Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 21/02/2019 02:02:25
-
EZ water has a negative charge, & induces a positive charge on surfaces next to it, & i reckon that the resulting electrostatic attraction allows spiders & geckos to climb on smooth surfaces.
However the science mafia are unaware of EZ water. They used to say that vanderWaals forces were to blame, but they have now abandoned vanderWaals forces.
Both EZ forces & vanderWaals forces are i think electrostatic & due to induction, but the vanderWaals is i think due to charge distortion within atoms near other distorted atoms.
However the EZ attraction does not necessarily involve any intra atomic distortion of charge, but praps there is a little, in which case i will call that force (1). It is a kind of sub-category of vanderWaal forces.
EZ force is i reckon mainly due to (2) simple proton-electron attraction. The electrons in EZ water are fixed, & i reckon that the protons involved are mostly the free protons released or ejected by the EZ water during the making of the new EZ water from the ordinary bulk water (H2O) sitting in the hairs. These protons migrate back towards the EZ water due to induction (they never really left), & the protons can sit on or in the surface involved (eg glass), hencely we have a very very very strong force.
Wikileaks..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopulae
Scopulae
Scopulae, or scopula pads, are dense tufts of hair at the end of a spiders's legs. They are found mostly on hunting spiders, especially Lycosidae and Salticidae. Scopulae consist of microscopic hairs, each covered in even smaller hairs called setules or "end feet", resulting in a large contact area.
When the scopulae are splayed out and placed against a surface, remarkable adhesion is produced due to the accumulation of adhesion of each individual setule interacting with a substrate. The adhesion may be due to the excretion of liquid from adhesive pads, although setae can adhere in both dry and wet modes.[1] This enables spiders with scopulae to climb even sheer, smooth surfaces such as glass. The adhesion is so great that the spider could grip using this force and support 170 times its own weight. Possible physical mechanisms may include capillary, electrostatic, viscous, or Van der Waals force. (Niederegger et al 2002; Betz and Kölsch, 2004)[2]
Scopulae are found in addition to, not instead of, the claws at the end of each appendage, called tarsal claws.
-
If the surface or feet are too wet then EZ water might be slippery, due to an excess of protons (i think u can call it plasma).
Pollack explained that EZ water between say ice & skates has an excess of protons & the protons repel each other which creates a slippery layer between ice & blade.
The simple skoolkid explanation that water is slippery is wrong, or it is correct but doesnt explain.
But even if very wet praps the hairs on spider's & gecko's feet are able to easily make good contact with the glass, & minimize the plasma. And thats why hairs. Hairs are better. Thats the secret. U heard it here first. There is a reason for everything, if u look. With all due respect to bald members out there.
So, i have made another discovery. Life's good.
edit: I forgot to say, because it is so obvious, that the hairs will be found to be hydrophilic because hydrophilic gives a much thicker layer of EZ compared to hydrophobic (as explained by Pollack).
-
Pollack explained that EZ water between say ice & skates
Pollack needs to do his sums properly.
-
Pollack explained that EZ water between say ice & skates
Pollack needs to do his sums properly.
I dont think that Pollack actually does any calcs for ice versus skates. But he has some calcs on his videos re the amazingly large repulsion forces that can exist, & he quotes some of Feynman's calcs re repulsion forces. Hencely the self repulsion of protons (plasma) must be very strong, easily able to support the wt of a skater on a sharp knife edge.
-
The finer the hair the more hydrophilic, it seems. Climbing spiders know this. And they know that 8 legs is better.
https://chemistrysimplified.com/resistant-hair/
From chemistry simplified.com
The term “Resistant Hair” refers to its ability to resist penetration by water and is an indication of the condition of the outer layer of the hair (cuticle). Although hair is naturally resistant to penetration by water (hydrophobic) and coarse hair is usually more resistant than fine hair, everything we do damages the cuticle which makes the hair less resistant. Over time the ends of longer hair become less resistant than the hair near the scalp. Shampoo, styling with a hair dryer and curling iron and sun exposure all make the hair less resistant.
The term “Porous Hair” refers to its ability to absorb water and is the opposite of resistant hair. Resistant hair has low porosity (hydrophobic). Hair that is less resistant has high porosity (hydrophilic). Slick, glossy magazine paper is resistant and has low porosity. Facial tissue is less resistant and has high porosity.
Resistant hair is more difficult to color or perm because it resists penetration, but resistant hair is often used as an excuse when a color or perm fails to achieve the desired results. Although gray hair is often believed to be resistant, gray hair is no more resistant than the pigmented hair on the same head. The structure of gray hair is identical to the structure of pigmented hair but requires more color simply because it is has no color.
A deposit color formula on gray hair must be a level six or lower and contain all three primary colors in the following proportions; three parts yellow, two parts red and one part blue to achieve a natural looking hair color.
Dirty, dry hair is more resistant that clean, damp hair. Shampoo and towel dry the hair prior to the haircolor application. Water swells the hair and draws the color into the hair due to hydrogen bonding.
See also.... https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/100/5/052034/pdf
-
http://www.americanarachnology.org/joa_free/joa_v32_n1/arac-032-01-0011.pdf
TAXONOMIC VARIATION AMONG SPIDERS IN THE ABILITY TO
REPEL WATER: SURFACE ADHESION AND HAIR DENSITY
USA ABSTRACT. A variety of arthropods forage and avoid predators via locomotion on the surfaces of ponds and streams. For these animals, cuticular hydrophobicity functions to keep them dry and well supported by the water’s surface tension, and also allows them to move easily between wet and dry habitats. Among spiders, members of the family Pisauridae exemplify this semi-aquatic lifestyle and, not surprisingly, these spiders remain entirely dry even when submerged. In the current study, we sought to quantify the degree to which spiders in a variety of families resist wetting by liquid water. Two properties of a spider’s cuticular hairs are predominant in determining this resistance: adhesion energy (a consequence of molecular interactions between the hair surface and water) and hair density. When hair density is low, the adhesion energy of the cuticle itself also plays a role. Among the ten families we studied, pisaurids and pholcids defined the ends of the spectrum of resistance, with the pisaurids nearly 50 times more resistant to wetting than the pholcids. We discuss both the impact of this variation on spiders’ potential for aquatic locomotion and the variety of selective forces that may have contributed to this impressive variation in capabilities.
-
When he does the arithmetic correctly, he will recognise that, in almost every case, there is no liquid water under the blades of a skater.
The "story" about the ice melting under pressure doesn't add up.
The fact that people are using his "idea" to back up a story that's known to be false tells you a lot.
It's just not science.
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102731/
Arachnids Secrete a Fluid over Their Adhesive Pads
Abstract .......Background
Many arachnids possess adhesive pads on their feet that help them climb smooth surfaces and capture prey. Spider and gecko adhesives have converged on a branched, hairy structure, which theoretically allows them to adhere solely by dry (solid-solid) intermolecular interactions. Indeed, the consensus in the literature is that spiders and their smooth-padded relatives, the solifugids, adhere without the aid of a secretion.
Methodology and Principal Findings
We investigated the adhesive contact zone of living spiders, solifugids and mites using interference reflection microscopy, which allows the detection of thin liquid films. Like insects, all the arachnids we studied left behind hydrophobic fluid footprints on glass (mean refractive index: 1.48–1.50; contact angle: 3.7–11.2°).
Fluid was not always secreted continuously, suggesting that pads can function in both wet and dry modes.
We measured the attachment forces of single adhesive setae from tarantulas (Grammostola rosea) by attaching them to a bending beam with a known spring constant and filming the resulting deflection. Individual spider setae showed a lower static friction at rest (26%±2.8 SE of the peak friction) than single gecko setae (Thecadactylus rapicauda; 96%±1.7 SE). This may be explained by the fact that spider setae continued to release fluid after isolation from the animal, lubricating the contact zone.
Significance
This finding implies that tarsal secretions occur within all major groups of terrestrial arthropods with adhesive pads. The presence of liquid in an adhesive contact zone has important consequences for attachment performance, improving adhesion to rough surfaces and introducing rate-dependent effects. Our results leave geckos and anoles as the only known representatives of truly dry adhesive pads in nature. Engineers seeking biological inspiration for synthetic adhesives should consider whether model species with fluid secretions are appropriate to their design goals.
Properties of Arachnid Tarsal Secretions
The properties of arachnid fluid secretions parallel those of insect footpad secretions, where a persistent hydrophobic fluid is left behind on glass [7], [28]–[30]. There is no existing histological evidence for glands or ducts to synthesize and transport fluid to arachnid adhesive pads [19]–[21], [24], [31], but this was initially the case for insects as well. The positive identification of pores for secretion delivery in insects has only been achieved using transmission electron microscopy, in targeted studies [8], [29]. The exact source of those secretions remains unclear, and multiple glands may be involved [29], [32]. Grammostola setae are hollow (pers. obs.) and we observed that they continued to release fluid even after being isolated from the animal. In this species, fluid may flow through the setal stalk, but more work is needed to establish how the fluid ultimately wets individual spatulae.
Volatile hydrophilic droplets appeared trapped between the smooth pad of the Gromphadorholaelaps mite and the glass cover slip substrate (Fig. 2b; Video S2), suggesting that the biphasic foot secretions seen in ants and stick insects [5], [13] are present in at least one arachnid, and likely others.
The stable hydrophobic components of insect fluid are similar to cuticular lipids [7], [28], but we understand little about the nature of the hydrophilic components.
-
When he does the arithmetic correctly, he will recognise that, in almost every case, there is no liquid water under the blades of a skater.
The "story" about the ice melting under pressure doesn't add up. The fact that people are using his "idea" to back up a story that's known to be false tells you a lot. It's just not science.
The blade to ice friction must melt a skin of ice thusly producing water, & this must have EZ water in there, with a layer of protons (plasma) in between, & the repulsion inside the plasma in effect supports the skater & aids slippage.
But do u know any links to papers re skating on ice?
-
Arachnids Secrete a Fluid over Their Adhesive Pads
Because they can't rely on imaginary states of water.
Did you not realise you were arguing against yourself?
-
The blade to ice friction must melt a skin of ice
It doesn't.
That's the problem.
People who can't do arithmetic- like you and Pollack don't actually do the simple arithmetic that shows this idea to be false.
Why do you keep going on about it even after I told you it's wrong?
BTW, did you recognise that water plasmas emit light?
Have you seen the glowing trails left by ice skates?
has anyone?
Please stop ignoring reality.
-
Arachnids Secrete a Fluid over Their Adhesive Pads
Because they can't rely on imaginary states of water. Did you not realise you were arguing against yourself?
No i dont see a problem for EZ water here, unless that fluid has no water.
And i can jump ahead & add that i dont see a problem for EZ water if the hairs etc are hydrophobic, because EZ water exists at both hydrophilic & hydrophobic interfaces, but the EZ layer is probly thinner & hencely electrostatically weaker at hydrophobic surfaces (but still very strong).
The fluid is usually exuded moreso when the spider is moving fast, because it needs a surer quicker grip.
Some spiders exude a silk to help climb, some a silk-like fluid but very weak & hencely more for stickyness of a different kind.
But the science mafia dont say much about simple chemical adhesion, which must exist for some spiders, all that the mafia have is their standard fall-back of good old reliable vanderWaals forces, a very weak effect. Because they dont know about EZ water. And skoolkids of course swallow the mafia's krapp.
-
The blade to ice friction must melt a skin of ice
It doesn't. That's the problem. People who can't do arithmetic- like you and Pollack don't actually do the simple arithmetic that shows this idea to be false. Why do you keep going on about it even after I told you it's wrong? BTW, did you recognise that water plasmas emit light? Have you seen the glowing trails left by ice skates? has anyone? Please stop ignoring reality.
How do water plasma's (protons) emit optical light?
How would plasma's (& everything else)(except praps graphite) not emit optical light in the daytime?
What is the difference tween a water plasma & an ordinary plasma?
Why should there be glowing (optical) trails left by ice skates?
If no glow then why does that mean no plasma?
-
How do water plasma's (protons) emit optical light?
How would plasma's (& everything else)(except praps graphite) not emit optical light in the daytime?
What is the difference tween a water plasma & an ordinary plasma?
Why should there be glowing (optical) trails left by ice skates?
If no glow then why does that mean no plasma?
