Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why does water consist of 2/3 hydrogen and 1/3 oxygen?

  1. Sep 12, 2007 #1

    I have an inquisition as I enter the realm of the elemental. Exactly why does water consist of 2/3 hydrogen and 1/3 oxygen? What is a simplistic philosophical reasoning for this? I have recognized that it has nothing to do with the corrolation of atomic weight, or so as it currently stands.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 12, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If it wasn't H2O, it would be a different molecule, and we wouldn't call it water.
  4. Sep 12, 2007 #3

    Oxygen atom has two vacancies in its outer electron shell. So, it is happy to make two covalent bonds. Hydrogen has one electron available for bonding. So, the structure H-O-H has exceptional stability, because all atoms maximize their bonding potential.

  5. Sep 13, 2007 #4
    Thank you Hurkyl for the very simplified philosophical reasoning and thank you meopemuk for the mesh of the elemental. Exactly what I was inquiring.

    Also, is there an inner electron shell?

    So atoms will maximize their bonding potential in a closed environment with a limited amount of atoms and for the most part in an encircling/ed or otherwise enclosing/ed atmosphere such as the planet Earth, thus making a closed system, hence thermodynamics?
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2007
  6. Sep 13, 2007 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here is some further reading that will help you in your learning:


  7. Sep 13, 2007 #6
    I am trying to make sense of the laws of thermodynamics and have been for some years now, since they currently hold no value to me. I am having one more go at this and then I will forget about the laws altogether if they continue to fail to truly meet eternal standards. I am yet to be directed toward a truly closed system, and am yet to be logically told why a broken glass is any more or less chaotic than an in tact one. The glass is the glass whether broken or not... where and why is chaos seen? Because of an expected uniformity derived of and toward the once in tact state that seems correct to the expecting observer? Just because a glass hold water for us to drink out of and in that state is thus correct... a broken one is chaotic? That to me is a Human flaw and not a universal construct nor a universal truth, but so be it. I drink out of the beautifully flowing river and all of its naturality. Where does your water come from, not what holds your water.

    Also, I know this is a bit off topic, and feel free to move this post if need be, but (from wikipedia) "Absolute zero describes a theoretical system that neither emits nor absorbs energy."

    That system would be the immeasurable system, or all limited systems combined. Why must it be consociated with a temperature? The "uni-verse" is a system of systems and contemperaneously those systems are immeasurable, and the grand system (the immeasurable presence) neither emits nor absorbs energy because there are no outside forces to and of an immeasurable presence.

    I am asking to be shown a truly closed system with no outside forces acting upon it. That is an utter contradiction. No outside forces would mean that it is immeasurable, ergo "nothing" outside of it, thus ever expansive. Where is a closed system that does not contradict its self? Where is a closed system that requires nothing but its self to commission besides that of the entirety of existence and energy its self, that which is eternal?
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2007
  8. Sep 13, 2007 #7
    By the way, the consummation of atoms is such a beautiful deal. Thank you Berkeman. I suppose the elemental world will eventually help me get to where and what I am trying to bring out.

    I believe absolute zero can be found in the concept of zero, a.k.a. the immeasurable, and thus we arrive at the eternity of the uni-verse once again... and we see that all is perfectly in synch and already at a state of equillibrium, and ironically, or really not so much, again it has nothing to do with temperature, yet its numerical conceptual value, that which is zero/undefined/immeasurable. Nothing will bring every-thing together; everything is already together because of nothing; and no-thing is already together because of everything. Does any one see it? It's in the words themselves, and perhaps I'm a mad man, but perhaps not.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2007
  9. Sep 13, 2007 #8
    if you don't mind my asking, why would the laws of thermodynamics hold no value to you? they have guided us to the right answers for quite some time. it almost sounds like they do not fit some supernatural requirement that you have imposed?

    i'm not exactly sure what you mean, but certaintly not everything is in equilibrium.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2007
  10. Sep 13, 2007 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    At some point, this thread is starting to wander into purely speculative, personal "beliefs" (just count how many times you have stated something that you "believe" in or stated something without justification or evidence). So before it goes too far and suffers the same fate as other speculative posts and threads, I strongly suggest you re-read the PF Guidelines that you have agreed to, especially on speculative, personal theories.

    While we welcome queries and questions about things you don't understand, we do not allow for the advertisement of personal "beliefs" that isn't part of standard physics, or without validation and support from published papers.

  11. Sep 13, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This makes no sense (nor do any of the following posts).

    If you wish to understand anything at all about elements and compounds, you need to either take a basic course in chemistry, or self study from a standard elementary text in the subject. Likewise with physics and thermodynamics.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2007
  12. Sep 13, 2007 #11
    I see. I have realized that I went off topic and admittedy so.

    Then I see by virtue of the analyzation and then senseless result acquired from reading my text that you have actually made sense of it and this is how you were able to realize that it made no sense to you and your foundation through axiom, whatever that is, and it is respected.

    Wikipedia: "In thermodynamics, a thermodynamic system, originally called a working substance, is defined as that part of the universe that is under consideration. A real or imaginary boundary separates the system from the rest of the universe, which is referred to as the environment or surroundings (sometimes called a reservoir). A useful classification of thermodynamic systems is based on the nature of the boundary and the quantities flowing through it, such as matter, energy, work, heat, and entropy. A system can be anything, for example a piston, a solution in a test tube, a living organism, or a planet, etc."


    Thank you all for your time. I'll be ever searching for that closed system since what I presented and what wikipedia gave as an example makes no sense to the esteemed homework helper, science advisor, retired staff member, and specialized PF contributor. My apologies. Maybe a slower read would grant you comprehension, but nonetheless, thank you for your time and your advice.

    My apologies for knowingly breaking the predetermined and set rules of this forum and physics, I understand and am aware that it does and will anger people, so be it, I will face a life time of such. Carry on, it's a beautiful day.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook