If no difference between a proton and a hydrogen atom what holds H-2

[DEMVET-USMC]

molecule together? Think but a second. Like charges repel each other,remember ? Obviously you need the electrons of an atom to hold this simple molecule together. There is one simpler molecule and Linus Pauling calls it the hydrogen molecule-ion which is 2 protons bonded by 1 electron. You still need an electron to hold the 2 protons together.Come on , no one can dispute that. ...Oscar

[wtmusic]

1. The strong nuclear force

is stronger than the electrical repulsion of the two positive charges.

[DEMVET-USMC]

4. Sorry,the strong nuclear force is a nucleonic force and has nothing to do

with chemical reactions. Its a simple fact and cannot be denied. ...Oscar

[thespianman]

8. A proton

is a hydrogen ion (positive charge). The Bronsted-Lowry model of acidic behavior describes the transfer of such ions from acids to relative bases (an incomplete model, to be sure, but still useful).

[AngryAmish]

2. If I remember high school chemistry

H1 exists in the vacuum of space and is the most reactive force in the universe. Oxygen has 2 electrons to give, so H20 is very stable - electrochemically. I am getting a headache.

[DEMVET-USMC]

7. I cannot beleive intelligent people are arguing this very simple principle

of physics and chemistry with me. ...Oscar

[thespianman]

9. Which one are we arguing about?

The nuclear strong force is not involved in chemical reactions, true, but neither are protons. Only electrons are. Electrons, meanwhile, have really nothing to do with holding the nucleus together. That's all the strong force and electrostatic repulsion countering each other.

[AngryAmish]

15. My headache is migrating to my groin

My knowledge on this subject is quickly running out. I just know the more charged a atom/molecule is the more likely it is to react.

I also know that Hopkins will whip De La Hoyas ass and I am taking bets.

[DEMVET-USMC]

19. wait now, I never said electrons have anything to do wth holding a

nucleus tgether. Also, the electropositive force of protons plays a crucial role in the interplay of electrons. I give up. I am amazed at how everything I say gets turned upside down. ...Oscar

[nolabels]

3. This might be interesting

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=10116

Researchers Control Love-Hate Relationship Between Atoms

Research that makes ultra-cold atoms extremely attractive to one another may help test current theories of how all matter behaves - a breakthrough that might lead to advanced transportation systems, more efficient energy sources and new tests of astrophysical theories.

The experiment was conducted by a team led by Dr. John Thomas, a physics professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., under a grant from NASA's Biological and Physical Research Program through the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

The team manipulated a type of interacting atoms that behaved like fermions -- sub-atomic particles that are the building blocks of all matter, but are difficult to study directly. Normally, these atoms, called fermionic atoms, avoid each other at all costs. In this case, the researchers confined and cooled a lithium-6 gas cloud of atoms, and then introduced a magnetic field that acted as a matchmaker, inducing the atoms to attract one another strongly.

"This newly-created cold atom system has universal properties," Thomas said. "Understanding the behavior of these oddly-interacting atoms could yield new energy sources by testing the theory of how particles smaller than atoms behave. The same type of experiment may also help us study both neutron stars and nuclear matter, which are difficult to study in nature." Neutron stars are extremely dense stars made mostly of uncharged atomic particles.

Thomas and his colleagues used a "bowl" made of laser light in a vacuum to confine lithium-6 atoms in a cigar-shaped cloud. They cooled the cloud nearly to absolute zero, the point at which scientists believe no further cooling can occur and the atoms move as slowly as permitted by the laws of quantum mechanics. Normally, when a gas cloud of any shape is released in a vacuum, it expands in all directions until it becomes a sphere. But when Thomas and his colleagues introduced a magnetic field, something much different happened.
(snip)

[DEMVET-USMC]

21. It is very interesting, a bit off subject but so what,thank you...Oscar

[thespianman]

5. As noted...

the nuclear strong force, not electrons, is what binds atomic nuclei together. However, there can be no two-proton-one-electron atom for any significant length of time (at least not on Earth), as the electrostatic repulsion would shove the protons apart. Two protons require two neutrons to stay together, as in a helium nucleus or alpha particle (which is the same thing). H atoms would look to either have no electrons or two.

