The Deep

[MikeCarra]

BUT, you won't find one single experiment where hydrogen and oxygen were mixed together and water was created without high energy added. NOT ONE.

The reaction of H2 + O2 --> H2O is thermodynamically "spontaneous" in that the Gibbs free energy of the reaction is something like -228kJ (if I remember correctly). But you are right, there is an Activation Energy required to kick off the reaction. (A catalyst, like Pt, can lower the activation energy by providing an alternate reaction pathway).

Now considering that here on earth a candle flame will provide sufficient activation energy to run this reaction forward. It isn't an insignificant amount of energy but it isn't that "amazing".

 

[Mainframes]

You don't even need a candle flame. The activation energy for the oxidisation of hydrogen is so low that static electricity discharge is enough to start the reaction. Bench why hydrogen filled balloons were so dangerous and replaced with Helium.

 

[florida2]

And forms the H2O bond at the same time from that energy release.

Then please, go to a lab and mix hydrogen and oxygen and let me know how much water you get without adding extra energy to make those bonds happen??? Go ahead, you can prove me wrong very easy according to you.


BUT, you won't find one single experiment where hydrogen and oxygen were mixed together and water was created without high energy added. NOT ONE.

Go ahead, SHOW me where water has ever been created simply by mixing hydrogen and oxygen molecules together.

Just one???????

Oh dear, Justa. Mainframes was not talking about the formation of a water molecule at all and did not speculate on the amount of energy required one way or another.

Mainframes was talking about hydrogen bonding - the bonding between water molecules - which does not require 'energetic interactions' as has been explained. Again, nothing was mentioned about the formation of water molecules themselves.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't even need a candle flame. The activation energy for the oxidisation of hydrogen is so low that static electricity discharge is enough to start the reaction. Bench why hydrogen filled balloons were so dangerous and replaced with Helium.

Ahh, you mean an electrical spark is enough to start the process? And how would this flame that was then created (in your fantasy world) burn in the vacuum of space without an atmosphere of enough density?????


And yet you can not show me one single experiment where water has been created without a tremendous release of energy, enough energy to produce x-ray emissions as a matter of fact. And every single one involves the addidtion of electrical energy. Energy which you claim does not exist.


Can we manufacture water? - Curiosity

Scientists Discover New Way To Make Water -- ScienceDaily

I mean, I am not sure if you are aware of this fact, but space is a vacuum. You have no hydrogen filled balloons, only individual disassociated molecules. No oxygen atmosphere of enough density to even sustain a fire from any spark that might occur. There are no miniature exploding balloons in the comets coma, merely high speed protons from the solar wind striking negative silicates from the comet releasing hydroxyl complexes which then combine in the coma with those protons to form H2O. You are left with but one explanation. Electrical activity. The same process responsible for all chemical bonds.

I mean were you actually unaware space is a vacuum or were you just throwing out the first thing you could think of in order to defend your Fairie Dust universe? Either way that theory falls flat before it even has a chance to get off the ground. Because once it gets off the ground and into space, your entire process is impossible in a vacuum.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The reaction of H2 + O2 --> H2O is thermodynamically "spontaneous" in that the Gibbs free energy of the reaction is something like -228kJ (if I remember correctly). But you are right, there is an Activation Energy required to kick off the reaction. (A catalyst, like Pt, can lower the activation energy by providing an alternate reaction pathway).

Now considering that here on earth a candle flame will provide sufficient activation energy to run this reaction forward. It isn't an insignificant amount of energy but it isn't that "amazing".

We don't have candles in space, nor do we have an atmosphere of enough density in a vacuum. So it would indeed be "amazing" to see such on a frozen ice ball in space.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827703-21/#post65982899

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh dear, Justa. Mainframes was not talking about the formation of a water molecule at all and did not speculate on the amount of energy required one way or another.

Mainframes was talking about hydrogen bonding - the bonding between water molecules - which does not require 'energetic interactions' as has been explained. Again, nothing was mentioned about the formation of water molecules themselves.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827703-21/#post65982899

 

[Mainframes]

Firstly, the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen is indeed exothermic but it does not release x-rays.

Secondly, you don't need clouds of gas for reactions. Individual molecules will react with each other and this will happen in space.

Thirdly, do you not think that you will get chemical reactions in the outer layers and corona of stars? The elements are present and the activation energy is there.

And fourth, we have not once said that electrical energy does not exist, we just disagree with you interpretation of how large scale interactions occur. Electrical charge is at the root of pretty much all physical chemistry.

