BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

[James McGinn]

Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity:
A Unique Perspective on The Transition Between The Liquid and Solid States of Water

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
solvingtornadoes at gmail dot com

Significance:
This paper introduces a theoretical breakthrough: H2O molecules collectively neutralize their own polarity through hydrogen bonding. Dual (symmetric) bonds fully neutralize polarity, allowing for the low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water. Singular (asymmetric) bonds neutralize only one half. Thus, situational factors that remove or inhibit the attachment of one of the duo of weak bonds associated with symmetrically coordinated hydrogen bonds effectively activates the polarity that underlies the structural rigidity and electromagnetic forces evident in ice and surface tension.

Abstract
In an attempt to theoretically reconcile the tensional forces that are apparent along the surface of liquid water (surface tension) with those in ice, a radical notion is considered: might the relationship between H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding be involved but in a manner that is the inverse of the manner that is normally considered? Accordingly, the tetrahedral coordinated state would be the structurally weak form of hydrogen bonding underlying the liquid state of water. The strong form of hydrogen bonding would be associated with situational factors that restricted or reversed the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonds, effectively activating (or failing to neutralize) H2O polarity, causing the remaining bonds to be strong. The precise mechanism thereof is sought through an explicit examination of the theory underlying molecular polarity. A larger theory is developed to explain surface tension, subsurface low-density anomalies, and the freezing process, culminating in the comparing and contrasting of the freezing process with the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water. An argument is presented that this new understanding provides the foundations of a larger consensus.

Keywords: hydrogen bonding, polarity, liquid water, surface tension, ice, electronegativity differences, symmetrically coordinated bond, asymmetric bond, low-density anomalies, mechanical matrix, freezing process, supercooled water, PRPA, PNSA, PISD, PMPD.


Introduction

Premise
In an attempt to explain the molecular basis of the structure that is apparent in atmospheric vortices (which will not be discussed here) it is proposed that the surface tension associated with liquid water might, somehow, be involved if some mechanism can be found in the atmosphere that maximizes its surface area, the simple logic being that maximization of surface area should maximize surface tension. Although its relatedness was far from clear in my own mind when it was originally formulated, within this premise was the overarching assumption that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding might be the causative factors underlying such a mechanism. But the more I considered it the more it seemed I was confronted with a major quandary: if we assume that this hypothetical maximization of surface tension in the atmosphere is some kind of consequence of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding then we have to explain how the forces associated with polarity are absent in the liquid state. In other words, we have to explain how H2O polarity is dormant or neutralized in the liquid state and activated or de-neutralized under conditions that maximize surface area. And the only way I could envision this all working would be if H2O polarity is neutralized in liquid water as a direct consequence of being more comprehensively hydrogen bonded (most of its H2O molecules having hydrogen bonds with four other H2O molecules, two acceptor bonds and two donor bonds) and activated again in the context of situational factors that cause the breaking of some but not all of its hydrogen bonds (resulting in many or most of its H2O molecules having one acceptor and one, or possibly two, donor bonds).

Background and Approach
Examination of the literature very rapidly brought me to the realization that this hypothesis is diametrically incompatible with conventional thinking.1 This incompatibility was most plainly apparent with respect to how these competing hypotheses characterize ice and the freezing process. Indisputably, if the conventional model of ice and freezing is correct then this new hypothesis couldn’t possibly be correct in that the freezing process associated with the conventional model involves H2O molecules forming into a more highly organized, symmetrically coordinated network of polarized H2O molecules.2 In contrast, with the model that I am proposing any such increase in symmetric coordination could only further neutralize polarity. With respect to which, it is important to understand that both of these competing models depend on polarity to explain why the freezing/melting temperature of H2O is at 0 degrees Celsius and not at a much lower temperature, around -170 degrees Celsius, predicted by comparison to other similar but non-polar molecules (methane). So, there was no getting around it. The freezing process associated with this new hypothesis required the inclusion of situational factors that reduce the relative number of symmetrically coordinated bonds in water and increase the relative number of asymmetric bonds. Because otherwise it lacks the polarity required to explain the hardness of ice.

And so, the challenge at hand was becoming clear. Firstly, the mechanism by which polarity is activated by the breaking of some but not all hydrogen bonds, producing structurally strong hydrogen bonds, needed to be explicated. Secondly, the ensuing theory had to reconcile the freezing process, including an explanation of the lower density of ice. But I had some reservations as to whether this would be convincing. The conceptualization of ice and the freezing process associated with the conventional model had been in place for a long time and had been considered by a large number of researchers and, therefore, had a lot of tacit support behind it. In an effort to find something definitive to distinguish my model from the conventional model I came across supercooled water, the tendency for water to remain unfrozen even at temperatures well below 0 degrees Celsius.3

Although the process underlying the origins of supercooled water—what we might describe as the antithesis of the freezing process—seemed to not have been adequately explained by the conventional model this was not the main reason my attention was drawn to it. Rather, it was the fact that the situational circumstances associated with its origins seemed to directly contradict what is predicted by the conventional model. Specifically, since the freezing process associated with the conventional model indicates an increase in the polar alignment of H2O molecules during the transition from liquid to ice it seems reasonable that one would predict chaotic or agitated conditions as the underlying root cause, but exactly the opposite is the case. Supercooled water is associated with situational factors in which water is cooled very gradually under placid, calm conditions.3 To me this indicated that the underlying mechanism involves the comprehensiveness of symmetrically coordinated bonds being locked in, forming a threshold that inhibits the breaking of bonds without which, in accordance with my hypothetical thinking, polarity remains dormant, preventing the formation of ice. And so, lastly, I hope to distinguish this new model by demonstrating that it engenders an elegant explanation as to why the conditional factors underlying supercooled water involve gradual cooling and placid, calm conditions.

Theoretical Presentation

Molecular Basis of H2O Polarity
There are two requirements for a molecule to be polar (dipole moment). Firstly, there must be electronegativity differences between its covalently bonded atoms.4 (These are, sometimes, referred to as “polar” bonds. In my opinion this designation is the source of a lot of confusion. Herein polarity is considered an attribute of a molecule in its entirety, not just its bonds.) The H2O molecule has electronegativity differences of 1.34 between its oxygen atom and any one of its two hydrogen atoms.4 Electronegativity differences between the atoms of any molecule do not change regardless of circumstances. Therefore, any purported variability of H2O polarity cannot be solely a consequence of electronegativity differences between its atoms.

The second requirement for a molecule to be polar is that electronegativity differences between its atoms must be structurally lopsided, asymmetrically distributed. This can be better understood with comparison to CH4, the methane molecule. Between the carbon atom and any one of the four hydrogen atoms of the methane molecule is an electronegativity difference (.45) that is one third of that (1.34) between the oxygen and any one of the two hydrogen atoms of the water molecule (.45 / 1.34 = .34).4 From this one might, at first, assume that the methane molecule would possess one third the polarity of the water molecule, but it has zero polarity. (And, in comparison to water, this lack of polarity is the reason it is a gas at room temperature, with a boiling point at -164 Celsius and a freezing point at -182 Celsius.) This is because the electronegativity differences of the methane molecule are structurally symmetric.

The distinction between the symmetry of the methane molecule and the asymmetry of the water molecule might be better understood with respect to the fact that their respective base molecules, carbon and oxygen, share the same structural template as the underlying factor that dictates the arrangement of their covalent bonds, a tetrahedron.5 Having four unshared electrons in its outer shell, the symmetry of the methane molecule is a consequence of the fact that the carbon atom can, and in the case of methane does, form covalent bonds on all four of the four corners of the tetrahedron. Oxygen possesses only two unshared electrons in its outer shell. Consequently it can only form covalent bonds on two of the four corners of the tetrahedron, as is the case with the water molecule. This results in the electronegativity differences of the water molecule being structurally lopsided (asymmetric), making the water molecule a polar molecule.

The convention that is generally used to represent the strength of the electromagnetic forces associated with polarity is the ∂ symbol.6 Although it is not intended to be a precise attribution, its magnitude is generally considered to produce a binding force that is a fraction of that associated with a covalent bond, possibly one twentieth. Being positively charged, each of the two hydrogen atoms on a H2O molecule is attributed a positive charge of +1∂ for a total of +2∂. Each of the two unbonded pair electrons on the oxygen atom is attributed a negative charge of -1∂ for a total of -2∂. Accordingly, the H2O molecule is hereby considered to have a polarity coefficient (a net difference in charges from one end of the molecule (-2∂) to the other (+2∂) of 4∂.

The Mechanism
In the context of this understanding we can ask ourselves two rhetorical questions in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron of the oxygen atom. Must the bonds be covalent? Would hydrogen bonds not be equally effective as covalent bonds in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron to, thereby, effectuate symmetry? I believe the answers to these rhetorical questions are, respectively, no and yes. Accordingly, I believe completion of the tetrahedron with hydrogen bonds effectively establishes symmetry. It becomes a molecule with perfectly balanced electronegativity differences, identical to those of a nonpolar molecule like methane. Accordingly, when a H2O molecule is symmetrically bonded it’s polarity coefficient drops from 4∂ to zero. Removing only one of these bonds (leaving one attached) cuts its polarity in half, giving it a polarity coefficient (-1∂ to +1∂) of 2∂.

This is all very confusing, but it is even more confusing when you consider that polarity determines the strength of any remaining hydrogen bonds. Accordingly, 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. Consequently, the hydrogen atoms just float alongside the oxygen atom. The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns. This is why liquid water is so fluid. 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 reemerges preventing it from escaping. (This functionality is also the basis for the pendulumic aspect of symmetrically coordinated bonds, which is discussed more explicitly further along.)

The H2O molecule has the strongest polarity when both bonds are broken, as in gaseous H2O. (This phrase “gaseous H2O” refers to steam, not evaporate.7 In some less rigorous disciplines, meteorology and climatology for example, it is common to conflate the concepts of steam, a genuine gas that only occurs above the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O, with evaporate, not a genuine gas but a form of liquid H2O that is suspended in air [often completely invisible] and that only occurs at temperatures below the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.) Then, and only then does the H2O molecule have full polarity (its polarity coefficient is restored to 4∂). This explains why the boiling point of water is so high in that it requires having enough energy to break the very strong attraction of the full polarity of the H2O molecule.

When bonds are asymmetric (having only one acceptor bond [one positively charged “donor” hydrogen atom from an adjacent H2O molecule attached on its negatively charged “acceptor” oxygen atom]) one half of the polarity is restored or, depending on perspective, one half of its polarity remains un-neutralized (its polarity coefficient is 2∂) producing a strong hydrogen bond. Therefore, situational factors that prevent or reverse the formation of the second of the two acceptor bonds associated with weak symmetrically coordinated bonds (dual) will allow or cause the formation of a strong asymmetric bond (singular).

Addressing Explanatory Challenges
Since the attachment of a hydrogen atom (a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule) to its oxygen atom (the acceptor) is the mechanism that neutralizes or de-activates the polarity of that H2O molecule; and since the removal of the same is the mechanism that activates or de-neutralizes it; and since it can accept up to two hydrogen atoms (a donor from each of two adjacent H2O molecules) producing three variants: 1) no attachment at all; 2) one accepted, being a strong asymmetric bond; or 3) two accepted, being two very weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds; there is huge potential for explanatory confusion. It would appear that this potential for confusion mostly has to do with how we differentiate between the process of attaching and detaching bonds to go back and forth between the weaker and stronger bonding states and the duo of bonds associated with a symmetrically coordinated bond which can also be described as “weaker” and “stronger”. It becomes quite precarious. For example, we might, at first, designate the “weaker” of the duo of bonds as always being the last hydrogen atom accepted or the first one detached and the “stronger” one as always being the first one accepted or the last one detached. But that becomes confusing further along because it, unavoidably, creates the impression that one of the duo is “strong” and the other is “weak”, which is certainly not the case. It gets even more confusing when you consider that whether or not one or the other is attached or detached is relative and not absolute—the closer either or both of them come to the oxygen atom the more they neutralize the polarity that maintains the bond and the farther either or both of them move away from the oxygen atom the more the polarity that underlies the strength of the bonds is reactivated. And, therefore, for all of these reasons, referring to either one of them as “weaker” or “stronger” doesn’t make a lot of sense accept in the context of the process of them becoming fully attached or fully detached.

In order to circumvent the potential for confusion between the processes that produce them and the hydrogen bonded variants themselves, I hereby designate the following with respect to encapsulating the different processes associated with hydrogen atoms becoming attached or detached:
PRPA Polarity Reducing Primary Attachment: The attachment of one hydrogen atom, a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule, to an unattached oxygen atom of an accepting H2O molecule to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
PNSA Polarity Neutralizing Secondary Attachment: The attachment of an additional hydrogen atom, a donor from another adjacent H2O molecule, to create two (dual) weak (polarity neutralized [floating]) symmetrically coordinated bonds.
PISD Polarity Increasing Secondary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of either of the two hydrogen atoms associated with (dual) weak symmetrically coordinated bonds to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
PMPD Polarity Maximizing Primary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.

Starting from different states, steam and liquid water, PRPA and PISD produce the same end result, a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PRPA and PNSA both neutralize one half of the polarity of a H2O molecule, but they produce very different end results. PRPA involves a transition from steam to a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PNSA involves a transition from a singular, strong asymmetric bond to the dual, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds of liquid water. PRPA and PMPD involve transitions to and from steam and will not be discussed through the rest of this paper. PISD and PNSA involve transitions to and from the singular, strong asymmetric bond associated with the structural properties of water and the dual, weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds associated with the high fluidity of liquid water, both of which are highly relevant through the rest of this theoretical presentation.

Surface Tension Explained
The two dimensions of a surface restricts the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally occur in the less restricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water, producing PISD events and inhibiting PNSA events for the molecules along the surface. This explains surface tension of liquid water. In calm water its existence is very stable.

Subsurface, Low-Density Anomalies Explained
Although its occurrence is considerably more brief in comparison to that of surface tension, another situational factor that causes the formation of the strong, asymmetric bonds actually does occur within the unrestricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water. These are generally referred to as low-density anomalies.8 In accordance with the understanding being presented here, these subsurface low-density anomalies are, hereby, hypothesized to be a collective consequence of the geometric limitations of H2O molecules in that they don’t quite pack into a 100% symmetrically bonded matrix. Between 3% and 10% (unknown) are collectively excluded and, therefore, can only form asymmetric bonds. (This percentage will, most likely, vary depending on temperature/pressure.) Moreover, this collective inability to form fully symmetric bonds can and will itself be spread between many or even all of the molecules within a body of water. Thus within liquid water (under normal, ambient, conditions) there will always be a small percentage of the structurally strong and electromagnetically active asymmetric bonds. And, since asymmetric bonds are intrinsically lower in density these “anomalies” will be associated with lower density. However, unlike those associated with surface tension, their existence is usually very brief in that as soon as they come into existence they create the tensional forces (polarity) that reestablish higher density, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds. And so, a PISD event creates the conditions that initiate a corresponding PNSA event. And a PNSA event, working through the matrix, will contribute to initiating another PISD event in the general neighborhood. In other words, there is constant interplay between PISD events and PNSA events. And these reverberate, by way of the matrix, through the body of water. So, in addition to being a small percentage of the bonds within the greater matrix these “low-density anomalies” exist for very short periods of time (Consequently, they can only be detected using sophisticated equipment.9) and will, over time, be averaged out over many of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within the greater body of the liquid.

Ice and the Freezing Process Explained
As indicated in the previous paragraph, any PISD event that occurs within liquid water will produce a lower density, strong asymmetric bond that will exist for only a brief instant in time before it is reversed by a corresponding PNSA event. However, at and below 0 degrees Celsius the rules change. At these lower temperatures the same occurrence can initiate a chain reaction of PISD events that produce a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit corresponding PNSA events resulting in the structurally strong form of water, ice. This process is commonly referred to as freezing. And so, like surface tension and subsurface, low-density anomalies, the H2O freezing process also involves PISD events, but, as will be explained, it is more complicated because it involves an additional situational factor that causes both a chain reaction of cascading PISD events and inhibition of corresponding PNSA events. Properly conceptualizing this additional situational factor involves, for the most part, getting a better understanding of how the molecules in liquid water collectively comprise a mechanical matrix that itself dictates ensuing implications.

Mechanical Matrix: Understanding the mechanical matrix and its implications to the freezing process that produces ice, as well as its implications to the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water, depends on understanding three concepts and their interrelationships:
1) How the pendulumic relationship that exists between the duo of hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom in each of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within a body of liquid water collectively dictates the transfer of kinetic energy (spreads energy) throughout the liquid (which also, arguably, goes a long way into explaining the high heat capacity of water [attributable to the conservation of energy aspect of the pendulum] and high heat conductivity [attributable to the high degree of connectivity between the H2O molecules in that over 90 percent of them have bonds with four of their neighbors]);
2) How the collective of symmetrically bonded H2O molecules tends to become more interconnected over time, balancing out kinetic energy and electromagnetic charges (balancing out polarity) throughout the greater body of the liquid, effectuating a larger mechanical matrix and therefore having a higher threshold of resistance to change in that greater momentum is required to move the gears of a larger mechanical matrix; and
3) How the displacement of one of the duo of hydrogen atoms (a PISD event) on at least one of the symmetrically coordinated bonds in the greater matrix causes the remaining hydrogen atom of that symmetrically coordinated bond to move to a more central position on its oxygen atom in order to balance out electronegativity differences and how this movement turns the gears of the mechanical matrix causing additional PISD events, causing their remaining hydrogen atoms to move to more central positions on their oxygen atoms, further turning the gears and causing more of the same, producing a cascade of PISD events that produces a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events and that, therefore, are highly stable. (Another factor that might power the turning of the gears of the mechanical matrix during PISD events is a shift in the bond angle of the covalently bonded hydrogen atoms of the H2O molecule from 109.5 degrees to 107 degrees. As with the shifts in polarity being hypothesized here, this too is a result of shifts in electronegativity that are an implication of PISD events.)

Comparing and Contrasting The Freezing Process With Its Antithesis
Consider two scenarios of water being cooled below 0 degrees Celsius. Both involve a sealed, one liter plastic container filled with pure H2O at normal atmospheric pressure. Scenario A involves the container being placed in a room that is -5 degrees Celsius. Its temperature drops gradually and it does not freeze. It continues to exist as supercooled water all the way down to -5 degrees Celsius. In scenario B the water is cooled both more rapidly and more unevenly. It involves the container having its bottom one quarter suspended in liquid nitrogen. Its temperature drops rapidly and as soon as any part of it drops below 0 degrees it begins to freeze. Why did scenario B produce freezing whereas scenario A did not?

In scenario A the pendulumic process has more time to process the distribution of changes in energy to all of the molecules in the body of water before its average temperature crosses below 0 degrees. More specifically, the collective, pendulumic process of the mechanical matrix has more time to become one large matrix and to stay as such with gradual reductions in temperature. Therefore there is less variance in the swings of the pendulum of the different symmetrically coordinated bonds therein. Additionally, since the matrix is larger, greater momentum is required to overcome the threshold resistance in order to turn the collective gears of the mechanical matrix. Consequently, for both of these reasons, the chain reaction of cascading PISD events cannot be initiated. And/or (unknown) corresponding PNSA events are not blocked, and the water remains supercooled, unfrozen.

In contrast, in scenario B the rapid and unequal removal of energy makes achieving the same degree of temperature distribution to all of the molecules in the body of water impossible. More specifically, the pendulumic process has less time to process and become a larger matrix. Instead there exists, in a sense, many different matrices at different energy levels. And, therefore, there is much greater variance in the swings of the pendulums of the various symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water. Consequently there is a greater probability that one of the duo of hydrogen atoms associated with at least one of the many symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water will swing away from its oxygen atom to initiate a PISD event. And, since the mechanical matrices thereof are smaller there is less threshold resistance to overcome and, therefore, less momentum is required to turn the collective gears of any one matrix, thus a cascade of PISD events has a higher probability of being initiated. Once initiated, the turning of the gears of the highly interconnected matrix causes the ensuing emergence of a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events, and the water begins to freeze. The end result, ice, is less dense simply because asymmetric bonds are intrinsically less dense than symmetrically coordinated bonds.

Discussion

Addressing Anticipated Objections
The Mechanism: The only objection I can anticipate to the validity of the mechanism being suggested here—the notion that hydrogen bonds neutralize polarity and their removal, breaking of hydrogen bonds, activates it—are arguments based on dogmatic interpretations of what is a molecule or what is polarity. Us humans tend to emplace absolutistic interpretations on our definitions and subsequently forget that nature doesn’t necessarily always conform with this absolutistic aspect. Along these lines, I would like to suggest a change in perspective. Instead of looking at it from the outside in, look at it from the inside out. Specifically, consider this notion from the perspective of an electron on the oxygen atom of a H2O molecule that maintains (dual) symmetrically coordinated bonds. When it looks up into each of the four corners of the oxygen molecule’s tetrahedron it will see the same thing, a positively charged hydrogen atom. Is there any reason to assume it would be more or less attracted to the hydrogen atoms on the corners that are covalently bonded than it is to those that are hydrogen bonded? If there is, I don’t know what this would be.

Freezing and its Antithesis: As for the description of the freezing process and its antithesis that is presented herein there is, in my opinion, much more potential for it to be incomplete, partially wrong, or even (though much less likely in my opinion) fully mistaken. My concerns in this regard involve the assertion that this hypothesis appears not to predict the increase in density that occurs with drop in temperature between 4 degrees Celsius and 0 degrees Celsius. My guess is that something distinctive is happening with the mechanical matrix over this transition, something that has not been adequately explained. It might even indicate that the notion that the, purported, repositioning of the extant hydrogen atom that, purportedly, turns the gears of the mechanical matrix to initiate a cascade of PISD events is either wrong or superfluous. I also think an alternative hypothesis should be considered with respect to the barrier associated with the the antithesis of the freezing process being something other than the threshold momentum requirements of the mechanical matrix. Might, for example, the actual barrier have something to do with a larger and more synchronized mechanical matrix having an increases in its mean collective ability to absorb perturbation as it goes below 4 degrees, preventing an initial PISD event, but only when it gets below 0 degrees does it lose its ability to block corresponding PNSA events, due to some unexplained mechanical implication? I am curious as to whether a clue leading to a resolution might be found through more in depth analysis of low-density anomalies in the context of comparing and contrasting the freezing process to the antithesis of the freezing process over the course of this transition.

Some Resolution to The Strangeness of Water
Among those that study it, common parlance on the strangeness of water tends to focus on the fact that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule.10 These explanations don’t go far enough. To truly capture its 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. And this is just to set the stage for more strangeness that emerges in conjunction with the geometry of the H2O molecule that dictate limitations on its collective ability to neutralize its own polarity, which occurs in a highly stable form along the surface of liquid water, producing surface tension, and in a much less stable form below it’s surface, producing low-density anomalies. Additionally, we have to take into consideration the tendency of H2O molecules to collectively form a mechanical matrix that, if the temperature is low enough and the matrix is energetically unbalanced, will facilitate a cascading chain reaction that will produce a widening general interruption in their collective ability to neutralize their own polarity, producing ice; or, if the matrix is energetically balanced and mechanically synchronized (as will be the the case if cooled slowly under calm conditions) will effectuate a threshold that acts as a barrier to its ability to initiate any such cascading chain reaction, producing supercooled water. And, as has been well documented by others, all of this is just a drop in the bucket of the strangeness engendered by this seemingly simple molecule.

Conclusion and Future Research
I believe the understanding being proposed here can, and will eventually, serve as the basis of a larger consensus about the nature of water. Additionally, I believe the thinking in this paper sets the stage for the yet discovered forms of structurally hard, electromagnetically active water, which may lead to insight into the mysteries of atmospheric flow, especially with respect to the atmospheric vortices that comprise jet streams and tornadoes.

Along these lines, I think it is also interesting to consider the possibility that the mechanical matrix aspect underlying the formation of ice may vary considerably with differences in molecular composition. Might, for example, extremely small quantities of water, as found in microdroplets suspended in the atmosphere, be less likely to freeze due to the fact that their matrix is so small? If so, this might provide an explanation for the prevalence of supercooled water observed in the higher and colder altitudes of the atmosphere (upper troposphere). (The premise here is not simply that PISD events cannot be initiated in smaller matrices but that, in addition, PNSA events cannot be inhibited. Or, it might be only one or the other or some unequal combination of both, all of which may vary with the size of the microdroplet.)


References

1. Bartels-Rausch, Thorsten, et al. "Ice structures, patterns, and processes: A view across the icefields." Reviews of Modern Physics 84.2 (2012): 885.
2. Petrenko, Victor F., and Robert W. Whitworth. Physics of ice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
3. Uhara, I., et al. "Crystal nucleation given rise by fracturing or by mechanical shock." Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeitschrift für Polymere 244.1 (1971): 218-222.
4. Pritchard, H. O., and H. A. Skinner. "The concept of electronegativity."Chemical Reviews 55.4 (1955): 745-786.
5. Gillespie, Ronald J., and István Hargittai. The VSEPR model of molecular geometry. Courier Corporation, 2013.
6. "The Origin of the" Delta" Symbol for Fractional Charges." Journal of Chemical Education 86, no. 5 (2009): 545.
7. Water structure and science Site by Martin Chaplin, accessed 15 December 2015: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html (See footnote.)
8. Huang, Congcong, et al. "The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.36 (2009): 15214-15218.
9. Khaliullin, Rustam Z., et al. "Unravelling the origin of intermolecular interactions using absolutely localized molecular orbitals." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111.36 (2007): 8753-8765.
10. Barbosa, Marcia. "Tapping the incredible weirdness of water." New Scientist 226.3015 (2015): 26-27.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity:
> A Unique Perspective on The Transition Between The Liquid and Solid States of
> Water

How does your theory predict an applied electric field will affect the phase-changing behavior of water?

Suppose we place two electrodes 1 meter apart in liquid water and apply 1kVDC to them, and lower the temperature of the water. Will it freeze the same way as when no voltage is applied?

Suppose water vapor is suspended in air with a 1 kV/m electrostatic field present, and the temperature falls. Will ice pellets (hail) form the same way as when there is no field present?

Conversely, how about melting/boiling point/evaporation/sublimation?

Will water boil faster/slower/the same with a 1kV/m field applied as without?

Will ice melt faster/slower/the same with 1kV/m applied to it as without?

Will ice particles sublime faster/slower/the same when falling through a 1kV/m field as when not?


Mark L. Fergerson

[James McGinn]

Interesting questions.

I don't think of this as a theory but as an adjunct to the existing model of molecular water. And I'm saying that when this adjunct is included we are better able to explain what is actually observed, universally.

For example, without this adjunct it is a mystery as to why water is so fluid. In accordance with this revised model, hydrogen bonds are distinctive in that the completion of a bond neutralizes the electromagnetic forces that created the bond. In contrast, ionic bonds don't possess this property. When the sodium and the chloride molecules join to form salt the electromagnetic force that brought them together isn't neutralized. Consequently salt is hard. Thus this paper resolves the mystery of why water is fluid by way of explaining that hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that neutralizes the electromagnetic polarity force that brings H2O molecules together.

So, although those are interesting questions (especially the one about hail) I don't know if this adjunct has any implications on the answers. My guess would be that it has implications on all of them, exactly how is not an easy question to answer and outside the scope of my paper.

[Sergio]

so, these are open questions your theory has yet to explain, which you
dismiss as "adjunct".

Are you are aware of the effect of a 1kV/m field has on water ?

Are you aware that the answer(s) to them will either prove or disprove
your theory ? And yet you dismiss them as "adjunct". Why ?

[James McGinn]

I have no idea what your point is here.

> which you
> dismiss as "adjunct".

I haven't dismissed anything. You are making no sense to me.

> Are you are aware of the effect of a 1kV/m field has on water ?

No. Is it a secret? If not, is there some reason you don't just tell us?

> Are you aware that the answer(s) to them will either prove or disprove
> your theory?

I haven't the slightest clue. And my guess is that you don't either.

Please, tell us your special secret.

[Sergio]

>>> So, although those are interesting questions (especially the one
>>> about hail) I don't know if this adjunct has any implications on the
>>> answers. My guess would be that it has implications on all of them,
>>> exactly how is not an easy question to answer and outside the scope
>>> of my paper.
>>>
>>
>> so, these are open questions your theory has yet to explain,
>
> I have no idea what your point is here.

I am agreeing with your admission you do not have any the answers.
(re-read your last two sentences above)

>
>> which you
>> dismiss as "adjunct".
>
> I haven't dismissed anything. You are making no sense to me.

You dismissed answering the questions in your reply.
As you stated, you do not have any answers.

>
>> Are you are aware of the effect of a 1kV/m field has on water ?
>
> No. Is it a secret? If not, is there some reason you don't just tell us?

If you have proposed a theory about Hydrogen Bonding that neutralizes
H2O polarity in water causing it to be fluid, then you must have fully
analyzed the electric fields, in H2O, to show it is neutralized, is this
not so ?

>
>> Are you aware that the answer(s) to them will either prove or disprove
>> your theory?
>
> I haven't the slightest clue.

Obviously.

So scratch off your H bonding theory until you can work on it some more,
and try to pull something more meaningful together.

I have disapproved your theory for lack of substance.

But do not feel bad, what you have is an premature idea.

> Please, tell us your special secret.

I can't do your work for you, my boy.

[James McGinn]

No response.

>
> If you have proposed a theory about Hydrogen Bonding that neutralizes
> H2O polarity in water causing it to be fluid, then you must have fully
> analyzed the electric fields, in H2O, to show it is neutralized, is this
> not so ?

Yes.

> >> Are you aware that the answer(s) to them will either prove or disprove
> >> your theory?
> >
> > I haven't the slightest clue.
>
> Obviously.
>
> So scratch off your H bonding theory until you can work on it some more,
> and try to pull something more meaningful together.

Are you a mental retard? (Honest question.)

>
> I have disapproved your theory for lack of substance.

Really? How so?

> But do not feel bad, what you have is an premature idea.
>
> > Please, tell us your special secret.
>
> I can't do your work for you, my boy.

LOL. So, you can't describe your own thought?

[Sergio]

Liar, you said No, above. Now you say Yes. And you haven't a clue what
1Kv/m is.

>
>>>> Are you aware that the answer(s) to them will either prove or disprove
>>>> your theory?
>>>
>>> I haven't the slightest clue.
>>
>> Obviously.
>>
>> So scratch off your H bonding theory until you can work on it some more,
>> and try to pull something more meaningful together.
>
> Are you a mental retard? (Honest question.)

