New State of Water: Strange 6-Sided Molecule Found
A strange new behavior of water molecules has been observed inside crystals of beryl, a type of emerald, caused by bizarre quantum-mechanical effects that let the water molecules face six different directions at the same time.
Under normal conditions, the two hydrogen atoms in each water molecule are arranged around the oxygen atom in an open “V” shape, sometimes compared to a boomerang or Mickey Mouse ears.
But in a new experiment, scientists have found that hydrogen atoms of some water molecules trapped in the crystal structure of the mineral beryl become “smeared out” into a six-sided ring. [The Surprisingly Strange Physics of Water].
The ring shape is caused by the “quantum tunneling” of the molecules, a phenomenon that lets subatomic particles pass or “tunnel” through seemingly-impossible physical barriers.
In this scenario, the atoms of the water molecule are “delocalized” among six possible directions inside natural hexagonal pores or channels that run though the crystal structure of the beryl, so it partially exist in all six positions at the same time, the researchers said.
Inside crystals
Scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the United Kingdom observed the newly discovered effect in blue aquamarine crystals purchased at a gem show
. Blue aquamarine; green and red emerald; pink morganite; gold heliodor; and clear goshenite gemstones are all varieties of the mineral beryl (beryllium aluminum cyclosilicate) with traces of other chemicals that give the crystals their characteristic colors.
“We chose beryl because it has a crystal structure that has channels in it, about 5 angstroms [5 ten-millionths of a millimeter] across — a little bit bigger than a water molecule — and it’s known from spectroscopic data that natural beryls have water in them,” said Larry Anovitz, a geochemist at ORNL and one of the authors of a paper on the new research. “We already know from lots of other studies that as you put water in smaller and smaller pores it starts to affect the properties of the water — the freezing point drops, the density changes, all sorts of things. So, we wanted to know, if you made that pore so small that you only can get a single molecule of water into it, what would that would do to the properties of water?”
What happened next was unexpected, Anovitz told Live Science.
“We knew that natural beryl would have water in these channels in the structure, so we could go and look at that and see what the properties were,” he said. “But we didn’t know that the properties would turn out to be so strange when we looked.” [Sinister Sparkle Gallery: 13 Mysterious and Cursed Gemstones].
Seeing a new state
At ORNL’s Spallation Neutron Source facility, after cooling the beryl crystals to very low temperatures, the scientists measured the lowest-energy states of the atoms in the trapped water molecules with neutron-scattering experiments, which use a beam of subatomic neutron particles to chart the motion of atoms and molecules.
“When we started looking at peaks in the inelastic neutron spectrum for this sample, we saw a number of peaks in the spectrum that, instead of getting bigger with temperature — which is what is expected to happen — they got smaller with temperature,” Anovitz said.
“There are two ways this could happen — either by quantum tunneling or magnetic transitions — and we were able to prove that this is actually the quantum tunneling of the water molecules,” he said.
Interactions between water molecules and the walls of the hexagonal channels usually force the water into the center of the channel, with both hydrogen “mouse ears” facing the same one of the six sides.
In their lowest energy states, the water molecules do not have enough energy to rotate to one of the adjacent positions.
But in the areas where the channels narrow so just a single water molecule can fit, the atoms in the water molecule can “tunnel” through the energy barrier that prevents rotation. And the new experiments reveal that the molecules were forming a “double-top” shape, with the proton nucleus of each hydrogen atom delocalizing into a six-sided ring around the central oxygen atom, the researchers said.
Measuring the molecules
Alexander Kolesnikov, a physicist at ORNL and the lead author of the new paper, said additional studies at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had determined that the kinetic energy of the hydrogen protons in the six-sided water molecules was about 30 percent lower than in molecules of water in its normal state, or “bulk water.”
“That is a direct indication that this is a quantum property due to the tunneling of water in this beryl channel,” Kolesnikov told Live Science. “In classical terms, the kinetic energy would be expected to be something comparable to all other bulk water.
“This is not a new phase of water [like ice or steam] — it’s not completely in the gas phase, but it’s close to a gas phase,” he added. “But at low temperatures, due to quantum delocalization, the kinetic energy of the protons significantly decreases, and they propagate under this [energy] barrier. So, I would say this is kind of a new state of the water molecule.”
Anovitz said that quantum tunneling was known to occur in other substances but that the effect was usually limited to subatomic particles rather than larger particles like water molecules.
Quantum tunneling was also known to take place among hydrogen atoms in methyl-group molecules, which are arranged in a triangular pyramid shape around a carbon atom, but the molecules looked the same shape after the tunneling transition, he said.
“With water, when it’s moving around this six-fold axis in the beryl channel, it doesn’t look the same anymore — and that’s something that’s never been seen before,” Anovitz said.
The findings were published April 22 in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Read more at livescience.com
Trackback from your site.
S.C.
| #
Water has some cool properties when exposed to extremes of temperature and pressure.
It is has the rare, if not unique, property of increasing in volume both as it evaporates and as it freezes. The expansion as it freezes results from the shape and alignment of molecules in ice crystals, thus would not apply to a single H2O molecule, but it leads to other fascinating properties.
A small amount of water in a sealed container, heated past the boiling point and beyond, (super-critical water) looks like a not-quite-liquid, not-quite-gas hybrid physical state. If the container cracks, volume can increase over 10,000 times explosively. The cool thing, water, super cooled and confined or pressurized to prevent crystal formation, will freeze explosively when the pressure is removed too. This has some interesting implications in the context deep pools of glacial meltwater. Consider an ice dam holding back a 3k meters-deep pool and imagine the possibilities when the levy breaks. The amazing power of water.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi S.C.,
Two points. Do you know you are responding to an article written May 14, 2016? And where is a ” a 3k meters” dam?
Have a good day
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi S.C.,
A much better question is: where does one find a deep pool or ocean water whose temperature is less than 0C (32F)?
Have a good day
Reply
S.C.
| #
Hi Jerry, in answer to your valid question, right now you probably cannot. However, hypothetically, in periods of massive glaciation, it is possible. Evidence left by past ice ages suggests it is possible via either;
1> Meltwater resulting from glacial progress becomes trapped under extreme weight/pressure and is cooled below freezing by surrounding ice.
2> Meltwater pools behind ice dams also cooled by ice. As melting occurs, deep pools could form behind, for instance, a massive glacier blocking the downhill end of a steep-walled canyon. At the bottom of the ice dam, adjacent water would be cooled below freezing as there’s little chance currents will exist to under these conditions to stir it. Pressure prevents freezing until the day the dam inevitably breaks. Such a torrent would have amazing force, but there could be rapid or explosive freezing as pressure drops too. The consequences of this, I admit, are uncertain. It can only be observed using a combination of existing knowledge and imagination, however, It is a distinct possibility that I would wager has actually occurred in Earth’s past.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi S.C.,
#1. Meltwater must be result of solar radiation heating the surface of a glacier. Next, ice cannot cool anything below 0C (32F). Finally, how does the melted water get to a great depth without being warmed (two problems)
#2. Similar problems as #1.
Have a good day
Reply
S.C.
| #
Hi Jerry.
“#1. Meltwater must be result of solar radiation heating the surface of a glacier.”
Really? What about giant gouges left in the landscape of Northern USA by glaciers creeping slowly but unstoppably southward from Canada? There are boulders weighing more than large buildings displaced hundreds of km by the flow, and enough soil was displaced to connect England and France. There are deep scars in solid granite from ice and the load it carried. The amount of heat generated by friction would have been huge.
Do you still insist only sunlight can melt glaciers? Because if you tell me the ice would have been insulated by the debris it carried and not melted as I
half expect, I can rip that stance to shreds.
Jerry, I see your conversations on PSI. You and I had a discussion before as well. One thing I’ve noticed is that you never backtrack, rethink your position or admit you a mistake. You are either over-confident or you like to argue for the sake of argument. Then again, maybe you just want the last word and relentlessly pursue it.
I am not trying to insult or demean you, and you are probably a nice guy, but you are not smarter than everyone else. Lord knows I’m not either, but I do know when I’m wasting time.
Jerry Krause
| #
HI S,C.,
I do not make these comments to embarrass you. But to illustrate how easy it is over look details.`
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi S.C.
Water cannot super cool if there are any particles that initiate crystal growth. One of the peculiarities of water is that its density decreases as as it approaches its freezing point so the water under a glacier would be warmer, not colder, than the ice above it. Just like the airplanes that landed on Greenland during WWII the denser matter would sink into the ice.
Since the diameter of the Earth is greatest at the equator and “down” is towards the center of the Earth, glaciers do not flow towards the equator. They grow larger, not due to precipitation from above (Antarctica is one of the driest (almost no precipitation) places on Earth) but by the freezing of the water below the ice. It is the freezing of subsurface water that is displacing the soil, not the movement of the ice uphill.
The Dells in Wisconsin were formed when an ice dam broke and the flow of liquid water carried the soils and rocks that in the glacier to distant areas.carving out the formations. .
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Antarctica is one of the driest (almost no precipitation’. How is it there are glaciers on the Antarctica continent?
It seems you, like S.C., can ignore generally observed facts.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Water cannot super cool if there are any particles that initiate crystal growth.
JMcG:
Herb, you think you understand but actually you are still deeply confused, just like everybody else.
Yes it is true that, as you suggest, impurities can initiate crystal growth in super-chilled water. But perfectly pure super-cooled water when shaken will also initiate crystal growth. Occlusions (asymmetries) of any kind can initiate more of the same — more occlusions (more asymmetry) — to cause the emergence of ice (frozen water) from super cooled water (unfrozen water below freezing temperature).
Everybody (except me) makes the conceptual error of assuming that symmetry in the arrangement of molecules of a substance produces hardness. For water exactly the opposite is the case. For water symmetry eliminates polarity. Without polarity the molecules in water cannot form any strong bonds. It can only form very weak bonds, as we see in super cooled water.
Here is something you surely do not realize. There are more bonds in liquid water than there are in ice (and there are even more in super cooled water). But there is little or no force associated with the bonds of liquid water (and there is even less in super cooled water). In ice there are far fewer bonds. There are maybe as much as 50% fewer. But these bonds still retain 30% to 70% of their original polarity. Thus there are strong, solid bonds in ice.
Symmetry of bonding in water neutralizes (turns off) polarity. This is my discovery and it is unknown (undiscovered by) to the rest of science. Since there is no polarity associated with it, highly bonded water is not frozen — it is liquid. This is true regardless of its temperature — even at minus 20C. It is only when a threshold of occlusions is surpassed in chilled water that a cascade of bonding can occur in which H2O molecules fall in against each other, twisting, breaking bonds, causing polarity to re-emerge, causing any remaining bonds to be strong, producing ice.
The assumption is that the arrangement of molecules in ice is more symmetric (ordered) than is the arrangement in super-chilled water. This assumption is wrong. Ice is highly asymmetric. This means that there are many broken bonds in ice. In contrast, liquid water is highly symmetric. There are zero or few broken bonds in liquid water. There are even fewer in super-chilled water.
The mischaracterization of H2O polarity is the primary source of the confusion that continues to prevents us from understanding climate and weather.
People Don’t Think Simple Enough
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/nCQCgNOs9Kb
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I am well aware that any agitation will produce crystal formation which I’ve always maintained that clouds do not consist of super cooled water.
I believe the propertied water in these beryl crystals shows that when there is a stronger ionic charge in the area water will orient to the stronger charge rather than to other water molecules.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi James,
I am well aware that any agitation will produce crystal formation
I don’t think you grasp the fact and or the significance thereof that freezing (going from liquid water to ice) involves breakage of bonds and a much less ordered arrangement of H2O molecules. Saying it is “crystal,” is not completely accurate.
Crystal. What does it mean to be crystalline? Crystals have highly ordered, uniform molecules and molecular structure. They are usually also hard and solid.
Water is most crystalline (ordered) when it is liquid. Moreso when it is super cooled. And it is most crystalline (hard, solid ) when it is frozen. However when it is frozen there is much less symetry in arrangements, which is not like a crystal.
Ice is crystalline in one sense and very much not crystalline in another sense.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I believe water forms a liquid crystal which means it has both liquid and solid properties and two melt points. Water doesn’t develop into a true crystal/solid state until it reaches a temperature of -30 C.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
I believe water forms a liquid crystal which means it has both liquid and solid properties
JMcG:
Meaningless. You are avoiding the details of what I presented. Your thinking is vague and you are embracing ambiguous terminology (“crystal” in this instance) when you should be rejecting it and replacing it was non-ambiguous verbiage, this being the point of the post I presented upthread which you totally missed.
All in all, you are failing to grasp the significance of the fact that the same molecules at the same pressure and temperature can have very different qualities as a result of their orientation (and bonding) to each other. This indicates that they are turning on and off each other’s polarity with their proximity and orientation! So, unbeknown to science until now, the polarity of any H2O molecule is highly variable and is alterable — their polarity can literally be turned on and off, up and down — by way of forming and breaking bonds with other H2O molecules in their vicinity!
This is a huge revelation and breakthrough but you completely missed it because you allowed your self to fall into the intellectual trap of using vague, meaningless terminology. You are using the tactic of glossing over your confusion with obfuscation. I never allow myself this tactic. You shouldn’t either. It makes you seem dumb.
You settled for crap science. I don’t settle. And I especially don’t allow myself to become confused by ambiguous terminology as you did here
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
“Liquid crystal” is not am ambiguous term but is a structure with defined properties.
The buttons used to summon an elevator are liquid crystals that change from non conducting to conducting from the heat of a finger pushing on it. The reason you do not use an elevator during a fire is because the heat of the fire will bring you and the elevator directly to the fire.
You speak of the amorphsc nature of water because of its changing polarity but a particle with a hard charge will dictate the structure of the water, just as a fire causes the elevator to go to it rather than the weak signal from you pushing buttons.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
So if one pushs the button with the eraser of a long pencil, to avoid the heat of one’s finger; the door will not open. Right?? Try this and report back with the result of this experiment.
Have a good day
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
“Liquid crystal” is not am ambiguous term
JMcG:
You are just wasting people’s time with vague terminology that isn’t even remotely accurate.
The discovery that H2O molecules have variable polarity and that H bonds are the mechanism thereof is the only revelation in this thread that matters. Stop wasting people’s time with vague, inaccurate rhetoric.
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
As I can remember James is the only person, beside myself, who over and over refers to the critically important H bonds between water molecules.
Have a good day James. Don’t give up.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
I quote from a book “Weather and Climate”, 1966, by R.C. S.utcliffe. He wrote (pp 47-48) “C.T.R. Wilson, working with his famous expansion cloud chamber, was able to show this quite conclusively late in the last century. His method of purifying the air was to allow the droplets produced during cloud formation to settle out of the chamber and to repeat the process several times with the same sample of air. Ultimately four-fold supersaturations, that is humidities of 400 per cent, were necessary to produce condensation in the purified air.”
“These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur. why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’ , and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.”
Do both of you agree with what Sutcliffe wrote?
Have a good day
James McGinn
| #
Do both of you agree with what Sutcliffe wrote?
Sutcliffe comes across as a journalist pretending to be a scientist. It isn’t clear what he is saying here. He uses concepts like condensate and supersaturation without defining them or verifying that they are being used accurately.
Sutcliffe’s thinking produced a confused generation of pretenders that continually confuse and re-confuse themselves, as you are doing here.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Look up a Webster’s dictionary for the definitions of Sutcliffe’s words he uses. They are common words which most common people can understand.
Have a goog day
James McGinn
| #
That doesn’t change the fact that Sutcliffe was a clown who had no business in a scientific conversation.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
All matter absorbs radiated energy. This is a basic premise of physics. All matter with energy radiate energy.
When energy is absorbed by matter it causes an increase in vibration across chemical bonds. This vibration increases the length of the bonds and determines what the wavelengths of the radiated energy are. If the energy of the vibration combined with the length of bond exceeds the force holding the atoms of a molecule together, the bond breaks and the molecule is destroyed. This breakage can create ions where an electron from one atom remains with another atom, as in the case of NaCl.
You believe that a water molecule cannot absorb enough energy to break creating OH- and H+. There is no H2O on the sun, even though there are hydrogen and oxygen atoms. What prevents water molecules from breaking and producing ions that then create crystal structures?
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“All matter absorbs radiated energy.”
Many gaseous molecules (single molecules) do not absorb radiation because they do not have a surface from which to emit radiation.
If a single molecule absorbs radiation it is decomposed to form smaller molecules; which are usually quite reactive and quickly combine with other active molecules to form a different larger molecule.
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Are you trying to tell me there are no neon lights? Energy is absorbed and radiated at the nucleus of an atom by protons and because the energy rebels electrons, radiated energy from different elements have different spectrums.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb: All matter absorbs radiated energy. This is a basic premise of physics. All matter with energy radiate energy.
JMcG: Irrelevant. We aren’t talking about all matter. We are talking about H2O and about QUALITIES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO H2O.
We’ve been over this already. Stop being obtuse and pay attention. The mechanism you mention here IS NOT UNIQUE TO H2O. If it was as simple as you suggest we would expect the thermal effects of N2 and O2 to completely overwhelm those of H2O. But we don’t see this. Can you explain why? Obviously you can’t. Obviously you are just making up nonsense.
Herb: This breakage can create ions where an electron from one atom remains with another atom, as in the case of NaCl.
JMcG: Nonsense. It is completely impossible to break molecules and form ions at such low temperatures. You don’t know what you are talking about.
JMcG: You believe that a water molecule cannot absorb enough energy to break creating OH- and H+. There is no H2O on the sun, even though there are hydrogen and oxygen atoms. What prevents water molecules from breaking and producing ions that then create crystal structures?
JMcG: You are confused:
Linus Pauling failed to properly realize that polarity is the result of an imbalance of electrical gradients and that hydrogen bonds (between H2O molecules) reconcile 25% of the imbalance per hydrogen bond (up to four) thereby acting to switch off 25% of the polarity per hydrogen bond. For example, the fact that liquid water is both highly bonded and has such low viscosity is caused by the fact that its polarity is almost completely switched off by the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonding therein. This currently popular — and completely screwed up — paradigm is completely baffled, unable to explain how a polar molecules can have the consistently low viscosity that we find in liquid water.
