Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water

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

Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:54 pm

Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water

Please watch the following video:
Water is Even Weirder Than We Thought (Video)
Ander Nilsson / Stockholm University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swjeA-NNwgA

The radical hypothesis being expressed here by Anders Nilsson is wrong. But it is not wrong because his reasoning is wrong. It is wrong because the model from which he is working is wrong. Here I introduce a correction to the current model. This correction allows us to understand the intrinsic elasticity of hydrogen bonds between water molecules, something that is missing from the current model.

Understanding the intrinsic elasticity of hydrogen bonds between H2O molecules in liquid water involves three insights:

1) Firstly one must comprehend that the force that brings H2O molecules together (polarity) is a result of the asymmetry (lopsidedness) of the H2O molecule's electromagnetic signature.

2) Secondly one must comprehend that hydrogen bonds between water molecules reverse this electromagnetic asymmetry achieving electromagnetic symmetry (balance) thereby neutralizing some fraction (see below) of the magnitude of this force.

3) Lastly one must comprehend how this neutralization is relative (according to proximity) and fractional, a maximum of 25% per bond as each H2O molecule can form a hydrogen bond with up to four other H2O molecules in its vicinity, potentially neutralizing up to 100% (4 x 25%) of each other's polarity.

In short, the magnitude of polarity of H2O molecules in liquid water is inversely related to their interconnectedness. The more interconnected they are (the more comprehensively they are hydrogen bonded to one another) the lower is their polarity. And since polarity determines the magnitude of the force that attracts them to one another, the more interconnected they are the less is the magnitude of the force that keeps them together.

Through this understanding most of the anomalies of H2O are easily resolved. And from this we can understand where conventional theorists failed when it comes to understanding water. It is very simple. They understood #1 and they understood the parts of #3 that are not effected by #2 but they completely dropped the ball when it comes to comprehend #2. Simply put, they failed to comprehend that hydrogen bonds bring electrical gradients that oppose and, thereby, cancel out the electrical gradients that cause the H2O molecule's polarity.

In the following link you can gain a better understanding of the molecular dynamics involved in all of this and how this new understanding helps us explain some of the heretofore unexplained anomalies of H2O:
https://youtu.be/iIQSubWJeNg?t=699

There is one caveat that I would like to explain here. Above I stated, "Through this understanding most of the anomalies of H2O are easily resolved." Well, one of the anomalies that is not fully explained/resolved by 1 through 3 above is superchilled (supercooled) water. (There is a fourth insight related to superchilled water that I am witholding. The reason I am withholding this fourth insight is because it would only confuse people that don't have 1 through 3 clear in their minds.) So, for the time being, I want to let it be known that the understanding being presented here represents a more correct understanding of hydrogen bonding in water and through this more correct understanding we have another line of reasoning that doesn't bring us to the radical conclusion that Anders Nilsson arrived at in the video linked above.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby crawler » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:10 pm

Praps your idea (re hydrogen bonding) is compatible with Nilsson's idea (re a strange phase of liquid water) & with Pollack's idea (re an EZ phase or 4th phase of water)(a stiffer liquid). And all 3 ideas might be ok for helping to explain some aspects of super chilled liquid water.

I dont remember what Pollack says about super chilled EZ water, ie before the super chilled EZ water changes to the ice phase of water.

Praps Pollack believes that super chilled water aint in the EZ phase at all, ie that super chilled water is in the ordinary liquid phase. But if so then Pollack would i feel sure say that ordinary water must change to EZ water & then the EZ water can change to ice (snow)(hail), even if the time spent in the EZ phase is only very very brief.

Or, praps there is a 5th phase of water, super chilled water, that has a slightly different form. This could be a variation of the ordinary liquid, or of the EZ semi-liquid. But any such variation would i think hav to hav a very vizible form to earn that status.
crawler
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:30 pm

crawler wrote:Praps your idea (re hydrogen bonding) is compatible with Nilsson's idea (re a strange phase of liquid water) & with Pollack's idea (re an EZ phase or 4th phase of water)(a stiffer liquid). And all 3 ideas might be ok for helping to explain some aspects of super chilled liquid water.

Well, the title of this thread is somewhat of an overshoot. In retrospect, I should have named this thread something along the lines of, Correction to the Initial Assumptions of the Standard Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water. Because I am not really getting into the different models. I'm mostly discussing initial assumptions of my model and how they are different from (better than?) the initial assumptions of the model of hydrogen bonding in water that is generally accepted by academia.

There is a lot of confusion around this subject. It is really easy to think you are clarifying when all you are accomplishing is to add another layer of confusion. If you do a search on the internet for the "anomalies" of H2O you can arrive at a handful of websites that will have delineated and explicated some 40 to 70 (depending on who is counting) observations about water in various contexts that are either inconsistent with, unpredicted by, or even altogether contradictory too the current model of hydrogen bondig in water. Few come out of college with much awareness of these anomalies or the fact that they represent a failure of science.

Along the lines of helping others get a better understanding of this subject I would like to introduce some YouTube videos that were helpful to me:

Tetrahedral Symmetry
https://youtu.be/6G1evL7ELwE?list=PLX4O ... kSela&t=54

Electronegativity
https://youtu.be/ZWqC1uDNlJ0?list=PLX4O ... tkSela&t=5

Standard (and highly speculative) notions about hydrogen bonding in ice
https://youtu.be/a1ZedR-Um84?list=PLX4O ... tkSela&t=2

Anders Nilsson: Density Maximum
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=756

Anders Nilsson: Heat Capacity
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=935

Anders Nilsson: Surface Tension
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=986

Anders Nilsson: High Boiling Point
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=1265

Anders Nilsson: Hydrogen Bond
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=1397

Anders Nilsson: Tetrahedral Coordination
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=1620

Anders Nilsson: Why (purportedly) do we have two structures in regard to hydrogen bonding?
(Highly speculative comments about a role for entropy to explain "two structures")
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2386
crawler wrote:I dont remember what Pollack says about super chilled EZ water, ie before the super chilled EZ water changes to the ice phase of water.

I don't have much of any understanding of how Pollack arrived at some of the conclusions about his model. From what I can tell, he seems to not have much regard for the standard model or for any of the assumptions of standard chemistry.

All in all, to understand the shortcomings of the standard model (ie. that of Nilsson) you have to understand that they had no knowledge of #2 of 1 through 3 in the first post on this thread. With the inclusion of #2 most of the anomalies of H2O are easily resolved.

There also does exist an undiscovered plasma phase of H2O that underlies the plasma that forms the sheath of tornadic vortices:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117061

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:06 pm

How do hydrogen bonds between water molecules compare and contrast with covalent and ionic bonds?

Hydrogen bonds between water molecules are categorically distinct from either covalent bonds or ionic bonds. As a means of comparison, ionic bonds involve one negative atom and one different positive atom. In hydrogen bonding between water molecules both of the molecules that participate in any bond are the same molecule. They are both H2O molecules.

The H2O molecule is said to be polar, but this is an oversimplification that will cause confusion if you don't understand the underlying cause of this "polarity" and the situational factors that cause variability in the magnitude of the force that is associated with this "polarity". Specifically, it is best to comprehend exactly why/how the H2O molecule is polar. Failure to fully comprehend why/how the H2O molecule is polar is the basis for much of the cognitive dissonance that dominates this subject.

The H2O molecule is polar as a result of its net electrical gradients and their effect on the location of its electron clouds on all three of its nuclei (one oxygen and two hydrogen) and that effect is to push these electron clouds off center so that they are stretched or flagged relative to their respective nuclei. It is this stretching of electron clouds relative to their respective nuclei that causes one end of the H2O molecule to be negative (the "oxygen" end) and the other end to be positive (the "hydrogen" end), this being the charge separation that brings us to describe the H2O molecules as "polar."

But this polarity is not static; it is actually a very tenuous thing. With respect to which, it is of utmost importance to realize that this polarity is not the result of the asymmetry or lopsideness of the arrangement of its atoms (if that was the case then its polarity really would be static--this being the biggest mistake conventional theorists are making). Rather this polarity is the result of the asymmetry or lopsideness of its electrical gradients, what I refer to hereafter as the H2O molecule's intrinsic electrical gradients. And this is especially important with repect to the fact that when an H2O molecule makes hydrogen bonds with adjacent H2O molecules additional electrical gradients are brought into play from this adjacent H2O molecule. And these additional electrical gradients, what I will refer to hereafter as incidental (or you could use "external" rather than "incidental") electrical gradients, oppose or neutralize the H2O molecules intrinsic electrical gradients. The net effect is that hydrogen bonds with adjacent H2O molecules recentralize the electron clouds of its atoms relative to their respective nuclei (and this happens in both of the H2O molecules that participate in the bond, but only 25% per bond per molecule). This relative recentering of an H2O molecule's atoms' electron clouds to their respective nuclei neutralizes a proportional amount of the "polar" force. (Remember the "polar force" is a result of the H2O molecule's atoms' electron cloud being off center from its atoms' nuclei.) And it can potentially neutralize 100% of this "polar" force in that each H2O molecule can make up to 4 hydrogen bonds, one each with four adjacent H2O molecules, reducing the polar force to zero--potentially. So, hydrogen bonds serve two functions. Firstly, they provide connectedness between H2O molecules and, secondly, they neutralize a fraction, up to 25% per bond, of the magnitude of the force thereof. Stated more briefly, hydrogen bonding in H2O engender an inverse relationship between the connectedness of H2O molecules and the force of that connectedness.

It is the inverse relationship that underlies the peculiar properties of H2O--this being what has everybody perplexed. And, I suppose, this is why the whole discipline is ensconced in cognitive dissonance, nobody being a bigger victim and generator of mis-thinking than Gerald Pollack. (But one can argue that conventional quackademia is no slouch when it comes to making such contributions [see the first post in this thread, for example]).

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034
The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, . . .
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:16 pm

Can Super Cooled Water Exist in the Atmosphere?

Herb:
You cannot produce super cooled water in a lab unless there are no particles (nuclei) or agitation which will initiate the formation of ice crystals.

JMcG:
I think you have to be careful not to assume that what is true for large quantities of H2O sitting in a container will necessarily be true for minute quantities of H2O suspended in the air.

According to my theory of hydrogen bonding in water, the proximate mechanism of liquid H2O turning to ice, solid H2O, has to do with the orientation of H2O molecules to one another. Specifically it has to do with whether they are generally engaging with each other on the "gear" end of the molecule, this being the hydrogen end, or on the non-gear end, this being the oxygen end. When they are engaging with each other on the gear end they can lever against each other. Accordingly, broken bonds can potentially be maintained--stabilized. The reason that the maintenance of broken bonds is necessary for the formation of ice, solid water, is because completed bonds neutralize polarity and polarity is necessary to provide the strength of ice. In other words, since hydrogen bonds neutralize polarity, breaking of hydrogen bonds activates it--but only if they stay broken. (Or, to be more accurate, since hydrogen bonds neutralize a fraction of an H2O molecule's polarity, up to 25%, breaking of hydrogen bonds activates a fraction of an H2O molecule's polarity, up to 25%--but only if they stay broken.) Once one or a few H2O molecules maintain stable broken hydrogen bonds their solidity provides points of leverage for others to do the same. If (for some not-well-understood reason) the H2O molecules never generally engage each other on their gear end then the super cooledstate of water can be maintained.

(BTW, H2O molecules will begin to reorient themselves at temperatures below 4C. [The exact reasons for this is not something I can fully explain. But I am fairly sure it has something to do with what is discussed in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU ] Subsequently they will generally begin to engage each other on their hydrogen "gear" end. In accordance with the model explained in the above paragraph, one methodological step one might employ to consistently achieve super cooled water is to increase the rate of cooling below 4C to reduce the amount of time for the H2O molecules to flip and begin engaging each other on their gear ends.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Have you ever noticed that snowflakes are flat?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=240#p122413
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby perpetual motion » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:41 pm

What is water absorbing to make it expand, as the temperature drops to make it solid ice?
As it reaches the solid state its expansion is horrendous. It breaks things!
What is it absorbing to make it expand?
perpetual motion
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby Sci-Phy » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:59 am

Pure Silicon is also expanding when freeze, even more than water.
The molecules are all the same and it's pure element - molecules should be symmetrical.
There are no hydrogen bonds, but still expanding.
There are a lot more substances which less dense in solid state.
Should be the same mechanism.

