Alan Soper is Confronted With a New Model of Water Structure

[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

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[noTthaTguY]

ole'

[Sergio]

On 9/2/2016 3:25 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> ole'

>
>> 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
>

(for McGinn, (I have him blocked))

happy new year to you too.

don't be worried about the five years, and convincing others, and you
hateing it. because, you have convinced no one, not even yourself, of
anything.

[James McGinn]

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely incapable of saying how or why.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[noTthaTguY]

your 'tude, if it actually has angles

> > James McGinn

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

U FYI fu

[James McGinn]

J go gu

[James McGinn]

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:25:12 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:

> On 9/2/2016 3:25 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> > ole'
> >
> >> 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
> >
>
>
> (for McGinn, (I have him blocked))

Kinda seems like it's not working. Please fix it.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

dfdf

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, 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 . . .

McGinn gets handed his ass on a platter once again and he is proud of
it.

>> James McGinn / Insane crackpot

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, 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 . . .
>

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>> From Alan Soper; December 26

Yet another real scientist realizes McGinn is insane and not worth the
effort to talk to.

<snip 6 year old insane drivel>

>> James McGinn /Insane crackpot

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:48:29 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> From Alan Soper; December 26
>

[Claudius Denk]