What he is saying is that your definition for a plasma is wrong. In order to turn water into a plasma, you would have to make it hot enough to dissociate into positive ions and electrons.
-
How do water plasma's (protons) emit optical light?
How would plasma's (& everything else)(except praps graphite) not emit optical light in the daytime?
What is the difference tween a water plasma & an ordinary plasma?
Why should there be glowing (optical) trails left by ice skates?
If no glow then why does that mean no plasma?
What he is saying is that your definition for a plasma is wrong. In order to turn water into a plasma, you would have to make it hot enough to dissociate into positive ions and electrons.
Ok fair enuff. Praps plasma is usually taken to be a mixture of protons (& praps neutrons) & electrons too hot to form hydrogen etc. But the way i look at it is that a pile of free non-bonded protons is plasma, & a pile of free non-bonded electrons is plasma, & a pile of free non-bonded neutrons is plasma (if possible), & a free non-bonded mixture is plasma (if possible), hot or not (if possible).
My plasma is made of quasi-free & quasi-non-bonded & cold protons. With or without attached neutrons i suppose. Quasi-non-bonded because they are i suppose partially held (in the bulk water)(or in the air)(or inside whatever the interface is made of) by vanderWaals forces or by electrostatic forces.
But praps i should just call these semi-free protons "protons" (plasma isnt easier to type anyhow).
Anyhow, the bulkwater sitting in between the EZ layer at the ice & the EZ layer at the skate would have lots of semi-free protons, & if there were just a few then they would actually cause an attraction tween ice & skate, but if there are lots of protons then they would repel each other & would suspend the skate above the ice with very little friction.
-
No i dont see a problem for EZ water here, unless that fluid has no water.
The fluid isn't water- because water wouldn't work.How do water plasma's (protons) emit optical light?
The same way the emit light in neon signs and stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)
But the way i look at it is that a pile of free non-bonded protons is plasma
Then the way you look at it is wrong.
You can't just change the meanings of words to suit yourself if you expect to be taken seriously.
The point remains that , if you want to get significant numbers of electrons and protons, you need to add huge amounts of energy- you need to heat the material to something like 10,000 degrees.
If no glow then why does that mean no plasma?
Because plasmas glow.
How is that a difficult idea for you?
My plasma is made of quasi-free
What do you think "quasi free" means?
They are free, or they are not.
Anyway, please actually do the arithmetic required to find the state of the material under an ice skate.
-
My plasma is made of quasi-free
What do you think "quasi free" means? They are free, or they are not. Anyway, please actually do the arithmetic required to find the state of the material under an ice skate.
Quasi-free is like freedom in theusofa. Its like a pedestrian in NewYork being free, walking as fast as he/she likes, but on a congested footpath. Or like a car in NewYork being free, but moving slowly throo the street system.
So i imagine that a quasi-free proton (not bonded) can force its way throo & around all of the bonded oxygens & hydrogens.
The arithmetic under a skate on ice aint simple. I calculate that if every molecule of H2O on the surface of water contained one quasi-free proton then it would repel a similar surface to the tune of 30 Newtons per square mm. This is based on a separation of 1 nanometre tween surfaces (actually tween quasi-free protons).
I daresay that one qfp per H2O is a bit rich.
But on the other hand the EZ water might be 1000 molecular layers thick at the ice interface & also at the skate interface. The protons ejected from the 2000 layers of EZ water during its formation might mostly be found in the bulk water (H2O) tween the two EZ zones, in which case we might have in effect 2000 layers of protons dispersed in the H2O.
The two strongly negatively charged EZ zones must repel each other too, thusly lifting the skate.
So we have two kinds of repulsion, ie two kinds of lifting of the skate, electron-electron & proton-proton.
However these two repulsions are mostly cancelled by the two electron-proton & proton-electron attractions. We can look at this as being a like-likes-like attraction effect (mentioned by Pollack)(coined by Feynman). The LLL attraction can only be overcome if there are a lot of extra quasi-free protons, which i reckon there is.
Anyhow if the wt of the skater is partly carried by the repulsions then the portion of wt carried by the simple mechanical skate-ice contact is reduced & hencely the skate-ice friction is reduced.