[DEMVET-USMC]

10. That is what I figured, and L.Pauling says they only exist momentarily.

...Oscar

[thespianman]

11. And he was correct...

... as we would expect of a man who won Nobel Prizes for Chemistry (I think) and Peace.

[DEMVET-USMC]

16. Paulings Nobel Prize in Chemistrry was awarded for his work as to

the exact nature of chemical bonding and was not shared as many are and he did win the Nobel peace prize also. ...Oscar

[DrWeird]

24. So you're a fan of Linus Pauling, are you?

Me too. I consider him the Einstein of modern chemistry and quite a good liberal to boot. In fact, there's a library not two blocks from where I'm sitting that holds all of Pauling's, and Ava Helen's, papers, lab books, notes, etc. It's quite an awe-inspiring feeling to hold both of his Nobel prize medals in your hands, let me tell you.

So I went over to the library today, just on a whim. I picked up a copy of Pauling's famous "On the Nature of the Chemical Bond", and not at all to my surprise:

Good old Linus Pauling uses "hydrogen atom" and "proton" interchangably.

Especially in the context of organic molecules. And this was back in the thirties, decades before proton NMR.

No before you go off digging yourself deeper into that hole, charging Linus Pauling with "polluting the language of chemistry" I suggest you stop. It's pretty clear that you started not one but two threads when you thought I made a mistake in BHT thread, apparently in a vain attempt to make me look foolish. But it should be clear to you by now that I didn't make a mistake. At least any more than Linus Pauling, and if Linus Pauling is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

It should also be clear by now that if you want to argue chemistry here, you're really out of your league. But we're here to help, I suggest using our skills to further your education, instead of digging yourself deeper into that hole.

[DEMVET-USMC]

25. Hi DrWeird, Yes I am a great fan of Linus Pauling, both for his expertise

in many fields of science and his commitment to the betterment of mankind. It must be quite an experience to hold his Nobel Medals in your hands. I was sad to learn of his death not so long ago. Now whether Pauling used Proton and hydrogen atom interchangeably or not, his book GENERAL CHEMISTRY clearly distinguishes the difference between the two. As I stated two protons would have to repel each other. It is the electrons that hold the two protons together. There is an entity called by Pauling: The Hydrogen Molecule-ion < H2+ >.He discusses this bond at length and gives its bond energy as 255 kJ mole-1. That negative sign is supposed to be up higher. I do not have the soft ware to write it correctly. Now he gives < H2 > a bond energy value of 429 kJ-1, as before that -sign belongs up higher.He states that the bond energy value for < H2 > is nearly twice that of < H2+ >, which is not all that accurate. Even Pauling is not always as accurate as he could be in some of the things he says. Surprising to me the bond energy of a < H2+ > molecule-ion is considerably more than half the bond energy of < H2 >,81 kJmole-1 more bond energy. See you around DrWeird, I do have to go. ...Oscar

[DrWeird]

28. I guess it depends on what you mean by "nearly"

I myself would consider 4 near five.

Either way you're grasping at straws. You're trying to paint Pauling as a sloppy chemist, which is really quite ridiculous.

First rule of digging yourself into a hole: stop digging.

[DEMVET-USMC]

37. To say I painted Pauling as a sloppy scientist is untrue. Isaid event

he sometimes makes statements not as accurate as they could be. And to say that 4 is near 5 in chemistry is misleading, as event small differences dictate how a given chemical reaction will transpire, especially in molecular biology. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

12. You agree with what I am saying.

[Doctor Smith]

6. Hydrogen atoms are gay.

[Gore1FL]

13. There is a significant difference

A proton is a Hydrogen ION. A hydrogen Atom is a proton AND and electron. While the ion is positively chraged, The atom is neutral in charge.

The first ring of an atom hold two electrons. Hydorn only has on electon. To fill their rings, the two hydorgen atoms share the two electrons. Hence, Hydrogen is diatomic.

[DEMVET-USMC]

17. I wish you had posted in on the previous discussion,I would have

appreciated some support on this basic principle of chemistry. ...Oscar

[Blecht]

14. So, what's your question?

First of all, a proton and a hydrogen atom are not the same thing -- a proton is a hydrogen atom with its electron removed.

There's no simple way to state how the hydrogen molecule stays together. Quantum mechanics can be used to verify that the energy of the hydrogen molecule is indeed lower than two hydrogen atoms at infinite separation.

As for the H2+ ion, it is also more stable than a hydrogen atom and a proton at infinite separation.

Some people in this thread are confused -- nuclear binding energy only comes into play when nuclear reactions are considered. That is not the case here. I believe the person who started this thread is talking only about the hydrogen molecule and H2+ ion.

If you're talking about the hydrogen-2 atom (deuterium) or the hydrogen-3 atom (tritium), and the differences between them and plain old hydrogen-1, there is only one proton in each of those nuclides. Remember, the identity of the atom is determined only by the number of protons the atom has. If two atoms have different numbers of protons, they are not the same element. Deuterium has one proton and one neutron, tritium has one proton and two neutrons, while plain old hydrogen has only the proton and no neutrons.

[DEMVET-USMC]

18. Thank you ,I only wish some of you guys would have checked in yesterday.

...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

20. What are you guys taking anyway ? I am trully amazed where this

dicusssion has gone. I am sorry but I am unwilling to try and unravel it all. Just track through this thread if you want good headache. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

22. THANK YOU ALL FOR POSTING IT WAS FUN AND INTRESTING

Oscar

[DrWeird]

23. Boy, you're really bent out of shape, aren't you?

I only pointed this out because you were calling the t-butyl protons in BHT "tertiary hydrogens".

This is bad for two reasons, the hydrogens aren't "tertiary" but that's alright, since I understood what you meant, and two, a third person could think you meant the methyl attached to the ring (you know what a methyl group is, right?"

Anywho, you seem unable to grasp that in organic chemistry "protons" and "hydrogens" are synonymous, so how about from now on were refer to those protons you were talking about as "t-butyl hydrogens."

Does that suit you?

OK, now how about you go and answer my challenge.

Or are you now willing to admit you were wrong?

[DEMVET-USMC]

26. No ,I will not admit I am wrong. Do you admit you are wrong that a proton

and a hydrogen atom are two very different things. A proton is a positively charged particle and a hydrogen atom is an atom and has an electron orbiting it in an atomic orbital or a molecular orbital as is usually the case here on Earth though not always. If you doubt that read up on the hydrogen torch. ...Oscar

[treepig]

27. a proton is a type or variety of hydrogen atom

and several other forms that a hydrogen can assume are discussed elsewhere in this (and other) threads.

perhaps an analogy is that explorers and focuses (foci?) are both types of fords. sometimes it's important to differentiate between the two, sometimes it's not. for example, if you're in nyc and tell somebody that you're taking the ford on a trip to boston - the point is clear that you're driving and not flying. it's not really necessary to specify whether you're taking the explorer or the focus. otoh, if you're heading down to the auto supply store to buy an air-filter, that'd be a good detail to know.

similarly, the terms "proton" and "hydrogen" are used interchangeably by the organic chemist in day to day use - with "proton" almost always being what's referred to (because a hydrogen atom as you define it is so reactive it never exists free in solution and is therefore of no real interest to the organic chemist except perhaps in explaining transition states).

ironically, over in the BHT thread you use the word "hydrogen" and not "proton" in at least six of your posts (#'s 20, 99, 103, 28, 30& 59) where you condescendingly (and incorrectly) talk about pH and its effects on BHT. putting aside the fact the aqueous solutions at physiological pH have vanishingly small numbers of hydroxide ions, changes in pH might (in theory if not in the case of BHT) indeed have some effect on reactions involving protons. by contrast, changes in pH throughout the physiological range would have absolutely no effect on reactions involving hydrogen atoms (that you mention in the posts i listed). at the time this seemed like a minor point hardly worth mentioning, but now that you've gone off on this "let's-be-completely-anal-about-nomenclature" kick - perhaps some "physician-heal-thyself first" soul searching might be in order before you go off on tirades against others.

[DEMVET-USMC]

33. Hello TP,I want to say that I know you are an intelligent and knowledgable

person. There are specic properties of a hydrogen atom that none of the other elements can share. A hydrogen atom stripped of its 1 elctron becomes not only a positively charged ion, but also a particle and not an atom. The same can be said of helium. If you strip its 2 electrons it becomes an alpha particle, and much has been written about the importance of Alpha particles. These are the only 2 elements that have only one electron shell. Hellium is not relevent in this discussion, but hydrogen is. When a hydrogen atom is covalently bonded to a carbon atom, its 1 electron now exists in a molecular orbit with with a carbon atom, as does one of the carbon atom`s outer shell electons in what is now a covalent bond. That hydogen atom is not a proton, it shares its 1 electron with one of the carbon`s 4 outer shell electrons. That is what a covalent bond is. If it was a proton bonded to a carbon which can and does happen it would have an electrical charge of +1. A tert-butyl group with 9 closely packed hydrogens do not allow for this to happen. I do believe you could strip away 1 or event 2 of these electrons and just maybe 1 more but that would be it. I am intrigued by what you have to say and it gives me reasons to reconsider just exactly what does generate the ionic and or free radical reactions I have disscussed as to BHT therapy. Now, listen carefully, the way to make BHT water is to grind the crystals up, the finer the better, and use saliva to make it miscable with water. If you can, obtain some "Ringers solution" for that has the same salts in the proper proportions as what I call the free water in blood. Now with a microscope you can do some very interesting experiments of your own. I used fruit fly worms or lavae for my experiments. The one reaction I could identify with certainty was polymerization. One other thing I will tell you about is a far more reactive mixture I call ammoniated asphalt water. Do not laugh. I was able to kill organisms as substantial as earth worms with this solution within a few minutes, and yet could drink a cup and more with no apparent side effects. It only remains reactive for an hour or so, but it works. I AM NOT RECOMMENDING IT TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON. I am am a reckless man who risks his life foolhardily and strongly state this is very likely to have life threatening effects on anyone. Having said that, the way to prepare ammoniated asphalt water is to take some asphalt: I just used chunks of it from the broken up parking area where I once lived; heat it in an electic oven only !, to its melting point < 400-450 degees Farenheit >. Proportions are 1 CUP ammonia to 4 CUPS melted asphalt. Allow all the ammonia to boil off.Next, pour one cup of distilled water over the asphalt and srain through a coffee filter. Start drpping this solution onto fruitfly worms and watch the action begin. Polymers appear immediately. Use an eyedropper and just keep hitting them with it. YOU WILL BE FASINATED. I used to drink this stuff to clear my head in the morning and it worked very well. DO NOT DO IT. I am a very foolhardy person. I pleaded with my colnel to transfer me to another unit when we were scheduled to leave Viet Nam. I liked it there in spite of being gutshot quite severely in 1968, I lost a kidney and much of my liver and intestines. ...Oscar

[treepig]

38. polymerization v. aggregation

ok, you seem to now be an expert on covalent bonds - therefore it should be easy for you to grasp the difference between polymerization and aggregation.

in general usage, polymerization is when a series of small molecules become covalently bonded to each other. sometimes homopolymers are formed of the same monomeric unit - an example is the polymerization of vinyl chloride to make vinyl siding for houses. in other cases sets of monomers are used to create polymers - examples of this include amino acids or nucleotides being polymerized into proteins or DNA, respectively.

what's happening when you grind BHT into small particles and mix it with water is that the small particles aggregate due to hydrophobic forces (perhaps linus pauling discusses them in the book you have?). since you've been very particular about getting the details correct of late, i'm sure you'll take the time to clearly understand how this is different than polymerization.

another technical point is that it is highly unlikely that BHT ever becomes "miscable" with water, no matter what you do with it. now i'm not really sure what "miscable" means, so i'm going under the assumption you meant to type "miscible" - the definition of miscible is two (or more) compounds that are soluble in each other at any ratio. for example, ethanol and water are miscible - you could add 1% ethanol to 99% water or vice versa, and you'd still have complete solubility. the same cannot be said for BHT and water.

as far as killing small critters with strange concoctions that one is foolish enough to ingest oneself - i have some experience in that area myself. for example, i've used something called "iodized table salt" to kill slugs, and then sprinkled it on my own food (at this point it's probably wise to include your disclaimer "I AM NOT RECOMMENDING IT TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON"). my theory on what's going on is that iodine is localized to the thyroid. also the outer shell of iodine lacks electrons, it will suck up electrons from the thyroid. since the slug's thyroid is much smaller than that of a person, it can ill afford to lose as many electrons as a much larger human thyroid can lose before killing the slug or person as the case may be.

