How Are Covalent and Hydrogen Bonds Similar?
• Related Questions
Why do people say nuclear bombs are fake?Re. radioactive fallout: the strongest isotopes decay the fastest, giving the 710 rule- after seven times the amount of time has passed, the remaining radioactivity will be 1/10 as strong. So even after a large release of radioactive material such as a nuclear explosion or a reactor accident, the level of radioactivity will after weeks or months be too low to produce acute symptoms of radiation exposure.The problem after that is long-term chronic exposure. Two radioactive isotopes typically released from nuclear fission are Strontium-90 and Cesium-137. These have half-lives (how long it takes for half to decay away) of about 29-30 years. Because of the chemistry of strontium and cesium, any taken into the body will tend to remain there, and radioactive material taken into the body is far more harmful than material outside. If an area is contaminated with fallout, eating any plants or animals that grow there could lead to unhealthy levels of radioactive material within the body, potentially causing cancer, suppressed immune systems or birth defects. Unborn and young children are especially vulnerable, worsened by the fact that strontium and cesium become concentrated in milk.For example, the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima actually support much wildlife now that humans have been evacuated; but in both locations wild boars were found to have levels of cesium too high for them to be safe to eat.
------
What is the reason behind the statement 'Hydrogen burns with a pop sound and oxygen is a supporter of combustion, but water is used as an extinguisher'?Water will not explode, because it already has "burned".It is true that hydrogen is an explosive gas, and it also needs oxygen to burn. But the key point lies in this question: What is burning? The answer is that burning is the process of reacting with oxygen to produce energy.
The burning process in the case of oxygen and hydrogen is relatively simple. If you put together suitable volumes of hydrogen and oxygen and provide a spark to start the reaction, one oxygen atom will combine with two hydrogen atoms, and will release energy in the process. The energy gets released in the form of molecular kinetic energy, and since the motion is random, this is exactly what we call heat energy. The gases heat up, and as all expanding gases do, they expand. That fast expansion of hot gases is what we call "an explosion".What is the result of this burning/explosion?The answer is simple, if the proportions were right (one volume of oxygen for two volumes of hydrogen gas) all you get is water! Thus, water is _already burnt_. It is the "ashes" of hydrogen after it has burned.If you wish to burn it again, you have to separate oxygen and hydrogen. But, to do that, you need to supply as much energy as is released when the burning occurred. This is possible by electrolysis.
What is the reason behind the statement 'Hydrogen burns with a pop sound and oxygen is a supporter of combustion, but water is used as an extinguisher'?
------
Why should we pick a nucleus, only to have an odd number of protons or neutrons to do NMR?The MRI/NMR thing is a little quirk of the US naming system. They thought people would be too uncomfortable with the word 'nuclear'. Anyways, the only thing that's important for being able to measure NMR is that the nucleus has a spin. The number of protons/neutrons is not important, except for the general rule that an odd number of protons/neutrons tends to have a spin. You can click through here: NMR Periodic Table. Almost every nuclei has a spin and there are a lot of isotopes that have spin as well.
EDIT:nWell, I think figuring out why something has a spin is a lot more complicated than you realize. For instance in your example of hydrogen, no one has a good answer for WHY proton (1H) has a spin. (Proton Spin Mystery Gains a New Clue). This is actually a major area of research in particle/nuclear physics. How do we know if something has spin? And what is the value of that spin? It's obviously not as simple as saying a proton has a spin 1/2 so let's add up all the spins of proton to get our final spin. Because then you couldn't explain why 63Cu and 65Cu are both spin 1/2 or why 121Sb is spin 5/2 and 123Sb is spin 7/2. Here's a basic (but maybe not complete) explanation to your question: Nuclear Spin.
Why should we pick a nucleus, only to have an odd number of protons or neutrons to do NMR?Why should we pick a nucleus, only to have an odd number of protons or neutrons to do an MR?
