Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
...I make it 4.5166x10(47), but then again, I could be wrong 😉
42
Which ocean?
Ohh, get you Drac 8)
Drac - Moderator
Which ocean?
[img] 
[/img]
Well Captain is right but only the Pacific the Alantic has 49 I think.
there's a lung-full less since 2004, I remember drinking a bit of the med
The Mediterranean Ocean?
How did you work it out?
Find out how many litres of water to get the mass of water. If you don't have that then you'll want the average depth of the oceans x their area x density of 1 (and a bit if you are picky). Then divide by the weight of a mol to get the number of mols then x 6x10^23 aka Avagadro constant. Blam.
there's a lung-full less since 2004, I remember drinking a bit of the med
So where'd that water end up? 🙂
it's in a jar on my mantlepiece
Lots?
[i]there's a lung-full less since 2004, I remember drinking a bit of the med[/i]
It's okay I pissed a similar amount back in in 2006 😀
i've just run the tap in the kitchen for a bit, knowing full well it'll end up in the ocean and screw up your results 😈
(serious point here... seeing as water moves about the planet in various forms... wouldn't the volume of clouds at any given point, amount of freshwater etc etc etc all influence any results?)
Yes but not by much. There is a LOT of water in the sea.
molgrips - as you go deeper and the water is more compressed does that not mean there are more molecules per litre?
water is quite hard to compress
The pressure is higher, it hasn't compressed tho.
[i]there's a lung-full less since 2004, I remember drinking a bit of the med
It's okay I pissed a similar amount back in in 2006[/i]
I'm sure a few ice shelves have fallen into the south atlantic since then and added a few more cup fulls.
Kev
"The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×10(18) metric tons" ...from a famous online [i]possibly spurious (?)[/i] encyclopedia information source.
1.35x10(18)tonnes = 1.35x10(24)grams
1 mole of H2O = 18grams
1.35x10(24) / 18 = 750x10(22)moles of water
750x10(22) x Avagadro's constant = 4.5166x10(47)
...I think?
0 - Water is not a molecule.
[i]Water is not a molecule. [/i]
It was when I did my chemistry degree, what's changed since then?
If you're doing this as some kind of assignment you'll get marked down for using too many significant figures in your calculation. Or at least you should do.
too many significant figures
I know that STW people are important but...
0 - Water is not a molecule.
Chemistry FAIL
Surely, technically, he is correct: water is not a molecule, water is a collection of H20 molecules, plus all sorts of other impurities.
If you had one H20 molecule in the palm of your hand, could you realistically call it water?
If you had one H20 molecule in the palm of your hand, could you realistically call it water?
Yes.
A grain of sand is still sand. It's not cheese.
Anyway that has to be the most ridiculous attempt at pedantry I've seen!
Incorrect: One grain of sand is silica, sand is the collective term for the granular material it is a constituent of.
I'm not saying he is right in his pedantryness, I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't dismiss the comment out of hand.
Incorrect: One grain of sand is silica, sand is the collective term for the granular material it is a constituent of.
Not sure I agree there. Sand is scilica, a grain of sand is scilica. Sand is not a colletive noun.
Surely a grain of sand IS sand, but once it's smaller than a grain it ceases to become sand and then becomes whatever silica is referred to when it's smaller than a sand grain size?!!
(I'm learning new levels of pedantry at STW!)
Having said that, colloquial references to "water molecules" exist and are referred to on a regular basis. So on tha aspect I reckon you can describe an H2O molecule as water.
there is indeed a lot of water on our planet.
think of a really big number, and it's probably more than that.
97% of it is sal****er.
2% is ice.
1% is fresh water - that includes all the lakes, rivers, clouds, water in apples, people, bottles of beer, etc.
i has a 'national geographic' on my desk: 'water - our thirsty world'
it's ace.
it says that we've got 366 million million million million gallons, but doesn't say if that's uk or US gallons...
water is not a molecule
but a water molecule is...
If you had one H20 molecule in the palm of your hand
whaddya mean "if" ? Most of your whole frikken hand IS water!
Surely a grain of sand IS sand, but once it's smaller than a grain it ceases to become sand and then becomes whatever silica is referred to when it's smaller than a sand grain size?!!
Sand grains can be as small as you like.
Look - sand is a number of sand grains. One is a number. So one sand grain is still sand!
One grape is not a bunch of grapes, because in this case BUNCH is a collective noun, and you can't have a collective of more than one.
Likewise a crowd can't be one person because a crowd specifically means lots of people.
there is indeed a lot of water on our planet
I would expect there's very much more IN our planet.
all this talk of water and sand makes me want to go to the beach.
Kev
as in "Two's company, three's a crowd" ? Or is that still not enough ? Interesting that we have several imprecise numbers:
a couple, 2 or 3 and definitely not less, but probably not more
a few, at least 3 (?) but less than what, 10 ?
lots, at least 5 ?
Th properties of water are discerned by the interaction between the composite molecules of H20. One single molecule of H20 does not exhibit the same properties as water.
Sand grains can be as small as you like.
Really? I was under the impression that sand became progressively finer until it became silt, then eventually clay. Whereas the other end of the spectrum it becomes larger and turns into grit, then maybe gravel.
Any geologists on STW confirm this?
sand is a number of sand grains. One is a number. So one sand grain is still sand!
Sand is made up mostly of silica in the form of quartz with a general formula SiO2 as it forms in a tetrahedral arrangement whereby the oxygens are shared between 2 tetrahedra with a silicon atom in the middle. Therefore if you only have 1 silicon atom, and 2 oxygen atoms to make one SiO2 molecule you can't make quartz, and therefore you can't make sand.
would it be easier to swim if all water was carbonated?
Th properties of water are discerned by the interaction between the composite molecules of H20. One single molecule of H20 does not exhibit the same properties as water.
Err no, [i]some[/i] of the properties of water are defined by its interaction but not all of them are e.g. molecular weight, bond angles, that sort of thing.
Oh and of course water is a molecule.
Edit:
would it be easier to swim if all water was carbonated?
No, you'd be less bouyant and likely drown.
would it be easier to swim if all water was carbonated?
I think it would be harder as the water would be less dense and you'd be more likely to sink
Really? I was under the impression that sand became progressively finer until it became silt, then eventually clay. Whereas the other end of the spectrum it becomes larger and turns into grit, then maybe gravel.
You are correct.
[i]Th properties of water are discerned by the interaction between the composite molecules of H20. One single molecule of H20 does not exhibit the same properties as water. [/i]
That's not really an argument TBH - one molecule of water is still a water molecule and anyway, not ALL it's properties are defined by molecular interactions. After all ice/steam is still H2O but neither exhibits the same properties as liquid water so your original argument falls down slightly.
Th properties of water are discerned by the interaction between the composite molecules of H20. One single molecule of H20 does not exhibit the same properties as water.
Sure. Doesn't mean it's not still water though. Especially as only some of the properties of water are macroscopic.
I was under the impression that sand became progressively finer until it became silt, then eventually clay. Whereas the other end of the spectrum it becomes larger and turns into grit, then maybe gravel.
This is true, and if I'd been thinking a bit more carefully I'd have remembered.
Therefore if you only have 1 silicon atom, and 2 oxygen atoms to make one SiO2 molecule you can't make quartz, and therefore you can't make sand
Yes, one molecule of SiO2 is not sand as described above, but one molecule of water is still water. Sand is the name for a particular arrangement of SiO2 molecules.
would it be easier to swim if all water was carbonated?
There is a spring somewhere in South America or Indonesia which spews out carbonated water.
we have several imprecise numbers:
How many shoes do I have if I have a few pairs ?
Always confused me that one
Re water it is a lot anything else is just a guess- some of which arebetter guesses than others
would it be easier to swim if all water was carbonated?
Anyone tried putting a gold fish into carbonated water? I'm curious.
we have several imprecise numbers:
Agreed. Can we be a bit more pacific please?
Anyone tried putting a gold fish into carbonated water? I'm curious.
What about lemonade?
Ooo I've got to add to this
Water is the common name for the chemical with the composition H2O in the same way that methane is the common name for CH4 etc
The properties of 'water' are exactly those exhibited by the molecule H20 - by definition.
and it's not possible to give a definitive answer to "How many molecules of water are there in the Ocean" - It will be constantly changing to the point where it's not possible to answer. The best you can do is give a rough estimate and even that will be extremely difficult to validate.
This leads to the only possible answer being as Sawyer eloquently put :
Lots.
There is a spring somewhere in South America or Indonesia which spews out carbonated water.
Cool, a natural soda stream!
It was one of the theories as to why ships kept disappearing in the Bermuda Triangle too. Not sure if it was carbon dioxide, but it worked on the principle (or is -al?, always get those two mixed up) that gas bubbles lower the density of water and allow stuff to sink.
Not sure how it caused planes to dissappear either. Probably why I never found out if had any evidence to back it up.
[i]What about lemonade? [/i]
Boring. Putting just the right amount of gin in your goldfish bowl makes your fishes eyes bulge out and causes it to swim in an amusing manner.
It was one of the theories as to why ships kept disappearing in the Bermuda Triangle too. Not sure if it was carbon dioxide, but it worked on the principle (or is -al?, always get those two mixed up) that gas bubbles lower the density of water and allow stuff to sink.
That gas was methane released by melting methane hydrates, which is sort of a form of ice. That being said, there is no such thing as the bermuda triangle in that context as there are no more shipping accidents there than anywhere else in the world.
I need a pee reading this thread.
Putting just the right amount of gin in your goldfish bowl makes your fishes eyes bulge out...
Adding ice cubes to see how much cold the fish can cope with; leads to the saying - 'The ice cube that stopped the gold fish swimming'.
there is no such thing as the bermuda triangle in that context as there are no more shipping accidents there than anywhere else in the world.
Another of my childhood myths is destroyed, I spent hours poring over books/magazines/articles about stories of Kraken, aliens, firestorms, secret military experiments and the ilk swallowing liners and jumbojets.
Oh well. Everything goes the way of Santa in the end.
http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/methane_hydrates.html
http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/myths___facts.html
The best you can do is give a rough estimate
Oh, really?
Bermuda triangle = people trying to sell books, articles and crap documentaries desperately trying to prove that because a handful of incidents happend near to each other that means that it's aliens or some rubbish.
underwater gas pipelines have to be carefully covered and monitored as a leak can cause passing shipping to sink...
as a leak can cause passing shipping to sink...
[pedant] That should be '[i]could[/i] cause passing shipping to sink', shouldn't it sfb? I'm not sure that it has ever [u]actually[/u] happened? [/pedant] 😉
Interesting bit of info though
Then the ship might sink onto the pipeline, smashing it up and causing a huge gas leak which might have devastating effects on the climate, and that....
Peyote - Member"There is a spring somewhere in South America or Indonesia which spews out carbonated water"
Cool, a natural soda stream!
there's one of those near bubion in spain - i drank from it when i went riding with switchbacks.
it tastes beautiful.
other sierra nevada riding holiday companies are available...
water is not a molecule
He's right you know.
It's an element, like earth, air or fire.
underwater gas pipelines have to be carefully covered and monitored as a leak can cause passing shipping to sink...
No they don't. Well they are generally buried but not for that reason. Besides they are normally only buried a few hundred millimetres which wouldn't be enough to impede the escaping gas were the pipeline to suffer a catastrophic failure.
it's not to impede the gas but to cushion from impacts by trawlers and anything else that might otherwise damage the pipe!
Incorrect: One grain of sand is silica, sand is the collective term for the granular material it is a constituent of.
Sand is a measure of texture - it doesn't have to be silica. Most of it is silica, as that is a common, hard wearing mineral.
Water molecules?? Life's too short.......
it's not to impede the gas but to cushion from impacts by trawlers and anything else that might otherwise damage the pipe!
Well yes but that's totally different to
...a leak can cause passing shipping to sink...
isn't it.
He's right you know.
It's an element, like earth, air or fire.
STW in the 1700s
I remember learning form one of Jim Al-Khalili's telly programmes that:
"There are more molecules of water in a single glass of water than there are glasses of water in all the oceans of the world."
Completely irrelephant to this thread, but that dude's such a great presenter of some fine BBC programming that I had to mention it.
As you were.
Sand is a measure of texture - it doesn't have to be silica. Most of it is silica, as that is a common, hard wearing mineral.
I think I did say as much in a following post.
That's not really an argument TBH - one molecule of water is still a water molecule and anyway, not ALL it's properties are defined by molecular interactions. After all ice/steam is still H2O but neither exhibits the same properties as liquid water so your original argument falls down slightly.
But ice and steam only have the properties they have because of the bonds between the molecules, which are relatively weak. In fact the reason why water can be so easily transformed into it's different states is because of the weak bonds between the molecules.
In fact the reason why water can be so easily transformed into it's different states is because of the weak bonds between the molecules.
Actually it's quite difficult for water to transform between the liquid and gas phases and takes a huge amount of energy to boil (2500 kJ/kg at 0C and 2257kJ/kg at 100C). In fact were it not for the hydrogen bond (I'm guessing that that's what you you are refereing to) then the boiling point of water would be much lower than it is.
Mm yes and liquid water has an extremly high heat capacity compared to most other things which is why it makes such an excellent coolant.
We take it for granted but it's actually a very strange substance, water.
Another factoid - there are more water molecules in a glass of water than there are stars in the universe.