also, i've experimented with killing slugs with something called "st. pauli's girl" once again - I AM NOT RECOMMENDING IT TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON. in this case what i do recommend is that you actually do ingest this liquid and seek out a similar, but inferior, product known as "bud lite" for the slug eradication program. i'm still formulating my theory as to the mechanism of action, and will post it for DU reader's edification once it is properly copywritten and appearing on google searches.

[DEMVET-USMC]

39. TP, Do the experiments and see for yourself. I do not have time to go

into lengthy arguments. I very much want to get this information out there to someone or people who can do something good for the World with it. There are people who are trying to kill me. It has nothing to do with this work. A bit of a jam I got into with a group I was unaware of. Anyway, I do not want my discoveries to die with me if it comes to that. Do those experiments as I instructed and come to your own conclusions. One thing you will find with that ammoniated asphalt water experiment is that the water mixture has no ammonia in it. I expect what is being created are ammonia catalyzed ions and free radicals. If done correctly you boil off all the ammonia and pick up the reactive mixture I just described. It should have no ammonia taste to it at all. It tastes like asphalt smells,but very mildly so and I never had any bad reaction to it. I already told you how to do it.It`s reactive state is no more than 1 hour.Once more into/unto the breach. I always have so much fun. ...Regards...Oscar

[DrWeird]

29. I'm not asking you to admit you're wrong on the hydrogen/proton...

debate. Since it's a semantic argument and basically a matter of opinion.

I'm asking you to admit your wrong with all the mistakes you made in the BHT thread and address the question I asked you.

Again, BHT thread, post #115.

[DEMVET-USMC]

35. I will check it out and get back to you off of your post.

I am beginning to like you, I always respected your intelligence. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

36. Well ,I am not sure to begin.I do not have a scanner that I cannot get to

work. I do understand the importance of showing the movement of electrons ,etc. as to an accurate model of any chemical reaction. Never the less I believe certain concepts can be presented that do not require this. I did state that both ionic and free radical reactions are the mechanisms for the intercellular destruction of viruses. Upon further reflection, ionic reactions would include both cationic and anionic reactions. Because the exact environment of where any particular BHT molecle has inserted itself is impossible to predict, that sort of modeling would not be all that helpfull. Never the less,hydrophobic molecules are going to be drawn to non-polar areas of any given virus wich will have a high degree of hydrocarbon content witch always have a hydrophylic head group containing the highly electro-negative oxygen. I have to think about this and I ran out of cigarettes. You have got me thinking. I have to have cigarettes, that supercedes all else within reason of course. It Quickly came to me that the perifery of hydrogens on the BHT or hydroxylated BHT molecules would be drawn to those oxygens. ...Oscar

[DrWeird]

40. Let's forget about the mode of action for the time being...

What is "hydroxylated BHT" and how does one get there.

[NNadir]

30. Oscar, are you putting us on?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Either you're a geniune Mr. Malaprop of science or you're putting us on.

It really doesn't matter which though. If you're putting us on, it's almost brilliant and if you're not, it's almost amusing.

[DrWeird]

31. You wouldn't be the first to ask that.

I'm guessing no, since satire doesn't usually result in personal attacks and deleted posts.

And usually they get tired after awhile.

[NNadir]

32. I'd guess the best strategy is not to take it too seriously.

I recall among being the first on the receiving end of some of that fun, back with the original emergence of this guy (gal?), that Windhexe-exploding chemical bond thing.

Still, it's kind of funny in its own way, to see how some people can interpret science. Speaking only for myself, I couldn't make this stuff up. It's precious and at times borders on the hilarious.

My advice: Be lighter.

[DEMVET-USMC]

34. What stuff ? That a proton and a hydogen atom are have important

differences ? Are you trying to tell me that it is silly to say that a particle and an atom are NOT the same. THERE IS THAT ALL IMPORTANT ELECTRON. I truly can not understand how anyone can disagree. ...Oscar