There are a number of problems with the post two posts above this one. For one, calling people lazy when they use "H
+" is unfair - this was the convention for many years and is still widely practiced. Although H
3O
+ is more accurate, in that it incorporates the idea of proton solvation, (as noted above by Borek) the hydronium complex actually extends beyond a single water molecule. In fact, the solvation of protons in water is still an area of active research. So for my part, H
+ is perfectly acceptable shorthand and does not indicate laziness.
(I might cheekily point to the irony of calling organic chemists lazy, when at the same the poster doesn't take the time to apply subscripts and superscripts to chemical formulae
).
Also note that weak or strong acid has little to do with anything here. Both of them generate hydronium ions in aqueous solvents.
Others have already pointed out that H+ doesn't exist by itself because it always forms a covalent bond to something
This also isn't completely true. The high charge density of H
+ means that it readily combines with other atoms in condensed phases, but it has been observed in free ionic state under high vacuum conditions, see e.g.
here. Free protons can also be deliberately produced,
albeit only for short times. Free protons have a number of applications, including
cancer therapy.