Osmosis produces water from external oxygen

[BipedalJoe]

I developed the idea over the past year, based on Gerald Pollack's brilliant work with proving osmosis was the transfer of protons, and explaining a theoretical model for why that was so, that he has also proven experimentally, that osmosis actually does not move water. It deconstructs and recreates water, by moving protons and electrons, and relying on externally provided oxygen. This can be proven or falsified by performing a simple standard osmosis experiment without any external oxygen supplied to the hyperosmotic compartment.

Osmosis produces water from external oxygen, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4290233

[BipedalJoe]

For anyone interested, I devised the simplest experiment to test this model, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4320127.

Without external oxygen, water is actually consumed since H2 is created instead and evaporates. This breaks the illusion of water moving, and so my model can be easily verified from that. Simple hand pumped pressure can be used, hydrostatic pressure promotes the adsorbed water phase at the walls of the water container, including at the membrane that is semi-permeable only to protons and electrons, and asymmetry of the EZ phase across the membrane will cause the transfer of protons. "Pressure-based osmosis".

Image for the experiment: https://i.imgur.com/9JaPf3d.png

[crawler]

But in that case osmosis does move water because water has to flow to replace the leaked protons.
And i suppose that oxygen is produced on the upstream side.
And oxygen flows up & over & down to the downstream side where it reforms water.

So, i suppose that the mysterious natural flow of water seen along micro-pipe structures might be because protons are leaking out of the micro-pipe moreso at one end than the other end. Partly explaining how tall trees manage.

[BipedalJoe]

I see what you mean but I meant it in the context of the normal mythos around osmosis. The human condition is often not that good at cause and effect. It sees water move, and it assumes water is moving like humans move, physically so. Therefore, the membrane must be semi-permeable to water, and water only since dissolved particles do not move. People continue to believe that even as they see that the membrane actually holds water against gravity.

Competing against a myth is hard, because of how trust works, people trust what they are comfortable with, and grow comfortable with memes they grow up with (if you grow up next to a place that smells like shit, you actually associate the smell of shit with comfort... same applies to ideas that are shit. )

Conforming my model to the incumbent by saying "but water does move!", well, the point to get across is what the incumbent model has gotten wrong, and what my model suggests is right. When you say "O2 forms when water breaks down, moves on over to the other compartment and reforms", this would be true if the released O2 is the only source of O2 for the endosmotic compartment. Usually when people have done osmosis experiments throughout history, they would most likely not have closed them to atmosphere, and atmospheric O2 would more likely be used in the endosmotic compartment.

Why water has continuous flow in micro pipes, I don't know. Really interesting phenomena. Gerald Pollack's work is incredible, it is why I thought about my model for osmosis.

[BipedalJoe]

(The membrane is not permeable to water, is a shorter way of saying what I just said. The myth that water moves over the membrane is the basis of the belief that the membrane is permeable to water. )

[paladin17]

Have you (or anyone else) actually performed this experiment?

[jimmcginn]

I developed the idea over the past year, based on Gerald Pollack's brilliant work with proving osmosis was the transfer of protons, and explaining a theoretical model for why that was so, that he has also proven experimentally, that osmosis actually does not move water. It deconstructs and recreates water, by moving protons and electrons, and relying on externally provided oxygen. This can be proven or falsified by performing a simple standard osmosis experiment without any external oxygen supplied to the hyperosmotic compartment.

Osmosis produces water from external oxygen, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4290233

Hi Joe. To me it's strange, even a bit surreal, that anybody would make the claim that Gerald Pollack's thinking on water can in any way be characterized as having proven, to use your words, that, "osmosis deconstructs and recreates water, by moving protons and electrons." In my mind, the notion that covalent bonds can be so casually broken and reformed without leaving a huge thermal signature is ignorant. It is especially perplexing that anybody would suggest it as being verified by experiment, which is plainly a marketing tactic and not sound scientific reasoning. Maybe, however, I missed something. Can you (or anybody) provide a link where this claim has been honestly addressed by Pollack or any of his adherents? Anything?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[GaryN]

the notion that covalent bonds can be so casually broken and reformed without leaving a huge thermal signature

Hi James, maybe you could try to help me understand the creation of a new water molecule. I see it is an exothermic process but have not been able to find an actual value for what wavelength the emitted light/heat would have. I have asked online about this but only get "it's complicated". I have no doubt it is, despite waters seeming simplicity. I see -285.8 kJ/mol as the standard enthalpy but what is the nature of this emission? And if so much heat is lost, doesn't that imply the new molecule would be very cold?

[jimmcginn]

I have no doubt it is, despite waters seeming simplicity. I see -285.8 kJ/mol as the standard enthalpy but what is the nature of this emission? And if so much heat is lost, doesn't that imply the new molecule would be very cold?

It should be hot, has happens in combustion. When Hydrogen burns it combines with oxygen and puts off heat.

James McGinn

[GaryN]

It should be hot, has happens in combustion. When Hydrogen burns it combines with oxygen and puts off heat.

OK. So now in a theoretical scenario, if during a major CME we have protons and oxygen ions entering Earths atmosphere, would it be possible to create water molecules by pulling electrons out of the Earths surface in a strong electric field?

[crawler]

I have no doubt it is, despite waters seeming simplicity. I see -285.8 kJ/mol as the standard enthalpy but what is the nature of this emission? And if so much heat is lost, doesn't that imply the new molecule would be very cold?

It should be hot, has happens in combustion. When Hydrogen burns it combines with oxygen and puts off heat.

James McGinn

I aint a chemical guy, but wouldnt Pollack say that the molecule made is an infinite hex lattice?

[jimmcginn]

I aint a chemical guy, but wouldnt Pollack say that the molecule made is an infinite hex lattice?

I suppose that would be consistent with a lot of the other perfectly crazy things he's stated.

When Everybody is Pretending to Understand
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes ... and-eeifp7

James McGinn / Genius

[BipedalJoe]

To me it's strange, even a bit surreal, that anybody would make the claim that Gerald Pollack's thinking on water can in any way be characterized as having proven, to use your words, that, "osmosis deconstructs and recreates water, by moving protons and electrons."

Gerald Pollack has not proven that osmosis consumes and produces water nor does he believe anything like that. I am the person who thought of that model, have not heard it from anyone else. What he has proven, though, is that water at surfaces is forced into a dense solid phase. This phase, to be denser than water (the normal solid phase is not) ejects the protons that link the molecular ice sheets vertically. This phase ejects protons away from surfaces, causing a net negative charge at the surface. It is impaired by solutes, like the normal solid phase, and this causes a net negative charge in the hyperosmotic compartment driving the transfer of protons during osmosis. This, he has proven. My assumption, that he is not behind nor does he support it, is that the loss of protons from the exosmotic compartment will lead to the breakdown of OH- in the dense solid phase, to maintain electrical neutrality, followed by transfer of electrons and production of water, until an equilibrium is met based on the force that powers this, simply gravity.

In my mind, the notion that covalent bonds can be so casually broken and reformed without leaving a huge thermal signature is ignorant.

What do you mean specifically with huge? There are huge pH gradients forming in osmosis, as Pollack has shown, but most people are not aware of this. So I guess most people are ignorant, they never bothered to look. If there is some heating during osmosis, since people miss the pH gradients that form maybe they miss that too. The chemical reactions that would be the same as in an acid-base battery are pretty much opposites in both compartments, energy released and absorbed might somewhat even out too. That is just a quick response to your argument. There is plenty of space to critique my proposal that osmosis consumes and produces water like an acid-base battery does, but I don't know if that particular point is the best critique.

It is especially perplexing that anybody would suggest it as being verified by experiment

I have not said I have verified it by experiment. I said that it would be easily verified by seeing if osmosis takes place if you remove the external oxygen from the hyperosmotic compartment. Nothing about me saying that is a marketing tactic since I'm clearly saying that I haven't tried that myself. Nor is it unsound scientific reasoning since I am clearly saying that I have a hypothesis and I point out a simple experiment that could verify or falsify it. The proton transfer during osmosis is on the other hand experimentally proven. I think you misread what I wrote because of my lack of punctuation, I meant "Gerald Pollack's work proved osmosis was the transfer of protons, he also explained a theoretical model for why that was so, and he has also proven his model experimentally", I did not mean he has proven my proposal. My idea is unrelated to him, he hasn't endorsed it or anything like that. I am a major fan of his work because I think it is brilliant, but, this idea of mine is my own.

Can you (or anybody) provide a link where this claim has been honestly addressed by Pollack or any of his adherents?

It isn't an idea that adheres to Gerald Pollack, it is my own idea. It is based on his discovery of the dense solid phase (he calls it the gel phase but I'm not convinced gel like viscosity characterizes it so much, maybe it does but the actual molecular bonds seem pretty rigid in it. ) So, I can provide you a link to where I myself address it, I don't think anyone else has ever addressed it so couldn't give you links to anyone else honestly addressing it.

There is broader reasons why I consider this model. One is, if electrical flow across a membrane can be generated through same mechanisms as in acid-base battery, and knowing that there is an actual acid-base gradient over membranes when there is "osmosis" like forces (there are more than just solutes, pressure gradient has same effect), it is very reasonable to place protein machinery in membranes since they could harness the electrical current from that.

[BipedalJoe]

Have you (or anyone else) actually performed this experiment?

No. I derived it as an idea based on that everything is there, and, in my opinion, even with the proven proton transfer powered by the surface phase of water, I still think the actual mechanism for moving the water is lacking. So, I think actual mechanism is not explained, and, that this mechanism I propose actually perfectly explains it. It also explains why osmotic membranes hold water against gravity. The forum user jimmcginn suggested I was being dishonest about that I have not tested that specifically experimentally but in those 4 paragraphs on that 1 page pdf that I link to, I state specifically

That external oxygen is required for osmosis is a hypothesis that can be easily testedexperimentally by performing a standard osmosis experiment without external oxygen in thesalt compartment. The author has not done so.

Jimmginn then went on to ridicule the actually incredibly good work of Gerald Pollack, likely without having actually looked at it. His 2009 article that proves the proton transfer in osmosis is really good, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf.

In my opinion, there is "experimental" proof that can be read from biology (in sense that physiology is testing things as well, and one can observe the results. ) Hypoxia causes diuresis. While there is plenty of explanations people come up with, the requirement of molecular oxygen as a "cathode" in the osmotic reabsorption, fits as well. The extreme hypoxia in the kidney medulla, while it can be explained by some other things, it also fits with consumption of O2 during water reabsorption from the filtrate. And, kidney hypoxia in diabetes when there is high glucose concentration in filtrate, glucose reacts with hydroxide in similar reaction as the standard oxygen evolution reaction, it also releases electrons, but, it does not produce O2. Etc. But I was mentioning the osmosis part more specifically here. Of course, people who dismiss the proposal I suggest for osmosis mechanism will not care about nuances of what I mention about possible support in biology, and people have always been good at explaining things with actually false explanations, they genuinely believed a lot of nonsense throughout history and still at this moment, belief isn't driven mainly by search for knowledge, it is a lot about simple monkey things too like dominance. My point with the biology aspects is just that since I haven't gotten around to testing osmosis without O2 in endosmotic compartment, I've reflected on other potential evidence that was more easily accessible at the time.

[BipedalJoe]

For the record, since there was some slander in responses to this thread, Gerald Pollack's work is incredibly good. People seem to like to form a mob that agrees on a person they can see as the "wrong one", happens all the time, probably so they can feel better about themselves, but most of those people probably haven't actually looked at what that person produced. Pollack's article from 2009 definitively proves proton transfer powered by surface phase, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf. Hard evidence. He has in no way endorsed my proposal. And I was clear with that so anyone claiming otherwise is doing so on false basis. A major reason I thought of my model is because, while the proton transfer is proven (and that can be verified independently by anyone), I still do not think there is an actually good mechanism for the water transfer, and since it happens to be the case that the conditions are there for the standard acid-base battery reactions that de facto do consume and produce ("move") water, it seems like the best suggestion I can think of for what causes osmosis. Anyhow, I recommend Pollack's 2009 thing to start with, it at least shuts down the "water evens out its concentration" paradigm, the actual effect of the solutes being to impair the surface phase in the endosmotic compartment.