Is Hydrogen Burning in Stars Capable of Breaking Bonds in Hydrocarbons?

AI Thread Summary
Hydrogen burning in stars involves nuclear fusion, which differs significantly from the combustion of hydrocarbons in air. While hydrogen fusion generates energy and produces helium, it does not directly break chemical bonds in hydrocarbons. The process of burning hydrocarbons involves chemical reactions that release energy by breaking and rearranging bonds in the hydrocarbons themselves. Therefore, the statement that hydrogen burning in stars breaks chemical bonds in hydrocarbons is false. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for grasping the nature of stellar processes versus chemical reactions on Earth.
naders2
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hydrogen burning in a star breaks chemical bonds and rearranges atoms in all hydrocarbon fuels.True or false?

Thanks! =)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What kind of hydrogen 'burning' do you think is going on in a star? Is it the same as burning a hydrocarbon in air?
 
I have no idea. That was just a true/false question on our homework assignment, yet I don't even fully understand what it implies.
 
Read http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/EarthScience/Geology/OilandGas/FormationHydrocarbon/HowOilandGas/HowOilandGas.htm" and tell me if you think the atoms of hydrocarbons are broken and rearranged by the action of a star burning hydrogen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 Finding the molecular formula of an unknown hydrocarbon
Replies
4
Views
3K
What Is the Maximum Wavelength to Break the Weakest Bond in AsClF42-?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Methyl 2 hydroxybenzoate hydrogen bonding
Replies
2
Views
2K
Hydrogen bonding in Cytosine and Guanine
Replies
1
Views
3K
Chemistry Valence Bond Theory: Energy of a system with H and Cl atoms
Replies
6
Views
3K
Determining an unknown Hydrocarbon X
Replies
7
Views
3K
Why do Oxygenated fuels contain less energy than hydrocarbons?
Replies
1
Views
4K
Solubility depends on polarity or on the number of hydrogen bonds?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Why Can't Acyl Chloride Form Hydrogen Bonds?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chemistry Why does Hexane have higher intermolecular force than Propylamine?
Replies
5
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top