Form Water: Manmade Process & Conditions Needed

  • Thread starter Paula
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Formation
In summary, water is created through a variety of chemical reactions and is not difficult to produce.
  • #1
Paula
36
0
Has anyone ever formed water by manmade process? How is water formed and what conditions need to be met?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hydrogen & Oxygen and not much of an excuse to go Bang :P

There are many condensation reactions that produce water, esterfication and so on.

H3C-COO- Na+ + HO-CH2-CH3 + H+ → H3C-COO-CH2-CH3 + H2O
 
  • #3
Manmade water is not very difficult to produce (I guess it would depend on your definition of manmade, it isn't really man making it, the chemicals arrange themselves into water).

Burning Hydrogen gas with Oxygen gas will make pure water,
2H2 (g) = O2 (g) --> 2H2O (g)
This reaction is quite spontaneous (and explosive) one it has been ignited.
This is the reverse process of splitting water apart [through elelctrolysis] into H2 and O2.

Many other chemical reactions produce water as a product.
Similar to burning Hydrogen gas, burning Hydrocarons (example, Methane or Octane) also produced water [amongst other things].

Another exakmple would be a reaction between baking soda and vinegar. The reaction produces Carbonic acid (H2CO3) which quickly decomposes into Carbon Dioxide (bubbles) and water.

Acid-Base neutralizations produce water too.
The net ionic equation for the neutralization of a stron acid and a strong base is,
H+ (aq) + OH- (aq) --> H2O (l)
 
  • #4
This can be the basis for a rather fun experiment. Take an ordinary party balloon and fill it two thirds full of hydrogen and and third full of oxygen. Then get a long stick with a lighted spill on the end and use it to pop the balloon, producing water.

DISCLAIMER: I do not suggest that you actually carry out this experiement and I do not accept any responsibility for any damages / losses incurred as a result of carrying out this or any other experimentation. :tounge2: , just in case you blow yourself up. But seriously, don't try this at home.

~H
 
  • #5
Hootenanny said:
Take an ordinary party balloon and fill it two thirds full of hydrogen and and third full of oxygen. Then get a long stick with a lighted spill on the end and use it to pop the balloon, producing water.
You wouldn't need to put any Oxygen at all in the balloon (making the whole "experiment safer"), as when the hot flame melts the rubber balloon, the Hydrogen will immediately mix with Oxygen from the air and combust. Placing the Oxygen inside the balloon will only cause the reaction to proceed much more quickly and explosively. Instead, leaving the Oxygen source as the outside air (although still explosive) slows it down enough for you to actually see the fire ball.

I have quite a few pictures and videos of myself doing this type of thing.
 
  • #6
mrjeffy321, thanks for the reply. When you say "burn," do you mean there must be an open flame, or an electric spark, or do you mean that water will be formed from hydrogen & oxygen gases if it hits the right temp, say in a chamber?

I am looking for the most likely candidate for continued water formation on the earth. Really, in the earth.
 
  • #7
In order for Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas to react to form water, a certain amount of energy must be added to the system to start the reaction, this energy is called the "activation energy".

Just mixing the two gasses is not enough to start the reaction, something needs to ignite it. An open flame would do it, a spark could do it, some type of heating element would also work.
Once the reaction begins, the energy given off during the exothermic reaction is more than enough to keep it going.


You usually don't find Hydrogen gas floating around free in the atmosphere or burried underneth the Earth, it is just such a light and reactive gas, this is not too likely.
 
  • #8
Is there and exhaustive list of reactions which you could recommend?

They need to be earthly possibilities, not something theoretical. Repeatable science only.

And do not try putting on your cosmological hard hats, or your geological sombreros. Although you look very cute in them.
 
  • #9
mrjeffy321 said:
You wouldn't need to put any Oxygen at all in the balloon (making the whole "experiment safer"), as when the hot flame melts the rubber balloon, the Hydrogen will immediately mix with Oxygen from the air and combust. Placing the Oxygen inside the balloon will only cause the reaction to proceed much more quickly and explosively. Instead, leaving the Oxygen source as the outside air (although still explosive) slows it down enough for you to actually see the fire ball.