Pollack is completely clueless. His thinking is vague. He doesn’t have the slightest understanding of what causes polarity. Thus he is unable to recognize that water molecules, by way of forming hydrogen bonds, are solvents of 25% of each other’s polarity.
By the way, confusion on this issue is a severe obstacle to understanding the physics of storms:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
| #
Herb: All matter absorbs radiated energy. This is a basic premise of physics. All matter with energy radiate energy.
JMcG: Irrelevant. We aren’t talking about all matter. We are talking about H2O and about QUALITIES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO H2O.
We’ve been over this already. Stop being obtuse and pay attention. The mechanism you mention here IS NOT UNIQUE TO H2O. If it was as simple as you suggest we would expect the thermal effects of N2 and O2 to completely overwhelm those of H2O. But we don’t see this. Can you explain why? Obviously you can’t. Obviously you are just making up nonsense.
Herb: This breakage can create ions where an electron from one atom remains with another atom, as in the case of NaCl.
JMcG: Nonsense. It is completely impossible to break molecules and form ions at such low temperatures. You don’t know what you are talking about.
JMcG: You believe that a water molecule cannot absorb enough energy to break creating OH- and H+. There is no H2O on the sun, even though there are hydrogen and oxygen atoms. What prevents water molecules from breaking and producing ions that then create crystal structures?
JMcG: You are confused:
Linus Pauling failed to properly realize that polarity is the result of an imbalance of electrical gradients and that hydrogen bonds (between H2O molecules) reconcile 25% of the imbalance per hydrogen bond (up to four) thereby acting to switch off 25% of the polarity per hydrogen bond. For example, the fact that liquid water is both highly bonded and has such low viscosity is caused by the fact that its polarity is almost completely switched off by the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonding therein. This currently popular — and completely screwed up — paradigm is completely baffled, unable to explain how a polar molecules can have the consistently low viscosity that we find in liquid water.
Pollack is completely clueless. His thinking is vague. He doesn’t have the slightest understanding of what causes polarity. Thus he is unable to recognize that water molecules, by way of forming hydrogen bonds, are solvents of 25% of each other’s polarity.
By the way, confusion on this issue is a severe obstacle to understanding the physics of storms:
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
O2 and N2 do not absorb IR radiation just UV and convert that absorbed UV into radiated IR.
NaCl converts to a liquid at 801 C but really dissolves in water at low temperatures converting into chlorine snd sodium ions.This reaction releases heat making the solution colder. (This is why you add salt to ice when making ice cream.) Changes of state is a result of changes of energy. Your contention that an increase in distance cause the strength of hydrogen to increase is unique in physics.
Your belief is in hydrogen bonds, mine is in ionic bonding. The fact that Jerry agrees with you should provide a strong indication that you are wrong.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb: O2 and N2 do not absorb IR radiation just UV and convert that absorbed UV into radiated IR.
LOL. You are a victim of a dumb assumptions. It makes no difference at all whether it is UV or IR. Both can convert to kinetic energy.
Herb: NaCl converts to a liquid at 801 C but really dissolves in water at low temperatures converting into chlorine snd sodium ions.
Yeah, so?
Herb: This reaction releases heat making the solution colder. (This is why you add salt to ice when making ice cream.) Changes of state is a result of changes of energy.
How is any of this relevant? You aren’t making any sense at all. You are jumping to conclusions based on speculation that itself is easily refuted.
BTW, the IR signature of H2O has nothing to do with it’s covalent bonds. This is why it only occurs in liquid phase. If what you were saying was true we would expect it to be especially prominent in the gaseous phase but it is not.
Herb: Your contention that an increase in distance cause the strength of hydrogen to increase is unique in physics.
Yes, water is unique. Hydrogen bonding is categorically distinct from ionic bonding. With ionic bonding charges are static, unchanging. With water the charges are a result of an imbalance of electrical gradients. And 25% of the balance is restored with each of up to four hydrogen bonds. H2O polarity is not static but highly variable with H bonds as the mechanism thereof.
Your vague thinking doesn’t resolve anomalies. My thinking resolves all of H2O’s anomalies.
Herb: Your belief is in hydrogen bonds, mine is in ionic bonding. The fact that Jerry agrees with you should provide a strong indication that you are wrong.
Your thinking is based on superstition about the difference between UV and IR — not unlike global warming BS.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote: “But perfectly pure super-cooled water when shaken will also initiate crystal growth..” What container were you using when you did this experiment? Where did you get the liquid water whose temperature was significantly less than 0C?
Have a good day
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Relatively Recent PSI Readers,
What do I mean by relatively recent? A brief history of PSI which was formed about 2012 by John O’Sullivan.(the editor) and a group of scientists who couldn’t get their scientific ideas published in the existing scientific publications of that time. I only discovered the existence of PSI in 2016 and while I have no knowledge of when Herb Rose and James McGinn first commented here, I suspect it could before 20i6 or about 2026.
So we three have been having long discussions since about 2016 as we do not totally agree. As recent regular readers have read. But I believe one thing that we three agree about is our discussions are how this thing termed SCIENCE has progressed.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Psi Readers,
“AVOGADRO’S NUMBER”
“A principle stated in 1811 by the Italian chemist Amadeo Avogadro (1776-1856) that equal volumes of gases at the same temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules regardless of their chemical nature and physical properties. This number …. ” When I tried to copy this comment at Google this is all I got when I tied to post what I had thought I had copied. I will try again as I am persistent.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
hi PSI Readers,
The problem, I discover, is that Avogador’a number is a very large number and here at PSI must be written 6.023 X 10^23 or 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000. So a chemistry instructor could take a 25ml graduated cylinder, pour 18ml of water in it, and write these two forms, of the same large number on the blackboard and tell the class this is the most important OBSERVED FACT fact about chemistry. Atoms and small molecules like water (H2O) are very, very, very, tiny.
Did I ever do this? NO! Why? I was too young and inexperienced to know (have learned) this.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Since my last comment about Avogadro’s number there has been less than 50 minutes and 8 new comments, None of these new comments refer to Alvogadro’s number. Does this fact bother me? NO, because I know I have done all I can do to refer others to the important fact of this observed number.
Have a good day
Reply
S.C.
| #
Hi Jerry,
It’s no secret the atmosphere has a lot of dust and other particulates. I’m afraid that may be my fault. When I was younger, there was nothing I liked better than driving my old truck on dirt roads. I also am guilty of burning tons of yard debris. Sorry about that.
It sorta looks like you had along conversation with yourself, Jerry.
That number you mentioned made no sense at first because I thought, “if you fill two containers with different gasses and proceed to equalize the temperature and pressure, the only way to end up with equal molecules is if A) they started equal or b) some molecules were phased out (or into) existence or through the container walls. .”
It makes more sense if you remove the container from the equation, but then, how is the volume measured.
BTW, some things about the gasses are implied in my response, but it should be pretty self-evident what I’m implying thus, no time wasted typing all the details.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi S.C.,
Thank you for your comment. It tells me a lot. So I will stop responding to your comments.
Have a good day
Reply
S.C.
| #
Thank you for your participation. Have a nice day as well.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Linus Pauling failed to properly realize that polarity is the result of an imbalance of electrical gradients and that hydrogen bonds (between H2O molecules) reconcile 25% of the imbalance per hydrogen bond (up to four) thereby acting to switch off 25% of the polarity per hydrogen bond. For example, the fact that liquid water is both highly bonded and has such low viscosity is caused by the fact that its polarity is almost completely switched off by the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonding therein. This currently popular — and completely screwed up — paradigm is completely baffled, unable to explain how a polar molecules can have the consistently low viscosity that we find in liquid water.
Pollack is completely clueless. His thinking is vague. He doesn’t have the slightest understanding of what causes polarity. Thus he is unable to recognize that water molecules, by way of forming hydrogen bonds, are solvents of 25% of each other’s polarity.
By the way, confusion on this issue is a severe obstacle to understanding the physics of storms:
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You don’t understand the difference between absorbed energy and acquired energy. Absorbed energy is where energy enter into the matter affecting the internal structure of the matter. Acquired energy is where the matter, as a whole, equalizes with the energy field it is in.and the energy radiated is a result of the motion of the object. It Is in The IR spectrum because of the slow speed of objects. Absorbed energy causes increased vibrations across bonds and the wavelengths radiated depend on the length of these bonds.
The melt temperature of a NaCl crystal is over 800 C. ThIs is an indication of the energy forming the crystal structure. At that temperature the crystal melts forming a liquid composed of Na+ and Cl- ions.
When salt crystaLs are dIssolved In water the crystal energy is added to the solution. but the temperature of the solution decreases. This is because the salt ions destroy structures within the water that are storing energy and create new structures with greater heat capacity., which in turn absorb energy from the surrounding matter. You believe these internal structures are formed by hydrogen bonds while I believe they are formed by OH- and H+ ion.
The surface tension of salt water is greater than the surface tension of pure water. The surface tension of NaOH and HCl solutions are lower than the surface tension of pure water. The greater surface tension of salt solutions indicate that there are new crystal structures forming in the water which have greater heat capacity than the structures destroyed. The inclusion of ions fundamentally changes the structure of water.
Your hydrogen bonds can only occur in pure water which means they don’t exist in reality where pure water, being highly corrosive, acquires ions that change the structure of the water.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Explain the cause of the surface tension of a liquid droplet.
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb is a confused pretender. Confused pretenders always dodge the questions that reveal their confusion.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Why didn’t you explain to Herb the cause of the surface tension of a liquid droplet instead of merely criticizing him?
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
I explain surface tension here:
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4?si=BdXWcKPeAQLXk7UI
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Why can you not simply write here that a sphere is a three dimensional geometrical shape whose ratio of surface area to its volume is a minimum?
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You are confused, Jerry. You are discussing a completely different subject than surface tension.
Jerry Kruase
| #
Hi James,
This is SCIENCE! What or where is your physical evidence to support your statement?
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb: You don’t understand the difference between absorbed energy and acquired energy.
JMcG: energy is energy.
Herb: Absorbed energy is where energy enter into the matter affecting the internal structure of the matter. Acquired energy is where the matter, as a whole, equalizes with the energy field it is in.and the energy radiated is a result of the motion of the object. It Is in The IR spectrum because of the slow speed of objects. Absorbed energy causes increased vibrations across bonds and the wavelengths radiated depend on the length of these bonds.
JMcG: What is your point?
The melt temperature of a NaCl crystal is over 800 C. ThIs is an indication of the energy forming the crystal structure. At that temperature the crystal melts forming a liquid composed of Na+ and Cl- ions.
When salt crystaLs are dIssolved In water the crystal energy is added to the solution. but the temperature of the solution decreases. This is because the salt ions destroy structures within the water that are storing energy and create new structures with greater heat capacity., which in turn absorb energy from the surrounding matter. You believe these internal structures are formed by hydrogen bonds while I believe they are formed by OH- and H+ ion.
JMcG: Silly speculation. This is worthless.
Herb: The surface tension of salt water is greater than the surface tension of pure water. The surface tension of NaOH and HCl solutions are lower than the surface tension of pure water. The greater surface tension of salt solutions indicate that there are new crystal structures forming in the water which have greater heat capacity than the structures destroyed. The inclusion of ions fundamentally changes the structure of water.
JMcG: This is obvious nonsense that you just made up.
Herb:Your hydrogen bonds can only occur in pure water
JMcG: Meaningless.
Herb: which means they don’t exist in reality where pure water, being highly corrosive, acquires ions that change the structure of the water.
JMcG: This is worthless speculation. You can’t even resolve one of the anomalies. My model resolves them all.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
S.C.
| #
High James. Curiosity and fascination draw me towards every state of water. Always have. Under the right circumstances, it seems to contradict its own nature. It does not, of course, but it has versatility. The boiling and freezing points are relatively mild and close together. There is no specific condensation temperature, save the dew point, when air cools to saturation temp.
A day at a lazy river cleanses the body and calms the soul, until a passing rainstorm converts it to a raging current of irresistible force. Even then, it’s calming to watch it rage from a safe vantage point.
Snowflakes crystalize with self-symmetry around asymmetrical cores. Liquid water fills oceans. Vapor saturates the sky, condensates, precipitates and supplies fresh water on a planetary scale.
I could easily go on and on about the virtues of H2O, but only one more…
H2O is the perfect medium for viewing, teaching and studying wave proliferation. In fact, one has to wonder whether other wave-based sciences would or could have progressed to current levels but for nature’s gift to science: pools of water.
All that and I never got around to mentioning steam.
BTW good luck on the tornado bit. It’s gotta be someone. Why not you, right?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi S.C.,
You say that water in the atmosphere is a gas. If you boil water in a tea kettle it escapes as a clear gas. On cooling it condenses into visible water droplets. with further fooling this droplets disappear. Since it takes 540 calories/gram to convert 100 C liquid water to 100 C steam where is this 540+ calories/gram coming from that is again converting the liquid water into a gas?
Herb
Reply
S.C.
| #
Herb, trying to grasp the gist of what you’re saying, I conclude you are taking the part about vapor in the atmosphere as a claim of absolution, which is
not intended. I didn’t set out to imply the atmosphere is devoid of liquid water. In fact I can prove there is liquid H2O up there in one word, “rainbows.” I was referring to surface evaporation riding thermal columns high up in the sky, where it condensates and remains until it eventually precipitates. I believe I used many of those exact words, perhaps less clearly. Regarding the caloric requirements for water to vaporize outside tea pots, I say this. Every spillage, every puddle, and, during dry spells, natural basins aka swamps, evaporate away despite never approaching 100C. It appears air that’s much cooler than 100C can still spare ample calories to fuel the process.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi S.C.,
Water evaporates even when frozen. It is not thermals that causing the water to rise in the atmosphere. Why does the surface of the Earth have a negative charge except under thunder storm clouds? You might want to lookup the experiments by Dr. Gerald Pollack or read his book”The Fourth Stare of Water”.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi S.