------
Could we use a methane from Titan to fuel NASA's space shuttle by converting the shuttle from rocket fuel to methane?Well, no, the Shuttle fleet was retired in 2011 and all the orbiters are in museums.When the shuttle was flying, it would not have been terribly difficult to replace the main engines with models designed to burn methane, howeveru2026.Methane burning engines would have inherently lower specific impulse than the hydrogen burning SSMEsu2026One reason Space-X is using methane is that in a superchilled state, it takes a lot less space than the same energy stored using hydrogenu2014but you wouldnu2019t get that benefit without redesigning the entire shuttle external tank, both to be smaller and to support super chilling before launch.
The other reason Space-X is using methane is that itu2019s cheap and readily available on Earth today, so it wouldnu2019t make much sense to import it (at fabulous expense) from Titan. And no, the shuttle could not have gone to Titan to refuel. The shuttle had no fuel for the main engines aside from the External Tank. The shuttle was just that, a low orbit shuttle, it was fundamentally the wrong ship for deep space, in many many ways.A shuttle launch carried about 234,000 pounds of hydrogen to be burned with 1,404,500 pounds of oxygen. If you switched to methane, youu2019d still need (roughly) 1.
5 million pounds of oxygen, so whatu2019s the point. Also, because the goal of the shuttle is to move things into orbit, there is absolutely no advantage at all to having the methane up in spaceu2014where you canu2019t use it.Could we use a methane from Titan to fuel NASA's space shuttle by converting the shuttle from rocket fuel to methane?.
------
Why doesn't the single electron of hydrogen get sucked in to the nucleus?Tom McNamara got most of it. By virtue of the uncertainty principle, the single electron in the ground state of Hydrogen has a position probability distribution that defines the effective size of the Hydrogen atom. In fact the most likely point for the electron to be is at the center of the proton! However the proton is so small compared to the Bohr radius, the probability that any one measurement of the location of the electron shows it to be somewhere inside the proton is vanishingly small. I calculate that probability to be 6times 10^-15.
By the way, the electron in the ground state of hydrogen has zero orbital angular momentum, so appeals to an orbiting electron that cannot reach the proton are entirely incorrect. An electron in the ground state is not orbiting the proton in any sense of the word. The probability distribution is spherically symmetric, with a maximum at the center.
So if the electron and proton positions can overlap, however small that overlap might be, why dont they sometimes turn into a neutron? The answer is simply energy conservation. The mass of the Hydrogen atom is 1.00794u, whereas the mass of a neutron is 1.00866u. There is not enough energy in the Hydrogen atom system, counting the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, and the kinetic energy of the electron, to be able to come up with the mass of a neutron.
------
Should F1 scrap the emphasis on energy recovery systems and create a hydrogen combustion or hydrogen-gas hybrid engine formula?No I don't think they should, because I think F1 should stop dictating so much of what can be done. I think the regs should be based on telling the teams how much energy they are allowed to use at a given race, then they should use it as they see fit. I'd make the amount of energy be a percentage less than they used last year. Since they know how much petrol was used last year, we effectively know how many Joules of energy were used, and that should be how it's spec'd. What form those Joules come in, is up to you. If Audi wanted to really stretch their advanced diesel tech, they could start a race with x Joules of diesel. If Renault wanted to push their petrol/electric hybrid tech, they could start with x Joules of petrol x Joules of electricity (assuming they start with the batteries charged). If someone wanted to chase hydrogen tech, they could start with x Joules of hydrogen. F1 has lost a lot of its innovative edge. If the rules had been written as tightly as they are now in the past, the engine would never have moved to the back. Colin Chapman would never have been allowed to make the engine a fully stressed member of the chassis. He wouldn't have been allowed to introduce Ground Effect aerodynamics. I understand they need to stop the speeds in F1 getting out of hand, so control speeds by constantly revising down how many Joules of energy are allowed, then aside from that, let the teams have at it!