I have quite a few pictures and videos of myself doing this type of thing.
Who wants to see a fireball when you can feel a shockwave? :tongue2:
 
  • #10
Paula said:
I am looking for the most likely candidate for continued water formation on the earth. Really, in the earth.
What exactly are you looking for, again ?

There's plenty of water on earth. Why do you want to make more ? Or do you think that would be easier than transporting it from one place to another ?

In fact, even if and when hydrogen gets used as a fuel (sometime in the future), the combustion product is water, and that water is just going to be let out into the atmosphere. In other words, even when scientists/engineers build engines that make water as a by-product, they plan to essentially let the water go.
 
  • #11
Hydrogen dissolved in the core plus oxides in the mantle yields water plus reduced iron, continuing the core differentiation from mantle rock; water moves up and iron "falls."
 
  • #12
Gokul--

Well, actually, if I really wanted to get a lot of fresh water somewhere, say to the Sahara, I would tow a nice big glacier from Antarctica.
I am looking for help with how there came to be so much water in the earth. But I don't want to get kicked out of Chemistry over there to Cosmology, okay? Water is venting up from the mid-ocean ridges, and I believe personally that Antarctica's ice is flowing out from the center of the continent, and being replaced from some source. I am unsatisfied by the explanation that water came in on meteors. I want to know some likely candidates for water formation.
 
  • #13
mrjeffy, Suppose you did take H and O, and combine them in a chamber, with no air. Would the water produced be heavier than the weight of the two gases previous to the reaction? Can you get all the hydrogen to combine with all the oxygen? I can send you some more balloons. :)
 
  • #14
Wouldn't be heavier, but thanks to its propensity for forming hydrogen bonds, it would be denser.
As to the "all the H with all the O" - depends on the proportions you have, obviously. And you would have to heat them somehow. I suggest irradiaiton.
As the the "why is there so much water" query, let's look at it from an evolutionary perspective. The two compunds that make good solvents in which complex organic life could arise are water and ammonia, pretty much. We arose on a water planet, hence we are here to ask. On a planet covered in, say, liquid methane, we wouldn't be around to ask. That is why the planet we live on is not covered in liquid methane. It's not very satisfactory, I know, but it does make sense.
(edited for spelling purposes)
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Bystander,
Is there a source you can let me look at for this model? Iron going down and water going up, that is good! Esp. with the Earth spinning, you know how strong water pushes out when it is spun in a bowl, ahah. And then, you need the iron for the Earth's dynamo, right? It fits pretty well, except, mrjeffy said you just don't find that much hydrogen going around looking for something to do.
 
  • #16
In normal chemical reactions (as opposed to nulcear reactions), the law of conservation of mass applies...the mass of the products equals the mass of the reactants.

If you take Hydrogen gas (H2) and react it with Oxygen gas (O2) to form water, then chemical reaction is as follows,
2H2 (g) + O2 (g) --> 2H2O (g)
If you calculate out the masses for the reactants and products for this reaction, they will be equal. 3 moles of gass (2 moles H2 + 1 mole O2) reacts to form 2 moles of gas (2 moles of H2O). The mass is the same on both sides, but the volume is decreased (especially after the water condenses into a liquid).
In this reaction [just about] all the Hydrogen and Oxygen gas react very quickly and completely to form water vapor.
 
  • #17
Bystander said:
Hydrogen dissolved in the core plus oxides in the mantle yields water plus reduced iron, continuing the core differentiation from mantle rock; water moves up and iron "falls."
When very hot Iron (as one would find in the core) comes into contact with water...the extreme heat helps split the water up and releases Hydrogen gas and the Iron is oxidized.
Why would Hydrogen "want" to be dissolved in hot, dense, Iron?
 
  • #18
"Wouldn't be heavier, but thanks to its propensity for forming hydrogen bonds, it would be denser."

Thankyou, Tyris, I know it was a simple thing to say, and ask about. However, if all the water on Earth were split apart, you are talking about an astronomical volume of gas, aren't you?
Okay, so it would not be heavier, but it would behave a heck of a lot differently on a rotating planet.
 
  • #19
mrjeffy,
I had a feeling that was a silly question, but I needed to make sure as it has been more than 7 years since chem101 for me. I saw those (g)s in your first post equation, and was not totally sure it was grams. Sorry. It is just I could not imagine there ever having been that much O and H gas anywhere, to get all the oceans and aquifers. And the thing is, I was thinking about how that would affect the gravity force on earth. Now I am really going to get thrown out.
 
  • #20
mrjeffy321 said:
When very hot Iron (as one would find in the core) comes into contact with water...the extreme heat helps split the water up and releases Hydrogen gas and the Iron is oxidized.

Write the equilibrium expression for the iron-oxygen-hydrogen system. For extra credit, draw phase diagrams at several temperatures and pressures.

Why would Hydrogen "want" to be dissolved in hot, dense, Iron?

Same thing that happens in any physical-chemical process, minimization of free energy.

Paula said:
Bystander,
Is there a source you can let me look at for this model?

What you are examining is the "juvenile water" problem/question. As of 30 years ago, no analyses of volcanic gases had yielded conclusive data to confirm or refute release of hydrogen or hydrogen compounds derived from mantle or core material. Detection limits are high for isotope distributions, and the effect on isotope distribution is going to be small.

Iron going down and water going up, that is good! Esp. with the Earth spinning, you know how strong water pushes out when it is spun in a bowl, ahah.

Don't be running so far with the idea; density of water is what? Compared to density of iron? And, vapor pressure (activity, mobility) of water is what at mantle and core temperatures? Compared to same for iron?

And then, you need the iron for the Earth's dynamo, right? It fits pretty well, except, mrjeffy said you just don't find that much hydrogen going around looking for something to do.

Do the math. What fraction of the Earth's mass is the ocean? What fraction of the ocean's mass is hydrogen? What fraction of the Earth's mass is the hydrogen in the ocean?

You can also look at the solar wind; again, do the math.
 
  • #21
Density of water is 1. And maybe it is possible that there is some kind of event horizon for water on earth. Maybe it pushes out at a certain point in the lithosphere or mantle somewhere. But it certainly pushes down at the bottom of the ocean.

Now you are asking questions. The Earth's mass--there could be a lot more water than you think. Seismological measurements could be more complete. And besides the waves only show an average density.

Or do they. You tell me. We have never dug into the mantle of the earth.

As for solar winds, we are mostly protected from those by Earth's magnetic field, in my opinion. And how does that fit into a chemical equation? That seems like kind of a red herring.

"Juvenille water." Fossil water. Any way you look at it, it would be nice to know.
 
  • #22
As far as these temperatures of the core and mantle, perhaps you could provide that info. I just do not have it. Wouldn't the solid center of the Earth be cooler (if it really is iron and nickel) and the molten core around that be hotter (to provide a current) and the mantle of the Earth be cooler again?
Don't look at me, you brought it up!
 
  • #23
Paula said:
Density of water is 1. And maybe it is possible that there is some kind of event horizon for water on earth. Maybe it pushes out at a certain point in the lithosphere or mantle somewhere. But it certainly pushes down at the bottom of the ocean.

Think. What's the density of the atmosphere? What's the density of water? What's the density of the seafloor/bed rock/sediment? Is there any obvious relationship between density and stratification?
Now you are asking questions. The Earth's mass--there could be a lot more water than you think. Seismological measurements could be more complete. And besides the waves only show an average density.

Questions? This has a "homework" look to it; the questions are to get you thinking about things. You have no idea how much hydrogen, or water, I think there is in/on the planet; compare the mass of the oceans to that of the Earth rather than intuiting that there had to be "lots of hydrogen" to form the oceans --- 16 ppm does the job quite nicely.
Or do they. You tell me. We have never dug into the mantle of the earth.
Nope.
As for solar winds, we are mostly protected from those by Earth's magnetic field, in my opinion. And how does that fit into a chemical equation? That seems like kind of a red herring.

"Opinions" have nothing to do with physical fact. Hydrogen in the solar wind is unaffected by the Earth's magnetic field, and on striking the atmosphere reacts with atmospheric gases; hydrogen ions in the solar wind can be captured by the field, spiral along field lines to the poles, and again react with atmospheric gases.
"Juvenille water." Fossil water. Any way you look at it, it would be nice to know.

Juvenile water (one "l") is a certainty; there is no question that hydrogen and hydrogen compounds exist in the deeper levels of the earth; the existence is a consequence of the composition of the "dust cloud," or planetary nebula from which the Earth condensed. Detection of juvenile water is yet to be achieved.

Paula said:
As far as these temperatures of the core and mantle, perhaps you could provide that info. I just do not have it. Wouldn't the solid center of the Earth be cooler (if it really is iron and nickel) and the molten core around that be hotter (to provide a current) and the mantle of the Earth be cooler again? Don't look at me, you brought it up!

What mechanism do you propose for cooling the core? The solid state is a function of pressure as well as temperature; delta V for the solid-liquid phase transition in iron, and most iron alloys, is such that at constant temperature a sufficient increase in pressure will result in formation of a solid phase.
 
  • #24
Paula said:
Water is venting up from the mid-ocean ridges
Yep, but it also flows into cracks in the ridges from the ocean.
Basically, this is simple convection. No water is being made here.

Paula said:
and I believe personally that Antarctica's ice is flowing out from the center of the continent, and being replaced from some source.
If you mean it's bubbling out of the ground, then absolutely not.
The ice does flow, but it gets replaced by rain/snow.

Paula said:
I am unsatisfied by the explanation that water came in on meteors.
AFAIK this is actually an open question. I think the two major contenders are meteors and simple separation (the stuff the Earth got made out of had water in the mix). Likely some of both.

Don't know about the core, but the mantel has quite a bit of water in it, that does separate out in volcanos. It also gets pushed back into the mantle from crust subduction. Currently these seem to be more or less in equilibrium. The separation stuff says that at one time volcanos pumped out more water from the mantle than got pushed back in.
 
  • #25
'compare the mass of the oceans to that of the Earth rather than intuiting that there had to be "lots of hydrogen" to form the oceans --- 16 ppm does the job quite nicely.'
Thankyou for your help, Bystander. I really really am trying to find out where water came from.

Okay, 16 ppm for H, and then I guess 8ppm for O. Then you need a lot more for the atmosphere. Still, that is a lot, considering there is not much water anywhere else. And the O & H have to be in the right state so they can get to each other, right?

You say it wasn't confirmed or denied that H was coming from volcanoes, but "hydrogen and hydrogen compounds exist in the deeper levels of the earth." So, which hydrogen compounds are most common in the mantle? I will Google that as soon as I can.

Then apparently you have a source of H from solar wind. Now we need some Oxygen.

Then you put it together:
1.) as O & H gas, but that is highly explosive.
2.) burn hydrocarbons
3.) add vinegar to baking soda
4.) get an acid and base reaction, H+ and OH-
5.) or get a condensation reaction (list from 2nd post, mrjeffy.)

Now, if the center of the Earth is a solid core because of immense pressure, I did not know that. That much pressure melts everything else. I appreciate the insight.
 
  • #26
NoTime said:
If you mean it's bubbling out of the ground, then absolutely not.
The ice does flow, but it gets replaced by rain/snow.


QUOTE]

Well, Antarctica is a desert. It just does not have enough precipitation to account for all of that ice and those massive flows. That is why I suspect some other source. Don't know, just working on it.
 
