It's a question on the exam? Well I guess you got it wrong. How can you remember something from 27 years ago anyway?
I believe you are wrong because of your concept of ash. I'm fairly confident other chemists would consider water from hydrogen and oxygen a product, not an ash. And yes, I have a bachelors degree in chemistry.
If you want to have your own opinion of what an ash is, then sure, call water whatever you like. I think you argument is trying to get others to believe that water is ash though. It still isn't.
I know what STP is. It's a set of conditions used to standardise tests and measurements. Are you telling me you can conduct a test at STP conditions burning hydrogen and oxygen producing ice, not water vapor and not water? What kind of dynamic volume chamber is this?
The product of combustion of Hydrogen in oxygen is water + heat + light. Water is only a protion of the total output.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/residueMain Entry: res·i·due
Pronunciation: \ˈre-zə-ˌdü, -ˌdyü\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin residuum, from neuter of residuus left over, from residēre to remain
Date: 14th century
: something that remains after a part is taken, separated, or designated or after the completion of a process : remnant, remainder: as a: the part of a testator's estate remaining after the satisfaction of all debts, charges, allowances, and previous devises and bequests b: the remainder after subtracting a multiple of a modulus from an integer or a power of the integer that can appear as the second of the two terms in an appropriate congruence <2 and 7 are residues of 12 modulo 5> c: a constituent structural unit (as a group or monomer) of a usually complex molecule <amino acid residues from hydrolysis of protein>
Reference ": something that remains after a part is taken, seperated or designated or after the completion of a process"
Water is only one part the total result of the combustion of hydrogen, take away the heat produced and take away the light produced and water is the part that is produced that remains. By defination, "water" is a residue of the combustion is hydrogen with oxygen.
You can devise an apparatus that will maintain STP, you make it to extract or add heat as needed and to add or extract pressure as needed so that conditions are maintained in the apparatus. That is called maintaining constant conditions. So yes when constant conditions are maintained at STP, the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen will form ice. LOL and you say you have a bachelors? It ain't (or would you prefer the phrase "is not under any set of circummstances") worth the paper its written on!
Who's got a doctorial in chemistry in here, anyone? That might be the one that would have a chance to successfully challenge what I say and I repeat MIGHT BE THE ONE.
dyno, you should know the guy is a lunatic, don't worry too much about it.
LOL branding someone a lunitic to try and hide your lack of knowledge and understanding does not take away from my knowledge and understanding, it only shows your lack of that.
The definition states residue after combustion or oxidation. Water is the residue of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen same as carbon dioxide is the residue of carbon combustion in oxygen the difference is that water is an ash and carbon dioxide is not.
How does this statement have any logic. If you redefine residue to mean product, and redefine solid to mean could be solid after I freeze it, then you could say water is ash, but then carbon dioxide would be too.
Massive logic failure!
I have no idea what even the point of this stupid argument is, how did you end up arguing such a stupid position?
I did not redefine residue. I properly applied its definition. I did not redefine solid or the point at which chemistry makes that determination, I properly applied the definition and properly applied the Standard for determining the state of matter (solid or liquid or gas). Carbon dioxide is not an ash, though it is a residue of carbon combustion with oxygen, it is not a solid at STP it is a gas and thus not an ash by definition. Water on the other hand is a solid at STP and is a residue of hydrogen combustion with oxygen. The failure of logic is not in what I said but in your understanding and that you would make an attempt, with a lack of understanding and incomplete knowledge, to refute what I said. You do not even supply supporting evidence to your claim. I on the other hand have a good understanding and a sound base of knowledge and I supplied supporting evidence to my statement and in that I have a massive failure of logic? The opposite is shown to be true it woulod be you, not I, that has the failure.
To all of you that wish to make attempt to refute my statement of fact that water is an ash, its funny I make statements that have supporting evidence, and the statements are rejected and called illogical by abortrary statments of certain individuals? Where is your supporting evidence? Where is the support for the claim that water is not an ash? I have provided the definition of ash, oxidation and residue as supporting evidence because it is clear every one of you that wishes to contest my statement knows little of these things. The claim water is not a residue is clearly wrong, the claim that water's covalent bonds means it is not the oxidation state of hydrogen is clearly wrong, the claim that water is not an ash is clearly wrong.
And yes, some of the questions on that test still stand out in my mind because they were uncommon questions that required you to have a full understanding of chemistry thus they tested you knowledge in areas not commonly tested to rank your knowledge among the best of the best. But I'm a lunitic because I know more than you do, LOL!
Old saying, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and confirm that you are a fool." My statement is backed up by facts that are easiely verified. your statements are not supported by fact, no evidence given, yet you make an attempt to refute a statement of mine that is supported by evidence, and say that I have a failure of logic or brand me a lunitic. Who is the fool? You or I? The evidence would point to the simple conslusion that I am not the one acting foolishly or making foolish statements that are unsupported. The evidence points to you as being the foolish ones by making statemets that are not supported by evidence of fact and are contradictory to fact.
Any more takers for the open mouth insert foot hall of shame?