Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #544607 > unrolled thread

Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 16:03 -0800
    Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 21:09 -0600
    Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 10:14 -0800
      Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 21:16 -0600
        Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:06 -0800
          Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 13:57 -0800
            Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-15 18:01 -0600
              Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 16:05 -0800
                Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 20:14 -0600
                  Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 21:27 -0800
                    Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 10:04 -0800
                      Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 12:57 -0600
                        Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 16:35 -0800
                          Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 19:19 -0600
    Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:17 -0800
    Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:16 -0800
      Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:30 -0800
    Re: Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:28 -0800

#544607 — Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

From Alan Soper; December 26

Dear Mr McGinn,

I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual mistakes and misunderstandings . . . 

Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged "acceptor" oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it's polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized."

This view is incorrect. The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force. If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule. You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken. The first bond does not "neutralise" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.

Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.

Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."

Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, but do not readily leave the liquid. You have to distinguish between the case of a bond being broken and being almost immediately replaced by another bond forming with another molecule, which is the situation in the liquid, and the case of a molecule leaving the liquid completely, when it has to break free of its bonds and not form them again. The latter requires a lot of energy, while the former does not, due to the proximity of neighbouring molecules in the liquid.

Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces. Note that surface tension tends to DECREASE the surface area, not increase it, which is why liquid droplets are spherical in shape.

A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work. It is my current belief however that many-body forces also play a crucial role in determining water's properties, but these are routinely left out of computer simulation models of water.

Your Sincerely,

Alan K Soper

*********************************************
From James McGinn; December 28

Dear Alan,
I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that . . . 


Dear Alan,

I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that.  I had sent a similar request to Anders Nilsson and got no response at all.  I am also in a conversation with Marcia Barbosa, but she doesn't reveal much about her own thinking.  So it is especially enlightening to gain some insight from one of the recognized experts in the field.

2) Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms . . . 

Alan (12/26):
This view is incorrect The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralized by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, . . .

James:
Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it? 

Moreover, if you are going to claim a constant distance of 1.8 Angstroms then the onus is on you to explain the force that maintains that distance. Some time ago, I looked in the literature and could find no rational explanation of any such distance/force, so I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that this is a phantom distance/force that was just assumed because otherwise the standard model fails to explain the low viscosity of water.  In other words, this seems like a "skyhook" assumption to me. But I'm open to any empirical evidence that demonstrates otherwise.

In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained.  It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths".  In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible.

In my model the molecules are constantly bumping up against each other. Kinetic energy is the only thing maintaining a distance. By the way, water can actually be used as a hydraulic fluid.  (It isn't, because it is so corrosive.) This fact indicates to me that there is not much distance between the molecules.

Alan (12/26):
. . . which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force.

James:
How so? Your model already has a problem in that it fails to explain the low viscosity of water without a phantom distance/force.  Assuming a strong Coulomb attractive force just makes that problem worse.  

Alan (12/26):
If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.

James:
I see it differently. The electron cloud doesn't get stretched. It isn't passive. It is the active element in the scenario.  When it is unrestrained by positive forces it expands.  It becomes more dominant, unruly, like crazed soccer fans. When positive charges (hydrogen atoms) are introduced it is like introducing cops into the soccer crowd, it collapses and becomes more orderly.  It is restrained.

Hydrogen bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the water molecule exactly the same way that covalent bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the carbon atom of the methane molecule. From the electron's perspective there is no difference (assuming the hydrogen "bond" [which, ironically, has zero force holding it] stays put. [in that sense it really isn't a bond {see Comment below}]) between a "hydrogen" bond and a covalent bond.  The electrons don't know or care whether a bond is covalent or "hydrogen".  They act the same regardless.  Just like covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds neutralize the asymmetry of the electronegativity charges producing balances (not lopsided) electronegativity charges, neutralizing polarity.  

(Comment: The thing that throws everybody for a loop is this notion [as I indicated parenthetically above] that a bond can be a bond and have no force maintaining it.  That seems to be a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction, because the completion of the bond is itself the mechanism that neutralizes the polarity.)

See this:
Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A Direct X-Ray Measurement
E. D. Isaacs, A. Shukla, P. M. Platzman, D. R. Hamann, B. Barbiellini, and C. A. Tulk
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 600 - Published 18 January 1999; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4445 (1999)
Quotes:
"The presence of these fringes demonstrates that electrons in the hydrogen bond are quantum mechanically shared--covalent--just as Linus Pauling had predicted."
"For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed. The experiment provides highly coveted details on water's microscopic properties. Not only will it allow researchers in many areas to improve theories of water . . ."
"For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed."

Alan (12/26):
You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken.

James:
You lost me here.  It seems like you are suggesting that all bonds are asymmetric, which obviously isn't the case.  

Alan (12/26):
The first bond does not "neutralize" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.

James:
I think you should consider that this is just something you have assumed and it is not something you know, and take more care to represent it as such.  

Alan (12/26):
Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.

James:
Obviously I disagree.  If you have something empirical to support this conjecture I will gladly look at it.

Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."

Alan (12/26):
Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, . . .

James:
I think you misunderstood my point here.  I'm not disputing Brownian motion, if that is what you are suggesting.  My point had to do with proximity as a mechanism of polarity.  The following was copied from the conclusion of my paper:

Page 17: To truly capture water's paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity.

Alan (12/26):
Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces.

James:
I don't disagree.  All liquids have tensional forces, or else they would be gasses.  In that sense, all liquids have surface tension.  But what is distinctive about water is that the tensional forces along its surface are much greater than those below its surface.  Accordingly--and unlike any other liquid--any mechanism that will increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension.  

This principle is demonstrated vividly in non-Newtonian fluids.  (If you don't know what I'm talking about go to YouTube and search on that phrase.  You will find it interesting,)  In non-Newtonian fluids corn starch, which has microscopic granularity, essentially breaks all (or many) of the symmetrically coordinated bonds when force is applied creating, temporarily, a network of strong asymmetric bonds.  It maximizes the surface area of water, thereby turning it into ice for an instant before the symmetric bonds reform.  (This same mechanism is involved with the Mpemba effect.)

By the way, my hypothesis on atmospheric vortices also involves the same phenomena--increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension. Did you ever wonder why atmospheric vortices are associated with wind shear between moist and dry bodies of air?  I know why.

Alan (12/26):
A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work.

James:
It's cited so often one can hardly miss it.  Eighty years is a long time ago, though--a long, long time ago.

***************************************************************
From Alan Soper; December 28

Dear James,

re: "Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?"

In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances, using x-ray and neutron diffraction experiments. The proton is scattered only weakly by x-rays, but strongly by neutrons. In the case of neutrons deuterons scatter neutrons quite differently to protons, even when the molecular structure and interactions are (almost) identical. Therefore by combining x-ray diffraction with neutron diffraction on mixtures of heavy (D2O) and light (H2O) water, one can come up with good estimates of the O-O, O-H and H-H radial distribution functions. The O-O function shows a strong near-neighbour peak at about 2.8 angstroms, the O-H function shows a strong peak at about 0.98 angstroms and a second pronounced peak at 1.8 angstroms, while the H-H function shows a strong peak about 1.55 angstroms and second, weaker peak at about 2.35 angstroms. (All these functions have other, weaker, peaks at longer distances.) The first peak in the O-H function has an area of exactly 2 atoms and corresponds to the two hydrogens bonded to the oxygen atom in the water, while the second OH peak has an area of about 1.5 atoms, indicating that not every lone pair of a water molecule has a hydrogen bond. Hence the O-H hydrogen bond distance is necessarily much larger than the O-H intramolecular bond distance.

This experimental evidence, which has been verified on numerous occasions by different methods, including computer simulations based on a simple electrostatic model of water, such as that proposed by Bernal and Fowler. I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim. You can ignore this evidence if you wish to do so, but do not then complain when the "academic" community refuse to discuss or support you. (Incidentally, I should point out that I do not work in academia, nor do quite a few other scientists I know, so the problem here has nothing to do with a "stranglehold" from academia. In addition I would also say that I do not necessarily regard the simple models as correct or the best that we can do. Undoubtedly the real interactions between water molecules are more complicated than these simple models suggest, but at least they are in the right direction.)


The idea that molecules and atoms do not overlap goes back a long way, at least to van der Waals in the 1800s, and received verification when the quantum theory was invented. Electrons form clouds around the central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum. Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force, which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms constantly exchanging places with each other.


You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation which fits the experimental facts of what we actually measure at the atomistic level. Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.

Yours sincerely,

Alan K Soper

**********************************************
From James McGinn; January 1

Alan (12/28):
In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances,

James:
I don't dispute the distances or the accuracy of the measurements.  My dispute is two fold.  Firstly I dispute the following:

Alan (12/28):
. . . the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart . . .

James:
In your most recent email you refer to these as, "peaks."  The "peaks" are the peak of a bell curve; they are a statistical distribution and the peak represents the median.  So, the phrase "at least" is the part with which I have issues.  I dispute the assertion that the distance can never be less or can never be zero, although the latter may be rare (see below where I discuss the role of kinetic energy in all of this).

Secondly, and most significantly,  I also dispute the following:

Alan (12/28):
. . . it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.

James:
This gets right to the crux of my overall premise.  I am saying that the correct relationship is the inverse of what you (and everybody else in the world) have been assuming.  I am saying the more the bond is completed (the closer its proximity) the weaker is the strength of the bond.

I am also saying that when we consider this strange, inverse, mechanism and we add kinetic energy to the scenario the result does a pretty good job of explaining the distribution of distances (1.8 angstrom average, etc.). This is not to say that it proves that what you are saying is wrong.  My claim is only that this should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.  Let the scientific process be the arbiter.

Alan (12/28):
I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim.

James:
Okay, but Alan, that is exactly what I am not claiming.  I believe my conjecture--assuming it is correct--is a small but important adjunct or addendum to the larger model.  It's not a replacement, it's an improvement. Making improvements to an existing model is a good thing.  Is it not?

Alan (12/28):
You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation . . . 

James:
I believe all of it.  I just don't think my model contradicts any of this (or I'm missing something).  Honestly.  And I did examine all the points you mentioned and I do appreciate you are taking the time to present them.

Alan (12/28):
Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.

James:
If every time somebody wanted to make an improvement on the existing model they were required to refute all aspects of the existing model--including the parts with which they have no dispute--that would not be very productive would it?  Do you see what I mean?  

As I alluded to in the introduction, I arrived at this purported discovery by way of a hunch that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding underlie a mechanism that maximized surface tension in the atmosphere. (And this underlies the molecular basis of conduits in the atmosphere--but that is a whole other story involving vortices (tornadoes, jet streams.) This hunch was itself born out of frustration with the convection model of storm theory. If you were ever to do the math and scrutinize meteorology's convection model of storm theory you would see that it reduces to nonsense fair quickly.  For example, despite the fact that is thermally impossible, they assume steam in their models. Why? Because without it they can't pretend their models make any sense at all. My goal is to provide an alternative model to storm theory.  And my theory hinges on this notion that surface tension can be maximized as I suggest.

(For a historical perspective on storm theory you might do research on Walter James Espy. By modern standards he is a quack. He did a lot of experiments in regard to atmospheric moisture. His experiments completely failed to confirm his theorized convective model of storm theory. So what did he do? He went ahead and presented them anyway. Having no alternative model, meteorology still blindly follows his lead--at least with respect to storm theory [99% of meteorology deals with synoptics {spatial, statistical} which is only peripherally related to storm theory.])

So, you see, I really had no desire to get involved in this subject.  (And only recently have I become aware of what seems to be a continuing controversy.)  It was only because the currently accepted model in your discipline represents a significant obstacle to the acceptance of my theoretical thinking in regard to storm theory (atmospheric physics--meteorology) that I endeavored to write this paper.

Lastly I would like to suggest that you don't concede the main point here--not that you necessarily already have.  Since the last time we communicated I've also received responses from two others: Steve Sheiner of University of Utah and Slawomir Grabowski from a university in the basque region of Spain.  As of yet, neither of them are comfortable with this notion that polarity reduces to zero with symmetrically coordinated bonding.  I am hopeful that if this notion is wrong that somebody can explain how or why it is wrong.  I would hate to find out that it is mistaken five years from now after going through all the trouble of convincing others.  

Happy New Year,

James McGinn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#544655

On 1/11/2016 6:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
>  From Alan Sooper; December 26


   <snip crap>

please post this in

   alt.chemestry.for.non-scientists.and.cranks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544815

If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.

Why would anybody maintain such an absurd conjecture?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544972

On 1/12/2016 12:14 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole
> moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more
> than in the unbonded molecule.
>
> Why would anybody maintain such an absurd conjecture?
>


You should review your posts before sending them out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545248

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 12:14 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole
> > moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more
> > than in the unbonded molecule.
> >
> > Why would anybody maintain such an absurd conjecture?
> >
> 
> 
> You should review your posts before sending them out.

What did I miss?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545698

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:06:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > On 1/12/2016 12:14 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > > If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole
> > > moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more
> > > than in the unbonded molecule.
> > >
> > > Why would anybody maintain such an absurd conjecture?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > You should review your posts before sending them out.
> 
> What did I miss?

Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545722

On 1/15/2016 3:57 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:06:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2016 12:14 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole
>>>> moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more
>>>> than in the unbonded molecule.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anybody maintain such an absurd conjecture?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You should review your posts before sending them out.
>>
>> What did I miss?
>
> Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
>

look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545942

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> > Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
> >
> 
> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all

Okay.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545990

On 1/16/2016 6:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>>> Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
>>>
>>
>> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all
>
> Okay.
>
Those are the updates currently provided by Microsoft. Microsoft notes 
that users should not remove or block the updates 3044374 and 2990214 as 
they are used for Windows Update functionality and not only to upgrade 
to Windows 10.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546413

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/16/2016 6:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >
> >>> Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
> >>>
> >>
> >> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> Those are the updates currently provided by Microsoft. Microsoft notes 
> that users should not remove or block the updates 3044374 and 2990214 as 
> they are used for Windows Update functionality and not only to upgrade 
> to Windows 10.

Oki Doki

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546755

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 9:27:52 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > On 1/16/2016 6:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > Those are the updates currently provided by Microsoft. Microsoft notes 
> > that users should not remove or block the updates 3044374 and 2990214 as 
> > they are used for Windows Update functionality and not only to upgrade 
> > to Windows 10.
> 
> Oki Doki

Check out a cool blog.  The sun isn't yellow, its chicken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546774

On 1/20/2016 12:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 9:27:52 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2016 6:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all
>>>>
>>>> Okay.
>>>>
>>> Those are the updates currently provided by Microsoft. Microsoft notes
>>> that users should not remove or block the updates 3044374 and 2990214 as
>>> they are used for Windows Update functionality and not only to upgrade
>>> to Windows 10.
>>
>> Oki Doki
>
> Check out a cool blog.  The sun isn't yellow, its chicken
>


I wish you had quit before you made a complete ass out of yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547351

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/20/2016 12:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 9:27:52 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>> On 1/16/2016 6:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay.
> >>>>
> >>> Those are the updates currently provided by Microsoft. Microsoft notes
> >>> that users should not remove or block the updates 3044374 and 2990214 as
> >>> they are used for Windows Update functionality and not only to upgrade
> >>> to Windows 10.
> >>
> >> Oki Doki
> >
> > Check out a cool blog.  The sun isn't yellow, its chicken
> >
> 
> 
> I wish you had quit before you made a complete ass out of yourself.

Trying to keep your posts at the top of the pile ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547370

On 1/22/2016 6:35 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 1/20/2016 12:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 9:27:52 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 1/16/2016 6:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look up electron cloud.  It doesn't produce rain.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Those are the updates currently provided by Microsoft. Microsoft notes
>>>>> that users should not remove or block the updates 3044374 and 2990214 as
>>>>> they are used for Windows Update functionality and not only to upgrade
>>>>> to Windows 10.

>>>> Oki Doki
>>>
>>> Check out a cool blog.  The sun isn't yellow, its chicken
>>>
>>
>>
>> I wish you had quit before you made a complete ass out of yourself.
>
> Trying to keep your posts at the top of the pile ?
>



Reference?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548042

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
kjlk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548410

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> From Alan Soper; December 26
> 
> Dear Mr McGinn,
> 
> I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual mistakes and misunderstandings . . . 
> 
> Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged "acceptor" oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it's polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized."
> 
> This view is incorrect. The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force. If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule. You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken. The first bond does not "neutralise" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> 
> Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
> 
> Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
> 
> Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, but do not readily leave the liquid. You have to distinguish between the case of a bond being broken and being almost immediately replaced by another bond forming with another molecule, which is the situation in the liquid, and the case of a molecule leaving the liquid completely, when it has to break free of its bonds and not form them again. The latter requires a lot of energy, while the former does not, due to the proximity of neighbouring molecules in the liquid.
> 
> Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces. Note that surface tension tends to DECREASE the surface area, not increase it, which is why liquid droplets are spherical in shape.
> 
> A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work. It is my current belief however that many-body forces also play a crucial role in determining water's properties, but these are routinely left out of computer simulation models of water.
> 
> Your Sincerely,
> 
> Alan K Soper
> 
> *********************************************
> From James McGinn; December 28
> 
> Dear Alan,
> I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that . . . 
> 
> 
> Dear Alan,
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that.  I had sent a similar request to Anders Nilsson and got no response at all.  I am also in a conversation with Marcia Barbosa, but she doesn't reveal much about her own thinking.  So it is especially enlightening to gain some insight from one of the recognized experts in the field.
> 
> 2) Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms . . . 
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> This view is incorrect The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralized by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, . . .
> 
> James:
> Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it? 
> 
> Moreover, if you are going to claim a constant distance of 1.8 Angstroms then the onus is on you to explain the force that maintains that distance. Some time ago, I looked in the literature and could find no rational explanation of any such distance/force, so I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that this is a phantom distance/force that was just assumed because otherwise the standard model fails to explain the low viscosity of water.  In other words, this seems like a "skyhook" assumption to me. But I'm open to any empirical evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained.  It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths".  In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible.
> 
> In my model the molecules are constantly bumping up against each other. Kinetic energy is the only thing maintaining a distance. By the way, water can actually be used as a hydraulic fluid.  (It isn't, because it is so corrosive.) This fact indicates to me that there is not much distance between the molecules.
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> . . . which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force.
> 
> James:
> How so? Your model already has a problem in that it fails to explain the low viscosity of water without a phantom distance/force.  Assuming a strong Coulomb attractive force just makes that problem worse.  
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.
> 
> James:
> I see it differently. The electron cloud doesn't get stretched. It isn't passive. It is the active element in the scenario.  When it is unrestrained by positive forces it expands.  It becomes more dominant, unruly, like crazed soccer fans. When positive charges (hydrogen atoms) are introduced it is like introducing cops into the soccer crowd, it collapses and becomes more orderly.  It is restrained.
> 
> Hydrogen bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the water molecule exactly the same way that covalent bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the carbon atom of the methane molecule. From the electron's perspective there is no difference (assuming the hydrogen "bond" [which, ironically, has zero force holding it] stays put. [in that sense it really isn't a bond {see Comment below}]) between a "hydrogen" bond and a covalent bond.  The electrons don't know or care whether a bond is covalent or "hydrogen".  They act the same regardless.  Just like covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds neutralize the asymmetry of the electronegativity charges producing balances (not lopsided) electronegativity charges, neutralizing polarity.  
> 
> (Comment: The thing that throws everybody for a loop is this notion [as I indicated parenthetically above] that a bond can be a bond and have no force maintaining it.  That seems to be a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction, because the completion of the bond is itself the mechanism that neutralizes the polarity.)
> 
> See this:
> Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A Direct X-Ray Measurement
> E. D. Isaacs, A. Shukla, P. M. Platzman, D. R. Hamann, B. Barbiellini, and C. A. Tulk
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 600 - Published 18 January 1999; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4445 (1999)
> Quotes:
> "The presence of these fringes demonstrates that electrons in the hydrogen bond are quantum mechanically shared--covalent--just as Linus Pauling had predicted."
> "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed. The experiment provides highly coveted details on water's microscopic properties. Not only will it allow researchers in many areas to improve theories of water . . ."
> "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed."
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken.
> 
> James:
> You lost me here.  It seems like you are suggesting that all bonds are asymmetric, which obviously isn't the case.  
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> The first bond does not "neutralize" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> 
> James:
> I think you should consider that this is just something you have assumed and it is not something you know, and take more care to represent it as such.  
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
> 
> James:
> Obviously I disagree.  If you have something empirical to support this conjecture I will gladly look at it.
> 
> Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, . . .
> 
> James:
> I think you misunderstood my point here.  I'm not disputing Brownian motion, if that is what you are suggesting.  My point had to do with proximity as a mechanism of polarity.  The following was copied from the conclusion of my paper:
> 
> Page 17: To truly capture water's paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity.
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces.
> 
> James:
> I don't disagree.  All liquids have tensional forces, or else they would be gasses.  In that sense, all liquids have surface tension.  But what is distinctive about water is that the tensional forces along its surface are much greater than those below its surface.  Accordingly--and unlike any other liquid--any mechanism that will increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension.  
> 
> This principle is demonstrated vividly in non-Newtonian fluids.  (If you don't know what I'm talking about go to YouTube and search on that phrase.  You will find it interesting,)  In non-Newtonian fluids corn starch, which has microscopic granularity, essentially breaks all (or many) of the symmetrically coordinated bonds when force is applied creating, temporarily, a network of strong asymmetric bonds.  It maximizes the surface area of water, thereby turning it into ice for an instant before the symmetric bonds reform.  (This same mechanism is involved with the Mpemba effect.)
> 
> By the way, my hypothesis on atmospheric vortices also involves the same phenomena--increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension. Did you ever wonder why atmospheric vortices are associated with wind shear between moist and dry bodies of air?  I know why.
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work.
> 
> James:
> It's cited so often one can hardly miss it.  Eighty years is a long time ago, though--a long, long time ago.
> 
> ***************************************************************
> From Alan Soper; December 28
> 
> Dear James,
> 
> re: "Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?"
> 
> In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances, using x-ray and neutron diffraction experiments. The proton is scattered only weakly by x-rays, but strongly by neutrons. In the case of neutrons deuterons scatter neutrons quite differently to protons, even when the molecular structure and interactions are (almost) identical. Therefore by combining x-ray diffraction with neutron diffraction on mixtures of heavy (D2O) and light (H2O) water, one can come up with good estimates of the O-O, O-H and H-H radial distribution functions. The O-O function shows a strong near-neighbour peak at about 2.8 angstroms, the O-H function shows a strong peak at about 0.98 angstroms and a second pronounced peak at 1.8 angstroms, while the H-H function shows a strong peak about 1.55 angstroms and second, weaker peak at about 2.35 angstroms. (All these functions have other, weaker, peaks at longer distances.) The first peak in the O-H function has an area of exactly 2 atoms and corresponds to the two hydrogens bonded to the oxygen atom in the water, while the second OH peak has an area of about 1.5 atoms, indicating that not every lone pair of a water molecule has a hydrogen bond. Hence the O-H hydrogen bond distance is necessarily much larger than the O-H intramolecular bond distance.
> 
> This experimental evidence, which has been verified on numerous occasions by different methods, including computer simulations based on a simple electrostatic model of water, such as that proposed by Bernal and Fowler. I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim. You can ignore this evidence if you wish to do so, but do not then complain when the "academic" community refuse to discuss or support you. (Incidentally, I should point out that I do not work in academia, nor do quite a few other scientists I know, so the problem here has nothing to do with a "stranglehold" from academia. In addition I would also say that I do not necessarily regard the simple models as correct or the best that we can do. Undoubtedly the real interactions between water molecules are more complicated than these simple models suggest, but at least they are in the right direction.)
> 
> 
> The idea that molecules and atoms do not overlap goes back a long way, at least to van der Waals in the 1800s, and received verification when the quantum theory was invented. Electrons form clouds around the central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum. Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force, which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms constantly exchanging places with each other.
> 
> 
> You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation which fits the experimental facts of what we actually measure at the atomistic level. Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Alan K Soper
> 
> **********************************************
> From James McGinn; January 1
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances,
> 
> James:
> I don't dispute the distances or the accuracy of the measurements.  My dispute is two fold.  Firstly I dispute the following:
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> . . . the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart . . .
> 
> James:
> In your most recent email you refer to these as, "peaks."  The "peaks" are the peak of a bell curve; they are a statistical distribution and the peak represents the median.  So, the phrase "at least" is the part with which I have issues.  I dispute the assertion that the distance can never be less or can never be zero, although the latter may be rare (see below where I discuss the role of kinetic energy in all of this).
> 
> Secondly, and most significantly,  I also dispute the following:
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> . . . it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> 
> James:
> This gets right to the crux of my overall premise.  I am saying that the correct relationship is the inverse of what you (and everybody else in the world) have been assuming.  I am saying the more the bond is completed (the closer its proximity) the weaker is the strength of the bond.
> 
> I am also saying that when we consider this strange, inverse, mechanism and we add kinetic energy to the scenario the result does a pretty good job of explaining the distribution of distances (1.8 angstrom average, etc.). This is not to say that it proves that what you are saying is wrong.  My claim is only that this should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.  Let the scientific process be the arbiter.
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim.
> 
> James:
> Okay, but Alan, that is exactly what I am not claiming.  I believe my conjecture--assuming it is correct--is a small but important adjunct or addendum to the larger model.  It's not a replacement, it's an improvement. Making improvements to an existing model is a good thing.  Is it not?
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation . . . 
> 
> James:
> I believe all of it.  I just don't think my model contradicts any of this (or I'm missing something).  Honestly.  And I did examine all the points you mentioned and I do appreciate you are taking the time to present them.
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
> 
> James:
> If every time somebody wanted to make an improvement on the existing model they were required to refute all aspects of the existing model--including the parts with which they have no dispute--that would not be very productive would it?  Do you see what I mean?  
> 
> As I alluded to in the introduction, I arrived at this purported discovery by way of a hunch that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding underlie a mechanism that maximized surface tension in the atmosphere. (And this underlies the molecular basis of conduits in the atmosphere--but that is a whole other story involving vortices (tornadoes, jet streams.) This hunch was itself born out of frustration with the convection model of storm theory. If you were ever to do the math and scrutinize meteorology's convection model of storm theory you would see that it reduces to nonsense fair quickly.  For example, despite the fact that is thermally impossible, they assume steam in their models. Why? Because without it they can't pretend their models make any sense at all. My goal is to provide an alternative model to storm theory.  And my theory hinges on this notion that surface tension can be maximized as I suggest.
> 
> (For a historical perspective on storm theory you might do research on Walter James Espy. By modern standards he is a quack. He did a lot of experiments in regard to atmospheric moisture. His experiments completely failed to confirm his theorized convective model of storm theory. So what did he do? He went ahead and presented them anyway. Having no alternative model, meteorology still blindly follows his lead--at least with respect to storm theory [99% of meteorology deals with synoptics {spatial, statistical} which is only peripherally related to storm theory.])
> 
> So, you see, I really had no desire to get involved in this subject.  (And only recently have I become aware of what seems to be a continuing controversy.)  It was only because the currently accepted model in your discipline represents a significant obstacle to the acceptance of my theoretical thinking in regard to storm theory (atmospheric physics--meteorology) that I endeavored to write this paper.
> 

Lastly I would like to suggest that you don't concede the main point here--not that you necessarily already have.  Since the last time we communicated I've also received responses from two others: Steve Sheiner of University of Utah and Slawomir Grabowski from a university in the basque region of Spain.  As of yet, neither of them are comfortable with this notion that polarity reduces to zero with symmetrically coordinated bonding.  I am hopeful that if this notion is wrong that somebody can explain how or why it is wrong.  I would hate to find out that it is mistaken five years from now after going through all the trouble of convincing others.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549008

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:17:47 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > From Alan Soper; December 26
> > 
> > Dear Mr McGinn,
> > 
> > I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual mistakes and misunderstandings . . . 
> > 
> > Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged "acceptor" oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it's polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized."
> > 
> > This view is incorrect. The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force. If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule. You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken. The first bond does not "neutralise" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> > 
> > Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
> > 
> > Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
> > 
> > Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, but do not readily leave the liquid. You have to distinguish between the case of a bond being broken and being almost immediately replaced by another bond forming with another molecule, which is the situation in the liquid, and the case of a molecule leaving the liquid completely, when it has to break free of its bonds and not form them again. The latter requires a lot of energy, while the former does not, due to the proximity of neighbouring molecules in the liquid.
> > 
> > Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces. Note that surface tension tends to DECREASE the surface area, not increase it, which is why liquid droplets are spherical in shape.
> > 
> > A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work. It is my current belief however that many-body forces also play a crucial role in determining water's properties, but these are routinely left out of computer simulation models of water.
> > 
> > Your Sincerely,
> > 
> > Alan K Soper
> > 
> > *********************************************
> > From James McGinn; December 28
> > 
> > Dear Alan,
> > I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that . . . 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Alan,
> > 
> > I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that.  I had sent a similar request to Anders Nilsson and got no response at all.  I am also in a conversation with Marcia Barbosa, but she doesn't reveal much about her own thinking.  So it is especially enlightening to gain some insight from one of the recognized experts in the field.
> > 
> > 2) Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms . . . 
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > This view is incorrect The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralized by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, . . .
> > 
> > James:
> > Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it? 
> > 
> > Moreover, if you are going to claim a constant distance of 1.8 Angstroms then the onus is on you to explain the force that maintains that distance. Some time ago, I looked in the literature and could find no rational explanation of any such distance/force, so I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that this is a phantom distance/force that was just assumed because otherwise the standard model fails to explain the low viscosity of water.  In other words, this seems like a "skyhook" assumption to me. But I'm open to any empirical evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
> > 
> > In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained.  It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths".  In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible.
> > 
> > In my model the molecules are constantly bumping up against each other. Kinetic energy is the only thing maintaining a distance. By the way, water can actually be used as a hydraulic fluid.  (It isn't, because it is so corrosive.) This fact indicates to me that there is not much distance between the molecules.
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > . . . which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force.
> > 
> > James:
> > How so? Your model already has a problem in that it fails to explain the low viscosity of water without a phantom distance/force.  Assuming a strong Coulomb attractive force just makes that problem worse.  
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.
> > 
> > James:
> > I see it differently. The electron cloud doesn't get stretched. It isn't passive. It is the active element in the scenario.  When it is unrestrained by positive forces it expands.  It becomes more dominant, unruly, like crazed soccer fans. When positive charges (hydrogen atoms) are introduced it is like introducing cops into the soccer crowd, it collapses and becomes more orderly.  It is restrained.
> > 
> > Hydrogen bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the water molecule exactly the same way that covalent bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the carbon atom of the methane molecule. From the electron's perspective there is no difference (assuming the hydrogen "bond" [which, ironically, has zero force holding it] stays put. [in that sense it really isn't a bond {see Comment below}]) between a "hydrogen" bond and a covalent bond.  The electrons don't know or care whether a bond is covalent or "hydrogen".  They act the same regardless.  Just like covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds neutralize the asymmetry of the electronegativity charges producing balances (not lopsided) electronegativity charges, neutralizing polarity.  
> > 
> > (Comment: The thing that throws everybody for a loop is this notion [as I indicated parenthetically above] that a bond can be a bond and have no force maintaining it.  That seems to be a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction, because the completion of the bond is itself the mechanism that neutralizes the polarity.)
> > 
> > See this:
> > Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A Direct X-Ray Measurement
> > E. D. Isaacs, A. Shukla, P. M. Platzman, D. R. Hamann, B. Barbiellini, and C. A. Tulk
> > Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 600 - Published 18 January 1999; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4445 (1999)
> > Quotes:
> > "The presence of these fringes demonstrates that electrons in the hydrogen bond are quantum mechanically shared--covalent--just as Linus Pauling had predicted."
> > "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed. The experiment provides highly coveted details on water's microscopic properties. Not only will it allow researchers in many areas to improve theories of water . . ."
> > "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed."
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken.
> > 
> > James:
> > You lost me here.  It seems like you are suggesting that all bonds are asymmetric, which obviously isn't the case.  
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > The first bond does not "neutralize" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> > 
> > James:
> > I think you should consider that this is just something you have assumed and it is not something you know, and take more care to represent it as such.  
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
> > 
> > James:
> > Obviously I disagree.  If you have something empirical to support this conjecture I will gladly look at it.
> > 
> > Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, . . .
> > 
> > James:
> > I think you misunderstood my point here.  I'm not disputing Brownian motion, if that is what you are suggesting.  My point had to do with proximity as a mechanism of polarity.  The following was copied from the conclusion of my paper:
> > 
> > Page 17: To truly capture water's paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity.
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces.
> > 
> > James:
> > I don't disagree.  All liquids have tensional forces, or else they would be gasses.  In that sense, all liquids have surface tension.  But what is distinctive about water is that the tensional forces along its surface are much greater than those below its surface.  Accordingly--and unlike any other liquid--any mechanism that will increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension.  
> > 
> > This principle is demonstrated vividly in non-Newtonian fluids.  (If you don't know what I'm talking about go to YouTube and search on that phrase.  You will find it interesting,)  In non-Newtonian fluids corn starch, which has microscopic granularity, essentially breaks all (or many) of the symmetrically coordinated bonds when force is applied creating, temporarily, a network of strong asymmetric bonds.  It maximizes the surface area of water, thereby turning it into ice for an instant before the symmetric bonds reform.  (This same mechanism is involved with the Mpemba effect.)
