Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

[James McGinn]

From Alan Soper; December 26

Dear Mr McGinn,

I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual mistakes and misunderstandings . . .

Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged "acceptor" oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it's polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized."

This view is incorrect. The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force. If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule. You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken. The first bond does not "neutralise" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.

Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.

Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."

Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, but do not readily leave the liquid. You have to distinguish between the case of a bond being broken and being almost immediately replaced by another bond forming with another molecule, which is the situation in the liquid, and the case of a molecule leaving the liquid completely, when it has to break free of its bonds and not form them again. The latter requires a lot of energy, while the former does not, due to the proximity of neighbouring molecules in the liquid.

Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces. Note that surface tension tends to DECREASE the surface area, not increase it, which is why liquid droplets are spherical in shape.

A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work. It is my current belief however that many-body forces also play a crucial role in determining water's properties, but these are routinely left out of computer simulation models of water.

Your Sincerely,

Alan K Soper

*********************************************
From James McGinn; December 28

Dear Alan,
I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response. I was not expecting that . . .


Dear Alan,

I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response. I was not expecting that. I had sent a similar request to Anders Nilsson and got no response at all. I am also in a conversation with Marcia Barbosa, but she doesn't reveal much about her own thinking. So it is especially enlightening to gain some insight from one of the recognized experts in the field.

2) Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms . . .

Alan (12/26):
This view is incorrect The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralized by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, . . .

James:
Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this? If you know it how do you know it? If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?

Moreover, if you are going to claim a constant distance of 1.8 Angstroms then the onus is on you to explain the force that maintains that distance. Some time ago, I looked in the literature and could find no rational explanation of any such distance/force, so I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that this is a phantom distance/force that was just assumed because otherwise the standard model fails to explain the low viscosity of water. In other words, this seems like a "skyhook" assumption to me. But I'm open to any empirical evidence that demonstrates otherwise.

In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained. It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths". In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible.

In my model the molecules are constantly bumping up against each other. Kinetic energy is the only thing maintaining a distance. By the way, water can actually be used as a hydraulic fluid. (It isn't, because it is so corrosive.) This fact indicates to me that there is not much distance between the molecules.

Alan (12/26):
. . . which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force.

James:
How so? Your model already has a problem in that it fails to explain the low viscosity of water without a phantom distance/force. Assuming a strong Coulomb attractive force just makes that problem worse.

Alan (12/26):
If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.

James:
I see it differently. The electron cloud doesn't get stretched. It isn't passive. It is the active element in the scenario. When it is unrestrained by positive forces it expands. It becomes more dominant, unruly, like crazed soccer fans. When positive charges (hydrogen atoms) are introduced it is like introducing cops into the soccer crowd, it collapses and becomes more orderly. It is restrained.

Hydrogen bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the water molecule exactly the same way that covalent bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the carbon atom of the methane molecule. From the electron's perspective there is no difference (assuming the hydrogen "bond" [which, ironically, has zero force holding it] stays put. [in that sense it really isn't a bond {see Comment below}]) between a "hydrogen" bond and a covalent bond. The electrons don't know or care whether a bond is covalent or "hydrogen". They act the same regardless. Just like covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds neutralize the asymmetry of the electronegativity charges producing balances (not lopsided) electronegativity charges, neutralizing polarity.

(Comment: The thing that throws everybody for a loop is this notion [as I indicated parenthetically above] that a bond can be a bond and have no force maintaining it. That seems to be a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction, because the completion of the bond is itself the mechanism that neutralizes the polarity.)

See this:
Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A Direct X-Ray Measurement
E. D. Isaacs, A. Shukla, P. M. Platzman, D. R. Hamann, B. Barbiellini, and C. A. Tulk
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 600 - Published 18 January 1999; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4445 (1999)
Quotes:
"The presence of these fringes demonstrates that electrons in the hydrogen bond are quantum mechanically shared--covalent--just as Linus Pauling had predicted."
"For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed. The experiment provides highly coveted details on water's microscopic properties. Not only will it allow researchers in many areas to improve theories of water . . ."
"For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed."

Alan (12/26):
You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken.

James:
You lost me here. It seems like you are suggesting that all bonds are asymmetric, which obviously isn't the case.

Alan (12/26):
The first bond does not "neutralize" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.

James:
I think you should consider that this is just something you have assumed and it is not something you know, and take more care to represent it as such.

Alan (12/26):
Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.

James:
Obviously I disagree. If you have something empirical to support this conjecture I will gladly look at it.

Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."

Alan (12/26):
Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, . . .

James:
I think you misunderstood my point here. I'm not disputing Brownian motion, if that is what you are suggesting. My point had to do with proximity as a mechanism of polarity. The following was copied from the conclusion of my paper:

Page 17: To truly capture water's paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity.

Alan (12/26):
Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces.

James:
I don't disagree. All liquids have tensional forces, or else they would be gasses. In that sense, all liquids have surface tension. But what is distinctive about water is that the tensional forces along its surface are much greater than those below its surface. Accordingly--and unlike any other liquid--any mechanism that will increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension.

This principle is demonstrated vividly in non-Newtonian fluids. (If you don't know what I'm talking about go to YouTube and search on that phrase. You will find it interesting,) In non-Newtonian fluids corn starch, which has microscopic granularity, essentially breaks all (or many) of the symmetrically coordinated bonds when force is applied creating, temporarily, a network of strong asymmetric bonds. It maximizes the surface area of water, thereby turning it into ice for an instant before the symmetric bonds reform. (This same mechanism is involved with the Mpemba effect.)

By the way, my hypothesis on atmospheric vortices also involves the same phenomena--increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension. Did you ever wonder why atmospheric vortices are associated with wind shear between moist and dry bodies of air? I know why.

Alan (12/26):
A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work.

James:
It's cited so often one can hardly miss it. Eighty years is a long time ago, though--a long, long time ago.

***************************************************************
From Alan Soper; December 28

Dear James,

re: "Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this? If you know it how do you know it? If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?"

In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances, using x-ray and neutron diffraction experiments. The proton is scattered only weakly by x-rays, but strongly by neutrons. In the case of neutrons deuterons scatter neutrons quite differently to protons, even when the molecular structure and interactions are (almost) identical. Therefore by combining x-ray diffraction with neutron diffraction on mixtures of heavy (D2O) and light (H2O) water, one can come up with good estimates of the O-O, O-H and H-H radial distribution functions. The O-O function shows a strong near-neighbour peak at about 2.8 angstroms, the O-H function shows a strong peak at about 0.98 angstroms and a second pronounced peak at 1.8 angstroms, while the H-H function shows a strong peak about 1.55 angstroms and second, weaker peak at about 2.35 angstroms. (All these functions have other, weaker, peaks at longer distances.) The first peak in the O-H function has an area of exactly 2 atoms and corresponds to the two hydrogens bonded to the oxygen atom in the water, while the second OH peak has an area of about 1.5 atoms, indicating that not every lone pair of a water molecule has a hydrogen bond. Hence the O-H hydrogen bond distance is necessarily much larger than the O-H intramolecular bond distance.

This experimental evidence, which has been verified on numerous occasions by different methods, including computer simulations based on a simple electrostatic model of water, such as that proposed by Bernal and Fowler. I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim. You can ignore this evidence if you wish to do so, but do not then complain when the "academic" community refuse to discuss or support you. (Incidentally, I should point out that I do not work in academia, nor do quite a few other scientists I know, so the problem here has nothing to do with a "stranglehold" from academia. In addition I would also say that I do not necessarily regard the simple models as correct or the best that we can do. Undoubtedly the real interactions between water molecules are more complicated than these simple models suggest, but at least they are in the right direction.)


The idea that molecules and atoms do not overlap goes back a long way, at least to van der Waals in the 1800s, and received verification when the quantum theory was invented. Electrons form clouds around the central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum. Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force, which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms constantly exchanging places with each other.


You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation which fits the experimental facts of what we actually measure at the atomistic level. Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.

Yours sincerely,

Alan K Soper

**********************************************
From James McGinn; January 1

Alan (12/28):
In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances,

James:
I don't dispute the distances or the accuracy of the measurements. My dispute is two fold. Firstly I dispute the following:

Alan (12/28):
. . . the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart . . .

James:
In your most recent email you refer to these as, "peaks." The "peaks" are the peak of a bell curve; they are a statistical distribution and the peak represents the median. So, the phrase "at least" is the part with which I have issues. I dispute the assertion that the distance can never be less or can never be zero, although the latter may be rare (see below where I discuss the role of kinetic energy in all of this).

Secondly, and most significantly, I also dispute the following:

Alan (12/28):
. . . it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.

James:
This gets right to the crux of my overall premise. I am saying that the correct relationship is the inverse of what you (and everybody else in the world) have been assuming. I am saying the more the bond is completed (the closer its proximity) the weaker is the strength of the bond.

I am also saying that when we consider this strange, inverse, mechanism and we add kinetic energy to the scenario the result does a pretty good job of explaining the distribution of distances (1.8 angstrom average, etc.). This is not to say that it proves that what you are saying is wrong. My claim is only that this should be considered as an alternate hypothesis. Let the scientific process be the arbiter.

Alan (12/28):
I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim.

James:
Okay, but Alan, that is exactly what I am not claiming. I believe my conjecture--assuming it is correct--is a small but important adjunct or addendum to the larger model. It's not a replacement, it's an improvement. Making improvements to an existing model is a good thing. Is it not?

Alan (12/28):
You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation . . .

James:
I believe all of it. I just don't think my model contradicts any of this (or I'm missing something). Honestly. And I did examine all the points you mentioned and I do appreciate you are taking the time to present them.

Alan (12/28):
Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.

James:
If every time somebody wanted to make an improvement on the existing model they were required to refute all aspects of the existing model--including the parts with which they have no dispute--that would not be very productive would it? Do you see what I mean?

As I alluded to in the introduction, I arrived at this purported discovery by way of a hunch that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding underlie a mechanism that maximized surface tension in the atmosphere. (And this underlies the molecular basis of conduits in the atmosphere--but that is a whole other story involving vortices (tornadoes, jet streams.) This hunch was itself born out of frustration with the convection model of storm theory. If you were ever to do the math and scrutinize meteorology's convection model of storm theory you would see that it reduces to nonsense fair quickly. For example, despite the fact that is thermally impossible, they assume steam in their models. Why? Because without it they can't pretend their models make any sense at all. My goal is to provide an alternative model to storm theory. And my theory hinges on this notion that surface tension can be maximized as I suggest.

(For a historical perspective on storm theory you might do research on Walter James Espy. By modern standards he is a quack. He did a lot of experiments in regard to atmospheric moisture. His experiments completely failed to confirm his theorized convective model of storm theory. So what did he do? He went ahead and presented them anyway. Having no alternative model, meteorology still blindly follows his lead--at least with respect to storm theory [99% of meteorology deals with synoptics {spatial, statistical} which is only peripherally related to storm theory.])

So, you see, I really had no desire to get involved in this subject. (And only recently have I become aware of what seems to be a continuing controversy.) It was only because the currently accepted model in your discipline represents a significant obstacle to the acceptance of my theoretical thinking in regard to storm theory (atmospheric physics--meteorology) that I endeavored to write this paper.

Lastly I would like to suggest that you don't concede the main point here--not that you necessarily already have. Since the last time we communicated I've also received responses from two others: Steve Sheiner of University of Utah and Slawomir Grabowski from a university in the basque region of Spain. As of yet, neither of them are comfortable with this notion that polarity reduces to zero with symmetrically coordinated bonding. I am hopeful that if this notion is wrong that somebody can explain how or why it is wrong. I would hate to find out that it is mistaken five years from now after going through all the trouble of convincing others.

Happy New Year,

James McGinn

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 6:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> From Alan Sooper; December 26


<snip crap>

please post this in

alt.chemestry.for.non-scientists.and.cranks

[James McGinn]

If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.

Why would anybody maintain such an absurd conjecture?

[Sergio]

You should review your posts before sending them out.

[James McGinn]

What did I miss?

[James McGinn]

Look up electron cloud. It doesn't produce rain.

[Sergio]

look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> > Look up electron cloud. It doesn't produce rain.
> >
>
> look up "troll", it doesn't produce anything at all

Okay.

[Sergio]

Those are the updates currently provided by Microsoft. Microsoft notes
that users should not remove or block the updates 3044374 and 2990214 as
they are used for Windows Update functionality and not only to upgrade
to Windows 10.

[James McGinn]

Oki Doki

[James McGinn]

Check out a cool blog. The sun isn't yellow, its chicken

[Sergio]

I wish you had quit before you made a complete ass out of yourself.

[Solving Tornadoes]

Trying to keep your posts at the top of the pile ?

[Sergio]

Reference?

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
kjlk

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[Sergio]

<snip troll blog crap>

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[reber g=emc^2]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

To create hydrogen molecules a strong atomic bonding takes place.Its gluons all the way down.TreBert

[hanson]

<herbert...@gmail.com> "reber g=emc^2" <wrote
"Its gluons all the way down" in that bucket into which
Glazier shits, in his van that is illegally parked, on
Wal-Mart's Parking lot.. which then is explained by the
Glazierola of Face-shitter and Grave yard vandal
<herbert...@gmail.com> :B::ert Glazier, the
who introduces himself with/as
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement".
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody
:B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his
:B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a
:B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
about which ....
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr....@gmail.com> aka
"Richard A." aka Harlow Campbell wrote:
>
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike.
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker .... and "Bert
you are senile, dazed & confused. Fucked in the head.
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot".... .... about which....
>
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, your brain is entangles with a used garbage can.
Glazier, "Its a shame" that your science is far worse
than the man's on the street.
Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage.
reber, take your you know it all thinking to your grave .
reber, your horseshit gets old.Say hi to Allah for me.
reber, you don't believe in science.
Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup.
Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__.
Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!..
>
Jim Pennino ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
>
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saul...@cox.net> wrote:
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, you are babbling desperately. Is it sympathy
or pity you're grasping for? Stop it, either way.
>
benj" <nob...@gmail.com> wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is!
Now they party and frolic!...still waiting "to be loved by all"...
>
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and
your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works,
... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year
old van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's
Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
>
Now, Glazier consider "what will the say when Glazier dies?
Are they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man?
He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D]
BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans
which Glazier, the Swine, announced and posted at the
ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal
Graveyard Vandal who wrote:
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
>
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile
IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>:
Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after which...
>
Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even
worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier
widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier
threatened...
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr....@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your face
to take a shit & say: "Open wide". Trebert.
>
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected
to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier
labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-
movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__.
who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons
female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice
legs"...
>
hanson wrote:
Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in
and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you
sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been
"put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from
the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your
legacy, is because:
>
Glazier the Swine fortunately posted:
.... "hanson made me famous"....
>
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you swine you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 27'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ---- 27'953 hits & rising
>
cuz of hanson's caring and loving administering badly needed
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> to the mental
cripple aka <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>. ... Shalom
Right or wrong its best to think in every direction(like me) Logic wins in
the end. Short theory(few words) best. I liked Feynman,and fermi thinking
best. Trebert

[James McGinn]

[hanson]

hanson wrote:
"James MadGinni-pig" listen up. I told you to stay away from
me, because of your religious belief in "Cold steam" which has
condensed in your brain & clouded your thinking. This in turn
has caused your to re-post Full Swine Glazier's Self portrayal,
rather then you commenting on cretin Glazier's "Hebe Air" theory
which Glazier, who admits to bad spelling, has mislabeled as
Glazier's "Heavy Air theory", but really is just "Hebe Air" theory.
So, straighten out Swine Glazier & stay away from me. Will ya?

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:44:13 AM UTC-8, hanson wrote:
> hanson wrote:
> "James MadGinni-pig" listen up. I told you to stay away from
> me, because of your religious belief in "Cold steam" which has
> condensed in your brain & clouded your thinking. This in turn
> has caused your to re-post Full Swine Glazier's Self portrayal,
> rather then you commenting on cretin Glazier's "Hebe Air" theory
> which Glazier, who admits to bad spelling, has mislabeled as
> Glazier's "Heavy Air theory", but really is just "Hebe Air" theory.
> So, straighten out Swine Glazier & stay away from me. Will ya?

Okay, but is anybody going to help Sergio with his smokey shirts and leaky pants.

[James McGinn]

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:92be3822-8de9-4d73...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

>> From Alan Soper; December 26
>>
>> Dear Mr McGinn,
>>
>> I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I
>> found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual
>> mistakes and misunderstandings . . .

Translation:
"Dear Mr. McGinn,

I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately

you're an insane kooktard with an inadequate education and a moronity
only equalled by those riding short buses. In addition, you are
howlingly insane.

Best wishes in your getting the treatment you so desperately need,
Alan Soper"

LOL!

>> This view is incorrect. The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT
>> neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms
>> remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, which gives rise to a strong
>> Coulomb attractive force. If anything, hydrogen bonding actually
>> INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by
>> "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.
>> You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen
>> bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there
>> is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond
>> until the first bond is broken. The first bond does not
>> "neutralise" the charge however: it is precisely the charge
>> interaction that gives the bond its strength.

Translation:
"Here is the truth. You will continue to ignore it so you can continue
your delusional little world, in which you've painted yourself as
'King of Science' as you deny all of scientific knowledge and blather
on about magic sentient sky tornado monsters."

LOL!

>> Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is
>> still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because
>> the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H
>> intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule
>> is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.

Translation:
"Here is more truth which you will deny because it shatters your
moronic little theory into a million pieces. Symmetry only occurs when
the H bonds are locked in place in solid-phase water, hence ice's
lattice-like structure. You, James McGinn, are a clue repellant
moronic psychotic halfwit diametrically opposed to reality."

LOL!

>> Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water
>> has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact
>> all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der
>> Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces. Note that
>> surface tension tends to DECREASE the surface area, not increase it,
>> which is why liquid droplets are spherical in shape.

Translation:
"Yet more truth you'll run away from because it utterly destroys your
moronic theory. You find yourself 180 degrees out from reality yet
again. I'd suggest a proper scientific education, but at your age that
has obviously been tried and utterly failed. A lobotomy is an option."

LOL!

>> Dear James,
>>
>> re: "Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this? If you
>> know it how do you know it? If you are assuming it, why do you
>> assume it?"
>>
>> In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these
>> distances, using x-ray and neutron diffraction experiments.

Translation:
"Dear James,

In fact, I have spent much of my science career empirically observing
via carefully controlled experimentation these distances, using x-ray
and neutron diffraction experiments. Thus I find that you are a
reality-denying moronic halfwit desperately trying to twist scientific
fact to fit your delusions. But you'll not use me or any of my
research to perpetuate your insanity. Fuck off."

LOL!

>> This experimental evidence, which has been verified on numerous
>> occasions by different methods, including computer simulations
>> based on a simple electrostatic model of water, such as that
>> proposed by Bernal and Fowler. I should also point out that the
>> same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity
>> and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear
>> to want to claim. You can ignore this evidence if you wish to do so,
>> but do not then complain when the "academic" community refuse to
>> discuss or support you.

Translation:
"This experimental evidence, empirically observed, trumps your
retarded suppositions pulled straight from your ass. You ignore
reality so you can continue your paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy,
and so you can paint yourself as smarter than every single scientist
in the past 250+ years. But you're not. You're just a broken brained
pathetic little moron who has done *no* experimentation."

>> (Incidentally, I should point out that I do not work in academia,
>> nor do quite a few other scientists I know, so the problem here
>> has nothing to do with a "stranglehold" from academia.

Translation:
"(Incidentally, I should point out that you are a paranoid delusional
schizophrenic off his meds and seeing conspiracy theories
everywhere... conspiracy theories and giant sentient sky tornado
monsters."

LOL!

>> The idea that molecules and atoms do not overlap goes back a long
>> way, at least to van der Waals in the 1800s, and received verification
>> when the quantum theory was invented. Electrons form clouds around the
>> central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle,
>> only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum.
>> Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large
>> repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which
>> derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms
>> from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then
>> matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same
>> strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has
>> proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive
>> region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also
>> quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force,
>> which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds
>> on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter
>> together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of
>> liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no
>> atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest
>> neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a
>> very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms
>> constantly exchanging places with each other.

Translation:
"Here's more fact that will go straight over your moronic head... at
least until you find some way of twisting it to fit your moronic
insane kook theory."

LOL!

>> You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if
>> you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation
>> which fits the experimental facts of what we actually measure at
>> the atomistic level. Some of these experimental facts go back more
>> than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't
>> do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be
>> accepted by a majority of scientists.

Translation:
"Back up your retarded blather with some evidence, you psychotic
delusional halfwitted moron. You've pulled every single one of your
suppositions straight from your ass, you have no experimental evidence
of your own to support your insane take on reality, and there exists
no experimental evidence from anyone else throughout all of history to
support your moronity. In short, you're barking mad."

LOL!

Aaaaand Alan Soper puts the word out to all his colleagues that if
they get an email from James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornadoes'), they can safely ignore it because McGinn is a
reality-denying anti-science psychotic paranoiac halfwit.

LOL!

As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade
substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from
those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions
inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:00:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >> Dear Mr McGinn,
> >>
> >> I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I
> >> found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual
> >> mistakes and misunderstandings . . .
>
> Translation:
> "Dear Mr. McGinn,
>
> I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested.

I don't have time to read this. You are too verbose. Keep in short and sweet. Get to a substantive point.

Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf. People just ignored him.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in

<news:d38a8c9d-9034-4f00...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:00:04 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Dear Mr McGinn,
>>>>
>>>> I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I
>>>> found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual
>>>> mistakes and misunderstandings . . .

>> Translation:
>> "Dear Mr. McGinn,
>>

>> I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately
>> you're an insane kooktard with an inadequate education and a moronity
>> only equalled by those riding short buses. In addition, you are
>> howlingly insane.
>>
>> Best wishes in your getting the treatment you so desperately need,
>> Alan Soper"
>>
>> LOL!

> I don't have time to read this.

Translation:
"I'm running away from this truth."

> You are too verbose.

Translation:
"You are too truthful."

> Keep in short and sweet.

Translation:
"Keep it moronic so I can understand it."

> Get to a substantive point.

Translation:
"I have to backpedal and claim you haven't made a substantive point,
as I run at a full sprint from all those substantive points you made
which utterly destroy my retarded blathering."

> Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf. People just ignored him.

Remember the story of the moronic insane kooktard who k'lamed he was
smarter than every single scientist over the past 250+ years as he
denied every scientific concept and blathered on about a giant
sentient tornado monster in the jet stream that stretched its noodly
appendages thousands of miles through the troposphere to touch down
tornadoes and wreak havoc, all while slyly evading detection, knowing
to only touch down tornadoes through cumulonimbus clouds and avoid all
other clouds, to avoid touching aircraft with its noodly appendages,
to allow aircraft to ride on its jet stream back without ripping them
to shreds, and to avoid dropping down tornadoes out of clear blue sky?

People just laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed at him.

Why can't you substantively address those questions in my .sig, James?
They highlight the fatal logical flaws in your moronic kooktard
blathering.

Your continuing to run away from substantively addressing those fatal
logical flaws proves you prefer your psychosis to reality.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> From Alan Soper; December 26
>

> Dear Mr McGinn,
>
>
I have looked at (some of) your paper as requested. Unfortunately I found within a very few pages the argument contains conceptual mistakes and misunderstandings . . .
>

> Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged "acceptor" oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it's polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized."
>

> This view is incorrect. The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force. If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule. You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken. The first bond does not "neutralise" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
>

> Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
>

> Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
>
> Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, but do not readily leave the liquid. You have to distinguish between the case of a bond being broken and being almost immediately replaced by another bond forming with another molecule, which is the situation in the liquid, and the case of a molecule leaving the liquid completely, when it has to break free of its bonds and not form them again. The latter requires a lot of energy, while the former does not, due to the proximity of neighbouring molecules in the liquid.
>

> Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces. Note that surface tension tends to DECREASE the surface area, not increase it, which is why liquid droplets are spherical in shape.
>

> A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work. It is my current belief however that many-body forces also play a crucial role in determining water's properties, but these are routinely left out of computer simulation models of water.
>
> Your Sincerely,
>
> Alan K Soper
>
> *********************************************
> From James McGinn; December 28
>
> Dear Alan,
> I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response. I was not expecting that . . .
>
>
> Dear Alan,
>
> I was pleasantly surprised that you provided a detailed response. I was not expecting that. I had sent a similar request to Anders Nilsson and got no response at all. I am also in a conversation with Marcia Barbosa, but she doesn't reveal much about her own thinking. So it is especially enlightening to gain some insight from one of the recognized experts in the field.
>
> 2) Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms . . .
>
> Alan (12/26):

> This view is incorrect The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralized by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule: the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart, . . .
>
> James:

> Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this? If you know it how do you know it? If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?
>

> Moreover, if you are going to claim a constant distance of 1.8 Angstroms then the onus is on you to explain the force that maintains that distance. Some time ago, I looked in the literature and could find no rational explanation of any such distance/force, so I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that this is a phantom distance/force that was just assumed because otherwise the standard model fails to explain the low viscosity of water. In other words, this seems like a "skyhook" assumption to me. But I'm open to any empirical evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
>
> In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained. It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths". In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible.
>
> In my model the molecules are constantly bumping up against each other. Kinetic energy is the only thing maintaining a distance. By the way, water can actually be used as a hydraulic fluid. (It isn't, because it is so corrosive.) This fact indicates to me that there is not much distance between the molecules.
>
> Alan (12/26):
> . . . which gives rise to a strong Coulomb attractive force.
>
> James:
> How so? Your model already has a problem in that it fails to explain the low viscosity of water without a phantom distance/force. Assuming a strong Coulomb attractive force just makes that problem worse.
>
> Alan (12/26):

> If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.
>

> James:
> I see it differently. The electron cloud doesn't get stretched. It isn't passive. It is the active element in the scenario. When it is unrestrained by positive forces it expands. It becomes more dominant, unruly, like crazed soccer fans. When positive charges (hydrogen atoms) are introduced it is like introducing cops into the soccer crowd, it collapses and becomes more orderly. It is restrained.
>
> Hydrogen bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the water molecule exactly the same way that covalent bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the carbon atom of the methane molecule. From the electron's perspective there is no difference (assuming the hydrogen "bond" [which, ironically, has zero force holding it] stays put. [in that sense it really isn't a bond {see Comment below}]) between a "hydrogen" bond and a covalent bond. The electrons don't know or care whether a bond is covalent or "hydrogen". They act the same regardless. Just like covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds neutralize the asymmetry of the electronegativity charges producing balances (not lopsided) electronegativity charges, neutralizing polarity.
>
> (Comment: The thing that throws everybody for a loop is this notion [as I indicated parenthetically above] that a bond can be a bond and have no force maintaining it. That seems to be a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction, because the completion of the bond is itself the mechanism that neutralizes the polarity.)
>
> See this:
> Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A Direct X-Ray Measurement
> E. D. Isaacs, A. Shukla, P. M. Platzman, D. R. Hamann, B. Barbiellini, and C. A. Tulk
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 600 - Published 18 January 1999; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4445 (1999)
> Quotes:
> "The presence of these fringes demonstrates that electrons in the hydrogen bond are quantum mechanically shared--covalent--just as Linus Pauling had predicted."
> "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed. The experiment provides highly coveted details on water's microscopic properties. Not only will it allow researchers in many areas to improve theories of water . . ."
> "For many years, many scientists dismissed the possibility that hydrogen bonds in water had significant covalent properties This fact can no longer be dismissed."
>
> Alan (12/26):

> You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken.
>

> James:
> You lost me here. It seems like you are suggesting that all bonds are asymmetric, which obviously isn't the case.
>
> Alan (12/26):
> The first bond does not "neutralize" the charge however: it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
>
> James:
> I think you should consider that this is just something you have assumed and it is not something you know, and take more care to represent it as such.
>
> Alan (12/26):

> Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.
>

> James:
> Obviously I disagree. If you have something empirical to support this conjecture I will gladly look at it.
>
> Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping."
>
> Alan (12/26):
> Also this is not true. Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, . . .
>
> James:
> I think you misunderstood my point here. I'm not disputing Brownian motion, if that is what you are suggesting. My point had to do with proximity as a mechanism of polarity. The following was copied from the conclusion of my paper:
>
> Page 17: To truly capture water's paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity.
>
> Alan (12/26):

> Finally your comments about surface tension seem to imply only water has surface tension and this is driven by hydrogen bonding. In fact all liquids have surface tension, caused by the intrinsic van der Waals bonding between atoms caused by dispersion forces.
>

> James:
> I don't disagree. All liquids have tensional forces, or else they would be gasses. In that sense, all liquids have surface tension. But what is distinctive about water is that the tensional forces along its surface are much greater than those below its surface. Accordingly--and unlike any other liquid--any mechanism that will increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension.
>
> This principle is demonstrated vividly in non-Newtonian fluids. (If you don't know what I'm talking about go to YouTube and search on that phrase. You will find it interesting,) In non-Newtonian fluids corn starch, which has microscopic granularity, essentially breaks all (or many) of the symmetrically coordinated bonds when force is applied creating, temporarily, a network of strong asymmetric bonds. It maximizes the surface area of water, thereby turning it into ice for an instant before the symmetric bonds reform. (This same mechanism is involved with the Mpemba effect.)
>
> By the way, my hypothesis on atmospheric vortices also involves the same phenomena--increase the surface area of water will amplify its surface tension. Did you ever wonder why atmospheric vortices are associated with wind shear between moist and dry bodies of air? I know why.
>
> Alan (12/26):
> A very good paper on water was written more than 80 years ago by Bernal and Fowler (JCP, 1933) and much of what we know about water today stems from that work.
>
> James:
> It's cited so often one can hardly miss it. Eighty years is a long time ago, though--a long, long time ago.
>
> ***************************************************************
> From Alan Soper; December 28
>

> Dear James,
>
> re: "Are you saying you know this or you are assuming this? If you know it how do you know it? If you are assuming it, why do you assume it?"
>

> In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances, using x-ray and neutron diffraction experiments. The proton is scattered only weakly by x-rays, but strongly by neutrons. In the case of neutrons deuterons scatter neutrons quite differently to protons, even when the molecular structure and interactions are (almost) identical. Therefore by combining x-ray diffraction with neutron diffraction on mixtures of heavy (D2O) and light (H2O) water, one can come up with good estimates of the O-O, O-H and H-H radial distribution functions. The O-O function shows a strong near-neighbour peak at about 2.8 angstroms, the O-H function shows a strong peak at about 0.98 angstroms and a second pronounced peak at 1.8 angstroms, while the H-H function shows a strong peak about 1.55 angstroms and second, weaker peak at about 2.35 angstroms. (All these functions have other, weaker, peaks at longer distances.) The first peak in the O-H function has an area of exactly 2 atoms and corresponds to the two hydrogens bonded to the oxygen atom in the water, while the second OH peak has an area of about 1.5 atoms, indicating that not every lone pair of a water molecule has a hydrogen bond. Hence the O-H hydrogen bond distance is necessarily much larger than the O-H intramolecular bond distance.
>
> This experimental evidence, which has been verified on numerous occasions by different methods, including computer simulations based on a simple electrostatic model of water, such as that proposed by Bernal and Fowler. I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim. You can ignore this evidence if you wish to do so, but do not then complain when the "academic" community refuse to discuss or support you. (Incidentally, I should point out that I do not work in academia, nor do quite a few other scientists I know, so the problem here has nothing to do with a "stranglehold" from academia. In addition I would also say that I do not necessarily regard the simple models as correct or the best that we can do. Undoubtedly the real interactions between water molecules are more complicated than these simple models suggest, but at least they are in the right direction.)
>
>

> The idea that molecules and atoms do not overlap goes back a long way, at least to van der Waals in the 1800s, and received verification when the quantum theory was invented. Electrons form clouds around the central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum. Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force, which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms constantly exchanging places with each other.
>
>

> You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation which fits the experimental facts of what we actually measure at the atomistic level. Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
>

> Yours sincerely,
>
> Alan K Soper
>
> **********************************************
> From James McGinn; January 1
>
> Alan (12/28):

> In fact I have spent much of my science career measuring these distances,
>

> James:
> I don't dispute the distances or the accuracy of the measurements. My dispute is two fold. Firstly I dispute the following:
>
> Alan (12/28):
> . . . the two atoms remain at least 1.8 Angstroms apart . . .
>
> James:
> In your most recent email you refer to these as, "peaks." The "peaks" are the peak of a bell curve; they are a statistical distribution and the peak represents the median. So, the phrase "at least" is the part with which I have issues. I dispute the assertion that the distance can never be less or can never be zero, although the latter may be rare (see below where I discuss the role of kinetic energy in all of this).
>
> Secondly, and most significantly, I also dispute the following:
>
> Alan (12/28):
> . . . it is precisely the charge interaction that gives the bond its strength.
>
> James:
> This gets right to the crux of my overall premise. I am saying that the correct relationship is the inverse of what you (and everybody else in the world) have been assuming. I am saying the more the bond is completed (the closer its proximity) the weaker is the strength of the bond.
>
> I am also saying that when we consider this strange, inverse, mechanism and we add kinetic energy to the scenario the result does a pretty good job of explaining the distribution of distances (1.8 angstrom average, etc.). This is not to say that it proves that what you are saying is wrong. My claim is only that this should be considered as an alternate hypothesis. Let the scientific process be the arbiter.
>
> Alan (12/28):

> I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim.
>

> James:
> Okay, but Alan, that is exactly what I am not claiming. I believe my conjecture--assuming it is correct--is a small but important adjunct or addendum to the larger model. It's not a replacement, it's an improvement. Making improvements to an existing model is a good thing. Is it not?
>
> Alan (12/28):
> You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation . . .
>
> James:
> I believe all of it. I just don't think my model contradicts any of this (or I'm missing something). Honestly. And I did examine all the points you mentioned and I do appreciate you are taking the time to present them.
>
> Alan (12/28):

> Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.
>

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

Oki doki?