You are projecting again.
It is a fair question from one who questions their own sanity.
Have your Mom Wiki "Psychological projection" for you.

>
>>
>> I have disapproved your theory for lack of substance.
>
> Really? How so?

Disapproved.

You offer no substance, no references, no explanation, only a child like
simplistic day dream. Which I am sure you could improve your theory.

However, given your poor attitude, lying (in this thread), lack of
anything intelligent associated with your theory, it is doubtful you
could ever succeed. Better if you stick to things that carry water
along, like plumbing.

>
>> But do not feel bad, what you have is an premature idea.
>>
>>> Please, tell us your special secret.
>>
>> I can't do your work for you, my boy.
>
> LOL. So, you can't describe your own thought?

It is your post, your idea of Hydro bonding killing water polarity.
If that is all you have, Ok, we understand your limitations.

Perhaps you are remembering an old question on a entry level Chem test
you failed.

In any case, consider what happens to your water when an electric field
is applied, laddie. Better yet, try it.

[James McGinn]

Other than the one on the top of your head, do you have a point?

>
> >
> >> But do not feel bad, what you have is an premature idea.
> >>
> >>> Please, tell us your special secret.
> >>
> >> I can't do your work for you, my boy.
> >
> > LOL. So, you can't describe your own thought?
>
> It is your post, your idea of Hydro bonding killing water polarity.
> If that is all you have, Ok, we understand your limitations.

What do you think it indicates that you can't explain your own thoughts?

>
> Perhaps you are remembering an old question on a entry level Chem test
> you failed.
>
> In any case, consider what happens to your water when an electric field
> is applied, laddie. Better yet, try it.

Have you considered the possibility that you have mental problems? Just asking.

[Sergio]

Yes, perhaps you could succeed as a plumber's helper, nothing of
intelligence is needed for that job except which end to put in the loo,
and that is 50-50 chance, so you would be useful 1/2 time.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> But do not feel bad, what you have is an premature idea.
>>>>
>>>>> Please, tell us your special secret.
>>>>
>>>> I can't do your work for you, my boy.
>>>
>>> LOL. So, you can't describe your own thought?
>>
>> It is your post, your idea of Hydro bonding killing water polarity.
>> If that is all you have, Ok, we understand your limitations.
>

> What do you think it indicates that I can't explain my own thoughts?

Gray matter degeneration most likely, your inability to explain your
theory "Hydro bonding => fluid water" at the most simplistic levels, or
offer any evidence, URL, or other, is clear example of organic brain
degeneration. I hope not, try to google "feeble".

As a child, did you spend much time around dry cleaning products or
clothes, cleaned with carbon tetrachloride? Did your mom feed you the
paint chips that peeled off the side of the house? Did you eat the blue
stuff left out for the mice ? Can you remember how many X-rays have you
had of your head ? No? If you have difficulty remembering these things,
it has already happened to you.

>>
>> Perhaps you are remembering an old question on a entry level Chem test
>> you failed.
>>
>> In any case, consider what happens to your water when an electric field
>> is applied, laddie. Better yet, try it.
>

> Have you considered the possibility that I have mental problems? Just asking.
>

Yes, and yes you do, but you already know this.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 12:00:26 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> > Have you considered the possibility that I have
> > mental problems? Just asking.

> Yes, and yes you do, but you already know this.

Have you ever heard of the Kruger-Dunning effect? Look it up.

[Sergio]

Do you remember being dropped on your head by your mom a few times when
a baby? Did she keep you in a box ? Or closet ? What did you do to
your first puppy ? Feeling shameful for that is Ok.

Hmm..... Do you use consumables that interfere with your thinking ? How
long have you been using? Are they prescribed, or do you get them via
mail, or on the street?

>>
>> Perhaps you are remembering an old question on a entry level Chem
>> test you failed.
>>
>> In any case, consider what happens to your water when an electric
>> field is applied, laddie. Better yet, try it.
>

> Have you considered the possibility that I have mental problems?
> Just asking.
>

Yes, and yes you do, but you already know this. How many years has it
been ? Since they let you out, or since you found out ?

>>> Have you considered the possibility that I have mental problems?
>>> Just asking.
>
>> Yes, and yes you do, but you already know this.
>

> Have you ever heard of the Druger-Kunning effect? Look it up.
>


You're sidetracking yourself again, now try to stay on task, my boy.

Your post is about hydrogen bonds neutralizing H2O Polarity, remember?

Try to answer just one question that proves your theory (or adjunk) as
your reputation is in question now;

"Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field applied as without?"

A simple YES or NO, will do, Or you could say you don't know, incomplete
research simply means your theory remains "Disapproved".

If you get stuck, try looking up "Polarity", "Neutralize", "1kV/m",
"feeble", "cure your Alzheimer's by yourself", and "goofball"

Also, while your are at it look up, "hydrogen bonds neutralize water
polarity". That subject has been beaten to death.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-8,

> If you get stuck, try looking up "Polarity", "Neutralize", "1kV/m",

Uh, . . . er . . . ?

It's too bad the interenet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.

[Sergio]

If you get stuck, try looking up "Polarity", "Neutralize", "1kV/m",

"feeble", "cure your Alzheimer's by yourself", and "goofball"

Also, while your are at it look up, "hydrogen bonds neutralize water
polarity". That subject has been beaten to death.

> On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-8,
>
>> If you get stuck, try looking up "Polarity", "Neutralize", "1kV/m",
>
> Uh, . . . er . . . ?

...from the wonder-boy brain that brought us "Hydro-Bondo Neuters your
H2O Polarity" idea, like dull toast.

you left out "cure your Alzheimer's by yourself", but I guess you forgot
that.

>
> It's too bad the interenet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.
>

yes Hydro-boy, you been droppin lots of yer chain links to reality for
long time. Payment is DUE !


you should write a self published book about it, and give it away for
free, "HydroBondo, the mechanic that neuterizes your little sister's
H2O polarity"

[Y.Porat]

=============================
see the structure of the Proton
and it ''chain of orbitals ''
as a general system of connection and particle builder
and how its creating
longish(therefore polarized structure of particles
at my ''old'' site:

Google

'The Y Porat Model - an abstract '

ATB
Y.Porat
======================

[James McGinn]

You should write a self published book about it, and give it away for free,

Excellent Idea! By golly, I think I will do that.

[James McGinn]

How so?

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:17:39 AM UTC-8, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 8:09:24 AM UTC+2, James McGinn wrote:
> > How so?
>
> ==================
> do you reffere to me ?Y.Porat??
>
> if so what is that you dont understand
>
> if so please shoot ''
> what is that you dont understand
> may be we can do dome cooperation
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> =================================

I have sent you an email. (Let me know here if you don't get it.)

[James McGinn]

> "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field applied as without?"
>
> A simple YES or NO, will do,

IDK, why don't you google it.

[James McGinn]

Science is confused about water because they are confused about polarity. They see polarity as a function of "polar' bonds (a "polar" bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity difference). It's not that simple. Many molecules have "polar" bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles). A polar molecule is asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences. And where it really gets confusing is when you consider that with water (and only with water) symmetry is variable--AND ACTUALLY VARIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING!

In water polarity drops to zero when symmetry is achieved through coordinated tetrahedral bonds. The failure to comprehend this and its implications is the reason they are so perplexed by water and its many anomalies. For example, once you understand this it becomes immediately apparent why H2O has its high heat capacity. Strangely, the professionals have no ability to grasp the importance of symmetry to polarity. They write paper after paper and do video after video that demonstrates their ignorance of the intricacies of polarity and then they make lists of water's anomalies, pretending they have explained something that they have not explained. This paper tries to get beyond that same ground hog day, over and over again, glossing over, inability to grasp what is really happening at the molecular level that is so typical of the study of water:

https://zenodo.org/record/37224

[Sergio]

you don't know ?

and you state ==> BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That
Neutralizes H2O Polarity ??


Question: Is H2O polarity effected by electric fields ?

(go ahead, you can use wiki or google, find out the answer, and post it
here as your own idea, we won't know.)


The clock is ticking.......

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:50:53 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/8/2016 2:03 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field applied as without?"
> >>
> >> A simple YES or NO, will do,
> >
> > IDK, why don't you google it.
> >
>
> you don't know ?

Correct.

> and you state ==> BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That
> Neutralizes H2O Polarity ??
>
>
> Question: Is H2O polarity effected by electric fields?

Google it.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:54:37 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

"So, these are open questions your theory has yet to explain,. . ."

Yes.

[Y.Porat]

==========================
Thanks i got it
yet i suggested there my model
that is on the net for the last more than 20 years
and the
'chain of orbitals there' as a general system !!
of
STRUCTURE OF MATTER"" !
--
(PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY!! AS WELL

right at the beginning of my model

Google :
The y Porat model - an abstract '
----

it might be compatible with your findings
if more questions we might go on with it

TIA
Y.Porat
===================================

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:54:37 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> so, these are open questions your theory has yet to explain, which you
> dismiss as "adjunct".

It's comical that you are trying to argue for the sake of argument here.

> Are you are aware of the effect of a 1kV/m field has on water ?

We give up. Go ahead. Tell us your special secret.

> Are you aware that the answer(s) to them will either prove or disprove
> your theory?

Did you read the post, you troll?

> And yet you dismiss them as "adjunct". Why ?

You sound like a loon.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 3:08:06 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity:
> > A Unique Perspective on The Transition Between The Liquid and Solid States of
> > Water
>
> How does your theory predict an applied electric field will affect the phase-changing behavior of water?

Relevance?

>
> Suppose we place two electrodes 1 meter apart in liquid water and apply 1kVDC to them, and lower the temperature of the water. Will it freeze the same way as when no voltage is applied?

Relevance?

>
> Suppose water vapor is suspended in air with a 1 kV/m electrostatic field present, and the temperature falls. Will ice pellets (hail) form the same way as when there is no field present?

Relevance?

>
> Conversely, how about melting/boiling point/evaporation/sublimation?

Relevance?

>
> Will water boil faster/slower/the same with a 1kV/m field applied as without?

Relevance?

>
> Will ice melt faster/slower/the same with 1kV/m applied to it as without?

Relevance?

>
> Will ice particles sublime faster/slower/the same when falling through a 1kV/m field as when not?

First read the paper, then ask questions.

>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

[Sergio]

On 1/9/2016 9:37 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:50:53 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 1/8/2016 2:03 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field applied as without?"
>>>>
>>>> A simple YES or NO, will do,
>>>
>>> IDK, why don't you google it.
>>>
>>
>> you don't know ?
>
> Correct.

Can your theory explain all the states of water in this diagram?

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html#intr2

>> and you state ==> BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That
>> Neutralizes H2O Polarity ??
>>
>>
>> Question: Is H2O polarity effected by electric fields?
>
> Google it.
>

trick question, perhaps you may find out why, perhaps not. But you
should know that, if you are presenting a theory on the subject.

Be open to answering questions, constant dodging of questions undermines
peoples view of your work.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:56:30 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> Can your theory explain all the states of
> water in this diagram?

No.

> >> Question: Is H2O polarity effected by electric fields?
> >
> > Google it.
> >
>
> trick question,

You are quite the clever fellow.

> perhaps you may find out why, perhaps
> not.

I'm guessing not.

[Sergio]

On 1/8/2016 11:56 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> Many molecules have "polar"
> bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles). A polar molecule is
> asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences.

> And where it really gets confusing to me is when you consider that with

> water (and only with water) symmetry is variable--AND ACTUALLY VARIES
> AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING!
>
> In water polarity drops to zero when symmetry is achieved through

> coordinated tetrahedral bonds. My failure to comprehend this and

> its implications is the reason they are so perplexed by water and its

> many anomalies. For example, once I understand this it becomes

> immediately apparent why H2O has its high heat capacity.
>

Hydrogen Bonding in water is very well known


http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html#intr2

The phase diagram of water

The phase diagram of water is complex, b, c , d, f having a number of
triple points and one, or possibly two, critical points. Many of the
crystalline forms may remain metastable in much of the low-temperature
phase space at lower pressures. A thermodynamic model of water and ices
Ih, III, V and VI [1320] and thermodynamic functions of the phase
transitions [1658] have been described. The known ices can be divided,
by cluster analysis of their structures [1717], into the low-pressure
ices (hexagonal ice, cubic ice and ice-eleven). the high pressure ices
(ice-seven, ice-eight and ice-ten) and the others (found in the
relatively narrow range of moderate pressures between about 200-2000
MPa). It is noticeable that most phase boundaries between the ices that
share phase boundaries, particularly with the liquid, are parallel to
the temperature axis, implying density-driven phase transformations
[2465]; entropy-driven phase transformations showing phase boundaries
parallel to the pressure axis. All phases that share phase boundaries
with liquid water (ices Ih, III, V and VI and VII) have disordered
hydrogen bonding. The phases with ordered hydrogen bonding are found at
lower temperatures and are indicated in light blue below. The structural
transformation conditions of some of these ices during compression have
been described [1795] .

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html


CAN YOUR THEORY EXPLAIN ANY OF THE SEVENTY THREE ANOMALOUS PROPERTIES OF
WATER ? ANY OF THEM ?


http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html

(from the website)
Water phase anomalies

Water has unusually high melting point. [Explanation]
Water has unusually high boiling point. [Explanation]
Water has unusually high critical point. [Explanation]
Solid water exists in a wider variety of stable (and metastable)
crystal and amorphous structures than other materials. [Explanation]
The thermal conductivity, shear modulus and transverse sound
velocity of ice reduce with increasing pressure. [Explanation]
The structure of liquid water changes at high pressure. [Explanation]
Supercooled water has two phases and a second critical point at
about -91 °C. [Explanation]
Liquid water is easily supercooled but glassified with difficulty.
[Explanation]
Liquid water exists at very low temperatures and freezes on heating.
[Explanation]
Liquid water may be easily superheated. [Explanation]
Hot water may freeze faster than cold water; the Mpemba effect.
[Explanation]
Warm water vibrates longer than cold water. [Explanation]
Water molecules shrink as the temperature rises and expand as the
pressure increases. [Explanation]


Water density anomalies

The density of ice increases on heating (up to 70 K). [Explanation]
Water shrinks on melting. [Explanation]
Pressure reduces ice's melting point. [Explanation]
Liquid water has a high density that increases on heating (up to
3.984 °C). [Explanation]
The surface of water is denser than the bulk. [Explanation]
Pressure reduces the temperature of maximum density. [Explanation]
There is a minimum in the density of supercooled water. [Explanation]
Water has a low coefficient of expansion (thermal expansivity).
[Explanation]
Water's thermal expansivity reduces increasingly (becoming negative)
at low temperatures. [Explanation]
Water's thermal expansivity increases with increased pressure.
[Explanation]
The number of nearest neighbors increases on melting. [Explanation]
The number of nearest neighbors increases with temperature.
[Explanation]
Water has unusually low compressibility. [Explanation]
The compressibility drops as temperature increases up to 46.5 °C.
[Explanation]
There is a maximum in the compressibility-temperature relationship.
[Explanation]
The speed of sound increases with temperature up to 74 °C.
[Explanation]
The speed of sound may show a minimum. [Explanation]
'Fast sound' is found at high frequencies and shows an discontinuity
at higher pressure. [Explanation]
NMR spin-lattice relaxation time is very small at low temperatures.
[Explanation]
The NMR shift increases to a maximum at low (supercool) temperatures
[Explanation]
The refractive index of water has a maximum value at just below 0
°C. [Explanation]
The change in volume as liquid changes to gas is very large.
[Explanation]

Water material anomalies

No aqueous solution is ideal. [Explanation]
D2O and T2O differ significantly from H2O in their physical
properties. [Explanation]
Liquid H2O and D2O differ significantly in their phase behavior.
[Explanation]
H2O and D 2O ices differ significantly in their quantum behavior.
[Explanation]
The mean kinetic energy of water's hydrogen atoms increases at low
temperature. [Explanation]
Solutes have varying effects on properties such as density and
viscosity. [Explanation]
The solubilities of non-polar gases in water decrease with
temperature to a minimum and then rise. [Explanation]
The dielectric constant of water and ice are high. [Explanation]
The relative permittivity shows a temperature maximum. [Explanation]
The imaginary part of the dielectric constant shows a minimum near
20 K. [Explanation]
Proton and hydroxide ion mobilities are anomalously fast in an
electric field. [Explanation]
The electrical conductivity of water rises to a maximum at about 230
°C. [Explanation]
The electrical conductivity of water rises considerably with
frequency. [Explanation]
Acidity constants of weak acids show temperature minima. [Explanation]
X-ray diffraction shows an unusually detailed structure. [Explanation]
Under high pressure water molecules move further away from each
other with increasing pressure; a density-distance paradox. [Explanation]
Water adsorption may cause negative electrical resistance.
[Explanation]


Water thermodynamic anomalies

The heat of fusion of water with temperature exhibits a maximum at
-17 °C. [Explanation]
Water has over twice the specific heat capacity of ice or steam.
[Explanation]
The specific heat capacity (CP and CV) is unusually high. [Explanation]
The specific heat capacity CP has a minimum at 36 °C. [Explanation]
The specific heat capacity (CP) has a maximum at about -45 °C.
[Explanation]
The specific heat capacity (CP) has a minimum with respect to
pressure. [Explanation]
The heat capacity (CV) has a maximum. [Explanation]
High heat of vaporization. [Explanation]
High heat of sublimation. [Explanation]
High entropy of vaporization. [Explanation]
The thermal conductivity of water is high and rises to a maximum at
about 130 °C. [Explanation]

Water physical anomalies

Water has unusually high viscosity. [Explanation]
Large viscosity and Prandtl number increase as the temperature is
lowered. [Explanation]
Water's viscosity decreases with pressure below 33 °C. [Explanation]
Large diffusion decrease as the temperature is lowered. [Explanation]
At low temperatures, the self-diffusion of water increases as the
density and pressure increase. [Explanation]
The thermal diffusivity rises to a maximum at about 0.8 GPa.
[Explanation]
Water has unusually high surface tension. [Explanation]
Some salts give a surface tension-concentration minimum; the
Jones-Ray effect. [Explanation]
Some salts prevent the coalescence of small bubbles. [Explanation]
The molar ionic volumes of salts show maxima with respect to
temperature. [Explanation]

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 11:53 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:56:30 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> Can your theory explain all the states of
>> water in this diagram?
>
> No.
>

An admission that your theory.... does not work.

>>>> Question: Is H2O polarity effected by electric fields?
>>>
>>> Google it.
>>>
>>
>> trick question,
>
> You are quite the clever fellow.

you paper is just a small tip of the iceberg with water complexity, it
is a very difficult one to figure out all the states of water, and how
the H bonding changes in water through pressure and temperature. But you
know this.

>
>> perhaps you may find out why, perhaps
>> not.
>
> I'm guessing not.

of course.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> Hydrogen Bonding in water is very well known

I agree. And now, because of my paper, it is known even better.

I am currently working on an additional post that expands upon this notion. It involves a conversation I had with Richard Saykally of UC Berkely. Richard is a recognized expert in hydrogen bonding, which is good. He is also a card carrying academic, which is not so good. I think you will find our conversation interesting. And I will be dropping a link to a video where he, I believe, contradicts some of the claims he made to me in our email exchange.

> CAN YOUR THEORY EXPLAIN ANY OF THE SEVENTY
> THREE ANOMALOUS PROPERTIES OF WATER? ANY OF THEM?

Yes! Many. Maybe all. (You finally asked a relevant question. That is good!) One of them, supercooled water, is addressed explicitly. Others, such as water's high heat capacity, are addressed more casually. For more details on this do a search in my paper for the word, "pendulumic".

BTW, my claim that it explains many or even all of these anomalies is nowhere near as important as my claim that it will not be refuted by even one of them.

Stay tuned for the post that addresses my conversation with Richard Saykally.

Thanks Mark

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> >> Can your theory explain all the states of
> >> water in this diagram?
> >
> > No.
> >
>
> An admission that your theory.... does not work.

Funny, but I'm thinking that our audience will recognize the desperation that is evident in your approach as evidence that my theory does work.

> you paper is just a small tip of the
> iceberg with water complexity,

True. And that is applicable to the net sum of our understanding of water. It is an amazingly expansive subject. It seems that every advance opens up more questions. It's a fascinating subject, as you have, no doubt, already notices.

> it is a very difficult one to figure out all
> the states of water, and how
> the H bonding changes in water through pressure
> and temperature. But you
> know this.

Intimately. And both from a theoretical and experimental perspective. (Look me up on Linkin for details.)

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 2:06 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>>>> Can your theory explain all the states of water in this
>>>> diagram?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>
>> An admission that your theory.... does not work.
>
> Funny, but I'm thinking that our audience will recognize the
> desperation that is evident in your approach as evidence that my
> theory does work.

1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.)
2. your theory has been disapproved.
3. Can you provide any evidence at all that your theory has any part
that works ? (other than calling your denial of answering any questions
about your theory, as "evidence")

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.)
> 2. your theory has been disapproved.
> 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that your theory has any part
> that works ? (other than calling your denial of answering any questions
> about your theory, as "evidence")

Fresh Fish!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo

I knew you would break, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, or, uh, Mark Fergerson, whatever name you are using today.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.)
> 2. your theory has been disapproved.
> 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that your theory has any part
> that works ? (other than calling your denial of answering any questions
> about your theory, as "evidence")

Fresh Fish!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo

We have a winner!

I knew you would come through, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, uh, Mark Fergerson, whichever one you are today.

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 1:55 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> Hydrogen Bonding in water is very well known
>
> I agree. And now, because of my paper, it is known even better.

known better by just you.

>
> I am currently working on an additional post

no need, after all the subject complete regarding water.
Your efforts are not needed, and are pointless.

Perhaps you could turn your huge intellect to SO2 instead, where the
same effects of bent (with the H20) now substain life.




> Thanks Mark
>

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 5:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) 2. your theory
>> has been disapproved. 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that
>> your theory has any part that works ? (other than calling your
>> denial of answering any questions about your theory, as
>> "evidence")
>

no response.

HOWEVER !! James McGinn, Artem Baguinski and Claudius Denk the crank
on YOUTUBE: celebrating the release of his his new idea on Soilent
Potatoes, err... Bonded Hydrorated Polar Non-Polar Water.......


https://youtu.be/ll0e9cPB08Y

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 5:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) 2. your theory
>> has been disapproved. 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that
>> your theory has any part that works ? (other than calling your
>> denial of answering any questions about your theory, as
>> "evidence")
>

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 1:55 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >
> >> Hydrogen Bonding in water is very well known
> >
> > I agree. And now, because of my paper, it is known even better.
>
> known better by just you.

Your education is your responsibility.

>
> >
> > I am currently working on an additional post
>
> no need, after all the subject complete regarding water.
> Your efforts are not needed, and are pointless.
>
> Perhaps you could turn your huge intellect to SO2 instead, where the
> same effects of bent (with the H20) now substain life.

See, you learned something. Now stop pouting.

[James McGinn]

LOL.

[Mahipal]

I realize navigating Usenet has become difficult given that anonymous
posters abound. Facebook and Twitter need them to make it appear as if
they like more followers than there are termites under heaven with
@#smartestphones. I always remind readers that there are over 7638
billion user ID handles on WWW while there exist only 7.638 billion
people. Most of them poor and starving without any internet access.

Ftr... Sergio, Mark, and I==Mahipal are three distinct individuals.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I am still here, in reading mode mostly.”

[James McGinn]

I guess it is just hard for me to believe that three people could be collectively this dumb.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/11/2016 11:18 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> I guess it is just hard for me to believe that three people could be collectively this dumb.

I gather that you pride yourself on your art of obloquy and contemptuous
dismissal. I'm going to guess that's because you're very practiced on
the receiving end. I'll just offer the opinion that you're not nearly as
gifted as you think you are, and that it is hazardous to enter into a
battle of wits unarmed.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:12:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 11:18 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > I guess it is just hard for me to believe that three people could be collectively this dumb.
>
> I gather that you pride yourself on your art of obloquy and contemptuous
> dismissal.

I know you didn't mean this as a compliment, but . . .

[Odd Bodkin]

Case in point. LOL.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Case in point. LOL.

150 views.

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 9:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 1:55 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hydrogen Bonding in water is very well known
>>>
>>> I agree. And now, because of my paper, it is known even better.
>>
>> known better by just you.
>

> My education is your responsibility.

going to write another troll book ? That last one, "Snorting Tomatoes"
was really some sick sh*t, very bad twisted science fiction, and
totally unreadable, you should have warned people in the title.

>
>>
>>>
>>> I am currently working on an additional post
>>
>> no need, after all the subject complete regarding water.
>> Your efforts are not needed, and are pointless.
>>
>> Perhaps you could turn your huge intellect to SO2 instead, where the
>> same effects of bent (with the H20) now substain life.
>

> See, I learned something. Now I stop pouting.

Title of your new troll book;
"How James McGinn Invented Water (warning to buyers - this book is total
crap)"

[Odd Bodkin]

And the television show featuring Honey Boo-Boo and her white trash mama
had millions of REGULAR viewers. Go figger.

[James McGinn]

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

[James McGinn]

trick question, perhaps you may find out why, perhaps not.

I'm thinking, not.

[Sergio]

You know that is the heart of the problem with your "book"s.

EZ Fix => Just call it Science Fiction instead.

[James McGinn]

Maybe a different hobby is in order?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> Try to answer just one question that proves your theory
> (or adjunk) as your reputation is in question now;
>
> "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field
> applied as without?"
>
> A simple YES or NO, will do, Or you could say you
> don't know, incomplete research simply means your
> theory remains "Disapproved".

It's amazing how seemingly effortless was your
refutation of my hypothesis.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

I am Mark L. Fergerson. I am not now and never have been Sergio or my pal Mahipal, nor anyone else.

You claim to be interested in some of the consequences of water being a polar molecule.

My questions were directed to the literal meaning of "polar" as applied to water molecules- the fact that they interact via their distinct positively and negatively electrically charged regions, and to their responses to external fields.

Consider a volume of supercooled water at a stable temperature above its self-nucleation point, with two electrodes submerged within it. If a high DC voltage is applied to the electrodes, will the water freeze, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

Consider a block of ice with two electrodes on opposite sides. If a high DC voltage is applied to the electrodes, will the melting point of the ice be lowered, raised, or not affected, and why?


Mark L. Fergerson

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:28:08 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> I am Mark L. Fergerson.

Did your interest in this subject develop recently? If not can you show us any work or previous interest you've had in this regard? Is so, what brought on the sudden interest?

[Sergio]

Your theory has no evidence, no equations, no tie in to existing body of
knowledge, no testing, even questions avoided, just some fast and loose
verbiage from a non scientific dude looking into a hat.

*Disapproved*.

[Solving Tornadoes]

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

[Sergio]

try reading again for the first time;

>> Your theory has no evidence, no equations, no tie in to existing
>> body of knowledge, no testing, even questions avoided, just some
>> fast and loose verbiage from a non scientific dude looking into a
>> hat

your lame-o "theoryette" is 100% *Disapproved*

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 10:32:02 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

Trolls will be trolls.

[Sergio]

On 1/18/2016 1:30 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 10:32:02 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
> Trolls will be trolls.
>

an admission.


Liars will be Liars.

[Dan Elton]

As I discussed on my blog :
http://www.danielcelton.com/2013/04/20/does-hot-water-freeze-faster-than-cold/

I'm not convinced there is any real effect in the strictist sense (identical containers, identical conditions)

What research would you consider as reliably demonstrating the effect? As I mentioned several of the studies people site from the 80's are severely flawed, and likely contained air bubbles or dissolved solids. The only rigorous experiments on the subject were done by Brownridge, as I discuss. I may do another post on this point specifically.

I'd love if you send me peer reviewed references you think demonstrate the effect (if you've come across any). I may have missed some in my search.



On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:52:05 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity:
> A Unique Perspective on The Transition Between The Liquid and Solid States of Water
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> solvingtornadoes at gmail dot com
>
> Significance:
> This paper introduces a theoretical breakthrough: H2O molecules collectively neutralize their own polarity through hydrogen bonding. Dual (symmetric) bonds fully neutralize polarity, allowing for the low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water. Singular (asymmetric) bonds neutralize only one half. Thus, situational factors that remove or inhibit the attachment of one of the duo of weak bonds associated with symmetrically coordinated hydrogen bonds effectively activates the polarity that underlies the structural rigidity and electromagnetic forces evident in ice and surface tension.
> 
> Abstract
> In an attempt to theoretically reconcile the tensional forces that are apparent along the surface of liquid water (surface tension) with those in ice, a radical notion is considered: might the relationship between H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding be involved but in a manner that is the inverse of the manner that is normally considered? Accordingly, the tetrahedral coordinated state would be the structurally weak form of hydrogen bonding underlying the liquid state of water. The strong form of hydrogen bonding would be associated with situational factors that restricted or reversed the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonds, effectively activating (or failing to neutralize) H2O polarity, causing the remaining bonds to be strong. The precise mechanism thereof is sought through an explicit examination of the theory underlying molecular polarity. A larger theory is developed to explain surface tension, subsurface low-density anomalies, and the freezing process, culminating in the comparing and contrasting of the freezing process with the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water. An argument is presented that this new understanding provides the foundations of a larger consensus.
>
> Keywords: hydrogen bonding, polarity, liquid water, surface tension, ice, electronegativity differences, symmetrically coordinated bond, asymmetric bond, low-density anomalies, mechanical matrix, freezing process, supercooled water, PRPA, PNSA, PISD, PMPD.
>
> 
> Introduction
>
> Premise
> In an attempt to explain the molecular basis of the structure that is apparent in atmospheric vortices (which will not be discussed here) it is proposed that the surface tension associated with liquid water might, somehow, be involved if some mechanism can be found in the atmosphere that maximizes its surface area, the simple logic being that maximization of surface area should maximize surface tension. Although its relatedness was far from clear in my own mind when it was originally formulated, within this premise was the overarching assumption that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding might be the causative factors underlying such a mechanism. But the more I considered it the more it seemed I was confronted with a major quandary: if we assume that this hypothetical maximization of surface tension in the atmosphere is some kind of consequence of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding then we have to explain how the forces associated with polarity are absent in the liquid state. In other words, we have to explain how H2O polarity is dormant or neutralized in the liquid state and activated or de-neutralized under conditions that maximize surface area. And the only way I could envision this all working would be if H2O polarity is neutralized in liquid water as a direct consequence of being more comprehensively hydrogen bonded (most of its H2O molecules having hydrogen bonds with four other H2O molecules, two acceptor bonds and two donor bonds) and activated again in the context of situational factors that cause the breaking of some but not all of its hydrogen bonds (resulting in many or most of its H2O molecules having one acceptor and one, or possibly two, donor bonds).
>
> Background and Approach
> Examination of the literature very rapidly brought me to the realization that this hypothesis is diametrically incompatible with conventional thinking.1 This incompatibility was most plainly apparent with respect to how these competing hypotheses characterize ice and the freezing process. Indisputably, if the conventional model of ice and freezing is correct then this new hypothesis couldn’t possibly be correct in that the freezing process associated with the conventional model involves H2O molecules forming into a more highly organized, symmetrically coordinated network of polarized H2O molecules.2 In contrast, with the model that I am proposing any such increase in symmetric coordination could only further neutralize polarity. With respect to which, it is important to understand that both of these competing models depend on polarity to explain why the freezing/melting temperature of H2O is at 0 degrees Celsius and not at a much lower temperature, around -170 degrees Celsius, predicted by comparison to other similar but non-polar molecules (methane). So, there was no getting around it. The freezing process associated with this new hypothesis required the inclusion of situational factors that reduce the relative number of symmetrically coordinated bonds in water and increase the relative number of asymmetric bonds. Because otherwise it lacks the polarity required to explain the hardness of ice.
>
> And so, the challenge at hand was becoming clear. Firstly, the mechanism by which polarity is activated by the breaking of some but not all hydrogen bonds, producing structurally strong hydrogen bonds, needed to be explicated. Secondly, the ensuing theory had to reconcile the freezing process, including an explanation of the lower density of ice. But I had some reservations as to whether this would be convincing. The conceptualization of ice and the freezing process associated with the conventional model had been in place for a long time and had been considered by a large number of researchers and, therefore, had a lot of tacit support behind it. In an effort to find something definitive to distinguish my model from the conventional model I came across supercooled water, the tendency for water to remain unfrozen even at temperatures well below 0 degrees Celsius.3
>
> Although the process underlying the origins of supercooled water—what we might describe as the antithesis of the freezing process—seemed to not have been adequately explained by the conventional model this was not the main reason my attention was drawn to it. Rather, it was the fact that the situational circumstances associated with its origins seemed to directly contradict what is predicted by the conventional model. Specifically, since the freezing process associated with the conventional model indicates an increase in the polar alignment of H2O molecules during the transition from liquid to ice it seems reasonable that one would predict chaotic or agitated conditions as the underlying root cause, but exactly the opposite is the case. Supercooled water is associated with situational factors in which water is cooled very gradually under placid, calm conditions.3 To me this indicated that the underlying mechanism involves the comprehensiveness of symmetrically coordinated bonds being locked in, forming a threshold that inhibits the breaking of bonds without which, in accordance with my hypothetical thinking, polarity remains dormant, preventing the formation of ice. And so, lastly, I hope to distinguish this new model by demonstrating that it engenders an elegant explanation as to why the conditional factors underlying supercooled water involve gradual cooling and placid, calm conditions.
>
> Theoretical Presentation
>
> Molecular Basis of H2O Polarity
> There are two requirements for a molecule to be polar (dipole moment). Firstly, there must be electronegativity differences between its covalently bonded atoms.4 (These are, sometimes, referred to as “polar” bonds. In my opinion this designation is the source of a lot of confusion. Herein polarity is considered an attribute of a molecule in its entirety, not just its bonds.) The H2O molecule has electronegativity differences of 1.34 between its oxygen atom and any one of its two hydrogen atoms.4 Electronegativity differences between the atoms of any molecule do not change regardless of circumstances. Therefore, any purported variability of H2O polarity cannot be solely a consequence of electronegativity differences between its atoms.
>
> The second requirement for a molecule to be polar is that electronegativity differences between its atoms must be structurally lopsided, asymmetrically distributed. This can be better understood with comparison to CH4, the methane molecule. Between the carbon atom and any one of the four hydrogen atoms of the methane molecule is an electronegativity difference (.45) that is one third of that (1.34) between the oxygen and any one of the two hydrogen atoms of the water molecule (.45 / 1.34 = .34).4 From this one might, at first, assume that the methane molecule would possess one third the polarity of the water molecule, but it has zero polarity. (And, in comparison to water, this lack of polarity is the reason it is a gas at room temperature, with a boiling point at -164 Celsius and a freezing point at -182 Celsius.) This is because the electronegativity differences of the methane molecule are structurally symmetric.
>
> The distinction between the symmetry of the methane molecule and the asymmetry of the water molecule might be better understood with respect to the fact that their respective base molecules, carbon and oxygen, share the same structural template as the underlying factor that dictates the arrangement of their covalent bonds, a tetrahedron.5 Having four unshared electrons in its outer shell, the symmetry of the methane molecule is a consequence of the fact that the carbon atom can, and in the case of methane does, form covalent bonds on all four of the four corners of the tetrahedron. Oxygen possesses only two unshared electrons in its outer shell. Consequently it can only form covalent bonds on two of the four corners of the tetrahedron, as is the case with the water molecule. This results in the electronegativity differences of the water molecule being structurally lopsided (asymmetric), making the water molecule a polar molecule.
>
> The convention that is generally used to represent the strength of the electromagnetic forces associated with polarity is the ∂ symbol.6 Although it is not intended to be a precise attribution, its magnitude is generally considered to produce a binding force that is a fraction of that associated with a covalent bond, possibly one twentieth. Being positively charged, each of the two hydrogen atoms on a H2O molecule is attributed a positive charge of +1∂ for a total of +2∂. Each of the two unbonded pair electrons on the oxygen atom is attributed a negative charge of -1∂ for a total of -2∂. Accordingly, the H2O molecule is hereby considered to have a polarity coefficient (a net difference in charges from one end of the molecule (-2∂) to the other (+2∂) of 4∂.
>
> The Mechanism
> In the context of this understanding we can ask ourselves two rhetorical questions in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron of the oxygen atom. Must the bonds be covalent? Would hydrogen bonds not be equally effective as covalent bonds in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron to, thereby, effectuate symmetry? I believe the answers to these rhetorical questions are, respectively, no and yes. Accordingly, I believe completion of the tetrahedron with hydrogen bonds effectively establishes symmetry. It becomes a molecule with perfectly balanced electronegativity differences, identical to those of a nonpolar molecule like methane. Accordingly, when a H2O molecule is symmetrically bonded it’s polarity coefficient drops from 4∂ to zero. Removing only one of these bonds (leaving one attached) cuts its polarity in half, giving it a polarity coefficient (-1∂ to +1∂) of 2∂.
>
> This is all very confusing, but it is even more confusing when you consider that polarity determines the strength of any remaining hydrogen bonds. Accordingly, 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. Consequently, the hydrogen atoms just float alongside the oxygen atom. The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns. This is why liquid water is so fluid. 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 reemerges preventing it from escaping. (This functionality is also the basis for the pendulumic aspect of symmetrically coordinated bonds, which is discussed more explicitly further along.)
>
> The H2O molecule has the strongest polarity when both bonds are broken, as in gaseous H2O. (This phrase “gaseous H2O” refers to steam, not evaporate.7 In some less rigorous disciplines, meteorology and climatology for example, it is common to conflate the concepts of steam, a genuine gas that only occurs above the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O, with evaporate, not a genuine gas but a form of liquid H2O that is suspended in air [often completely invisible] and that only occurs at temperatures below the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.) Then, and only then does the H2O molecule have full polarity (its polarity coefficient is restored to 4∂). This explains why the boiling point of water is so high in that it requires having enough energy to break the very strong attraction of the full polarity of the H2O molecule.
>
> When bonds are asymmetric (having only one acceptor bond [one positively charged “donor” hydrogen atom from an adjacent H2O molecule attached on its negatively charged “acceptor” oxygen atom]) one half of the polarity is restored or, depending on perspective, one half of its polarity remains un-neutralized (its polarity coefficient is 2∂) producing a strong hydrogen bond. Therefore, situational factors that prevent or reverse the formation of the second of the two acceptor bonds associated with weak symmetrically coordinated bonds (dual) will allow or cause the formation of a strong asymmetric bond (singular).
>
> Addressing Explanatory Challenges
> Since the attachment of a hydrogen atom (a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule) to its oxygen atom (the acceptor) is the mechanism that neutralizes or de-activates the polarity of that H2O molecule; and since the removal of the same is the mechanism that activates or de-neutralizes it; and since it can accept up to two hydrogen atoms (a donor from each of two adjacent H2O molecules) producing three variants: 1) no attachment at all; 2) one accepted, being a strong asymmetric bond; or 3) two accepted, being two very weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds; there is huge potential for explanatory confusion. It would appear that this potential for confusion mostly has to do with how we differentiate between the process of attaching and detaching bonds to go back and forth between the weaker and stronger bonding states and the duo of bonds associated with a symmetrically coordinated bond which can also be described as “weaker” and “stronger”. It becomes quite precarious. For example, we might, at first, designate the “weaker” of the duo of bonds as always being the last hydrogen atom accepted or the first one detached and the “stronger” one as always being the first one accepted or the last one detached. But that becomes confusing further along because it, unavoidably, creates the impression that one of the duo is “strong” and the other is “weak”, which is certainly not the case. It gets even more confusing when you consider that whether or not one or the other is attached or detached is relative and not absolute—the closer either or both of them come to the oxygen atom the more they neutralize the polarity that maintains the bond and the farther either or both of them move away from the oxygen atom the more the polarity that underlies the strength of the bonds is reactivated. And, therefore, for all of these reasons, referring to either one of them as “weaker” or “stronger” doesn’t make a lot of sense accept in the context of the process of them becoming fully attached or fully detached.
>
> In order to circumvent the potential for confusion between the processes that produce them and the hydrogen bonded variants themselves, I hereby designate the following with respect to encapsulating the different processes associated with hydrogen atoms becoming attached or detached:
> PRPA Polarity Reducing Primary Attachment: The attachment of one hydrogen atom, a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule, to an unattached oxygen atom of an accepting H2O molecule to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
> PNSA Polarity Neutralizing Secondary Attachment: The attachment of an additional hydrogen atom, a donor from another adjacent H2O molecule, to create two (dual) weak (polarity neutralized [floating]) symmetrically coordinated bonds.
> PISD Polarity Increasing Secondary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of either of the two hydrogen atoms associated with (dual) weak symmetrically coordinated bonds to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
> PMPD Polarity Maximizing Primary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
>
> Starting from different states, steam and liquid water, PRPA and PISD produce the same end result, a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PRPA and PNSA both neutralize one half of the polarity of a H2O molecule, but they produce very different end results. PRPA involves a transition from steam to a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PNSA involves a transition from a singular, strong asymmetric bond to the dual, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds of liquid water. PRPA and PMPD involve transitions to and from steam and will not be discussed through the rest of this paper. PISD and PNSA involve transitions to and from the singular, strong asymmetric bond associated with the structural properties of water and the dual, weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds associated with the high fluidity of liquid water, both of which are highly relevant through the rest of this theoretical presentation.
>
> Surface Tension Explained
> The two dimensions of a surface restricts the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally occur in the less restricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water, producing PISD events and inhibiting PNSA events for the molecules along the surface. This explains surface tension of liquid water. In calm water its existence is very stable.
>
> Subsurface, Low-Density Anomalies Explained
> Although its occurrence is considerably more brief in comparison to that of surface tension, another situational factor that causes the formation of the strong, asymmetric bonds actually does occur within the unrestricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water. These are generally referred to as low-density anomalies.8 In accordance with the understanding being presented here, these subsurface low-density anomalies are, hereby, hypothesized to be a collective consequence of the geometric limitations of H2O molecules in that they don’t quite pack into a 100% symmetrically bonded matrix. Between 3% and 10% (unknown) are collectively excluded and, therefore, can only form asymmetric bonds. (This percentage will, most likely, vary depending on temperature/pressure.) Moreover, this collective inability to form fully symmetric bonds can and will itself be spread between many or even all of the molecules within a body of water. Thus within liquid water (under normal, ambient, conditions) there will always be a small percentage of the structurally strong and electromagnetically active asymmetric bonds. And, since asymmetric bonds are intrinsically lower in density these “anomalies” will be associated with lower density. However, unlike those associated with surface tension, their existence is usually very brief in that as soon as they come into existence they create the tensional forces (polarity) that reestablish higher density, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds. And so, a PISD event creates the conditions that initiate a corresponding PNSA event. And a PNSA event, working through the matrix, will contribute to initiating another PISD event in the general neighborhood. In other words, there is constant interplay between PISD events and PNSA events. And these reverberate, by way of the matrix, through the body of water. So, in addition to being a small percentage of the bonds within the greater matrix these “low-density anomalies” exist for very short periods of time (Consequently, they can only be detected using sophisticated equipment.9) and will, over time, be averaged out over many of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within the greater body of the liquid.
>
> Ice and the Freezing Process Explained
> As indicated in the previous paragraph, any PISD event that occurs within liquid water will produce a lower density, strong asymmetric bond that will exist for only a brief instant in time before it is reversed by a corresponding PNSA event. However, at and below 0 degrees Celsius the rules change. At these lower temperatures the same occurrence can initiate a chain reaction of PISD events that produce a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit corresponding PNSA events resulting in the structurally strong form of water, ice. This process is commonly referred to as freezing. And so, like surface tension and subsurface, low-density anomalies, the H2O freezing process also involves PISD events, but, as will be explained, it is more complicated because it involves an additional situational factor that causes both a chain reaction of cascading PISD events and inhibition of corresponding PNSA events. Properly conceptualizing this additional situational factor involves, for the most part, getting a better understanding of how the molecules in liquid water collectively comprise a mechanical matrix that itself dictates ensuing implications.
>
> Mechanical Matrix: Understanding the mechanical matrix and its implications to the freezing process that produces ice, as well as its implications to the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water, depends on understanding three concepts and their interrelationships:
> 1) How the pendulumic relationship that exists between the duo of hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom in each of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within a body of liquid water collectively dictates the transfer of kinetic energy (spreads energy) throughout the liquid (which also, arguably, goes a long way into explaining the high heat capacity of water [attributable to the conservation of energy aspect of the pendulum] and high heat conductivity [attributable to the high degree of connectivity between the H2O molecules in that over 90 percent of them have bonds with four of their neighbors]);
> 2) How the collective of symmetrically bonded H2O molecules tends to become more interconnected over time, balancing out kinetic energy and electromagnetic charges (balancing out polarity) throughout the greater body of the liquid, effectuating a larger mechanical matrix and therefore having a higher threshold of resistance to change in that greater momentum is required to move the gears of a larger mechanical matrix; and
> 3) How the displacement of one of the duo of hydrogen atoms (a PISD event) on at least one of the symmetrically coordinated bonds in the greater matrix causes the remaining hydrogen atom of that symmetrically coordinated bond to move to a more central position on its oxygen atom in order to balance out electronegativity differences and how this movement turns the gears of the mechanical matrix causing additional PISD events, causing their remaining hydrogen atoms to move to more central positions on their oxygen atoms, further turning the gears and causing more of the same, producing a cascade of PISD events that produces a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events and that, therefore, are highly stable. (Another factor that might power the turning of the gears of the mechanical matrix during PISD events is a shift in the bond angle of the covalently bonded hydrogen atoms of the H2O molecule from 109.5 degrees to 107 degrees. As with the shifts in polarity being hypothesized here, this too is a result of shifts in electronegativity that are an implication of PISD events.)
>
> Comparing and Contrasting The Freezing Process With Its Antithesis
> Consider two scenarios of water being cooled below 0 degrees Celsius. Both involve a sealed, one liter plastic container filled with pure H2O at normal atmospheric pressure. Scenario A involves the container being placed in a room that is -5 degrees Celsius. Its temperature drops gradually and it does not freeze. It continues to exist as supercooled water all the way down to -5 degrees Celsius. In scenario B the water is cooled both more rapidly and more unevenly. It involves the container having its bottom one quarter suspended in liquid nitrogen. Its temperature drops rapidly and as soon as any part of it drops below 0 degrees it begins to freeze. Why did scenario B produce freezing whereas scenario A did not?
>
> In scenario A the pendulumic process has more time to process the distribution of changes in energy to all of the molecules in the body of water before its average temperature crosses below 0 degrees. More specifically, the collective, pendulumic process of the mechanical matrix has more time to become one large matrix and to stay as such with gradual reductions in temperature. Therefore there is less variance in the swings of the pendulum of the different symmetrically coordinated bonds therein. Additionally, since the matrix is larger, greater momentum is required to overcome the threshold resistance in order to turn the collective gears of the mechanical matrix. Consequently, for both of these reasons, the chain reaction of cascading PISD events cannot be initiated. And/or (unknown) corresponding PNSA events are not blocked, and the water remains supercooled, unfrozen.
>
> In contrast, in scenario B the rapid and unequal removal of energy makes achieving the same degree of temperature distribution to all of the molecules in the body of water impossible. More specifically, the pendulumic process has less time to process and become a larger matrix. Instead there exists, in a sense, many different matrices at different energy levels. And, therefore, there is much greater variance in the swings of the pendulums of the various symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water. Consequently there is a greater probability that one of the duo of hydrogen atoms associated with at least one of the many symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water will swing away from its oxygen atom to initiate a PISD event. And, since the mechanical matrices thereof are smaller there is less threshold resistance to overcome and, therefore, less momentum is required to turn the collective gears of any one matrix, thus a cascade of PISD events has a higher probability of being initiated. Once initiated, the turning of the gears of the highly interconnected matrix causes the ensuing emergence of a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events, and the water begins to freeze. The end result, ice, is less dense simply because asymmetric bonds are intrinsically less dense than symmetrically coordinated bonds.
>
> Discussion
>
> Addressing Anticipated Objections
> The Mechanism: The only objection I can anticipate to the validity of the mechanism being suggested here—the notion that hydrogen bonds neutralize polarity and their removal, breaking of hydrogen bonds, activates it—are arguments based on dogmatic interpretations of what is a molecule or what is polarity. Us humans tend to emplace absolutistic interpretations on our definitions and subsequently forget that nature doesn’t necessarily always conform with this absolutistic aspect. Along these lines, I would like to suggest a change in perspective. Instead of looking at it from the outside in, look at it from the inside out. Specifically, consider this notion from the perspective of an electron on the oxygen atom of a H2O molecule that maintains (dual) symmetrically coordinated bonds. When it looks up into each of the four corners of the oxygen molecule’s tetrahedron it will see the same thing, a positively charged hydrogen atom. Is there any reason to assume it would be more or less attracted to the hydrogen atoms on the corners that are covalently bonded than it is to those that are hydrogen bonded? If there is, I don’t know what this would be.
>
> Freezing and its Antithesis: As for the description of the freezing process and its antithesis that is presented herein there is, in my opinion, much more potential for it to be incomplete, partially wrong, or even (though much less likely in my opinion) fully mistaken. My concerns in this regard involve the assertion that this hypothesis appears not to predict the increase in density that occurs with drop in temperature between 4 degrees Celsius and 0 degrees Celsius. My guess is that something distinctive is happening with the mechanical matrix over this transition, something that has not been adequately explained. It might even indicate that the notion that the, purported, repositioning of the extant hydrogen atom that, purportedly, turns the gears of the mechanical matrix to initiate a cascade of PISD events is either wrong or superfluous. I also think an alternative hypothesis should be considered with respect to the barrier associated with the the antithesis of the freezing process being something other than the threshold momentum requirements of the mechanical matrix. Might, for example, the actual barrier have something to do with a larger and more synchronized mechanical matrix having an increases in its mean collective ability to absorb perturbation as it goes below 4 degrees, preventing an initial PISD event, but only when it gets below 0 degrees does it lose its ability to block corresponding PNSA events, due to some unexplained mechanical implication? I am curious as to whether a clue leading to a resolution might be found through more in depth analysis of low-density anomalies in the context of comparing and contrasting the freezing process to the antithesis of the freezing process over the course of this transition.
>
> Some Resolution to The Strangeness of Water
> Among those that study it, common parlance on the strangeness of water tends to focus on the fact that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule.10 These explanations don’t go far enough. To truly capture its 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. And this is just to set the stage for more strangeness that emerges in conjunction with the geometry of the H2O molecule that dictate limitations on its collective ability to neutralize its own polarity, which occurs in a highly stable form along the surface of liquid water, producing surface tension, and in a much less stable form below it’s surface, producing low-density anomalies. Additionally, we have to take into consideration the tendency of H2O molecules to collectively form a mechanical matrix that, if the temperature is low enough and the matrix is energetically unbalanced, will facilitate a cascading chain reaction that will produce a widening general interruption in their collective ability to neutralize their own polarity, producing ice; or, if the matrix is energetically balanced and mechanically synchronized (as will be the the case if cooled slowly under calm conditions) will effectuate a threshold that acts as a barrier to its ability to initiate any such cascading chain reaction, producing supercooled water. And, as has been well documented by others, all of this is just a drop in the bucket of the strangeness engendered by this seemingly simple molecule.
>
> Conclusion and Future Research
> I believe the understanding being proposed here can, and will eventually, serve as the basis of a larger consensus about the nature of water. Additionally, I believe the thinking in this paper sets the stage for the yet discovered forms of structurally hard, electromagnetically active water, which may lead to insight into the mysteries of atmospheric flow, especially with respect to the atmospheric vortices that comprise jet streams and tornadoes.
>
> Along these lines, I think it is also interesting to consider the possibility that the mechanical matrix aspect underlying the formation of ice may vary considerably with differences in molecular composition. Might, for example, extremely small quantities of water, as found in microdroplets suspended in the atmosphere, be less likely to freeze due to the fact that their matrix is so small? If so, this might provide an explanation for the prevalence of supercooled water observed in the higher and colder altitudes of the atmosphere (upper troposphere). (The premise here is not simply that PISD events cannot be initiated in smaller matrices but that, in addition, PNSA events cannot be inhibited. Or, it might be only one or the other or some unequal combination of both, all of which may vary with the size of the microdroplet.)
>
> 
> References
>
> 1. Bartels-Rausch, Thorsten, et al. "Ice structures, patterns, and processes: A view across the icefields." Reviews of Modern Physics 84.2 (2012): 885.
> 2. Petrenko, Victor F., and Robert W. Whitworth. Physics of ice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
> 3. Uhara, I., et al. "Crystal nucleation given rise by fracturing or by mechanical shock." Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeitschrift für Polymere 244.1 (1971): 218-222.
> 4. Pritchard, H. O., and H. A. Skinner. "The concept of electronegativity."Chemical Reviews 55.4 (1955): 745-786.
> 5. Gillespie, Ronald J., and István Hargittai. The VSEPR model of molecular geometry. Courier Corporation, 2013.
> 6. "The Origin of the" Delta" Symbol for Fractional Charges." Journal of Chemical Education 86, no. 5 (2009): 545.
> 7. Water structure and science Site by Martin Chaplin, accessed 15 December 2015: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html (See footnote.)
> 8. Huang, Congcong, et al. "The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.36 (2009): 15214-15218.
> 9. Khaliullin, Rustam Z., et al. "Unravelling the origin of intermolecular interactions using absolutely localized molecular orbitals." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111.36 (2007): 8753-8765.
> 10. Barbosa, Marcia. "Tapping the incredible weirdness of water." New Scientist 226.3015 (2015): 26-27.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:36:49 PM UTC-8, Dan Elton wrote:
> As I discussed on my blog :
> http://www.danielcelton.com/2013/04/20/does-hot-water-freeze-faster-than-cold/
>
> I'm not convinced there is any real effect in the strictist sense (identical containers, identical conditions)
>
> What research would you consider as reliably demonstrating the effect? As I mentioned several of the studies people site from the 80's are severely flawed, and likely contained air bubbles or dissolved solids. The only rigorous experiments on the subject were done by Brownridge, as I discuss. I may do another post on this point specifically.

> I'd love if you send me peer reviewed references you think demonstrate the effect (if you've come across any). I may have missed some in my search.

You are struggling to dismiss evidence that contradicts what you believe. This is a flawed approach. This is the approach that 99.99 percent of the populace takes. This is not the approach that a scientist who wants to achieve breakthroughs takes. Don't be like the peanut gallery. Don't be a sheep. Be a wolf. Embrace the contradiction. Contradiction is the sliver of truth that grows into the doorway to breakthroughs.

Nevertheless I found this kind of convincing:
http://www.rsc.org/mpemba-competition/mpemba-winner.asp
http://www.rsc.org/images/nikola-bregovic-entry_tcm18-225169.pdf
http://www.rsc.org/mpemba-competition/



I actually think the evidence of Mpemba effect is pretty subtle. And if not for the fact that I happened upon the mechanism that underlies it I would not bother with it. But there is other much less subtle evidence that is associated with the same mechanism, such as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYHGn_Pd5M

You can think of non-Newtonian fluids as being like surface tension on steriods. The principle is that if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension. And explication of this mechanism is in the paper that is indicated in the title of this thread.

[Lawrence Senreich]

hmmm.

[Sergio]

On 1/18/2016 5:51 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> As I discussed on my blog :

don't post your unread monkey blog here, dufus.

>
> The principle is that if you maximize surface area you
> maximize surface tension.

wrong.


like too much air in a round balloon,

like too many lies in your shallow posts

like the expanding bullshit in your small head

POP !!

[James McGinn]

Address my theory or kindly go away.

[James McGinn]

Why don't you do an experiment?

[Sergio]

On 1/20/2016 11:38 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:16:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:28:08 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes
>> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:04:52 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) 2. your
>>>>> theory has been disapproved. 3. Can you provide any evidence
>>>>> at all that your theory has any part that works ? (other
>>>>> than calling your denial of answering any questions about
>>>>> your theory, as "evidence")
>>>>

>>>

>>> Consider a block of ice with two electrodes on opposite sides. If
>>> a high DC voltage is applied to the electrodes, will the melting
>>> point of the ice be lowered, raised, or not affected, and why?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>> Address my theory or kindly go away.
>
> Why don't you do an experiment?
>

if you did, you can prove your theory is right.

All you have now is high school hand waving.

Perhaps you could borrow an Ice cube, and a 9 volt battery then report
the results back here.

Until you have results, your theory remains *disaproved*

[Sergio]

glad you decided to change,

for you perhaps pressing leaves in a book,

or watching the water tornados when you flush the lou.


you could write another troll book,
"Hydro Bondage in Twisty Water Tornados in your own home for those
that don't know as much as I do but want to"

[Sergio]

On 1/12/2016 8:09 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> trick question, perhaps you may find out why, perhaps not.
>
> I'm thinking, not.
>

agree, except with your "thinking" part.

[Sergio]

answers;

no
no
not so

[Sergio]

On 1/11/2016 1:19 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:54:37 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> so, these are open questions your theory has yet to explain, which you
>> dismiss as "adjunct".
>
> It's comical that you are trying to argue for the sake of argument here.

you avoid your own theory, how pitiful. Total flame out.

>
>> Are you are aware of the effect of a 1kV/m field has on water ?
>
> We give up. Go ahead. Tell us your special secret.

troll, you are trying to be the master baiter.


>
>> Are you aware that the answer(s) to them will either prove or disprove
>> your theory?
>
> Did you read the post,

your responses are your own poop

>
>> And yet you dismiss them as "adjunct". Why ?
>
> I sound like a loon.
>

true

[Sergio]

On 1/10/2016 4:28 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:54:37 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> "So, these are open questions your theory has yet to explain,. . ."
>
> Yes.
>

your theory cannot explain the basics.

Your Theory is garbage, and it is *DISAPROVED* and remains so.


Next time, try google search. or Wiki.

[Sergio]

On 1/19/2016 3:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:28:08 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes
> wrote:
>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:04:52 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
>> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) 2. your
>>>> theory has been disapproved. 3. Can you provide any evidence at
>>>> all that your theory has any part that works ? (other than
>>>> calling your denial of answering any questions about your
>>>> theory, as "evidence")
>>>
>>> Fresh Fish!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo
>>>
>>> I knew you would break, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, or, uh, Mark
>>> Fergerson,
>>
>> I am Mark L. Fergerson. I am not now and never have been Sergio or
>> my pal Mahipal, nor anyone else.
>>

>> Consider a volume of supercooled water at a stable temperature
>> above its self-nucleation point, with two electrodes submerged
>> within it. If a high DC voltage is applied to the electrodes, will
>> the water freeze, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?
>>
>> Consider a block of ice with two electrodes on opposite sides. If a
>> high DC voltage is applied to the electrodes, will the melting
>> point of the ice be lowered, raised, or not affected, and why?
>>
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>
> Address my theory or kindly go away.
>

you and your "theory" fail to explain the simplist of questions.

since you failed, you are troll. Esad.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:21:20 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> since you failed, you are troll. Esad.

Hmm. Let me think about that.

[Sergio]

the water in your brain is polarized, and sticks to one another in
random fashion, if you had two electrodes on either side of your head,
you could polarize your entire brain.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:51:34 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> the water in your brain is polarized, and sticks to one another in
> random fashion, if you had two electrodes on either side of your head,
> you could polarize your entire brain.

You don't realize it, but you actually said something half-way intelligent.

[Sergio]

Above your half for sure.

What do you think an MRI does to your poor water molecule ?

get some books and read up, then you could start off near the top,
instead of the bottom like you are now.

[Solving Tornadoes]

What did morons like you do before the internet, talk to you TV

[Solving Tornadoes]

ijij

[Sergio]

esad troll

[Sergio]

meth is bad

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:32:56 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> meth is bad

Then stop taking it.

[James McGinn]

kjikj

[Sergio]

either your are on drugs, booze, or a kid age 25 or less, or you are
over 60, right ?

unemployed

[Claudius Denk]

Incredible!!!

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 12:37:57 PM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Incredible!!!

Unfortunately the field is dominated by global warming groupies.

[Odd Bodkin]

So let's summarize what we have here.
1. Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn switches
personalities so that he can reply to himself and feed his own need to
be paid attention to.

2. Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn contends that
all water in the atmosphere below the boiling point is in liquid form,
even *well* below the melting point of water.

3. Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn contends that
this is obviously true by looking at steam tables, though he cannot
point to a steam table and show where this is indicated.

4. Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn claims that he
alone is privy to the true nature of water in air below the boiling
point, but still he suggests that people should search for that
information with Google, as though he is not the sole one privy to it
after all. Either way, he can't provide ANY source of information that
supports it.

5. Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn has been
referred to books as good sources for data that is counter to his
contentions, which he has steadfastly ignored, complaining in response
that people either keep pointing to wikipedia or the internet (which he
dismisses as being for idiots), or alternately complaining that people
cannot provide internet sources to support their claims.

6. Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn posts to
newsgroups to disparage the newsgroup as hosting only idiots and trolls,
which would cause a normal person to question why one would bother to
post to a newsgroup one disdains.

7. Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn ran through the
identical sequence of conversations the last run he had here in this
newsgroup many months ago, and has repeated it step-by-step again
lately, and he will very likely soon disappear once more and reemerge
again at a future date to repeat the very same embarrassment.

Now, speaking to anyone other than Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes
aka James McGinn, what would you conclude about the mental state of
Claudius Denk aka Solving Tornadoes aka James McGinn?

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[James McGinn]

Don't fret Odd one, maybe someday you will have something original and significant to say:

The Mechanism
In the context of this understanding we can ask ourselves two rhetorical questions in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron of the oxygen atom. Must the bonds be covalent? Would hydrogen bonds not be equally effective as covalent bonds in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron to, thereby, effectuate symmetry? I believe the answers to these rhetorical questions are, respectively, no and yes. Accordingly, I believe completion of the tetrahedron with hydrogen bonds effectively establishes symmetry. It becomes a molecule with perfectly balanced electronegativity differences, identical to those of a nonpolar molecule like methane. Accordingly, when a H2O molecule is symmetrically bonded it’s polarity coefficient drops from 4∂ to zero. Removing only one of these bonds (leaving one attached) cuts its polarity in half, giving it a polarity coefficient (-1∂ to +1∂) of 2∂.

[Odd Bodkin]

Saying something original is easy. 3-year-olds say original things all
the time. Saying something significant would require support from data,
which you have not shown.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:09:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Saying something original is easy. 3-year-olds say original things all
> the time. Saying something significant would require support from data,
> which you have not shown.

It's consistent with all of the data.

[Odd Bodkin]

You mean the data you have not pulled forward to show that?

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7:49:42 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> You mean the data you have not pulled forward to show that?

If I debate you, here, and I win what do I gain? How much influence
do you have? How many people even read your posts here on this NG?
I mean, look at the posts you initiate. What do you get, maybe 3 views?
Compare that to how many views I get. Do you see?

[Odd Bodkin]

Jim, by your own assertion, nobody on this group has any influence. By
your own assertion, this group is a haven for trolls and know-nothing
idiots. So here you are measuring your views by trolls and idiots who
have no influence.

This speaks to your disease, Jim. All you care about is attention. You
would do just as well to paint eyes on trees and stand in the middle of
them and talk, because you don't have any regard for anyone in your
audience anyway.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Jim, by your own assertion, nobody on this group has any influence. By
> your own assertion, this group is a haven for trolls and know-nothing
> idiots. So here you are measuring your views by trolls and idiots who
> have no influence.
>
> This speaks to your disease, Jim. All you care about is attention. You
> would do just as well to paint eyes on trees and stand in the middle of
> them and talk, because you don't have any regard for anyone in your
> audience anyway.

Okay, now that you got me figured out I guess I can expect you to ignore
me. It will be difficult, but I guess that is something I just have to
accept.

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, Jim, I think I owe you the service of not necessarily complying
with what you expect. I think you RELY on people tiring of you and
walking away, so that you can have a final retort and notch another "won
argument". I think you regard people with so much disdain that you
believe you can predict their responses and behaviors.

So maybe I'll ignore you, maybe I won't -- my choice, isn't it?

For now, I'll just repeat something I've told you before. Let me put it
in short words so you won't complain about triggering your syllable
complex. Clowns are funny. People stop and point and giggle. So the
clown gets attention. This is true even if the clown is not trying to be
a clown. This kind of clown might feel a little confused, because he's
getting attention but not the kind of attention he wanted. He might tell
his audience to stop laughing, and that he's not trying to be funny. But
he's still funny, and as long as the clown is being funny, there will be
"views".

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:05:14 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Well, Jim, I think I owe you the service of not necessarily complying
> with what you expect.

I think your effort to ignore me is not much better than your effort
to dispute my scientific theory.

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, I would expect that, Jim. As you might surmise, I'm not trying to
ignore you. Nor am I coming anywhere near trying to dispute your
scientific theory, principally because you are under a false illusion
that what you've produced is a scientific theory.

I will acknowledge a small effort to get you to be explicit about data
you contend supports your ideas. So far that effort has been futile.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity:
> A Unique Perspective on The Transition Between The Liquid and Solid States of Water
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> solvingtornadoes at gmail dot com
>
> Significance:
>
This paper introduces a theoretical breakthrough: H2O molecules collectively neutralize their own polarity through hydrogen bonding. Dual (symmetric) bonds fully neutralize polarity, allowing for the low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water. Singular (asymmetric) bonds neutralize only one half. Thus, situational factors that remove or inhibit the attachment of one of the duo of weak bonds associated with symmetrically coordinated hydrogen bonds effectively activates the polarity that underlies the structural rigidity and electromagnetic forces evident in ice and surface tension.
> 
> Abstract
> In an attempt to theoretically reconcile the tensional forces that are apparent along the surface of liquid water (surface tension) with those in ice, a radical notion is considered: might the relationship between H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding be involved but in a manner that is the inverse of the manner that is normally considered? Accordingly, the tetrahedral coordinated state would be the structurally weak form of hydrogen bonding underlying the liquid state of water. The strong form of hydrogen bonding would be associated with situational factors that restricted or reversed the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonds, effectively activating (or failing to neutralize) H2O polarity, causing the remaining bonds to be strong. The precise mechanism thereof is sought through an explicit examination of the theory underlying molecular polarity. A larger theory is developed to explain surface tension, subsurface low-density anomalies, and the freezing process, culminating in the comparing and contrasting of the freezing process with the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water. An argument is presented that this new understanding provides the foundations of a larger consensus.
>
> Keywords: hydrogen bonding, polarity, liquid water, surface tension, ice, electronegativity differences, symmetrically coordinated bond, asymmetric bond, low-density anomalies, mechanical matrix, freezing process, supercooled water, PRPA, PNSA, PISD, PMPD.
>
> 
> Introduction
>
> Premise
> In an attempt to explain the molecular basis of the structure that is apparent in atmospheric vortices (which will not be discussed here) it is proposed that the surface tension associated with liquid water might, somehow, be involved if some mechanism can be found in the atmosphere that maximizes its surface area, the simple logic being that maximization of surface area should maximize surface tension. Although its relatedness was far from clear in my own mind when it was originally formulated, within this premise was the overarching assumption that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding might be the causative factors underlying such a mechanism. But the more I considered it the more it seemed I was confronted with a major quandary: if we assume that this hypothetical maximization of surface tension in the atmosphere is some kind of consequence of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding then we have to explain how the forces associated with polarity are absent in the liquid state. In other words, we have to explain how H2O polarity is dormant or neutralized in the liquid state and activated or de-neutralized under conditions that maximize surface area. And the only way I could envision this all working would be if H2O polarity is neutralized in liquid water as a direct consequence of being more comprehensively hydrogen bonded (most of its H2O molecules having hydrogen bonds with four other H2O molecules, two acceptor bonds and two donor bonds) and activated again in the context of situational factors that cause the breaking of some but not all of its hydrogen bonds (resulting in many or most of its H2O molecules having one acceptor and one, or possibly two, donor bonds).
>
> Background and Approach
> Examination of the literature very rapidly brought me to the realization that this hypothesis is diametrically incompatible with conventional thinking.1 This incompatibility was most plainly apparent with respect to how these competing hypotheses characterize ice and the freezing process. Indisputably, if the conventional model of ice and freezing is correct then this new hypothesis couldn’t possibly be correct in that the freezing process associated with the conventional model involves H2O molecules forming into a more highly organized, symmetrically coordinated network of polarized H2O molecules.2 In contrast, with the model that I am proposing any such increase in symmetric coordination could only further neutralize polarity. With respect to which, it is important to understand that both of these competing models depend on polarity to explain why the freezing/melting temperature of H2O is at 0 degrees Celsius and not at a much lower temperature, around -170 degrees Celsius, predicted by comparison to other similar but non-polar molecules (methane). So, there was no getting around it. The freezing process associated with this new hypothesis required the inclusion of situational factors that reduce the relative number of symmetrically coordinated bonds in water and increase the relative number of asymmetric bonds. Because otherwise it lacks the polarity required to explain the hardness of ice.
>
> And so, the challenge at hand was becoming clear. Firstly, the mechanism by which polarity is activated by the breaking of some but not all hydrogen bonds, producing structurally strong hydrogen bonds, needed to be explicated. Secondly, the ensuing theory had to reconcile the freezing process, including an explanation of the lower density of ice. But I had some reservations as to whether this would be convincing. The conceptualization of ice and the freezing process associated with the conventional model had been in place for a long time and had been considered by a large number of researchers and, therefore, had a lot of tacit support behind it. In an effort to find something definitive to distinguish my model from the conventional model I came across supercooled water, the tendency for water to remain unfrozen even at temperatures well below 0 degrees Celsius.3
>
> Although the process underlying the origins of supercooled water—what we might describe as the antithesis of the freezing process—seemed to not have been adequately explained by the conventional model this was not the main reason my attention was drawn to it. Rather, it was the fact that the situational circumstances associated with its origins seemed to directly contradict what is predicted by the conventional model. Specifically, since the freezing process associated with the conventional model indicates an increase in the polar alignment of H2O molecules during the transition from liquid to ice it seems reasonable that one would predict chaotic or agitated conditions as the underlying root cause, but exactly the opposite is the case. Supercooled water is associated with situational factors in which water is cooled very gradually under placid, calm conditions.3 To me this indicated that the underlying mechanism involves the comprehensiveness of symmetrically coordinated bonds being locked in, forming a threshold that inhibits the breaking of bonds without which, in accordance with my hypothetical thinking, polarity remains dormant, preventing the formation of ice. And so, lastly, I hope to distinguish this new model by demonstrating that it engenders an elegant explanation as to why the conditional factors underlying supercooled water involve gradual cooling and placid, calm conditions.
>
> Theoretical Presentation
>
> Molecular Basis of H2O Polarity
> There are two requirements for a molecule to be polar (dipole moment). Firstly, there must be electronegativity differences between its covalently bonded atoms.4 (These are, sometimes, referred to as “polar” bonds. In my opinion this designation is the source of a lot of confusion. Herein polarity is considered an attribute of a molecule in its entirety, not just its bonds.) The H2O molecule has electronegativity differences of 1.34 between its oxygen atom and any one of its two hydrogen atoms.4 Electronegativity differences between the atoms of any molecule do not change regardless of circumstances. Therefore, any purported variability of H2O polarity cannot be solely a consequence of electronegativity differences between its atoms.
>
> The second requirement for a molecule to be polar is that electronegativity differences between its atoms must be structurally lopsided, asymmetrically distributed. This can be better understood with comparison to CH4, the methane molecule. Between the carbon atom and any one of the four hydrogen atoms of the methane molecule is an electronegativity difference (.45) that is one third of that (1.34) between the oxygen and any one of the two hydrogen atoms of the water molecule (.45 / 1.34 = .34).4 From this one might, at first, assume that the methane molecule would possess one third the polarity of the water molecule, but it has zero polarity. (And, in comparison to water, this lack of polarity is the reason it is a gas at room temperature, with a boiling point at -164 Celsius and a freezing point at -182 Celsius.) This is because the electronegativity differences of the methane molecule are structurally symmetric.
>
> The distinction between the symmetry of the methane molecule and the asymmetry of the water molecule might be better understood with respect to the fact that their respective base molecules, carbon and oxygen, share the same structural template as the underlying factor that dictates the arrangement of their covalent bonds, a tetrahedron.5 Having four unshared electrons in its outer shell, the symmetry of the methane molecule is a consequence of the fact that the carbon atom can, and in the case of methane does, form covalent bonds on all four of the four corners of the tetrahedron. Oxygen possesses only two unshared electrons in its outer shell. Consequently it can only form covalent bonds on two of the four corners of the tetrahedron, as is the case with the water molecule. This results in the electronegativity differences of the water molecule being structurally lopsided (asymmetric), making the water molecule a polar molecule.
>
> The convention that is generally used to represent the strength of the electromagnetic forces associated with polarity is the ∂ symbol.6 Although it is not intended to be a precise attribution, its magnitude is generally considered to produce a binding force that is a fraction of that associated with a covalent bond, possibly one twentieth. Being positively charged, each of the two hydrogen atoms on a H2O molecule is attributed a positive charge of +1∂ for a total of +2∂. Each of the two unbonded pair electrons on the oxygen atom is attributed a negative charge of -1∂ for a total of -2∂. Accordingly, the H2O molecule is hereby considered to have a polarity coefficient (a net difference in charges from one end of the molecule (-2∂) to the other (+2∂) of 4∂.

>
> The Mechanism
> In the context of this understanding we can ask ourselves two rhetorical questions in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron of the oxygen atom. Must the bonds be covalent? Would hydrogen bonds not be equally effective as covalent bonds in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron to, thereby, effectuate symmetry? I believe the answers to these rhetorical questions are, respectively, no and yes. Accordingly, I believe completion of the tetrahedron with hydrogen bonds effectively establishes symmetry. It becomes a molecule with perfectly balanced electronegativity differences, identical to those of a nonpolar molecule like methane. Accordingly, when a H2O molecule is symmetrically bonded it’s polarity coefficient drops from 4∂ to zero. Removing only one of these bonds (leaving one attached) cuts its polarity in half, giving it a polarity coefficient (-1∂ to +1∂) of 2∂.
>

> This is all very confusing, but it is even more confusing when you consider that polarity determines the strength of any remaining hydrogen bonds. Accordingly, 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. Consequently, the hydrogen atoms just float alongside the oxygen atom. The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns. This is why liquid water is so fluid. 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 reemerges preventing it from escaping. (This functionality is also the basis for the pendulumic aspect of symmetrically coordinated bonds, which is discussed more explicitly further along.)
>
> The H2O molecule has the strongest polarity when both bonds are broken, as in gaseous H2O. (This phrase “gaseous H2O” refers to steam, not evaporate.7 In some less rigorous disciplines, meteorology and climatology for example, it is common to conflate the concepts of steam, a genuine gas that only occurs above the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O, with evaporate, not a genuine gas but a form of liquid H2O that is suspended in air [often completely invisible] and that only occurs at temperatures below the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.) Then, and only then does the H2O molecule have full polarity (its polarity coefficient is restored to 4∂). This explains why the boiling point of water is so high in that it requires having enough energy to break the very strong attraction of the full polarity of the H2O molecule.
>
> When bonds are asymmetric (having only one acceptor bond [one positively charged “donor” hydrogen atom from an adjacent H2O molecule attached on its negatively charged “acceptor” oxygen atom]) one half of the polarity is restored or, depending on perspective, one half of its polarity remains un-neutralized (its polarity coefficient is 2∂) producing a strong hydrogen bond. Therefore, situational factors that prevent or reverse the formation of the second of the two acceptor bonds associated with weak symmetrically coordinated bonds (dual) will allow or cause the formation of a strong asymmetric bond (singular).
>
> Addressing Explanatory Challenges
> Since the attachment of a hydrogen atom (a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule) to its oxygen atom (the acceptor) is the mechanism that neutralizes or de-activates the polarity of that H2O molecule; and since the removal of the same is the mechanism that activates or de-neutralizes it; and since it can accept up to two hydrogen atoms (a donor from each of two adjacent H2O molecules) producing three variants: 1) no attachment at all; 2) one accepted, being a strong asymmetric bond; or 3) two accepted, being two very weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds; there is huge potential for explanatory confusion. It would appear that this potential for confusion mostly has to do with how we differentiate between the process of attaching and detaching bonds to go back and forth between the weaker and stronger bonding states and the duo of bonds associated with a symmetrically coordinated bond which can also be described as “weaker” and “stronger”. It becomes quite precarious. For example, we might, at first, designate the “weaker” of the duo of bonds as always being the last hydrogen atom accepted or the first one detached and the “stronger” one as always being the first one accepted or the last one detached. But that becomes confusing further along because it, unavoidably, creates the impression that one of the duo is “strong” and the other is “weak”, which is certainly not the case. It gets even more confusing when you consider that whether or not one or the other is attached or detached is relative and not absolute—the closer either or both of them come to the oxygen atom the more they neutralize the polarity that maintains the bond and the farther either or both of them move away from the oxygen atom the more the polarity that underlies the strength of the bonds is reactivated. And, therefore, for all of these reasons, referring to either one of them as “weaker” or “stronger” doesn’t make a lot of sense accept in the context of the process of them becoming fully attached or fully detached.
>
> In order to circumvent the potential for confusion between the processes that produce them and the hydrogen bonded variants themselves, I hereby designate the following with respect to encapsulating the different processes associated with hydrogen atoms becoming attached or detached:
> PRPA Polarity Reducing Primary Attachment: The attachment of one hydrogen atom, a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule, to an unattached oxygen atom of an accepting H2O molecule to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
> PNSA Polarity Neutralizing Secondary Attachment: The attachment of an additional hydrogen atom, a donor from another adjacent H2O molecule, to create two (dual) weak (polarity neutralized [floating]) symmetrically coordinated bonds.
> PISD Polarity Increasing Secondary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of either of the two hydrogen atoms associated with (dual) weak symmetrically coordinated bonds to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
> PMPD Polarity Maximizing Primary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
>
> Starting from different states, steam and liquid water, PRPA and PISD produce the same end result, a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PRPA and PNSA both neutralize one half of the polarity of a H2O molecule, but they produce very different end results. PRPA involves a transition from steam to a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PNSA involves a transition from a singular, strong asymmetric bond to the dual, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds of liquid water. PRPA and PMPD involve transitions to and from steam and will not be discussed through the rest of this paper. PISD and PNSA involve transitions to and from the singular, strong asymmetric bond associated with the structural properties of water and the dual, weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds associated with the high fluidity of liquid water, both of which are highly relevant through the rest of this theoretical presentation.
>
> Surface Tension Explained
> The two dimensions of a surface restricts the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally occur in the less restricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water, producing PISD events and inhibiting PNSA events for the molecules along the surface. This explains surface tension of liquid water. In calm water its existence is very stable.
>
> Subsurface, Low-Density Anomalies Explained
> Although its occurrence is considerably more brief in comparison to that of surface tension, another situational factor that causes the formation of the strong, asymmetric bonds actually does occur within the unrestricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water. These are generally referred to as low-density anomalies.8 In accordance with the understanding being presented here, these subsurface low-density anomalies are, hereby, hypothesized to be a collective consequence of the geometric limitations of H2O molecules in that they don’t quite pack into a 100% symmetrically bonded matrix. Between 3% and 10% (unknown) are collectively excluded and, therefore, can only form asymmetric bonds. (This percentage will, most likely, vary depending on temperature/pressure.) Moreover, this collective inability to form fully symmetric bonds can and will itself be spread between many or even all of the molecules within a body of water. Thus within liquid water (under normal, ambient, conditions) there will always be a small percentage of the structurally strong and electromagnetically active asymmetric bonds. And, since asymmetric bonds are intrinsically lower in density these “anomalies” will be associated with lower density. However, unlike those associated with surface tension, their existence is usually very brief in that as soon as they come into existence they create the tensional forces (polarity) that reestablish higher density, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds. And so, a PISD event creates the conditions that initiate a corresponding PNSA event. And a PNSA event, working through the matrix, will contribute to initiating another PISD event in the general neighborhood. In other words, there is constant interplay between PISD events and PNSA events. And these reverberate, by way of the matrix, through the body of water. So, in addition to being a small percentage of the bonds within the greater matrix these “low-density anomalies” exist for very short periods of time (Consequently, they can only be detected using sophisticated equipment.9) and will, over time, be averaged out over many of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within the greater body of the liquid.
>
> Ice and the Freezing Process Explained
> As indicated in the previous paragraph, any PISD event that occurs within liquid water will produce a lower density, strong asymmetric bond that will exist for only a brief instant in time before it is reversed by a corresponding PNSA event. However, at and below 0 degrees Celsius the rules change. At these lower temperatures the same occurrence can initiate a chain reaction of PISD events that produce a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit corresponding PNSA events resulting in the structurally strong form of water, ice. This process is commonly referred to as freezing. And so, like surface tension and subsurface, low-density anomalies, the H2O freezing process also involves PISD events, but, as will be explained, it is more complicated because it involves an additional situational factor that causes both a chain reaction of cascading PISD events and inhibition of corresponding PNSA events. Properly conceptualizing this additional situational factor involves, for the most part, getting a better understanding of how the molecules in liquid water collectively comprise a mechanical matrix that itself dictates ensuing implications.
>
> Mechanical Matrix: Understanding the mechanical matrix and its implications to the freezing process that produces ice, as well as its implications to the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water, depends on understanding three concepts and their interrelationships:
> 1) How the pendulumic relationship that exists between the duo of hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom in each of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within a body of liquid water collectively dictates the transfer of kinetic energy (spreads energy) throughout the liquid (which also, arguably, goes a long way into explaining the high heat capacity of water [attributable to the conservation of energy aspect of the pendulum] and high heat conductivity [attributable to the high degree of connectivity between the H2O molecules in that over 90 percent of them have bonds with four of their neighbors]);
> 2) How the collective of symmetrically bonded H2O molecules tends to become more interconnected over time, balancing out kinetic energy and electromagnetic charges (balancing out polarity) throughout the greater body of the liquid, effectuating a larger mechanical matrix and therefore having a higher threshold of resistance to change in that greater momentum is required to move the gears of a larger mechanical matrix; and
> 3) How the displacement of one of the duo of hydrogen atoms (a PISD event) on at least one of the symmetrically coordinated bonds in the greater matrix causes the remaining hydrogen atom of that symmetrically coordinated bond to move to a more central position on its oxygen atom in order to balance out electronegativity differences and how this movement turns the gears of the mechanical matrix causing additional PISD events, causing their remaining hydrogen atoms to move to more central positions on their oxygen atoms, further turning the gears and causing more of the same, producing a cascade of PISD events that produces a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events and that, therefore, are highly stable. (Another factor that might power the turning of the gears of the mechanical matrix during PISD events is a shift in the bond angle of the covalently bonded hydrogen atoms of the H2O molecule from 109.5 degrees to 107 degrees. As with the shifts in polarity being hypothesized here, this too is a result of shifts in electronegativity that are an implication of PISD events.)
>
> Comparing and Contrasting The Freezing Process With Its Antithesis
> Consider two scenarios of water being cooled below 0 degrees Celsius. Both involve a sealed, one liter plastic container filled with pure H2O at normal atmospheric pressure. Scenario A involves the container being placed in a room that is -5 degrees Celsius. Its temperature drops gradually and it does not freeze. It continues to exist as supercooled water all the way down to -5 degrees Celsius. In scenario B the water is cooled both more rapidly and more unevenly. It involves the container having its bottom one quarter suspended in liquid nitrogen. Its temperature drops rapidly and as soon as any part of it drops below 0 degrees it begins to freeze. Why did scenario B produce freezing whereas scenario A did not?
>
> In scenario A the pendulumic process has more time to process the distribution of changes in energy to all of the molecules in the body of water before its average temperature crosses below 0 degrees. More specifically, the collective, pendulumic process of the mechanical matrix has more time to become one large matrix and to stay as such with gradual reductions in temperature. Therefore there is less variance in the swings of the pendulum of the different symmetrically coordinated bonds therein. Additionally, since the matrix is larger, greater momentum is required to overcome the threshold resistance in order to turn the collective gears of the mechanical matrix. Consequently, for both of these reasons, the chain reaction of cascading PISD events cannot be initiated. And/or (unknown) corresponding PNSA events are not blocked, and the water remains supercooled, unfrozen.
>
> In contrast, in scenario B the rapid and unequal removal of energy makes achieving the same degree of temperature distribution to all of the molecules in the body of water impossible. More specifically, the pendulumic process has less time to process and become a larger matrix. Instead there exists, in a sense, many different matrices at different energy levels. And, therefore, there is much greater variance in the swings of the pendulums of the various symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water. Consequently there is a greater probability that one of the duo of hydrogen atoms associated with at least one of the many symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water will swing away from its oxygen atom to initiate a PISD event. And, since the mechanical matrices thereof are smaller there is less threshold resistance to overcome and, therefore, less momentum is required to turn the collective gears of any one matrix, thus a cascade of PISD events has a higher probability of being initiated. Once initiated, the turning of the gears of the highly interconnected matrix causes the ensuing emergence of a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events, and the water begins to freeze. The end result, ice, is less dense simply because asymmetric bonds are intrinsically less dense than symmetrically coordinated bonds.
>
> Discussion
>
> Addressing Anticipated Objections
> The Mechanism: The only objection I can anticipate to the validity of the mechanism being suggested here—the notion that hydrogen bonds neutralize polarity and their removal, breaking of hydrogen bonds, activates it—are arguments based on dogmatic interpretations of what is a molecule or what is polarity. Us humans tend to emplace absolutistic interpretations on our definitions and subsequently forget that nature doesn’t necessarily always conform with this absolutistic aspect. Along these lines, I would like to suggest a change in perspective. Instead of looking at it from the outside in, look at it from the inside out. Specifically, consider this notion from the perspective of an electron on the oxygen atom of a H2O molecule that maintains (dual) symmetrically coordinated bonds. When it looks up into each of the four corners of the oxygen molecule’s tetrahedron it will see the same thing, a positively charged hydrogen atom. Is there any reason to assume it would be more or less attracted to the hydrogen atoms on the corners that are covalently bonded than it is to those that are hydrogen bonded? If there is, I don’t know what this would be.
>
> Freezing and its Antithesis: As for the description of the freezing process and its antithesis that is presented herein there is, in my opinion, much more potential for it to be incomplete, partially wrong, or even (though much less likely in my opinion) fully mistaken. My concerns in this regard involve the assertion that this hypothesis appears not to predict the increase in density that occurs with drop in temperature between 4 degrees Celsius and 0 degrees Celsius. My guess is that something distinctive is happening with the mechanical matrix over this transition, something that has not been adequately explained. It might even indicate that the notion that the, purported, repositioning of the extant hydrogen atom that, purportedly, turns the gears of the mechanical matrix to initiate a cascade of PISD events is either wrong or superfluous. I also think an alternative hypothesis should be considered with respect to the barrier associated with the the antithesis of the freezing process being something other than the threshold momentum requirements of the mechanical matrix. Might, for example, the actual barrier have something to do with a larger and more synchronized mechanical matrix having an increases in its mean collective ability to absorb perturbation as it goes below 4 degrees, preventing an initial PISD event, but only when it gets below 0 degrees does it lose its ability to block corresponding PNSA events, due to some unexplained mechanical implication? I am curious as to whether a clue leading to a resolution might be found through more in depth analysis of low-density anomalies in the context of comparing and contrasting the freezing process to the antithesis of the freezing process over the course of this transition.
>
> Some Resolution to The Strangeness of Water
> Among those that study it, common parlance on the strangeness of water tends to focus on the fact that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule.10 These explanations don’t go far enough. To truly capture its 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. And this is just to set the stage for more strangeness that emerges in conjunction with the geometry of the H2O molecule that dictate limitations on its collective ability to neutralize its own polarity, which occurs in a highly stable form along the surface of liquid water, producing surface tension, and in a much less stable form below it’s surface, producing low-density anomalies. Additionally, we have to take into consideration the tendency of H2O molecules to collectively form a mechanical matrix that, if the temperature is low enough and the matrix is energetically unbalanced, will facilitate a cascading chain reaction that will produce a widening general interruption in their collective ability to neutralize their own polarity, producing ice; or, if the matrix is energetically balanced and mechanically synchronized (as will be the the case if cooled slowly under calm conditions) will effectuate a threshold that acts as a barrier to its ability to initiate any such cascading chain reaction, producing supercooled water. And, as has been well documented by others, all of this is just a drop in the bucket of the strangeness engendered by this seemingly simple molecule.
>
> Conclusion and Future Research
> I believe the understanding being proposed here can, and will eventually, serve as the basis of a larger consensus about the nature of water. Additionally, I believe the thinking in this paper sets the stage for the yet discovered forms of structurally hard, electromagnetically active water, which may lead to insight into the mysteries of atmospheric flow, especially with respect to the atmospheric vortices that comprise jet streams and tornadoes.
>
> Along these lines, I think it is also interesting to consider the possibility that the mechanical matrix aspect underlying the formation of ice may vary considerably with differences in molecular composition. Might, for example, extremely small quantities of water, as found in microdroplets suspended in the atmosphere, be less likely to freeze due to the fact that their matrix is so small? If so, this might provide an explanation for the prevalence of supercooled water observed in the higher and colder altitudes of the atmosphere (upper troposphere). (The premise here is not simply that PISD events cannot be initiated in smaller matrices but that, in addition, PNSA events cannot be inhibited. Or, it might be only one or the other or some unequal combination of both, all of which may vary with the size of the microdroplet.)
>
> 
> References
>
> 1. Bartels-Rausch, Thorsten, et al. "Ice structures, patterns, and processes: A view across the icefields." Reviews of Modern Physics 84.2 (2012): 885.
> 2. Petrenko, Victor F., and Robert W. Whitworth. Physics of ice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
> 3. Uhara, I., et al. "Crystal nucleation given rise by fracturing or by mechanical shock." Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeitschrift für Polymere 244.1 (1971): 218-222.
> 4. Pritchard, H. O., and H. A. Skinner. "The concept of electronegativity."Chemical Reviews 55.4 (1955): 745-786.
> 5. Gillespie, Ronald J., and István Hargittai. The VSEPR model of molecular geometry. Courier Corporation, 2013.
> 6. "The Origin of the" Delta" Symbol for Fractional Charges." Journal of Chemical Education 86, no. 5 (2009): 545.
> 7. Water structure and science Site by Martin Chaplin, accessed 15 December 2015: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html (See footnote.)
> 8. Huang, Congcong, et al. "The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.36 (2009): 15214-15218.
> 9. Khaliullin, Rustam Z., et al. "Unravelling the origin of intermolecular interactions using absolutely localized molecular orbitals." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111.36 (2007): 8753-8765.
> 10. Barbosa, Marcia. "Tapping the incredible weirdness of water." New Scientist 226.3015 (2015): 26-27.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:38:02 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Well, I would expect that, Jim.

And it is not that I am unsympathetic to your situation. I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and to completely unable to say why or how.