the atomic nucleus will fuse resulting in a new atom. So if you get two hydrogen atoms to fuse you get helium. Stars run on fusion.

>>11123951
You should be ashamed that my teachers did an even worse job """""""spoonfeeding"""""" me, this guy is struggling to teach me as well. You should be happy that you got good lessons on things.

There is nothing I "should" know, if you were in my situation you wouldn't understand anything right now because everybody confused you.

>>11123957
I do know that already, but it's unrelated. I still haven't got a clear answer on what causes H2 and O2 to fuse.

If you have hydrogen and oxygen sitting around any amount of energy may force them to rapidly combine. Rapid oxidation is typically seen as a fire or explosion.

>>11123965
That's a hollow answer, you say that energy causes them to combine but not how.

It's like uh, if I have an A and I have a B and then I add some C then the AB will combine, now for your quiz tell me why the AB can't combine without C.

>>11123949
Basically, but again not fuse. Look up hydrogen combustion energy diagram. It will still release more energy than is required to get over the activation energy hump. I didn’t say spark that was some other anon, it is a correct answer if you know anything about chem, but no one that knows anything about chem asks how to get h2o from hydrogen and oxygen so it wasn’t intended to be helpful. But also I’m half sure you are just trolling.

>>11123962
Ok if you know that stop calling it fusion. Because it is a different thing. Nuclear fusion of hydrogen and oxygen would not result in water and i have no idea under what circumstances it would even happen under.

>>11123975
I'm not buying your argument, my thread is clearly about the fusion into water, and whenever people are talking about nuclear fusion they usually (or at least should) precede "fusion" with "nuclear" to make distinct their point. Anyways wouldn't that make Florine or whatever?

>>11123971
I'm still not exactly getting it, why does H2O need to create something else before settling down?

>>11123949
You asked:
>How does one go about making water from hydrogen and oxygen gas?
To which "spark" is a perfectly valid if somewhat terse answer. What you meant was:
>How do hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water?

>>11123969
Talking in terms of energy and "bonding" is a heavy abstraction from the physical processes actually occurring. You could get a decent understanding of the underlying processes from a high school chemistry course, but if you're hell-bent on understanding absolutely everything you'll need at least an undergraduate education in physics or chemical physics. See pic related, you usually learn about this stuff in second or third year at a university.

>>11123826
Set it on fire

>>11123992
So basically you were being an asshole by saying spark and your defense is "well uhhh technically bluh blubh bluh"

Even after I asked how hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water I got a bunch of dodgy answers.

Yeah so what? That's the density of probability of the location of the hydrogen what? The electron cloud? The location of the electron given by the theoretical probability of finding the electron "particle's" location? What does that have to do with anything? Why does that create an energy barrier that only the spark can break? I still haven't gotten a post explaining the answer yet and it's been 40 posts...

>>11124004
Is that even true? Isn't hydrogen explosive or is oxygen explosive? You are saying if I set oxygen 2 and hydrogen 2 on fire together in the same room the room would be filled with water? And that is a decent answer but it still doesn't answer the real question.

>>11123989
Ok but again it isn’t fusion it is the formation of covalent bonds. Proton number wise yes I would think it would be fluorine. Because that is the way covalent bonds form, it doesnt just immediately happen, it is a smooth transition from no covalent bond to covalent bond requireing partial covalent bond. Google “combustion energy diagrams” and “how covalent bond forms” because at this point I’m convinced you are trolling.

>>11124009
Bro all I've got from this thread is that you need energy to fuse H2 and O2 which want to "form covalent bonds together naturally" but they can't do it because they require a base energy "push" in order to create "something" which is required before they cool down into their water form.

I understand that alright, but I'd like to know why it is required that they form something else before cooling down into water?

>>11123826
Your question is actually few questions.

Why do oxygen and hydrogen atoms form a stable molecule

How do hydrogen and oxygen molecules break apart

And lastly why don't any of these molecules fall apart spontaneously

>>11124022
I'm wondering why does it have to be H2 and O2 when H2O only has one O.
Why do they need to be pushed together with higher energy if they are just going to end up forming something with lower energy in the first place?

If it's as easy as lightning them on fire why don't we just make clean water using chemistry instead of getting it from springs and shit?

Aren't H2 and O2 plentiful enough?

>>11124034
O2 yes, H2 no.

>>11124049
But how come you can't do with 2 single Hs and a single O? Why does it have to be H2 and O2 just to make H2O?

>>11124053
H2 and O2 describe molecules, not quantities. You have to break these apart first to form water, which is why it takes an initial input of energy to do so. You get 2 H2O for every 2 H2 molecules reacted with 1 O2 molecule. Reverse the arrows in pic related.

>>11124022
First why bonds form

Atoms are made of positively charged cores with negatively charged particles that are attracted to them and occupy certain stable "orbits".

This is a gross generalization but a better description requires an appeal to quantum physics and a much longer discussion

All atoms have 8 outer 'orbits' (except hydrogen and helium, they have 2). However the number of electrons per atom are equal to the charge of the core typically less than 8. Atoms are in lower energy states when all their orbits are filled

So atoms pair up and fill their orbits by sharing electrons with each other.

>>11124067
I know but why is it like that? Why can't one H2 and one single O form H2O? Or why can't a single O and 2 separated Hs form water too? Do they not exist in normal space?

>>11124028
>>11124022
>>11124069

Sorry I'm a slow typist

It's actually 2 H2 and 1 O2 make 2 H2O

>>11124079
Here's the answer that nobody seems to be giving you:
1) Hydrogen gas prefers to be in the form of H2 molecules
2) Oxygen gas prefers to be in the form of O2 molecules

These molecules will happily bounce around and do nothing if left alone.

The activation energy that everyone is talking about is what you require to "split" these stable molecules into reactive ions, such as a single O atom. These ions are then able to interact chemically with the inert gas molecules to form H2O.

>>11124079
Singular Oxygen atoms are an unstable configuration. A single electron has an unpaired electron in it's outer shell. This is called a radical, and is highly reactive, meaning it doesn't occur naturally except instantaneously as an intermediate in some reactions. The same applies to hydrogen.

>>11124079
Monatomic oxygen and hydrogen don't really exist in nature. As soon as you break apart the diatomic H2 or O2 the individual atoms will immediately react with themselves or something else.

>>11124098
>A single electron
Piss, I meant oxygen atom.

>>11124091
>>11124098
Ok you finally passed the test 56 posts in and you gave a good answer.

>>11124103
Can I have a banana sticker?

>>11124079
It takes energy to break H2 apart

You need to split the two core and two electrons in track apart into two cores with electrons

Which means breaking a bond

>>11124107
Still going now?
Ok then here's another one then huh?...

So why break them apart first? Is the bond between H2 stronger than the bond of H2O that the H2 bond wouldn't break on its own?

>>11124114
The H2 bonds don't break because there are no electrochemical forces available to do so. All the O2 atoms are electrically neutral.

>>11124107
Wouldn't the presence of oxygen cause the H2 and O2 internal bonds to break in order to form the lower energy state?

>>11124123
Oh ok good answer. Nice job now you get it.

>>11124103
But thats also wrong so you shouldn’t act like you were testing /sci because you still dont know if you think that is what happens. The energy is required to form transition states like the partial covalent bond between h2 and o2 and there there are states that have hydrogen and oxygen raticles, But you arent breaking apart all of the h2 and o2 into radicals (energy intense) and then they are magically forming into h2o. Look at the actual mechanism. You can't pretend to have zero understanding and then be surprised when people try to give you an intro level explanation.