Is your thinking on H2O rigorously reductive and explicit? Or is is vague, evasive, harboring invisible assumptions? Are you making an honest attempt to understand water based on the evidence? Or are you fitting observation to what you and others have already assumed? Both of you (Seasick and Bin-Ra) along with Pollack and many others who have dabbled in water theory (ie. structure of bulk water) believe yourselves among the latter, but you are all among the former in my estimation. Inability to comprehend (and/or stubborness to put in the extra work necessary to comprehend) the extreme variability of the force of H2O polarity--itself an artifact of incidental symmetry that is associated with hydrogen bonding (see link below)--is the reason you are all so confused.
It is the extreme variability of the H2O molecule's polar forces that makes bonding between water molecules uniquely different from any other form of bonding. Hydrogen bonding between water molecules is categorically different from either covalent bonding or ionic bonding in that these bond have no variability. And hydrogen bonding between water molecules is relatively different from other forms of hydrogen bonding in that only in H2O can hydrogen bonds reduce polarity all the way to zero. Unless and until all of you accept this you cannot really understand water and its anomalies. All you can do is pretend you understand water and pretend not to notice the anomalies.
Moreover, unless and until you understand the quantum mechanical factors (symmetry and incidental symmetry) that cause H2O polarity to be highly variable you have zero chance of reconciling the mysteries of H2O evidenced in its numerous (over 70 at last count) anomalies. Instead you will continue to make the error of submitting your thinking to the widespread and highly seductive superstition that water is simple and well understood.
Radiant energy being inherently part of the process of generating phase transition to ice as well as of the forming of vesicles evaporation and transported particulates.
All matter is subject to the laws of thermodynamics (ie. entropy). All matter, including H2O, cools. The thermal factors associated with liquid H2O, however, are unique, which is a direct consequence of the variability of H2O polarity. (It is a result of the variability of H2O polarity, for example, that the IR signature of liquid H2O is a continuum and not discrete like most other chemicals.)
This is a critical fact that that a number of respondents to this thread have tried to impress upon the recalcitrant mind of the OP, but to little effect, which is why the OP has had such a struggle with the concept of 'bondings'.
Meaningless. Vague. Convoluted. The high heat capacity of H2O is explained by the variability of H2O polarity. Your model offers no explanation whatsoever. Likewise for the broad IR signature of H2O. And likewise the many other anomalies of H2O (including the very low viscosity of liquid H2O [see link below for detail]). The standard model fails to explain these and/or any of the upwards of 70 anomalies of H2O.
As you know, man is often enthralled by complexity and imagination can easily get in the way of insight.
LOL. All you have is vague, empty-headed rhetoric. You don't have a real argument. Tell us, Seasick, what is insightful about the inability of your model (a model that assumes the polar force of H2O molecules to be static [not variable]) to explain the anomalies of H2O? Your comment suggests that this is a good thing when it is obviously a major failure.
I felt that Pollack's work bears directly on the points raised and persisted in and therefore worthy of at least giving a heads up.
I find Pollack's thinking to be insightful but convoluted. It is insightful because he does not allow himself to be captured by the brain-dead studidity of the current paradigm that would have us sweep all of the anomalies under the rug and dismiss them with semantics as being incidental. But I find his thinking convoluted in that Pollack seemingly refuses to be rigorously reductive.
I also feel its implications are not expounded by the author - and perhaps that is because he really wants people to grow it from understanding rather than use it to push an agenda - like being right or making a fortune from it. He does clearly want to restore science to its roots.
I don't know if you are talking about me or Pollack here. Pollacks biggest problem is that his thinking is convoluted and vague. He doesn't understand the current paradigm well enough to realize its pseudoscientific nonsense. So he fails to reject it and he tries to draw attention to the one anomaly (EZ water) that he claims.
Only through understanding the mechanism of H2O polarity's variability can one come to understand water along with its anomalies.
The world is full of vague nitwits who are too lazy to do the real work of science which involves being rigorously reductive.
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Scienceshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes