Not at all. In fact my model explains this evidence. See Bill Chapter One Air Brakes for details:GaryN wrote:Does this finding change anything in the models being discussed here?
http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists- ... quid-water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16584
The standard model cannot make the same claim. In fact, as the following articles attests, the standard model of water structure (sometimes called the water structure problem) is about as broken as it is possible for a model to be:
http://www.academia.edu/2230441/Water_W ... ng_mystery
The net effect of the collective efforts of its associated researchers is, it seems, to create enough turmoil that it looks like they are, kinda, making progress. Unfortunately, another effect is to further obscure the fallacious fundamental assumptions that keep them running in place. In some respects it is a genuinely absurd paradigm. In the least it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind.
They maintain a deep-set but unspoken belief that H2O polarity is fundamentally a constant force--kind of like an weak ionic bonds. This is wrong. And they keep adding anomalies--70 and counting. Think about that, there are 70 observations associated with H2O that are NOT predicted by theory. Only Phillip Ball (a science journalist) has the temerity to say it like it is: "No one really understands water. It’s embarrassing to admit it, but the stuff that covers two-thirds of our planet is still a mystery. Worse, the more we look, the more the problems accumulate: new techniques probing deeper into the molecular architecture of liquid water are throwing up more puzzles." Then Ball twists the knife: "This guilty secret has myriad ramifications. Water defines the terrestrial environment. It is central to Earth and atmospheric sciences, to biology and to many technologies. The common assumption that water is well characterized has led to explanatory edifices built on shaky ground. The situation is unsatisfactory intellectually and hazardous in practice."
Obviously, since I have a model of water structure that I am sure will, someday, replace the standard model, I couldn't agree more with Ball. Along these lines, I couldn't more highly recommend that you reading Ball's full article (link above). He is a genuinely amazing writer.
As explained in 'Bill', H2O and energy have an extremely close relationship with one another. This is faciliated by the H2O polarity and, most importantly, the fact that it zero's out with fully symmetric H bonding. This is what *collectively* gives liquid H2O (and only liquid H2O) extreme elasticity. This makes H2O nature's catcher's mitt for energy. It soaks up both infra red energy (thanks to Webo for clarifying this) and kinetic energy and then continues to release it gradually--essentially defining the thermal realities on the surface of our planet.GaryN wrote:Physicists just discovered a second state of liquid waterhttp://www.sciencealert.com/physicists- ... quid-waterResearchers have been investigating the physical properties of water, and found that when it’s heated to between 40 and 60 degrees Celsius, it hits a 'crossover temperature', and appears to start switching between two different states of liquid.
One consequence of this is a constant pendulumic kinetic activity--it being the mechanism of H2O's huge heat capacity. This thermal heartbeat essentially involves H2O being in a state of constant phase change! As explained in 'Bill': the three states of are defined as follows: "The only time H2O is at full polarity is when it is steam (gaseous H2O). When it is liquid its polarity is zero or close to zero. And, in between these two, is solid water; with half polarity being the force that provides the strength of the bond." As I stated, this means liquid H2O is in a state of continuous, pendulumic, phase change between gas, solid, and liquid. The more it is heated the faster and wider swings the pendulus of their state of constant change. And each of these states has separate and distinct. And so the hotter it becomes the more dramatically is the shift of this continuous state of phase change. This is why it is said that liquid H2O is truly the most functionally unique substance in our reality.
This thermal heartbeat has its basis in the quantum mechanical factors that underlie H2O polarity, as explained in 'Bill':
"My examination of the quantum mechanical factors underlying molecular polarity and hydrogen bonding was very confusing at first, but it got a lot simpler once I recognized the centrality (both figuratively and literally) of the electron cloud around the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule, it being the source of the force associated with H2O polarity. As is well known, each H2O molecule has electromagnetic forces associated with polarity. This is because electrons are considerably more attracted to the oxygen atom than they are to the hydrogen atoms. This is a consequence of electronegativity differences between the oxygen atom and the covalently attached hydrogen atoms. Accordingly, these electronegativity differences cause the electron cloud to be pulled more toward the oxygen end of the H2O molecule, causing it to be more negatively charged, causing the hydrogen end (the “rabbit ears”) of the H2O molecule to be more positively charged, making the H2O molecules a dipole—like a magnet (but with a two headed positive end [H atoms]). This phenomena is also referred to as tetrahedral asymmetry: tetrahedral because there are four locations around the oxygen atom where some kind of bond (either covalent or hydrogen) can potentially be made and these locations are equidistant (more or less) from each other, just like the four corners of a tetrahedron; and it is asymmetric because only two of these locations are filled with covalent bonds, causing the collective charges of the molecule to be lopsided or asymmetric relative to the oxygen atom, pulling the electrons down as suggested above. And so, please do keep the following in mind as you read the paragraph that follows: it is both the electronegativity differences and the tetrahedral asymmetry of these electronegativity differences that conspire—by way of their effect on the electron cloud around the oxygen atom—to cause the H2O molecule to be a dipole. (And, also, keep in mind that being a dipole is the force [polarity] that underlies the strength of the H bonds themselves.)"
And then:
"I considered what would happen to the electron cloud with the establishment of H bonds on the two other corners of the tetrahedron (where the two sets of “covalently non-bonding” pairs of electrons are located). First I added one H bond. It seemed plainly obvious that, consequently, the electron cloud would be forced to take a more balanced arrangement (more collectively central position) around the oxygen atom. This would, of course, nullify one half of the tetrahedral asymmetry and since tetrahedral asymmetry is essential to polarity it would also nullify one half of the polarity! This was not exactly the result I was expecting, but it did seem to confirm my premise in that it seemed to indicated considerable polarity—one half—to maintain a strong bond (or, at least, that [“one half”] seemed within the realm of reason to be a strong bond). Instantaneously, like a slap in the face, I realized that the only time H2O is at full polarity is when it is steam; when it is gaseous. Only then—when it has zero H bonds—is tetrahedral asymmetry maximized! That kind of took my intellectual breath away. There was nothing in the literature that indicated anything like this! But before I had time to process that I considered what would happen with the addition of a second H bond at the remaining corner of the tetrahedron. The implications were immediately obvious. The electron cloud would be forced to take a completely balanced arrangement around the oxygen atom. Polarity would drop to zero as full tetrahedral symmetry is achieved!"
Further along:
When the oxygen atom of an H2O molecule forms hydrogen bonds with the hydrogen atoms of two other H2O molecules—as in liquid water—the force that brings them together, polarity, disappears—drops to zero—just as the bonds are completed, causing them (the oxygen atom of one H2O molecule and the hydrogen atoms of the adjacent H2O molecules) to bounce off of each other. But the bond isn’t broken in that as the molecules move away from each other the force of polarity returns, bringing them back together again. Most significantly, the energy thereof is conserved in the continuous movement. In the steam engine, water is the David with its energy conservation slingshot, the piston is Goliath. The zeroing of polarity with fully symmetric H bonding is, thereby, the reason liquid H2O has such a high heat capacity—that is the slingshot. In a sense liquid H2O never really is a liquid. It is kind of a pseudo-gas and a pseudo-liquid. For example (assuming one H bond is already formed at the other non-bonding location of the respective oxygen atom) when the H atom of one H2O molecules knocks up against the oxygen molecule of an adjacent H2O molecule it bounces, just like a gas. But the molecules cannot escape each other’s attraction, staying in close proximity to each other like a liquid. Most significantly, energy is conserved in the continuous pendulumic movement as they bounce away from each other to be pulled back again, over and over. This is the thermal heartbeat of our environment. In conjunction with its ubiquity (the prevalence of H2O on earth) it is this pendulumic activity that delineates the thermal realities on the surface of our planet. Moreover, it is this pendulumic movement and the energy conservation and energy distribution implications of which that is the reason water is essential to life and many other energetic processes. In short, H2O is the energy conservation superhero of our reality.
Last but not least:
in this new model H2O polarity is variable and H bonds are the mechanism thereof. In comparison, the current paradigm considers it 'well understood' that polarity is a constant, kind of like a weak ionic bond, I suppose. (Note: As will be more explicitly addressed in a subsequent chapter, this is blindly assumed by the current paradigm [ab initio].) Secondly, in this new model the space between H2O molecules (in liquid water) is the result of the polarity neutralizing to zero, with fully symmetric H bonding, as described above. This facilitates the constant movement (conserved energy) associated with H2O’s heat capacity. In comparison, the current paradigm considers it 'well understood' that the space between H2O molecules in liquid water is, more or less, constant, somewhat mysterious (Saykally) and otherwise not all that significant. Also, they lack any kind of an explanation for why liquid water has such a high heat capacity. Instead they, in effect, dismiss it as one of the many anomalies of H2O. Lastly, in this new model ice (solid water) is a consequence of the way H2O molecules collectively force the prying apart (breaking) of ‘weak’ H bonds (just like the grains of starch in the non-Newtonian fluids, wit pressure applied, man) itself a consequence of an unknown mechanical implications associated with the way H2O molecules fit into and fold against each other under low energy conditions. In other words, ice is a form of three dimensional surface tension—surface tension on steroids. (As indicated previously, one highlight of this model of ice/freezing is that it allows us to describe the sharpness of the transition between the relatively low viscosity of liquid H2O before it freezes and the solidity of the ice after if freezes as being a consequence of the de-neutralization [activation] of polarity that had been neutralized [dormant] in the liquid stage. [The current paradigm lacks any kind of elegant explanation for the sharpness of this transition.]) In comparison, the current paradigm considers it 'well understood' that ice is H2O molecules arranged in an end-to-end manner, producing a “lattice” structure. Their conceptualization of the freezing process, accordingly, involves water molecules, somehow, doing just that, arranging themselves in an end-to-end manner. (I consider this the strangest assumption of the current paradigm. There is no physical basis to expect that H2O molecules would arrange themselves as such. In my opinion, the probability that this could actually take place in nature is comparable to the probability of flipping a nickel a billion times and having it land standing on its side every time. [Most conspicuously, whether or not it is realistic to expect such an idealized notion {lattice ice} to be mirrored in reality seems to not have been discussed in the literature.] Lastly, and in sharp contrast to the understanding that has been explicated herein, this model lacks any kind of elegant explanation for surface tension, leaving the current paradigm to rely on the insights of a guy who played bongos back in the sixties.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes