Fourth Phase of Water- Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor
This book comes highly-recommended from PSI reviewers. It is an award-winning book that provides evidence for a fourth phase of water. This phase occurs mainly next to water-loving (hydrophilic) surfaces. It is surprisingly extensive, projecting out from the surface by up to millions of molecular layers.
The blurb tells us:
Of significance is the observation that this fourth phase is charged; and, the water just beyond is oppositely charged, creating a battery that can produce electrical current. Light charges this battery.
Thus, water can receive and process energy drawn from the environment in much the same way as plants. Absorbed light energy can then be exploited for performing work, including electrical and mechanical work, as well as the work of proteins inside cells.
Gerald Pollack’s philosophy is akin to that of Principia Scientific International. On his website Pollack writes:
“Philosophy of Science: The overriding philosophy of the laboratory is that science is essentially simple. Although intricacy is undeniable, the foundational principles are ultimately simple, and if a mechanism appears complicated — if you find it difficult to understand — then it is probably not because you are inept, but that the foundational “principle” on which it is based may itself not be correct. Sound mechanisms rarely rest on shaky foundations.
Our work has been oriented toward uncovering those fundamental principles. We target areas in which understanding seems too complex to be valid, and penetrate — or at least we try to penetrate — toward the core of truth. Often the ideas that come out of these excursions are controversial, as they inevitably upset the status quo, sometimes at its very core. Hence, the reactions range from non-printable expletives at one extreme, to enthusiastic comments such as a recent one from a well-known physicist about our findings on water: “the most significant scientific discovery of this century”.
Scientific Activism: Challenging staid dogma with fresh ideas that explain more is a core element of improving a scientific enterprise that has been progressively eroding. Science has become increasingly conservative. Challengers are viewed with suspicion, the prevailing response being something like this: your idea cannot be right, for if it were, certainly someone would have thought of it earlier. This attitude has permeated the granting systems, which have become conservative — a problem now broadly recognized.
We began challenging both the NSF and the NIH grant systems in the early 2000s, to open their doors to ideas that challenge mainstream views. Initial efforts consisted of letter-writing campaigns organized to alert the granting agencies to the seriousness of the problem. Out of these campaigns came the NSF “Frontiers in Biological Research” program and an NIH workshop that eventually led to the NIH Director’s Pioneer Award. A paper describing some of the proposals is available in a paper entitled: Revitalizing science in a risk-averse culture: Reflections on the syndrome and prescriptions for its cure. Cellular and Mol. Biol. 51: 815-820, 2005.
Later, I served as an external adviser to the National Science Board (which governs NSF) in their task force on transformative science – whose recommendations led to a dramatic increase of transformative programs at NSF. The term “transformative” now runs deeply through the Foundation’s website. Similarly, with the NIH, I was the main academic speaker at 2007 workshop on “Fostering Innovation” which was attended by top NIH administrators and a panel of distinguished scientists including two Nobel Laureates. The 40-minute talk offering various remedial solutions, some radical, starts at 1:17. Again, recommendations from this workshop and others, including one on the peer-review system, began opening the NIH to be more receptive to transformative ideas.
Despite these gains, still, the problem persists. The main obstacle to the hoped-for scientific revolutions is the culture: the entrenched orthodoxies feel it is not in their best interest to entertain views that challenge their long-held beliefs. Hence, challenges are often ignored or repressed, no matter how promising they may be. If revolutions are to happen, it will be necessary to get the attention of the leaders of the prevailing scientific orthodoxies. Some mechanism needs to be put in place to make sure that happens.”
More at www.pollacklab.org
About the author: Gerald Pollack maintains an active laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. He is the Founding Editor-in-Chief of WATER: A Multidisciplinary Research Journal; Executive Director of the Institute for Venture Science; co-founder of 4th-Phase Inc.; and founder of the Annual Conference on the Physics, Chemistry, and Biology of Water. He has received numerous honors including: the Prigogine Medal for Thermodynamics; the University of Washington Annual Faculty Lecturer; the NIH Director’s Transformative Research Award; and the 1st Emoto Peace Prize. He is recognized internationally as an accomplished speaker and author.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
I don’t know if this will help but I recommend the book if you’ve ever wondered about the peculiar behavior of water. If water is a liquid crystal with a negatively charge crystal shell surrounding a positively charged liquid center it would offer an explanation on how it can absorb so much infrared energy and evaporate without being a gas..
Reply
Roslyn Ross
| #
Homeopathy explained.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Pollack’s flawed thinking diverts attention away from deeper flaws
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Kevin Sheton
| #
I read your poet on the Thunderbolts forum and I have to say that is one of the most putrid and disgusting hit pieces I have ever read. Void of scientific principle but rich in school yard language of a miserable child.
Your arguments are empty of substance and your signature is repugnant.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
That’s nothing. Just think how Edwin Berry feels:
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
Reply
MattH
| #
NSF and NIH. I could guess what these mean. I could guess wrong.
Why would one research science but not be able to communicate, in this case, in English?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Pollack:
Philosophy of Science: The overriding philosophy of the laboratory is that science is essentially simple.
When you approach a scientific explanation, starting with the fundamentals, its more important to get thing right than it is to make them simple. If you get it wrong anomalies will emerge further down the line, as has happened with H2O. Pollack’s downfall is that he doesn’t grasp this. His “philosophy” is preventing him from making any progress.
Water is a screwed up paradigm because in an effort to keep things simple Linus Pauling got it wrong when he described the H2O molecule as being comparable to a simple, dipole magnet.
Although intricacy is undeniable, the foundational principles are ultimately simple, and if a mechanism appears complicated — if you find it difficult to understand — then it is probably not because you are inept, but that the foundational “principle” on which it is based may itself not be correct. Sound mechanisms rarely rest on shaky foundations.
Our work has been oriented toward uncovering those fundamental principles.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I think make it simple is a guide, not a rule.
You are right on observations but that doesn’t provide causality.
Why does such a huge amount of water nano droplets rise to the top of the troposphere? As the gas density decreases with altitude it would be more difficult for collisions between gas molecules and water droplets to provide the energy necessary. You do not see that amount of dust or smog particles rising the top of the troposphere.
Pollack’s explanation that as water absorbs energy hydroxyl ions are created (I know you don’t believe that water splits into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions but I do.) would result in an increasing negative charge for the shell of the droplets and that increased charge would increase the repelling force between the Earth’s surface and the droplet.
Dr. Pollack does experiments that shows peculiar behavior of water (desalination) and his explanation for the observations seems to me to be a plausible cause for the observations.
Herb.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
I think make it simple is a guide, not a rule.
James:
There is a saying that everybody knows: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The scientific version of this saying is: The Road to confusion is paved with simple intentions. The science underlying H2O is a holy mess. The reason it is a mess is because of a fundamental mistake made by Linus Pauling, way back in the 1950s. The reason he made the mistake, I contend, was because he felt the tremendous pressure that all theoretical scientist feel to present the public with simple, easily relatable models.
When you are formulating fundamental notions your focus should not be on keeping it simple, it should be on getting it right. If you get it right there won’t be anomalies down the road. The current model of hydrogen bonding in water is a royal mess, and it is all because of an incredibly subtle mistake made by linus pauling.
I am almost done with writing a script for a video that will expose Pauling’s subtle error, setting the stage for resolving all of H2O’s numerous anomalies.
In the meantime, here is a video that will set the stage for the video that I haven’t shot yet but that will revolutionize the subject:
https://youtu.be/AAuYt6T0A6o
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi You All (I am from ‘South’ Dakota),
Water is said to be the universal solvent which dissolves at least of little of many solutes (that which is dissolved). It is common knowledge that water dissolves gases (Henry’s Law) and we know that the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are very soluble and the oxides of carbon less so. And of course we know that oxygen and nitrogen are also soluble in liquid water but these gases of the atmosphere are less soluble in liquid water than is the natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Hence, it is very difficult to conducti any experiments with absolutely pure liquid water because if one tries to create a vacuum at a liquid water surface the liquid water will continually and rapidly evaporate.
I have read a couple of Pollack’s article about his experiments and I find he ignores the probable presence of carbon dioxide which is thought to react with liquid water molecules to form a molecule termed carbonic acid. Which reaction explains how it is that the trace carbon dioxide of the atmosphere is so much more soluble than the major gases nitrogen and oxygen. Something that Pollack might (should?) consider as he interprets his experimental results.
Have a good day, Jerry ,
Reply