Hello,
I am currently brain farting on a book I've read back when I was younger. It was trilogy and in the book, there was a made up compound that kept blimps up. I don't remember what this element is called, other than it had hydrogen or helium in it.
In the first book, the main characters zeppelin was taken over by a gang and hijinks ensue. A love interest is introduced, an island comes into play near the end, and a mentor figure that dies.
I don't remember much of the second book, other than trying to find a lost aircraft that had supposed riches on it.
The third, however, had a metal pole / rope that went into space and some sort of alien life form chewed through the rope, making the protagonist and love interest stranded on the rope. My memory is hazy at best, so I hope this is enough to help.
Foster out
My thought process (please correct me if I’m wrong): Since water can self ionise, and form form OH- and H+, the H+ binds to another oxygen (by chance) of another water molecule, forming hydronium, and another hydrogen ion (by chance) binds to this hydroxide to form water. The hydronium also let’s go of the hydrogen randomly, for it to bind to another hydroxide to form water and this entire process repeats in water, but at a very very small level relative to all the other interactions in water.
My question: When a reactive metal is introduced into water, how do the hydronium ions or hydroxides interact with the metal? Do the metals donate their electrons to the hydronium to make hydrogen gas? Do they donate electrons which bump randomly into hydrogens that left a water molecule and therefore reduce the chance of a hydronium ion forming?
Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance!
I was thinking about stuff related to my research and was considering the series M–[CH3]^– , M–NH3, M–[OH3]^+ . There are surely tens of thousands of metal methyl and metal ammine complexes, but what about metal hydronium complexes? After all, [CH3]^– , NH3 and [OH3]^+ are all isoelectronic, and [OH3]+ has a lone pair of electrons that can participate in a Lewis acid-base interaction with a metal, so why not? A quick Google search yielded nothing obvious, however. Has anyone ever heard of this before or know an example of a metal hydronium complex?
https://preview.redd.it/fr8aoc98mss61.png?width=986&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e079dd4564b7e973ed43877870f2fd9b8c7f64b
Hi fellas. Question about H2O combining with H+.
So oxygen has 6 valence electrons.
In the pictures I see, water hydrogens take up one each of those in the H2O structure, leaving you with 4 lone pair electrons and two bonded, one to each hydrogen.
Why is it that the H+ bonding to create H3O uses the whole electron pair, leaving you with two lone pair electrons instead of three?
I'm brand new to chem, just reading thru a 'organic chem for dummies' book.
Is it because normally each atom shares an electron to fill an orbital with two electrons? And since H+ has none to share for the orbital creation, the oxygen then must supply two? One for itself, and one for the hydrogen, so that the new orbital has two with opposing spins?
Thx in advance.
https://preview.redd.it/gkq5byls6cj21.png?width=859&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff122cbd60844c7859c2898d51819ad20e7d27d4
Shouldn't the hydronium ion be the most acidic since the ether and alcohol's conjugate acid have electron donating groups stabilizing the O+ charge whereas the former does not have any of this stabilization effect?
The van der Waals stabilization of transition states in smaller‐pore MFI zeolites makes secondary alcohols, 3‐heptanol, and 2‐methyl‐3‐hexanol more reactive toward hydronium ion catalyzed elimination than in the sterically larger pore BEA zeolite. Whereas the stabilization of the Cβ‐H transition state provided by intraporous alcohol for 2‐methyl‐2‐hexanol provides an additional stabilization in the sterically larger pore BEA zeolite, making hydronium ions in BEA more reactive than in MFI.
Abstract
Alkanol dehydration rates catalyzed by hydronium ions are enhanced by the dimensions of steric confinements of zeolite pores as well as by intraporous intermolecular interactions with other alkanols. The higher rates with zeolite MFI having pores smaller than those of zeolite BEA for dehydration of secondary alkanols, 3‐heptanol and 2‐methyl‐3‐hexanol, is caused by the lower activation enthalpy in the tighter confinements of MFI that offsets a less positive activation entropy. The higher activity in BEA than in MFI for dehydration of a tertiary alkanol, 2‐methyl‐2‐hexanol, is primarily attributed to the reduction of the activation enthalpy by stabilizing intraporous interactions of the Cβ‐H transition state with surrounding alcohol molecules. Overall, we show that the positive impact of zeolite confinements results from the stabilization of transition state provided by the confinement and intermolecular interaction of alkanols with the transition state, which is impacted by both the size of confinements and the structure of alkanols in the E1 pathway of dehydration.
https://ift.tt/3l88yTs
Selective H3O+ intercalation is demonstrated for a water‐proton co‐intercalated α‐MoO3 cathode in a neutral ZnCl2 electrolyte, thus providing substantially enhanced specific capacity, rate capability, and cycling stability. H2O molecules between the α‐MoO3 interlayers are uncovered to block Zn2+ intercalation pathways, while allowing smooth H3O+ intercalation/diffusion through a Grotthuss proton conduction mechanism.
Abstract
Among various charge‐carrier ions for aqueous batteries, non‐metal hydronium (H3O+) with small ionic size and fast diffusion kinetics empowers H3O+‐intercalation electrodes with high rate performance and fast‐charging capability. However, pure H3O+ charge carriers for inorganic electrode materials have only been observed in corrosive acidic electrolytes, rather than in mild neutral electrolytes. Herein, we report how selective H3O+ intercalation in a neutral ZnCl2 electrolyte can be achieved for water‐proton co‐intercalated α‐MoO3 (denoted WP‐MoO3). H2O molecules located between MoO3 interlayers block Zn2+ intercalation pathways while allowing smooth H3O+ intercalation/diffusion through a Grotthuss proton‐conduction mechanism. Compared to α‐MoO3 with a Zn2+‐intercalation mechanism, WP‐MoO3 delivers the substantially enhanced specific capacity (356.8 vs. 184.0 mA h g−1), rate capability (77.5 % vs. 42.2 % from 0.4 to 4.8 A g−1), and cycling stability (83 % vs. 13 % over 1000 cycles). This work demonstrates the possibility of modulating electrochemical intercalating ions by interlayer engineering, to construct high‐rate and long‐life electrodes for aqueous batteries.
https://ift.tt/3ldIRl1
>A team of researchers at the University of Chicago used broadband 2-D IR spectroscopy to reveal proton behavior when acids like HCl dissociate in water. Although general chemistry textbooks typically teach that the proton associates with water as a hydronium ion H3O+, they discovered that the proton is strongly bound between two water molecules and that the structures are predominantly asymmetrical.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-reveals-proton-hydration-asymmetric.html#jCp
???
I need to find the ph and hydronium ions for each of these steps and I'm not sure if I am doing them right
http://imgur.com/gallery/wMCImUh
Monatomic means 1 atom, monatomic cations have ion added to the end. So what's the deal with hydronium and ammonium?
The capitalizations there are really trippy. And what if we were to combine them? Would that person be a phD or a PHD? Whoa.
I can't seem to get the correct hydronium concentration. I'm using an ICE table and I'm assuming the change to the sulfamic acid is negligible. When I set x = [H3O+], x^2 = (0.089)(0.15) so x = 0.116 mol/L. The answer is 0.079 mol/L. Am I doing something wrong?
https://preview.redd.it/mazv95lxkyy41.png?width=976&format=png&auto=webp&s=91b4e4d80f04558383caf940dce7562efad855c7
Details on what I'm looking for: Preferably, I would like to find CHARMM36 topology files for hydronium since that's what my current system uses for a force field. I'm aware that ATB has hydronium so I can switch over to the GROMOS force field if needed but if I can avoid it I'd like to. I also have a paper that optimized LJ parameters for a bunch of ions, including hydronium so I can make a make-shift topology for hydronium if nothing else, but that way wouldn't explicitly model the hydrogens at all (no bending, stretching, not even rotation of the molecule).
I'm having trouble finding these files. Apparently MD simulators are loathe to model hydronium since most people would prefer a model that actually interacts with other water molecules and where the proton actually exchanges and that type of bond breaking is difficult to model. Other's just use constant pH simulations, which is an implicit solvent model if I'm understanding it right? In any case, neither are really what I'm looking for. I'm using the simulation to extract SAXS scattering curves and testing what an acid will do to those curves so really all I need is for hydronium to exist and be in a realistic spot in my system so that there's something to scatter off of. With that in mind, a static model that doesn't exchange protons is totally fine.
The problem is "What is the H3O+ in a solution that consists of 1.5M NH3 and 2.5M NH4Cl? Kb = 1.8 *10^-5" I tried to do this with the Henderson Hasselbach equation, but found that it's very easy to mess up the (CB/WA) part and (2.5/1.5) vs (1.5/2.5) can significantly change your answer (it's multiple choice). I tried to do it with an ICE table and found that to be messy since we have initials for 2 components. Is there a neater/more organized way of solving the problem?
the question: what is the pH of a 0.274 M solution of formic acid (pKa = 3.74)?
looking through lecture slides and online i cant get my head around it :(
Is there a proton or hydronium gradient. I am told that protons are too unstable in aqueous solutions and tend to be hydrated to form H3O+ instead but textbooks only refer to proton gradients when describing ATP synthase. Which is more accurate?
https://preview.redd.it/fi3niv4dpep31.png?width=730&format=png&auto=webp&s=879f3c896507fa2428b5d1232fc98510c00b635f
Alkanol dehydration rates catalyzed by hydronium ions are enhanced by the dimensions of steric confinements of zeolite pores as well as by intraporous intermolecular interactions with other alkanols. The higher rates with zeolite MFI having pores smaller than those of zeolite BEA for dehydration of secondary alkanols, 3‐heptanol and 2‐methyl‐3‐hexanol, is caused by the lower activation enthalpy in the tighter confinements of MFI that offsets a less positive activation entropy. The higher activity in BEA than in MFI for dehydration of a tertiary alkanol, 2‐methyl‐2‐hexanol, is primarily attributed to the reduction of the activation enthalpy by stabilizing intraporous interactions of the C β ‐H transition state with surrounding alcohol molecules. Overall, we show that the positive impact of zeolite confinements results from the stabilization of transition state provided by the confinement and intermolecular interaction of alkanols with the transition state, which is impacted by both the size of confines and structure of alkanols in the E1 pathway of dehydration.
https://ift.tt/3l88yTs
Among various charge carrier ions for aqueous batteries, non‐metal hydronium (H3O+) with small ionic size and fast diffusion kinetics empowers H3O+‐intercalation electrodes with high rate performance and fast‐charging capability. However, pure H3O+ charge carriers for inorganic electrode materials have only been observed in corrosive acidic electrolytes, rather than in mild neutral electrolytes. Here, we report how selective H3O+ intercalation in a neutral ZnCl2 electrolyte can be achieved for water‐proton co‐intercalated α‐MoO3 (denoted WP‐MoO3 ). H2O molecules located between MoO3 interlayers are disclosed to block Zn2+ intercalation pathways while allowing smooth H3O+ intercalation/diffusion through a Grotthuss proton conduction mechanism. Compared to α‐MoO3 with Zn2+‐intercalation mechanism, WP‐MoO3 delivers the substantially enhanced specific capacity (356.8 vs. 184.0 mA h g−1), rate capability (77.5% vs. 42.2% from 0.4 to 4.8 A g−1), and cycling stability (83% vs. 13% over 1000 cycles). This work demonstrates the possibility of modulating electrochemical intercalating ions by interlayer engineering, which indicates a promising direction to construct high‐rate and long‐life electrodes for aqueous batteries.
https://ift.tt/3jghQfA
