Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Balsiefen wrote:'Cause most molecules have different properties to their component elements.

This is only coming from shakey GCSE level chemistry but as elements (O2 and H2) they are short of two electrons (O2 having only 6 in the outer shell, not a stable , they will then need to react to form bonds which will allow them to become stable. This is why they are flamable as many of these reactions produce heat. Water leaves each of the atoms with a full outer shell, making it stable.

Another good example of this is sodium and chlorine, two of the most unpleasently reactive elements, bring 'em together and you get table salt.

Yeah. Then at A-level you find out that's all bollocks and that they simplified it for the benefit of morons and junkies who'd whinge they were being discriminated against if they didn't make the courses piss-takingly easy.

Yeah, I read that post and wondered what on earth he was talking about.

Gregrios wrote:So your teacher went right from teaching you how to spell water to explaining about it's components.

Hmm? - Ok. I think I got. - Carry on.

You don't have to know how to spell "tree" to know what one is... and thinking you do is holding up science teaching in many, many schools.

spelling water -- first grade

knowing what molecules and atoms were, and water as an easy initial example ... second grade.

Further understanding ... continued until high school when we learned about orbitals and such, College when we really got into the "nitty gritty" about wave versus particle theories (both at once).

Hologram wrote:

DaGip wrote:Scientists claim that water is 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen.

How can two very explosive gasses make up water?

Funnily enough, oxygen isn't explosive, just flammable. And when hydrogen explodes, it reacts with the oxygen around it (heat is the catalyst, you see) and creates water.

Oxygen isn't really flammable, it is a necessary component for flames. Burning is sometimes defined as combining oxygen with anything else.

non-technically (fire fighting) they teach of the "fire triangle"
air + fuel + heat = fire

PLAYER57832 wrote:

DaGip wrote:Scientists claim that water is 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen.

How can two very explosive gasses make up water?

burning IS when Oxeygen is combined with other substances.

Yes, that is what combustion is.

Surely combustion is when a substance gives up its phlogiston?

superkong wrote:i'm not sure whether this topic has been posted by a scientist who's just trying to test everyone and see if they know, or if it's been posted by a complete moron with a 14 year old's understanding of science.

I'm 15 and I knew this stuff last year. >_>

Fircoal wrote:

superkong wrote:i'm not sure whether this topic has been posted by a scientist who's just trying to test everyone and see if they know, or if it's been posted by a complete moron with a 14 year old's understanding of science.

I'm 15 and I knew this stuff last year. >_>

Same.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:

Fircoal wrote:

superkong wrote:i'm not sure whether this topic has been posted by a scientist who's just trying to test everyone and see if they know, or if it's been posted by a complete moron with a 14 year old's understanding of science.

I'm 15 and I knew this stuff last year. >_>

Same.

interesting. and also beside the point. pay more attention.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Nikolai wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and go with "No" because you failed to specify the nature of the parts, and default for that claim would be mass. Since oxygen atoms are approximately 16 times the mass of hydrogen atoms, the correction proportion would be 2 parts Hydrogen to 16 parts Oxygen, or in pure mathematical terms 1 part Hydrogen to 8 parts Oxygen. So you're right... that 2/1 stuff is a lot of baloney.

The mass of the atoms has no relevance in this case: the weight of a olecule is not directly tied to the weight of its constituent atoms.

You are correct about molecular weight not being directly tied to atomic weight of constituent atoms, but you seem to have forgotten that we are talking about the ratio of constituent pieces. And I deliberately avoided using weight because it's so dependent on gravity... mass, being the most absolute measure of the size of an atom, would be the correct measure to use for an undefined "part/part" ratio.

jonesthecurl wrote:Surely combustion is when a substance gives up its phlogiston?

(For those who don't get it, check out the work of Georg Stahl... I think he was the first one to call it a phlogiston.)

Sorry - I always forget that mass and weight aren't the same. Me: twit.

Scientists claim that Lindsey Lohan will check out of rehab, insisting that she is a new woman. Who crashes new cars, on new drugs.

Fire as we know it does not actually exist.

What it is: Heat + Light which human perception sees as a kewlnesses

(Not correcting anyone just a really neat fact)

Scientists claim that the Earth is actually orbiting around a giant atom smashing machine, something we call the Sun.

This is in direct conflict with what scientists previously claimed, that Apollo orbited the earth, on his flaming chariot of flames.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

The Viking wrote:You didn't do the electrolysis experiment in school?

Health and fucking Safety man. Health and fucking Safety...fascistii.

...and we can add the GCSE chemistry syllabus to nappy's list.

how did you get on, by the way? What a-levels are you taking?

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

The Viking wrote:You didn't do the electrolysis experiment in school?

Health and fucking Safety man. Health and fucking Safety...fascistii.

...and we can add the GCSE chemistry syllabus to nappy's list.

how did you get on, by the way? What a-levels are you taking?

Not bad, thanks. I got an A* in the chemistry and physics (cheers Norse!) anyway. I'm doing Maths&Further Maths, Greek Latin History and English Lit., most of which Suggs recommended I do. Only economics is a bit of a joke subject, and he wanted me to do that...I hope you approve.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

The Viking wrote:You didn't do the electrolysis experiment in school?

Health and fucking Safety man. Health and fucking Safety...fascistii.

...and we can add the GCSE chemistry syllabus to nappy's list.

how did you get on, by the way? What a-levels are you taking?

Not bad, thanks. I got an A* in the chemistry and physics (cheers Norse!) anyway. I'm doing Maths&Further Maths, Greek Latin History and English Lit., most of which Suggs recommended I do. Only economics is a bit of a joke subject, and he wanted me to do that...I hope you approve.

Yay for greek and latin history!

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

The Viking wrote:You didn't do the electrolysis experiment in school?

Health and fucking Safety man. Health and fucking Safety...fascistii.

...and we can add the GCSE chemistry syllabus to nappy's list.

how did you get on, by the way? What a-levels are you taking?

Not bad, thanks. I got an A* in the chemistry and physics (cheers Norse!) anyway. I'm doing Maths&Further Maths, Greek Latin History and English Lit., most of which Suggs recommended I do. Only economics is a bit of a joke subject, and he wanted me to do that...I hope you approve.

Yay for greek and latin history!

History, Classical Greek and Latin, three seperate A-levels (Lord help me).