If there is very little bulkwater & qfp tween the 2 EZ zones then repulsion will be strong.
If there is a small amount of bulkwater & qfp then the repulsion will be weaker.
If there is a goodish amount of bulkwater & qfp then the repulsion will be strong.
If there is a lot of bulkwater & qfp then the repulsion will be weaker.
-
The arithmetic under a skate on ice aint simple.
Yes it is.
Well, the important bit is.
So, once again, please actually do the arithmetic.If there is very little bulkwater & qfp tween the 2 EZ zones then repulsion will be strong.
This is what happens if you try to get away with making up nonsense words.
https://dilbert.com/strip/1997-04-27
-
The arithmetic under a skate on ice aint simple.
Yes it is. Well, the important bit is. So, once again, please actually do the arithmetic.If there is very little bulkwater & qfp tween the 2 EZ zones then repulsion will be strong.
This is what happens if you try to get away with making up nonsense words. https://dilbert.com/strip/1997-04-27
I did some arithmetic. Its your turn.
I thort that u guys would swallow qfp no worries, but let me have another go at making it more conformal. How about i call them quantum virtual delocalized quasi free hydrogen ions.
-
How about i call them quantum virtual delocalized quasi free hydrogen ions.
How about you stop making up dross?
-
I did some arithmetic. Its your turn.
It would be better if you did the right arithmetic.
Then you would know what's under an ice skate.
-
How about i call them quantum virtual delocalized quasi free hydrogen ions.
How about you stop making up dross?
Dregs waste scum rubbish worthless corrupted impure. I agree. Like modern science. Like the Nobels. But the times they are a'changin.
-
I did some arithmetic. Its your turn.
It would be better if you did the right arithmetic. Then you would know what's under an ice skate.
I showed u my 30 N/mm^2. Now u show me yours.
-
An ice skate is something like 3 mm wide and about 150 mm long.
So that's about 450 square mm
And a 75Kg skater puts about 750 N on that area.
So that's roughly 2 N per square mm or 2MN per square metre.
Roughly 20 atmospheres pressure.
Now the depression of freezing point of water with pressure is about 0.01 degrees per atmosphere.
So the melting point of the ice under a skate is something like -0.2 degrees Celsius.
So, if the temperature was below that (and it almost always will be) the material under a skate is solid ice, rather than liquid water.
So, even if there was some magic form of liquid water, it couldn't possibly be relevant to ice skating.
Why didn't you do a little arithmetic when I told you to, to avoid foolishly sticking to an impossible story?
-
An ice skate is something like 3 mm wide and about 150 mm long.So that's about 450 square mm And a 75Kg skater puts about 750 N on that area. So that's roughly 2 N per square mm or 2MN per square metre. Roughly 20 atmospheres pressure.
Now the depression of freezing point of water with pressure is about 0.01 degrees per atmosphere.
So the melting point of the ice under a skate is something like -0.2 degrees Celsius.
So, if the temperature was below that (and it almost always will be) the material under a skate is solid ice, rather than liquid water.
So, even if there was some magic form of liquid water, it couldn't possibly be relevant to ice skating.
Why didn't you do a little arithmetic when I told you to, to avoid foolishly sticking to an impossible story?
Wiki told me that the pressure causes melting paradigm was discarded years ago. Me myself i never ever thort other than friction was the cause of melting, which is the current paradigm.
I also see that the lack of melting problem & hi friction problem comes in at about -100 C.
And that minimum friction happens at -7 C.
My EZ idea at the bottom of #16 re four possible scenarios for repulsion & friction might be useful in explaining that there -7 C minimum friction. How might u explain it? I apologize for the dross acronyms -- qfp means quasi-free-protons, & EZ means exclusion zone phase of water.
If there is very little bulkwater & qfp tween the 2 EZ zones then repulsion will be strong.
If there is a small amount of bulkwater & qfp then the repulsion will be weaker.
If there is a goodish amount of bulkwater & qfp then the repulsion will be strong.
If there is a lot of bulkwater & qfp then the repulsion will be weaker.
Something to think about.
How would a gecko or spider fare if they tried skating on ice?
How would we fare if we tried hairy skates? Or hairy skis?