Hi S.C.,
I was wrong about what I had concluded about you. But unlike Ja,mes and Herb I am frequently wrong.
Have a good day
c.
Reply
S.C.
| #
Hi Jerry.
No hard feelings. Besides, I asked for it when I posted an inane comment I thought it would annoy you. I don’t now, nor did i then find any fault with your reaction. In the end, you get a little more respect from me now than before because you showed you deserve it. Good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi S.C., James, Herb,
Mercury vapor light. In my ‘oral prelim examination I was asked: What is the minimum voltage required to ionize a gas? I knew I had read the answer but I had forgotten it. So I pondered a bit and then answered 6 volts. Then I was asked why did you answer 6 volts. My answer was: I know when connect the positive and negative poles of a 6 volt car battery a lighted spark is created. But when I connect three 1.5 volt dry-cell batteries in series (4.5 volts) and connect the positive pole with the negative pole, no spark is created.
Now a fact about this examination the mathematics professor of my second minor asked a detailed question about which I had no clue and after about 45 minutes of grilling by him I could have told him what 2 plus 2 was. And at the end of this examination when I was dismissed by the committee after some time I was told my examination would be continued at a later date to be examined again by this mathematics professor. Which extension had never happened before to my knowledge. And I believe my answer to the question what was the minimum voltage required to ionize a gas saved me.
Either James or Herb has asked me about the cause of Florence (I am a poor speller also). Again, I did not know the answer but now, after pondering I do. A high voltage ionizes the neon gas molecules and the electrons conducting the electrical charge of the electrons creates the light. Herb or James, is that the correct answer?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and James,
Chemistry is a laboratory science and meteorology (tornados) is a natural science which must be studied in a natural environment. Linus Pauling wrote a book that was first published in 1939 titled THE NATURE OF THE CHEMICAL BOND. I have a copy of the third edition published in 1960. This edition has an author index (pp 625-635, double columns) of authors, whose writings, Pauling used in his book with the page numbers where he had used their information in writing his book. Where else can find any other who has credited his source like this???
And James is critical of Pauling and doesn’t credit anyone for what he writes..
Have a good day
Reply
MICHAEL CLARKE
| #
Hi PSI readers, Jerry and James and Herb,
You are missing an important point. All of these observed phenonema ate POINTS in time!
What may be true here may not be true over there!
Snapshots may illuminate a properety, but a video may reveal much more!
So ask you why Lightening takes so long to propergate to earth it is becasue there are so many possible paths and the lightening bolt needs to find the most efficient path, not the shortest path!!!
Michael J Clarke LOGICIAN
Reply
Moffin
| #
Or the path that provides and releases the most charged energy.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
First I must ask; What are these natural phenomena to which you refer? And ask; are these points in time stationary? Where is over there? Clearly an assumption is that physical phenomena we observed on earth apply on Venus,, Jupiter etc. If these physical laws not apply wherever and whenever. But first we need an example where or when they don’t apply.
I stop here to let you reply. Have a good day
Reply
MICHAEL CLARKE
| #
Obscure as usual Jerry, I was talking about the micro and you jumped to the conclusion that I meant MACRO!
To explain, what is and can be observed HERE does not apply to everywhere!
A snapsoghot is exactly that an image of what existed in a particulare space and time!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
In your comment which began this conversation (discussion) you wrote: “So [I] ask you why Lightening takes so long to propergate to earth”. Lighting is a Macro phenomena which doesn’t need a microscope to be seen. Some consistency please.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Michael,
I find it curious that I have not yet read anything, here at PSI, about the current event which has occurred in the USA. I do not commonly watch or listen to news these day but this morning waiting for a friend to possibly come I turned on NBC news and a topic was “mis-information” and how to avoid it. And the first thing the NBC expert stated was “consider the source”.
Michael,,I know you have achievements which demonstrate your intelligence. But your achievements are primarily related to a machine–the computer. While you have independently read about and studied various scientific topics, do you claim to be a scientist? I will await your response because I do not read minds.
Have a good day.
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Mathematics is a science if you will please excuse my interlocution.
Have a jolly old nice day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi WhoKoo,
I understand your point based upon what Newton wrote in his preface.
For he wrote that right lines and circles needed to be drawn to learn what logically needed to be reasoned according to the mathematics of geometry.
Have a good day
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry. That Michael Clarke is an elusive creature.
Be Happy.
Reply