Why do people deny evolution?

Keep them oming , dude! One day they will be perfected. But for now? now they don't


lol

a decent discusion??????????????????????????????????????????????
wow you are deep in denial! you never did because you never can.

If water really did dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen when at low pressure, we would have all the energy we needed, we could run our cars on water, etc.

It takes a lot more than low pressure here or on Mars to dissociate water into H & O.

actually water spends most of its time as a hydrogen bond "covalent" state as a hydronium oxide (H3O). Water and Hydronium O will autodissociate under many conditions (High P mod T, High T mod P, highT and P ).

You are confusing dissociation with something like electrolysis. Autodissociation occurs as a REVERSIBLE reaction and occurs at a rather low [C] at about 1/500 K moles.

electrolysis is not reversible unless components are collected separately and captured . it will seek out to become hydronia again.

arhenius principle is the dissociation products of acids and bases.

Do you live in the real world? Do you think water, in a potable form, is so abundant that we can start carving it up to run automobiles? Do you have any idea how enormously expensive it would be to create a factory which could safely and reliably reduce atmospheric pressure to six millibars, for even a short period of time? You'd spend more on energy than you'd get back in usable hydrogen.

Of course, you should also see FM's comment here. It would also help if you actually understood covalent bonds.

There is water vapor in outa space... So yeah, it takes more than low pressure to break covalent bonds. A low pressure is just an absence of pressure. It's not a force, but an absence of force (pressure) so it can't break much... In actual fact it is HIGH pressure (and high temps) that can break covalent bonds.

The bonds aren't breaking--the atoms simply dissociate. In covalent bonds, no electrons are harmed in the making of the molecule, they simply share the same orbital shell. As always, Olivier blathers about science, but doesn't display any particular understanding of science.

What the heck do you mean by that?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Why do you assume Setanta doesn’t know what he\she’s talking about. Maybe he knows what he’s talking about and it’s you that doesn’t understand what he’s trying to say.

Understanding should be the goal, don’t you think?

was reading some 10 year old stuff about pre biotic production of cytosine and /or uracil from cyanoacetaldehyde and urea. The thing that got me was that the compounds were produced in "dry down" conditions (like on a playa lake or a seasonal mud puddle in acidic condition of a cyanogen atmospehere (very pertinant in Archean planet conditions)

The real stunner (to me at least) was the production of the chemicals (RNA components) were formed in solutions at slightly less than 0.04 M!!.

Holy crap, thats like a coke with no taste at all.

It's clear that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Read up on covalent bonds, educate yourself.

it sure is! there is no and will never be a shortage of water!
of course we are told there will be=control

I just know better than Set, that's all. The guy's understanding of hard sciences is very weak, as he has proven over the years.

In this particular case, it is a well-established fact that there is water in space.

If low pressure destroys covalent bonds, how come the moon is still up there in the sky, and not turned into a cloud of basic elements?

The stupidity of this idea is quite spectacular. I chalk up the fact that he can't see how stupid the idea is to selinity, but what's your excuse?

Don't ever travel in outer space Set, unless you want to "dissociate" into oxygen, hydrogen and a little carbon... We wouldn't want that to happen now would we? :-)

HARD science??? lol. Really? HARD science??????????????????????

Well, this is just an illustration that shows that some linguistics go a long way!
It sounds sooo damned good, eh?! HARD science! WOW. who will ever doubt HARD science, eh?!


'science' is , if you look close enough, just one big fat religion, under the disguise of looking for any 'truth'. Sounds familiar he?

And people still fall for it, hook line and sinker.


What a world this is. The inmates of the asylum have taken over!

water can dissociate according to ARhenius in reponse to P,T, Eh/pH (or all together). ICE usually wont dissociate due to physical consraints rather than chem . Water in low P conditions will dissociate at low concentrations but will dissociate nonetheless (water will generate ionic components so it ionizes and auto-dissociates pretty much in the same), not all salts or polar covalent liquids will do that. (alcohols ethers or esters for instance).
You guys are arguing more arcane terminology than disagreeing on principles.

water will top out dissociate (under low P) at about 500 K atoms/ cc.Thats teeny . It first undergoes breaking of the hydrogen bonds tween the molecules due to photolysis (cept in the case of ice, it has to change phase first)
When you do spectroscopy in space, you can see all kinds of ions left from water, Hydronium ions++, hydroxyls, H and O . For liquid water , dissociation and ionization mean pretty much the same thing.

Take creekwater from a coal mine, it undergos dissociation and ionization with pronounced Eh/pH changes it forms ionic salts from background cations (like alkali carbonates or metal sulfates) by reactions that are reversible unless it all becomes "Buffered" when the salt cations usually precip and the water flows on merrily dissociating back and forth according the rules of mr arhenius.

water;s some unique ****, they dont imply that its a "universal solvent" nothing.

why not blow it out your capacious cloaca quahog.

We have ways to exploit th comos through science. You were born 50K years too late

Are you as clueless about what happens to hydrogen and oxygen when you burn them as this statement implies?

Not expensive at all. I can create it with equipment costing a few hundred dollars. I have vacuums stored for decades all over my house. Thermos bottles, the transmitting tubes in my ham rig, the old CRT oscilloscope in the lab, etc. Hell, a simple column of mercury will do the job.


Yes, but this shows me that you don't.

Nice chatting with you all.

You apparently are clueless enough to compare an oscilloscope or a thermos to the sort of massive pressure chamber which would be necessary to produce hydrogen on an industrial scale. You really don't live in the real world.

For you and Olivier, both of whom are addicted to pointless, meandering argument and snotty characterizations of your interlocutors: My remark about the dissociation of hydrogen and oxygen above the datum on Mars was a single example about covalent bonds (as opposed to ionic bonds). The statement is specific to Mars; the datum was established based on that condition. That the two of you don't understand ionic bonds and covalent bonds is not evidence of any intellectual failure on my part.

Here you are blathering about who doesn't know science, and you make a statement to the effect that "there's water in space." At no time did I state or imply that there couldn't be water in space. The question is how much H and O dissociate in what period of time. Nor did I say that water, every mother-loving molecule of it, instantly dissociate in the absence of any specific atmospheric pressure. One does not "break" or "destroy" covalent bonds. If the bond fails, it dissociates, Mr. Scientific Culture. I seriously believe that you do not know what a covalent bond is. In addition to promoting hilariously inept claims about science, the "logic" of your rhetoric is mired in fallacy. That one was the straw man fallacy.

What is selinity? Did you mean salinity? Do you find me too salty for you? I intend to report that gratuitous insult.