Cheers.
Sci-Phy
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:47 am
Location: Canada

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:02 pm

perpetual motion wrote:What is water absorbing to make it expand, as the temperature drops to make it solid ice?
As it reaches the solid state its expansion is horrendous. It breaks things!
What is it absorbing to make it expand?


The first step to properly conceptualizing H2O and its phases is to not think normally.

It's normal to consider that the charges (and associated forces) that exist between the molecules of a substance as being static and therefore any differences in the phase related behavior of the substance can be simply understood as a function of Coulombs law. For example, consider a substance that is solid at a certain temperature. Starting at some temperature above that temperature the molecules begin to move away from each other due to heat expansion. In accordance with the inverse square aspects of Coulomb's law (I suggest you look this up if this it is not perfectly clear what I mean by this last statement) with more space between molecules there is less force (less EMF) holding the molecules of the substance together, and it thus acts more like a liquid.

So, the first step to properly understanding the phase behavior of H2O involves not mindlessly applying the logic of normal chemistry to the logic of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. Because with hydrogen bonds between water molecules the more comprehensively connected to each other they are the more the force holding them together is turned off (the more connected their are to each other the more their polarity is neutralized).

In liquid water polarity is low, connectedness is high. Strangely, in ice connectedness is lower. Polarity is higher. Polarity is higher because connectedness is lower. Density is lower because connectedness is lower (thus the reason ice floats--there is more empty space between H2O molecules). Ice is stronger (more structurally rigid) that liquid water because polarity is higher. Polarity is higher because ice has more broken bonds (broken bonds reverse the neutralization of polarity that is associated with the comprehensiveness of H bonding in liquid water). (See the first post in this thread for a better description of the model that underlies all of this.)

Now to answer your question:
It is not absorbing anything as it expands. It is breaking bonds (creating space). Breaking bonds activates polarity that was dormant in the liquid phase. More polarity makes bonds collectively stronger. Higher collective strength causes them to more comprehensively grind against each other breaking more bonds (more space), creating more polarity, creating more collective strength, more grinding . . . etc. etc. etc.

(By the way, super chilled (super cooled) water takes place when the process described in the above paragraph never gets initiated. But this is beyond the scope of what is important here.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=255#p122459
Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere to balance out what would otherwise be some extremes of heat/high pressures and cold/low pressures. Constructed from layers of spinning microdroplets of H2O with maximized surface tension, jet streams are a consequence of the principle that maximization of the surface area of H2O maximizes the tensional forces of H2O. These conduits emerge along moist dry wind shear boundaries, especially those associated with the extensive, flat boundary between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere, prime conditions for wind shear. The ensuing vortices of surface tension maximized spinning microdroplets provide a slick hydrophobic inner surface that channels moist air at speeds up to 300 mph.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in W

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:31 pm

Sci-Phy wrote:Pure Silicon is also expanding when freeze, even more than water.
The molecules are all the same and it's pure element - molecules should be symmetrical.
There are no hydrogen bonds, but still expanding.
There are a lot more substances which less dense in solid state.
Should be the same mechanism.

Cheers.


I don't know enough about silicon to confirm or dispute what you are saying here. As you suggest, it would be interesting to look into it more deeply to see if some of the same logic applies.

Thanks for the insight.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122186
“McGinn's discovery of vortice plasma was not that big of a deal. He didn't do any experiments or make any original observations. In other words, he didn't discover any of the pieces of the puzzle. All he did was correctly interpret the pieces of the puzzle--something that would have happened anyway--and then he put the puzzle together. No big deal.”
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JP Michael and 4 guests