> > 
> > By the way, my hypothesis on atmospheric vortices also involves the same phenomena--increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension. Did you ever wonder why atmospheric vortices are associated with wind shear between moist and dry bodies of air?  I know why.
> > 
> > Alan (12/26):
> > A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work.
> > 
> > James:
> > It's cited so often one can hardly miss it.  Eighty years is a long time ago, though--a long, long time ago.
> > 
> > ***************************************************************
> > From Alan Soper; December 28
> > 
> > Dear James,
> > 
> > re: "Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?"
> > 
> > In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances, using x-ray and neutron diffraction experiments. The proton is scattered only weakly by x-rays, but strongly by neutrons. In the case of neutrons deuterons scatter neutrons quite differently to protons, even when the molecular structure and interactions are (almost) identical. Therefore by combining x-ray diffraction with neutron diffraction on mixtures of heavy (D2O) and light (H2O) water, one can come up with good estimates of the O-O, O-H and H-H radial distribution functions. The O-O function shows a strong near-neighbour peak at about 2.8 angstroms, the O-H function shows a strong peak at about 0.98 angstroms and a second pronounced peak at 1.8 angstroms, while the H-H function shows a strong peak about 1.55 angstroms and second, weaker peak at about 2.35 angstroms. (All these functions have other, weaker, peaks at longer distances.) The first peak in the O-H function has an area of exactly 2 atoms and corresponds to the two hydrogens bonded to the oxygen atom in the water, while the second OH peak has an area of about 1.5 atoms, indicating that not every lone pair of a water molecule has a hydrogen bond. Hence the O-H hydrogen bond distance is necessarily much larger than the O-H intramolecular bond distance.
> > 
> > This experimental evidence, which has been verified on numerous occasions by different methods, including computer simulations based on a simple electrostatic model of water, such as that proposed by Bernal and Fowler. I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim. You can ignore this evidence if you wish to do so, but do not then complain when the "academic" community refuse to discuss or support you. (Incidentally, I should point out that I do not work in academia, nor do quite a few other scientists I know, so the problem here has nothing to do with a "stranglehold" from academia. In addition I would also say that I do not necessarily regard the simple models as correct or the best that we can do. Undoubtedly the real interactions between water molecules are more complicated than these simple models suggest, but at least they are in the right direction.)
> > 
> > 
> > The idea that molecules and atoms do not overlap goes back a long way, at least to van der Waals in the 1800s, and received verification when the quantum theory was invented. Electrons form clouds around the central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum. Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force, which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms constantly exchanging places with each other.
> > 
> > 
> > You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation which fits the experimental facts of what we actually measure at the atomistic level. Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
> > 
> > Yours sincerely,
> > 
> > Alan K Soper
> > 
> > **********************************************
> > From James McGinn; January 1
> > 
> > Alan (12/28):
> > In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances,
> > 
> > James:
> > I don't dispute the distances or the accuracy of the measurements.  My dispute is two fold.  Firstly I dispute the following:
> > 
> > Alan (12/28):
> > . . . the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart . . .
> > 
> > James:
> > In your most recent email you refer to these as, "peaks."  The "peaks" are the peak of a bell curve; they are a statistical distribution and the peak represents the median.  So, the phrase "at least" is the part with which I have issues.  I dispute the assertion that the distance can never be less or can never be zero, although the latter may be rare (see below where I discuss the role of kinetic energy in all of this).
> > 
> > Secondly, and most significantly,  I also dispute the following:
> > 
> > Alan (12/28):
> > . . . it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> > 
> > James:
> > This gets right to the crux of my overall premise.  I am saying that the correct relationship is the inverse of what you (and everybody else in the world) have been assuming.  I am saying the more the bond is completed (the closer its proximity) the weaker is the strength of the bond.
> > 
> > I am also saying that when we consider this strange, inverse, mechanism and we add kinetic energy to the scenario the result does a pretty good job of explaining the distribution of distances (1.8 angstrom average, etc.). This is not to say that it proves that what you are saying is wrong.  My claim is only that this should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.  Let the scientific process be the arbiter.
> > 
> > Alan (12/28):
> > I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim.
> > 
> > James:
> > Okay, but Alan, that is exactly what I am not claiming.  I believe my conjecture--assuming it is correct--is a small but important adjunct or addendum to the larger model.  It's not a replacement, it's an improvement. Making improvements to an existing model is a good thing.  Is it not?
> > 
> > Alan (12/28):
> > You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation . . . 
> > 
> > James:
> > I believe all of it.  I just don't think my model contradicts any of this (or I'm missing something).  Honestly.  And I did examine all the points you mentioned and I do appreciate you are taking the time to present them.
> > 
> > Alan (12/28):
> > Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
> > 
> > James:
> > If every time somebody wanted to make an improvement on the existing model they were required to refute all aspects of the existing model--including the parts with which they have no dispute--that would not be very productive would it?  Do you see what I mean?  
> > 
> > As I alluded to in the introduction, I arrived at this purported discovery by way of a hunch that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding underlie a mechanism that maximized surface tension in the atmosphere. (And this underlies the molecular basis of conduits in the atmosphere--but that is a whole other story involving vortices (tornadoes, jet streams.) This hunch was itself born out of frustration with the convection model of storm theory. If you were ever to do the math and scrutinize meteorology's convection model of storm theory you would see that it reduces to nonsense fair quickly.  For example, despite the fact that is thermally impossible, they assume steam in their models. Why? Because without it they can't pretend their models make any sense at all. My goal is to provide an alternative model to storm theory.  And my theory hinges on this notion that surface tension can be maximized as I suggest.
> > 
> > (For a historical perspective on storm theory you might do research on Walter James Espy. By modern standards he is a quack. He did a lot of experiments in regard to atmospheric moisture. His experiments completely failed to confirm his theorized convective model of storm theory. So what did he do? He went ahead and presented them anyway. Having no alternative model, meteorology still blindly follows his lead--at least with respect to storm theory [99% of meteorology deals with synoptics {spatial, statistical} which is only peripherally related to storm theory.])
> > 
> > So, you see, I really had no desire to get involved in this subject.  (And only recently have I become aware of what seems to be a continuing controversy.)  It was only because the currently accepted model in your discipline represents a significant obstacle to the acceptance of my theoretical thinking in regard to storm theory (atmospheric physics--meteorology) that I endeavored to write this paper.
> > 
> 
> 
Lastly I would like to suggest that you don't concede the main point here--not that you necessarily already have.  Since the last time we communicated I've also received responses from two others: Steve Sheiner of University of Utah and Slawomir Grabowski from a university in the basque region of Spain.  As of yet, neither of them are comfortable with this notion that polarity reduces to zero with symmetrically coordinated bonding.  I am hopeful that if this notion is wrong that somebody can explain how or why it is wrong.  I would hate to find out that it is mistaken five years from now after going through all the trouble of convincing others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549643