 

[florida2]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827703-21/#post65982899

That was not the post you were replying to, hence my post.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That was not the post you were replying to, hence my post.

All the posts require the same thing, since we are not talking about water on earth in an atmosphere, but the vacuum of space.

But we do have an explanation, from that very thing mainstream admits it has very little knowledge of. But you insist we have knowledge of so can ignore the process.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Curric_7-12/Chapter_4.pdf
"The solar wind and the magnetosphere form a vast electrical generator which converts the kinetic energy of solar wind particles into electrical energy. The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10^12 watts, roughly equal to the average rate of consumption of energy in the United States today! The very complex plasmas and currents in the magnetosphere are not fully understood."

 

[MikeCarra]

All the posts require the same thing, since we are not talking about water on earth in an atmosphere, but the vacuum of space.

I guess I'm not entirely certain what you are arguing here, Justa.

The point being that, yes, IF all water in the universe were formed from the reaction:

H2 + 1/2 O2 --> H2O

Then indeed we'd have to have sufficient amounts of H2 and O2 close by (or at least closely associated) and sufficient energy to kick of the reaction.

BUT, and this is not necessarily an hypothesis of where water comes from in the universe, remember:

the need for that initial energetic kick is to do things like homolytically cleave the H2 molecule into two hydrogens each with an unpaired electron.

This requires something like >400kJ/mol to achieve.

But what if you already had this H. sitting around (that "." is the unpaired electron).

Alternately THIS article posits the association of H2 and O2 at low temperatures and a catalyst which could lower the activation energy needed.

Yes water existed in the universe from a long time ago. And yes, likely, some of this water in the universe was trapped in the early accretion of the earth or it was brought in through some bolide impact before the moon was formed.

Maybe I'm not picking up on exactly what your point is with this thread.

Where do YOU think water on earth came from?

 

[florida2]

All the posts require the same thing, since we are not talking about water on earth in an atmosphere, but the vacuum of space.

But we do have an explanation, from that very thing mainstream admits it has very little knowledge of. But you insist we have knowledge of so can ignore the process.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Curric_7-12/Chapter_4.pdf
"The solar wind and the magnetosphere form a vast electrical generator which converts the kinetic energy of solar wind particles into electrical energy. The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10^12 watts, roughly equal to the average rate of consumption of energy in the United States today! The very complex plasmas and currents in the magnetosphere are not fully understood."

Show me where I have been insisting anything about water in space.

I was merely talking about hydrogen bonding. That's all. That's what the post of Mainframes was talking about.

I was no commenting on any other part of your statements - I was merely agreeing with Mainframes when correcting your lack of understanding of hydrogen bonding.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I guess I'm not entirely certain what you are arguing here, Justa.

The point being that, yes, IF all water in the universe were formed from the reaction:

H2 + 1/2 O2 --> H2O

Then indeed we'd have to have sufficient amounts of H2 and O2 close by and sufficient energy to kick of the reaction.

BUT, and this is not necessarily an hypothesis of where water comes from in the universe, remember:

the need for that initial energetic kick is to do things like homolytically cleave the H2 molecule into two hydrogens each with an unpaired electron.

This requires something like >400kJ/mol to achieve.

But what if you already had this H. sitting around (that "." is the unpaired electron).

Alternately THIS article posits the association of H2 and O2 at low temperatures and a catalyst which could lower the activation energy needed.

Yes water existed in the universe from a long time ago. And yes, likely, some of this water in the universe was trapped in the early accretion of the earth or it was brought in through some bolide impact before the moon was formed.

Maybe I'm not picking up on exactly what your point is with this thread.

Where do YOU think water on earth came from?

Sure, they posit a process never once observed in that article. I.e. requiring you to have "faith" that something is so, for you to "believe" in something never once observed.

I am not asking you to have "faith" in some mythical process that can not be duplicated in a laboratory. I am simply asking you to accept the only scientifically known way to create water from hydrogen and oxygen molecules in a vacuum.

Because in the laboratory you require extensive energy or heat to force those hydrogen and oxygen molecules to bond, then want to claim less heat is now the reason. Even when they can not confirm this.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0805/0805.0055v1.pdf
"it remains unclear whether D2O is formed at 10 - 12 K or during heating."

And their hypothesis lacks any empirical evidence whatsoever.

"Although they speculated on the production of H2O2 and H2O based on their experimental results, they were unable to verify the production of these molecules since no analysis of the products was performed."

But further tests bore out the EU hypothesis.