  • #27
Paula said:
Well, Antarctica is a desert. It just does not have enough precipitation to account for all of that ice and those massive flows. That is why I suspect some other source. Don't know, just working on it.
Actually, it does - glaciers don't flow very quickly, so it doesn't take much now to make it flow.

And right now, that delicate equilibrium has been upset and they are melting faster than they are beng replenished, so they are shrinking.
 
  • #28
I just don't know. With temperatures from the center of the continent going down to neg100 degrees, I kind of ruled out melting--to myself, anyway.

Also those icefields that form for hundreds of miles around the coast of Antarctica during winter, and then recede during the summer, seem like it could make it hard to make a definitive case for melting, at least I was thinking it would be hard to measure for certain.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Is this site funded by the National Science Foundation?
 
  • #30
Oh hey, No Time--

You mentioned that water is subducted into the subductions troughs. If it did, then you and mrjeffy321 have a disagreement. It seems that water would be split at that temp, and then the iron would be oxidized. As it is, conventional science tells us that ocean floor gets pushed down at an incredible 45 degree angle, and quickly becomes magma in subduction zones--without pushing up the plate it goes under. Wow. You still would see "juvenille water" (oops, one 'l' will do quite nicely) reforming in that situation.
 
  • #31
"Earth’s glacial record
Many people are aware that the Earth was repeatedly affected by ice ages over the last two million years, when ice sheets extended from the polar regions to cover ground now occupied by such major cities as Chicago, New York, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Berlin, Oslo, Stockholm and Moscow."

If this is so, why is so much of science dedicated to "climate change"? Why would so many scientists dedicate their studies to an event that we have been told happened "repeatedly" before: in other words,

Are we to worry that the climate will warm up a little too much before we glaciate again?

The most recent ice age was 10,000 years ago. The subject of this thread is H20 formation. We have a lot of water that receded and must have gone somewhere. At least, that should show a rise in sealevels at that time.
 
  • #32
Another place that is a desert w/huge freshwater iceflows into the sea--Greenland.
 
  • #33
Okay, so for the ORIGINAL water, burning hydrocarbons is not an option, since hydrocarbons are a biochemical and building block of life. Life cannot exist w/out water, and this kind of water could not exist w/o life.

Maybe there could be a continued formation of H2O through this process, since there are lots of deposites of fossil fuel in the Earth's crust. There is plenty of heat. Okay.
 
  • #34
Next, H2 and O are very explosive, we have established. Oh that'd be a big bang, ahah. However, as plentiful as we are told Hydrogen is in the universe (a whopping 95% or so), it makes up only a tiny 3% of the Earth's crust. Serious drop in consistency of the universe, oh well, no big.

Another problem. The Earth's gravity is not strong enough to hold Hydrogen down. It would have been lost right away into space: So, does that logically mean it had to be in a compond form?


I am open for correction at all times because I have no clue how water could have come to be in such abundance on earth.
 
  • #35
Paula said:
Next, H2 and O are very explosive, we have established. Oh that'd be a big bang, ahah. However, as plentiful as we are told Hydrogen is in the universe (a whopping 95% or so), it makes up only a tiny 3% of the Earth's crust. Serious drop in consistency of the universe, oh well, no big.

Another problem. The Earth's gravity is not strong enough to hold Hydrogen down. It would have been lost right away into space: So, does that logically mean it had to be in a compond form?


I am open for correction at all times because I have no clue how water could have come to be in such abundance on earth.

the instant H2 is formed it is so light it goes straight to the ionosphere

the H2 and O2 rxn is very explosive, i.e. NASA rockets :rolleyes:

H2 gas is easily formed by a reaction with HCl, but good luck making large quantities fast

and the burning of hydrocarbons works just fine except the H2O comes off as steam so you would have to trap it which also traps the CO2 formed. in this closed system it is an equlibrium rxn which would only result in the formation of H2CO3 again and go in a large circle
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Chemistry
Replies
4
Views
887
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
589
  • Chemistry
Replies
3
Views
823
  • Chemistry
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
869
Back
Top