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> From Alan Soper; December 26
> 
> Dear Mr McGinn,
> 
> I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual mistakes and misunderstandings . . . 
> 
> Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged "acceptor" oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it's polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized."
> 
> This view is incorrect. The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force. If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule. You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken. The first bond does not "neutralise" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> 
> 
Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
> 
> Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
> 
> Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, but do not readily leave the liquid. You have to distinguish between the case of a bond being broken and being almost immediately replaced by another bond forming with another molecule, which is the situation in the liquid, and the case of a molecule leaving the liquid completely, when it has to break free of its bonds and not form them again. The latter requires a lot of energy, while the former does not, due to the proximity of neighbouring molecules in the liquid.
> 
> Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces. Note that surface tension tends to DECREASE the surface area, not increase it, which is why liquid droplets are spherical in shape.
> 
> A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work. It is my current belief however that many-body forces also play a crucial role in determining water's properties, but these are routinely left out of computer simulation models of water.
> 
> Your Sincerely,
> 
> Alan K Soper
> 
> *********************************************
> From James McGinn; December 28
> 
> Dear Alan,
> I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that . . . 
> 
> 
> Dear Alan,
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response.  I was not expecting that.  I had sent a similar request to Anders Nilsson and got no response at all.  I am also in a conversation with Marcia Barbosa, but she doesn't reveal much about her own thinking.  So it is especially enlightening to gain some insight from one of the recognized experts in the field.
> 
> 2) Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms . . . 
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> This view is incorrect The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralized by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, . . .
> 
> James:
> Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it? 
> 
> Moreover, if you are going to claim a constant distance of 1.8 Angstroms then the onus is on you to explain the force that maintains that distance. Some time ago, I looked in the literature and could find no rational explanation of any such distance/force, so I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that this is a phantom distance/force that was just assumed because otherwise the standard model fails to explain the low viscosity of water.  In other words, this seems like a "skyhook" assumption to me. But I'm open to any empirical evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained.  It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths".  In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible.
> 
> In my model the molecules are constantly bumping up against each other. Kinetic energy is the only thing maintaining a distance. By the way, water can actually be used as a hydraulic fluid.  (It isn't, because it is so corrosive.) This fact indicates to me that there is not much distance between the molecules.
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> . . . which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force.
> 
> James:
> How so? Your model already has a problem in that it fails to explain the low viscosity of water without a phantom distance/force.  Assuming a strong Coulomb attractive force just makes that problem worse.  
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.
> 
> James:
> I see it differently. The electron cloud doesn't get stretched. It isn't passive. It is the active element in the scenario.  When it is unrestrained by positive forces it expands.  It becomes more dominant, unruly, like crazed soccer fans. When positive charges (hydrogen atoms) are introduced it is like introducing cops into the soccer crowd, it collapses and becomes more orderly.  It is restrained.
> 
> Hydrogen bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the water molecule exactly the same way that covalent bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the carbon atom of the methane molecule. From the electron's perspective there is no difference (assuming the hydrogen "bond" [which, ironically, has zero force holding it] stays put. [in that sense it really isn't a bond {see Comment below}]) between a "hydrogen" bond and a covalent bond.  The electrons don't know or care whether a bond is covalent or "hydrogen".  They act the same regardless.  Just like covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds neutralize the asymmetry of the electronegativity charges producing balances (not lopsided) electronegativity charges, neutralizing polarity.  
> 
> (Comment: The thing that throws everybody for a loop is this notion [as I indicated parenthetically above] that a bond can be a bond and have no force maintaining it.  That seems to be a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction, because the completion of the bond is itself the mechanism that neutralizes the polarity.)
> 
> See this:
> Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A Direct X-Ray Measurement
> E. D. Isaacs, A. Shukla, P. M. Platzman, D. R. Hamann, B. Barbiellini, and C. A. Tulk
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 600 - Published 18 January 1999; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4445 (1999)
> Quotes:
> "The presence of these fringes demonstrates that electrons in the hydrogen bond are quantum mechanically shared--covalent--just as Linus Pauling had predicted."
> "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed. The experiment provides highly coveted details on water's microscopic properties. Not only will it allow researchers in many areas to improve theories of water . . ."
> "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed."
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken.
> 
> James:
> You lost me here.  It seems like you are suggesting that all bonds are asymmetric, which obviously isn't the case.  
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> The first bond does not "neutralize" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> 
> James:
> I think you should consider that this is just something you have assumed and it is not something you know, and take more care to represent it as such.  
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
> 
> James:
> Obviously I disagree.  If you have something empirical to support this conjecture I will gladly look at it.
> 
> Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, . . .
> 
> James:
> I think you misunderstood my point here.  I'm not disputing Brownian motion, if that is what you are suggesting.  My point had to do with proximity as a mechanism of polarity.  The following was copied from the conclusion of my paper:
> 
> Page 17: To truly capture water's paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity.
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces.
> 
> James:
> I don't disagree.  All liquids have tensional forces, or else they would be gasses.  In that sense, all liquids have surface tension.  But what is distinctive about water is that the tensional forces along its surface are much greater than those below its surface.  Accordingly--and unlike any other liquid--any mechanism that will increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension.  
> 
> This principle is demonstrated vividly in non-Newtonian fluids.  (If you don't know what I'm talking about go to YouTube and search on that phrase.  You will find it interesting,)  In non-Newtonian fluids corn starch, which has microscopic granularity, essentially breaks all (or many) of the symmetrically coordinated bonds when force is applied creating, temporarily, a network of strong asymmetric bonds.  It maximizes the surface area of water, thereby turning it into ice for an instant before the symmetric bonds reform.  (This same mechanism is involved with the Mpemba effect.)
> 
> By the way, my hypothesis on atmospheric vortices also involves the same phenomena--increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension. Did you ever wonder why atmospheric vortices are associated with wind shear between moist and dry bodies of air?  I know why.
> 
> Alan (12/26):
> A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work.
> 
> James:
> It's cited so often one can hardly miss it.  Eighty years is a long time ago, though--a long, long time ago.
> 
> ***************************************************************
> From Alan Soper; December 28
> 
> Dear James,
> 
> re: "Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this?  If you know it how do you know it?  If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?"
> 
> In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances, using x-ray and neutron diffraction experiments. The proton is scattered only weakly by x-rays, but strongly by neutrons. In the case of neutrons deuterons scatter neutrons quite differently to protons, even when the molecular structure and interactions are (almost) identical. Therefore by combining x-ray diffraction with neutron diffraction on mixtures of heavy (D2O) and light (H2O) water, one can come up with good estimates of the O-O, O-H and H-H radial distribution functions. The O-O function shows a strong near-neighbour peak at about 2.8 angstroms, the O-H function shows a strong peak at about 0.98 angstroms and a second pronounced peak at 1.8 angstroms, while the H-H function shows a strong peak about 1.55 angstroms and second, weaker peak at about 2.35 angstroms. (All these functions have other, weaker, peaks at longer distances.) The first peak in the O-H function has an area of exactly 2 atoms and corresponds to the two hydrogens bonded to the oxygen atom in the water, while the second OH peak has an area of about 1.5 atoms, indicating that not every lone pair of a water molecule has a hydrogen bond. Hence the O-H hydrogen bond distance is necessarily much larger than the O-H intramolecular bond distance.
> 
> This experimental evidence, which has been verified on numerous occasions by different methods, including computer simulations based on a simple electrostatic model of water, such as that proposed by Bernal and Fowler. I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim. You can ignore this evidence if you wish to do so, but do not then complain when the "academic" community refuse to discuss or support you. (Incidentally, I should point out that I do not work in academia, nor do quite a few other scientists I know, so the problem here has nothing to do with a "stranglehold" from academia. In addition I would also say that I do not necessarily regard the simple models as correct or the best that we can do. Undoubtedly the real interactions between water molecules are more complicated than these simple models suggest, but at least they are in the right direction.)
> 
> 
> The idea that molecules and atoms do not overlap goes back a long way, at least to van der Waals in the 1800s, and received verification when the quantum theory was invented. Electrons form clouds around the central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum. Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force, which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms constantly exchanging places with each other.
> 
> 
> You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation which fits the experimental facts of what we actually measure at the atomistic level. Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Alan K Soper
> 
> **********************************************
> From James McGinn; January 1
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances,
> 
> James:
> I don't dispute the distances or the accuracy of the measurements.  My dispute is two fold.  Firstly I dispute the following:
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> . . . the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart . . .
> 
> James:
> In your most recent email you refer to these as, "peaks."  The "peaks" are the peak of a bell curve; they are a statistical distribution and the peak represents the median.  So, the phrase "at least" is the part with which I have issues.  I dispute the assertion that the distance can never be less or can never be zero, although the latter may be rare (see below where I discuss the role of kinetic energy in all of this).
> 
> Secondly, and most significantly,  I also dispute the following:
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> . . . it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
> 
> James:
> This gets right to the crux of my overall premise.  I am saying that the correct relationship is the inverse of what you (and everybody else in the world) have been assuming.  I am saying the more the bond is completed (the closer its proximity) the weaker is the strength of the bond.
> 
> I am also saying that when we consider this strange, inverse, mechanism and we add kinetic energy to the scenario the result does a pretty good job of explaining the distribution of distances (1.8 angstrom average, etc.). This is not to say that it proves that what you are saying is wrong.  My claim is only that this should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.  Let the scientific process be the arbiter.
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim.
> 
> James:
> Okay, but Alan, that is exactly what I am not claiming.  I believe my conjecture--assuming it is correct--is a small but important adjunct or addendum to the larger model.  It's not a replacement, it's an improvement. Making improvements to an existing model is a good thing.  Is it not?
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation . . . 
> 
> James:
> I believe all of it.  I just don't think my model contradicts any of this (or I'm missing something).  Honestly.  And I did examine all the points you mentioned and I do appreciate you are taking the time to present them.
> 
> Alan (12/28):
> Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
> 
> James:
> If every time somebody wanted to make an improvement on the existing model they were required to refute all aspects of the existing model--including the parts with which they have no dispute--that would not be very productive would it?  Do you see what I mean?  
> 
> As I alluded to in the introduction, I arrived at this purported discovery by way of a hunch that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding underlie a mechanism that maximized surface tension in the atmosphere. (And this underlies the molecular basis of conduits in the atmosphere--but that is a whole other story involving vortices (tornadoes, jet streams.) This hunch was itself born out of frustration with the convection model of storm theory. If you were ever to do the math and scrutinize meteorology's convection model of storm theory you would see that it reduces to nonsense fair quickly.  For example, despite the fact that is thermally impossible, they assume steam in their models. Why? Because without it they can't pretend their models make any sense at all. My goal is to provide an alternative model to storm theory.  And my theory hinges on this notion that surface tension can be maximized as I suggest.
> 
> (For a historical perspective on storm theory you might do research on Walter James Espy. By modern standards he is a quack. He did a lot of experiments in regard to atmospheric moisture. His experiments completely failed to confirm his theorized convective model of storm theory. So what did he do? He went ahead and presented them anyway. Having no alternative model, meteorology still blindly follows his lead--at least with respect to storm theory [99% of meteorology deals with synoptics {spatial, statistical} which is only peripherally related to storm theory.])
> 
> So, you see, I really had no desire to get involved in this subject.  (And only recently have I become aware of what seems to be a continuing controversy.)  It was only because the currently accepted model in your discipline represents a significant obstacle to the acceptance of my theoretical thinking in regard to storm theory (atmospheric physics--meteorology) that I endeavored to write this paper.
> 
> Lastly I would like to suggest that you don't concede the main point here--not that you necessarily already have.  Since the last time we communicated I've also received responses from two others: Steve Sheiner of University of Utah and Slawomir Grabowski from a university in the basque region of Spain.  As of yet, neither of them are comfortable with this notion that polarity reduces to zero with symmetrically coordinated bonding.  I am hopeful that if this notion is wrong that somebody can explain how or why it is wrong.  I would hate to find out that it is mistaken five years from now after going through all the trouble of convincing others.  
> 
> Happy New Year,
> 
> James McGinn

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web