"The atomic beams could be cooled to 20 K in the aluminum tube that was connected to an He refrigerator."

So we have proton bombardment of a surface creating electrical interactions and that formed miniscule amounts of H2O directly. Which can account for the miniscule patches of surface frost:

"This suggests that in the present experiments the reaction occurs only at the surface."

And still ignores the x-ray and ultra-violet emission occurring in the coma where the vast majority of H2O is found. Still ignoring those negative electrons stripped from the surface as a result of proton bombardment that then collide with high energy positive ions in the coma, producing x-rays and binding those oxygen molecules to the hydrogen molecules in great abundance in the coma.


Which is why from 5 days "after" Deep Impact, the x-ray, ultraviolet and water production in the coma increased 45% and lasted another 10 days as charge redistribution occurred. Without an increase in dust production from the comet itself, and comet outbursts are never dust free. Those negative silicates had already been released into the coma from the impact, and where more readily available to combine with positive ions from the solar wind with less energy than having to be stripped from the surface molecule by molecule at a time.

 

[Mainframes]

You do not need extensive energy or heat to combust hydrogen. I did it in GCSE chemistry (aged 15).

There is a disproportionate amount of water in tail of a comet because water will be driven off in preference to metals and silicates due to its vaporisation point in a vacuum.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where do YOU think water on earth came from?

From the same electrical interactions from positive ions colliding with negative silicates, releasing oxygen to then combine with those hydrogen ions, that produce it everywhere else in the universe.

Oxygen, nitrogen and the rare gases

"Except for helium, which is mostly extracted from natural gas, oxygen, nitrogen and the other rare gases are extracted from the air that makes up Earth's atmosphere."

Because those Birkeland Currents cause that preferential ejection of oxygen molecules.

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions)."

From that same cathode ray process occurring on earth, the moon, Io, Enceladus, and comets, and I suspect every other planet whenever we get around to looking for them.

Earth weaves its own invisible cloak - Polar fountains fill magnetosphere with ions - NASA Science

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

2001 News Releases - Jupiter's Io Generates Power and Noise, But No Magnetic Field

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus



Charged particle bombardment and electrical interactions.

 

[MikeCarra]

I am not asking you to have "faith" in some mythical process that can not be duplicated in a laboratory.

The low temperature atomic H + O2 on a catalyst has been observed, though. Did you read the article?

I am simply asking you to accept the only scientifically known way to create water from hydrogen and oxygen molecules in a vacuum.

Which is?

Because in the laboratory you require extensive energy or heat to force those hydrogen and oxygen molecules to bond

Not really. It is not insignificant, but on earth it can produce it without a catalyst with the amount of energy in a spark or a flame. It is something like >400kJ/mol to hydrolytically split the H2 molecule which is the first step.

Overall the reaction is thermodynamically spontaneous, but kinetically disfavorable. It WILL go either by overcoming the Ea or simply lowering the Ea with a catalyst.

And even the article itself uses atomic hydrogen. So it isn't like they are starting off with H2 and running the plain reaction.

What process exactly are you saying is the "only" way to form water?

, then want to claim less heat is now the reason. Even when they can not confirm this.

We know how catalysts work. NONE of this is particularly high level chemistry.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0805/0805.0055v1.pdf
"it remains unclear whether D2O is formed at 10 - 12 K or during heating."

That part was from an EARLIER studies.

And their hypothesis lacks any empirical evidence whatsoever.

You mean apart from the experiments in the article itself, right?

"Although they speculated on the production of H2O2 and H2O based on their experimental results, they were unable to verify the production of these molecules since no analysis of the products was performed."

I see that you don't really do science. Remember, hypotheses have to start somewhere. What proof of whatever process you favor do you have?

But further tests bore out the EU hypothesis.

"The atomic beams could be cooled to 20 K in the aluminum tube that was connected to an He refrigerator."

So we have proton bombardment of a surface creating electrical interactions and that formed miniscule amounts of H2O directly. Which can account for the miniscule patches of surface frost:

"This suggests that in the present experiments the reaction occurs only at the surface."

I honestly do NOT know what your beef is here. Maybe you could simply re-outline for us what the "debate" is here.

Do you think the ONLY way to explain the existence of water is giant electrical currents through space?

And still ignores the x-ray and ultra-violet emission occurring in the coma

Why do the commas emit x-rays only when they come within 3AU of the sun?

From what I gather, scientists believe these to be the product of "charge exchange" as the SOLAR WIND IONS bombard the "ion trail" from the comet. As the electrons are attached to new parent nuclei they produce x-rays (much as normal x-rays are produced here on earth in x-ray tubes, only instead of coming in from outside the atom, they are simply changing energy levels within the atom. It's been a while since I've worked with XRD and x-ray tubes, so I'm a bit rusty) (LINKY)

where the vast majority of H2O is found. Still ignoring those negative electrons stripped from the surface as a result of proton bombardment that then collide with high energy positive ions in the coma, producing x-rays and binding those oxygen molecules to the hydrogen molecules in great abundance in the coma.

Are we debating whether charged particles exist in the solar wind here?

 

[MikeCarra]

From the same electrical interactions from positive ions colliding with negative silicates, releasing oxygen to then combine with those hydrogen ions, that produce it everywhere else in the universe.

Can you do me a favor and outline this particular reaction?

I'd be interested to see it in detail.

So your first step will be to break an Si-O bond, right?

Please show me the equations and associated energy.

(And please, god, don't just post a one hour video. I've actually got little patience for SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. I want to see YOURS. It is the hypothesis YOU ARE ADVOCATING.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You do not need extensive energy or heat to combust hydrogen. I did it in GCSE chemistry (aged 15).

There is a disproportionate amount of water in tail of a comet because water will be driven off in preference to metals and silicates due to its vaporisation point in a vacuum.

There is a disproportionate amount because electrical process separate the gas from the dust in those tails.

Comet tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Comet_Parts.jpg/150px-Comet_Parts.jpg

And yet those tails stay in filaments for hundreds of thousands of miles, refusing to behave like a neutral gas in a neutral vacuum and be dissipated into space as ALL neutral gasses do in a vacuum.

Because mainstream ignores what is really occurring, electric separation of molecules.


Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions)."


Although mainstream once again blames magnetic fields for electrical interactions and puts the cart before the horse.

Magnetic fields cause charged particles to be deflected in those fields. Electric field lines point straight outwards, not magnetic fields. Those charged particles are being accelerated along the electric field lines.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field


This is why in every single particle accelerator electric fields are used to accelerate charged particles, and magnetic fields are used to guide their motion in a circle. If the magnetic field was controlling the interaction, they would follow the comets orbital path, instead of pointing with the solar wind, also being accelerated along the electric field lines.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you do me a favor and outline this particular reaction?

I'd be interested to see it in detail.

So your first step will be to break an Si-O bond, right?

Please show me the equations and associated energy.

(And please, god, don't just post a one hour video. I've actually got little patience for SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. I want to see YOURS. It is the hypothesis YOU ARE ADVOCATING.)

If you watched the video then you also know my hypothesis is the same as their hypothesis, which you claim to have no patience for other hypothesis. But apparently you didn't watch the video.

So show me "your" work then that YOU ARE ADVOCATING, or do you not have any which means you are relying on hypothesis of others you have no patience for?


Which is it????? Kind of a double edged sword isn't it?

So I expect you to immediately abide by your own request and show me your own personal numbers and figures, without relying on the hypothesis of others since you have no patience for theirs either.

Or is it just a selective patience you have as long as it agrees with you??????

 

[MikeCarra]

If you watched the video then you also know my hypothesis is the same as their hypothesis, which you claim to have respect for. But apparently you didn't watch the video.

OF COURSE I DIDN"T WATCH THE VIDEO! It's OVER AN HOUR IN LENGTH!

If you can't shorten it to the equations I asked for then I will understand how little of your own hypothesis you even value.

This is how science is done. Yes, you can reference them, but don't just debate by puking up SOMEONE ELSE'S 1+ HOUR VIDEOS!

This is absurd. I've got to get back to my REAL research (PVC chemistry).

I don't have time for someone who can't even support their own pet hypothesis.

k-thnx-bye.

 

[lesliedellow]

OF COURSE I DIDN"T WATCH THE VIDEO! It's OVER AN HOUR IN LENGTH!

If you can't shorten it to the equations I asked for then I will understand how little of your own hypothesis you even value.

This is how science is done. Yes, you can reference them, but don't just debate by puking up SOMEONE ELSE'S 1+ HOUR VIDEOS!

This is absurd. I've got to get back to my REAL research (PVC chemistry).

I don't have time for someone who can't even support their own pet hypothesis.

k-thnx-bye.

You don't think being trained as a chemist means you know anything about chemistry do you? Not when you have got an all purpose idiot, like Justa, who knows nothing about anything, to set you right.