Hahaha... I have proof now...While doing research for a paper, I have come across two very reliable sources that altough no value is given, says that the volume or pressure of the gas will increase when burned. If any of you don't believe me, I'll scan one or both and upload the pics.
I don't doubt you (since chemistry is not my friend), but upload the pic anyways - I'd like to look at it...
I probably will tomorrow, but I am stuck at school for 5 more hours, and the I am gonna eat and go to bed, but I'll try to remember
Yes upload it.
Ok I think I understand what your saying now. Yes the combustion reaction of hydrogen is rather exothermic (well maybe explosive would be a better word). However this depends on the way you trigger the reaction and upon completion of the reaction, however if you perform the experiment properly and contain the reaction, you will notice a significant pressure loss in the container. This is true to the point where the pressure within the container will act to limit the reaction. Look up Le Chatelier's principal for better explanations of this.
no, that is a chem 1 or 2 thing, and that doesn't work with that type of reaction
>>I have proof now<<
>>If any of you don't believe me, I'll scan one or both and upload the pics.<<
Well, where are these proofs then? I wait patiently to learn how the fundamental building blocks of physical Chemistry can be so readily disregarded.
well unlike most of you, I have a life, and school, so I just got it uploaded now cause I had a 2 hour lecture today and a 3 hour chem lab. I also had to spend hours faking 3 large sets of data cause I girl from my group seemed to drop off the face of the earth, along with half our data for a lab. Also, ken you need to stop acting like you know what you are talking about.
Yes the reaction is explosive which will cause an inital reaction. However a comparison at stp of the reactants to products will show the product to take up much less volume than the reactants.
Ken Fitlike has already given you how to calculate that change in volume. Finding the volume as the reaction/explosion occurs simply involves the extra step of adjusting the volume of water to the heat produced.
before you talk about what you learn in chem 1 or 2 in college, perhaps you should actually learn chemistry? You did, after all, ask an extremely basic question that you should have been able to answer if you knew sufficient chemistry to argue that other people are wrong.
Furthermore, your proof is a scanned textbook page; apparently it is lost on you that it is necessary for the evidence to be included within the page you scanned.
I know chemistry, and it is not a basic thing, and that is why I had to explain it. I have had about enough of all your so called advice here
>>Korn1699: Also, ken you need to stop acting like you know what you are talking about.<<
Hey, don't knock my acting; i'm up for an Oscar in my starring role in the movie 'A More Beautiful Mind Than That Other Guy But With A Far Uglier Body'. My field, though, is Chemistry and not Maths.
>>Original question by Korn1669: when hydrogen gas is burned in oxygen, how much will the volume change? I can't find this anywhere and I have a ton of chem books<<
The question you have stated has been answered quite correctly and repeatedly by everyone although you seem unable to grasp this. All variations have been discussed - including explosion ( I used the catch-all descriptor 'exothermic...fast free-radical').
>>Korn1669: cause I girl from my group seemed to drop off the face of the earth<<
I wonder why?
>>Coderbob: apparently it is lost on you that it is necessary for the evidence to be included within the page you scanned<<
Couldn't have said it better myself.
>>Korn1669: I know chemistry, and it is not a basic thing, and that is why I had to explain it<<
No you don't, yes it is and it's traditional to understand a thing before attempting an explanation.
>>Korn1669: I have had about enough of all your so called advice here<<
Is that what you call it? I thought it was insightful and helpful discussion - you know, you ask a question everyone chips in, you say everyone's wrong, everyone asks, 'ok, show us your proof' and then you show us a page from the 'Boy Scouts Book of Big Booms' and we all chuckle heartily (well I did anyway, ;) ).
Is it surprising that someone willing to fake lab data would upload fake evidence and attempt to save face by then making up chemistry and deriding all responses as 'a chem 1 or 2 thing' without any evidence to the contrary?
LMAO... hey... be nice to the kid... i think we've hurt his feelings... he is, after all, a chemistry genius... :rolleyes: