We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is g

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:24 am

Hi MerLynn,
MerLynn wrote:the 4 rodded Platinum generator when ingesting the elixir, induces controlled dreaming or hallucinations for about 15 minutes

I think I found a picture of your device...
unusual scientific device.jpg

Is that what you were describing?
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:30 am

Hi MerLynn--

You might get more traction and interest in your ideas, if you just start a thread of your own, concerning the foot bath experiment, electrolysis, etc.

Who knows; it might provoke a large following and diverse discussions all on its own. Personally, I thought the nurse that you mentioned, doing research and experiments in Memphis if I recall correctly, was particularly interesting.

Trying to hijack this thread as a venue for your arguments, I would think is just going to irritate everyone, and predispose them against engaging with you in a substantial way.

--dc
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:04 am

MosaicDave wrote:Hi Jim McGinn--

I believe that in something you had written somewhere, I once saw where you had stated that it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together. To me this would be interesting if so. Do you have any quantitative basis for this statement, a reference perhaps where someone (or you) made some analysis of intermolecular bonding and came to this conclusion?

--dc


I have not detected it empirically. It is based on a comprehensive understanding of H bonding between water molecules, as was fully explicated in "Lookout For Bill." It is also described in this paper:

Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ

or, for a hard copy:

https://zenodo.org/record/37224
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:14 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:I believe that in something you had written somewhere, I once saw where you had stated that it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together. To me this would be interesting if so. Do you have any quantitative basis for this statement, a reference perhaps where someone (or you) made some analysis of intermolecular bonding and came to this conclusion?

I have not detected it empirically. It is based on a comprehensive understanding of H bonding between water molecules, as was fully explicated in "Lookout For Bill." It is also described in this paper:

Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ

I don't know what "Lookout for Bill" refers to.

And in the "groups.google.com..." document you reference, I don't feel that there is a lucid and concrete explanation of the proposal that "it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together"; nor of the proposition that hydrogen bonds or "H2O polarity" would somehow be "neutralized" by the presence of other nearby water molecules (if in fact that is what you mean).
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:37 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:I believe that in something you had written somewhere, I once saw where you had stated that it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together. To me this would be interesting if so. Do you have any quantitative basis for this statement, a reference perhaps where someone (or you) made some analysis of intermolecular bonding and came to this conclusion?

I have not detected it empirically. It is based on a comprehensive understanding of H bonding between water molecules, as was fully explicated in "Lookout For Bill." It is also described in this paper:

Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ

I don't know what "Lookout for Bill" refers to.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
MosaicDave wrote:And in the "groups.google.com..." document you reference, I don't feel that there is a lucid and concrete explanation of the proposal that "it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together"; nor of the proposition that hydrogen bonds or "H2O polarity" would somehow be "neutralized".


I agree. You would have to understand polarity neutralization of H bonds first then you can infer my supposition. So, it won't be easy. Sorry. I wish this stuff was simple, but it just isn't.

Under ideal situational factors I would have you read/study both of these documents then I would conduct a class session and step you through it. It would probably take you about a week (I'm guessing) and you would get it. (Any chance you live in the SF bay area?)

As it is, the best I can suggest is that you struggle with it. It won't be easy. It took me three years to work out all the details. Unfortunately, there are many subtle conceptual errors that you will most likely make and these will prevent you from arriving at the right conclusion on all of this.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:59 pm

Is "polarity neutralization of H bonds" your idea, or an idea explained somewhere else that you are building upon?
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:38 pm

MosaicDave wrote:Is "polarity neutralization of H bonds" your idea, or an idea explained somewhere else that you are building upon?



Does it matter Dave? Jim does not see the fallacy of a determination with only 2 electrodes as verses more electrodes in the Holy Grail water treatment bucket?
And being able to do the experiments himself.

He's unable to prove that water is H2O by his own experiments and relies (re LIES) on the rigged results of others and just 'adds' to them.

Unless of course Jim cares to respond to my answers to his questions so we can get to the bottom of where moisture comes from in the Atmosphere making all the H bonds and O bonds theoretically obsolete.

This is not derailing, this is getting to the bottom of moisture in the atmosphere. A true scientist takes nothing for granted and reproves everything to himself to advance one's and everyone's knowledge.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:39 pm

MosaicDave wrote:Is "polarity neutralization of H bonds" your idea, or an idea explained somewhere else that you are building upon?


What follows are excerpts of "Lookout For Bill" I think it answers your question:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117062

Even though I now realize I was lying, at that time I genuinely believed that my understanding of H bonding in regard to surface tension and that of the standard model were one and the same. And so, when I directed him to the scientific literature on H bonding between water molecules I was really only lying a little bit in that I really did believe it would be found there.

----------------------------------------

This notion that H bonds are switches that inherently neutralize other H bond(s) in their vicinity and that the breaking of the H bond, thereby, reactivates these other H bond(s)—like air brakes—was a supposition I developed after I became more fully cognizant of the weak/strong dichotomy. Long before I decided to put pen to paper on all of this and even after I began converting it all to ones and zeros, I would occasionally, come across somebody describing the hydrogen bonding of H2O and I noticed a dichotomy. (It is, essentially, the same dichotomy that was mentioned, briefly, above [ladder of lies].) Sometimes people talked about H bonds and the force that underlies it, H2O polarity, as being strong. Sometimes people talked of them being weak. The strength of H bonds, for example, explained the high boiling point of H2O or the hardness of ice, they would say. The weakness of H bonds, on the other hand, explained the extremely low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water and ease by which it evaporates/sublimates. So which is it? Are H bonds strong or are they weak? The literature on H bonding seemed to suggest the existence of weak bonds and strong bonds, but otherwise seemed arcane, confused and completely unhelpful. So I just kind of reverse engineered the understanding that I discussed above. It just seemed to fit the facts. Water molecules were both weak and strong. And H bonds themselves were the switch thereof. But it was not a normal switch, it was some kind of reverse switch—kind of like air brakes. (Not the kind in cartoons. The kind in buses and trains.)

One TV show stands out in my memory as having been especially helpful toward the end of helping me conceptualize this weak/strong dichotomy and how it relates to this notion that the structural hardness observed along the surface of liquid H2O (surface tension) was a consequence of broken H bonds. It was an episode of the History Channel’s Marvelous Marvels series. This particular episode was about, you guessed it, the scientific peculiarities and mysteries of H2O. They went into considerable detail about the anomalies of water (high boiling/melting point, surface tension, high heat capacity, expands upon freezing, super-chilled water, Mpemba effect and more, upwards of 70—and counting) And, as I recall, they seemed to suggest that these anomalies were indicative of some deeper mystery of H2O. Maybe I am making more out of it than it was, but I remember being amazed—or marveled—that the most passive of passive elements in our reality—the substance we use to put out fires, feed our plants, animals and ourselves, was so confusing and mysterious. They spent a considerable amount of time on the subject of surface tension. Up to that point the concept seemed a vague, obscure notion, like the concept that H2O has a high heat capacity. It is something people know but they know it by rote. They don’t know the how and why. They don’t really understand it. Up until then that was me in regard to surface tension. Maybe the most significant thing this TV show brought into focus for me is the fact that the surface tension of liquid H2O is associated with H bonds between water molecules and (what was surprising to me at the time) differences in the strengths of these H bonds. Specifically, surface tension involves H bonds along the surface of liquid water being strong H bonds and those below the surface being weak H bonds. It was a small step from there to arrive at the realization that a two dimensional surface would inhibit the completion of some bonds. So it seemed to fit. Broken H bonds, being a reverse switch, were inhibited from neutralizing the other H bond(s) along the surface, producing the observed tensional/structural forces. This explained surface tension. (To this day I don’t know if this ‘reverse switch’ notion is something I hit upon independently or if it was something that I absorbed from some other source. My recollection is that it was suggested on this TV show. But I have since been unable to confirm it.)

For more:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117062

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron