How Can Water's Chemical Structure Be Altered?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the ambiguity of altering water's chemical structure, with participants noting that the question lacks clarity and specificity. There is confusion about what is meant by "change chemically," leading to a lack of definitive answers. Some mention electromagnetic methods as a possible avenue, but this remains speculative and unverified. Overall, the conversation highlights the difficulty in addressing such a vague inquiry. The thread ultimately concludes that without clearer parameters, meaningful discussion is unlikely.
Partisan
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I googled this and surprisingly no one seems to have an answer.

What would have to be done to the water to make it change chemically?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nothing surprising here - question is so vague and ambiguous it has no answer. What do you mean by "change chemically"?

Please elaborate.
 
Borek said:
Nothing surprising here - question is so vague and ambiguous it has no answer. What do you mean by "change chemically"?

I have no idea that's the question asks. But I looked around some more and at unreliable places but some people said electromagnetic? Or something close to that.
 
Partisan said:
I have no idea that's the question asks.

So the whole thread is an idle speculation, and it won't get any better.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry Where Did the 400g in Enthalpy Change of Neutralization Come From?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Physical and Chemical Properties of Flagpoles
Replies
1
Views
2K
Biology Chemical compounds that I can visualise
Replies
2
Views
2K
Chemistry Understanding how to calculate pH of a buffer solution
Replies
2
Views
1K
Fossil Dating for the anthropology department
Replies
6
Views
4K
A Effects of magnetic fields on material (Magnetic resonance)
Replies
8
Views
2K
Badly worded question? (chemical vs physical changes)
Replies
10
Views
3K
Space Elevator Cable: Physical & Chemical Properties
Replies
5
Views
4K
Chemistry Determination of the molecular structure of two organic compounds
Replies
7
Views
2K
Chemistry Understanding chemical potential of gas in mixture versus pure gas, used in derivation of equilibrium constant
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top