3

as this question got bumped up recently, its title still bugs me.

(H₂O → HHO)

This doesn't actually mean anything its two different ways to write the same molecule. Should this be changed to something like

(2H₂O → 2H₂+O₂)

or

(H₂O → H+OH)

I ask this because this question has existed as such for a long time with no edit and I'm curious if I am completely off base with my frustration at seeing this? Part two, should all questions involving chemical equations require balanced equations that at least appear to be true reactions forming real compounds (unless they are challenging the relevant laws of chemistry)?

  • Feel free to edit the question and/or answers! This would be a perfectly valid thing to do. I've updated my answer to use "HHO" in quotes (as it is their marketing speak) and mention 2H₂O → 2H₂+O₂ (as I believe that's what one would end up with). I would suggest the title use "HHO" in inverted quotes, and then explain in the body of the question. – John Lyon May 7 '12 at 23:35
5

It's a perfectly natural reaction to have the dodgy science in the questions bother you. However, in this case, I think you should exorcise this by posting an answer that explains the flaw, rather than editing the question to be more accurate.

Wikipedia explains the usage

Brown's gas and HHO are fringe science synonyms for oxyhydrogen.

[...]

Oxyhydrogen is sometimes referred to as "Brown's Gas" after Yull Brown who claimed that it could be used as a fuel for the internal combustion engine, or "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist Ruggero Santilli.

So, it isn't a typo, but a genuine (fringe) term that people may use to search for answers.

Part two, should all questions involving chemical equations require balanced equations that at least appear to be true reactions forming real compounds

In answers, we should expect good-quality science. I don't know if balanced chemical equations deserve their own specific policy - they just aren't common enough - but it would certainly be a fair edit or comment if they were broken.

  • this is what I was looking for, there is a reason for listing it like that – Ryathal May 8 '12 at 12:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .