0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Someone else has spent a good deal of time putting together a critical analysis of Dr. Pollack's work: http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/11/19/debunking-exclusion-zone-water/ Long story short: Pollack has found something interesting, but is making grandiose claims without sufficient evidence.
The proposed structure of this EZ water is not feasible from a chemistry standpoint. He's trying to liken it to graphite yet he doesn't seem to realize why graphite has the structure that it does in the first place. Graphite is composed of hexagonal rings of carbon, each ring containing three pairs of electrons in its pi system. Aromatic (stabilizing) character is afforded to a molecule if there are an odd number of electron pairs in the pi system (see benzene, the tropylium cation and the cyclopropenium cation). For this reason, graphite is more stable when its molecular orbitals are arranged into sp2 hybridization with a pi system than when they are not.The case is the opposite when the number of electron pairs in the pi system is even. This results in anti-aromatic (destabilizing) character which makes molecules less stable than they otherwise would be. Cyclobutadiene is probably the best known example, and is so unstable that it cannot be isolated above 35 kelvins. If you try to form a hexagon of oxygen atoms using water molecules like in the video, you end up with a pi system containing 6 electron pairs. That's anti-aromatic and therefore destabilizing. The hexagon would be more stable if the oxygen atoms were sp3 hybridized than if they were sp2 hybridized.Another thing that would make this configuration unstable is anti-bonding orbitals. If you count the number of electrons in the pi system, you find out that you have to put just as many into bonding (stabilizing) orbitals as you do into anti-bonding (destabilizing) orbitals. That results in a net bond strength of zero, which means that the pi system effectively does not exist at all.
I will go back in Dr G Pollack's video & find where he mentions the Xray diffraction that shows that EZ has a hex structure. I will be back within the hour.
Since we are dealing with H3O minus i just took a part of the structure on the left just to localize where the electrons are so the electrons that had originally come from the oxygen are in red & the ones that came from the hydrogen are greyish. In total u will see that there are 16 electrons in this structure. And such sub units can be made to make these hexagonal planes. And in this case u have 2 electrons in the 3p orbital. So when dealing with H3O2 minus molecules.......
Quote from: mad aetherist on 15/02/2019 22:29:32I will go back in Dr G Pollack's video & find where he mentions the Xray diffraction that shows that EZ has a hex structure. I will be back within the hour.Merely having a hexagonal crystal structure does not mean that there is any kind of pi system involved. Ice is hexagonal but all of the molecular orbitals involved are sigma, not pi.Quote from: mad aetherist on 15/02/2019 22:29:32Since we are dealing with H3O minus i just took a part of the structure on the left just to localize where the electrons are so the electrons that had originally come from the oxygen are in red & the ones that came from the hydrogen are greyish. In total u will see that there are 16 electrons in this structure. And such sub units can be made to make these hexagonal planes. And in this case u have 2 electrons in the 3p orbital. So when dealing with H3O2 minus molecules.......This is exactly what I was talking about. He has an unstable molecular system drawn in his video.
I had another slow look throo Pollacks Part 1 video. There is lots of stuff re the hex planar lattice structure. 24:05. Says there have been lots of papers saying that water has a hex structure near interfaces.24:10 A Harvard group found a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water held inside a small vesicle of ATP synthase subunit C.
What u might be missing in your chemical analysis is that the layer to layer glue is due to electrostatic attraction, because the layers are offset a half hex, hencely a hydrogen sits between the midpoint of each two oxygens.Which by the way is why ice is less dense than EZ water (& H2O bulk water), because in ice the oxygens sit opposite each other with a hydrogen between.Note also that Pollack says that EZ is at hydrophilic surfaces (not so much at hydrophobic). At 7:45 he says that many kinds of surfaces work.15:18 Sir William Hardy posited a 4th phase of water in 1912.16:57. Shows hex of ice & hex of water.20:20. The hex EZ can form a helix with a form similar to DNA & RNA.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 16/02/2019 06:15:12I had another slow look throo Pollacks Part 1 video. There is lots of stuff re the hex planar lattice structure. 24:05. Says there have been lots of papers saying that water has a hex structure near interfaces.24:10 A Harvard group found a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water held inside a small vesicle of ATP synthase subunit C.Again, hexagonal crystal structure is not what I'm critiquing. I'm talking about the p-orbitals and how he likens it to the bonding in graphite (which isn't feasible for reasons I stated earlier).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 16/02/2019 06:15:12What u might be missing in your chemical analysis is that the layer to layer glue is due to electrostatic attraction, because the layers are offset a half hex, hencely a hydrogen sits between the midpoint of each two oxygens.Which by the way is why ice is less dense than EZ water (& H2O bulk water), because in ice the oxygens sit opposite each other with a hydrogen between.Note also that Pollack says that EZ is at hydrophilic surfaces (not so much at hydrophobic). At 7:45 he says that many kinds of surfaces work.15:18 Sir William Hardy posited a 4th phase of water in 1912.16:57. Shows hex of ice & hex of water.20:20. The hex EZ can form a helix with a form similar to DNA & RNA.None of that has anything to do with the pi system or the claimed sp2 hybridization of the oxygen atoms...
So u accept that.....(1) the oxygen & hydrogen in water can form a hex molecule, &(2) the hex structure can join others to form a large planar structure, (3) which has a negative charge,(4) some protons having been expelled into the adjacent bulk water (H2O), &(5) the planar structures can form parallel to others & (6) be held electrostatically to form a thick negatively charged lattice, & (7) this process drives out most impurities ahead into the bulk water, &(8 ) its ok to call the water in this exclusion zone EZ water, &(9) its ok to call the water in this zone crystal water, &(10) a Harvard group did find a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water in such a zone.
But u dont agree with ...........(a) Robitaille's description of the p-orbitals in EZ water, & (b) Robitaille likening the bonding in hex EZ water to the bonding in graphite, & u reckon that (c) Robitaille's model for bonding in the hex EZ water isn't feasible (for reasons u stated earlier).
So actually (genuine question)(not being sarcastic or anything)(i did some skoolkid chemistry in 1964) u are........ (d) ok re the existence of a hex planar lattice EZ water at interfaces, but
(e) u are not happy with Robitaille's description of it, &(f) u are not happy with Robitaille's description that it has similarities with graphite (ie that the EZ water gives a black absorption when the EZ water is compressed).
And if i have all of that aright then....(i) u have no serious argument with Pollack's EZ water (ie the primary thrust of this thread), but
(ii) u dont agree with Robitaille's microwave etc claims re water, & hencely
(iii) u dont agree with Robitaille's criticism of the historic measurements of CMB radiation (ie all of that 2.7 K stuff)(not mentioned in this thread but possibly mentioned in Robitaille's video)(link mentioned earlier in this thread)(& mentioned by me in recent threads).
a step by step explanation of how water goes black in the optical under pressure
thems useless ten phases of ice that dont occur naturally on Earth can be ignored.
Quote from: mad aetherista step by step explanation of how water goes black in the optical under pressureSince this is different behavior than normal Water, it suggests that, under pressure, liquid water turns into yet another phase (which is not EZ water).
Quotethems useless ten phases of ice that dont occur naturally on Earth can be ignored.So you are suggesting that we can safely ignore Pollack's "black" phase of water, as that doesn't occur naturally on Earth either?
So u accept that.....(1) the oxygen & hydrogen in water can form a hex molecule, &(2) the hex structure can join others to form a large planar structure, (3) which has a negative charge,
Quote from: mad aetherist on 16/02/2019 22:26:27So u accept that.....(1) the oxygen & hydrogen in water can form a hex molecule, &(2) the hex structure can join others to form a large planar structure, (3) which has a negative charge,No Charge conservation rules out "3"I'm not saying any of your other stuff is right (it isn't, btw) but this bit is particularly obviously wrong.
I thort that (3) is a no brainer, the the EZ has a negative charge. The positive charge goes into the adjacent bulk water.
For this reason, all of mainstreamphysics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, includingintimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.
Have you ever used "waterglass"?It's a solution of sodium silicate in water. It's very viscous- roughly as viscous as golden syrup or honey.You make it by dissolving sodium silicate in water.If you take glass tubing, melt it and draw it out into a capillary a couple of things happen.First, the inside of the tube is degrades- the freshly made surface is much more chemically active. In particular it is much more soluble in water.Secondly, you massively increase the ratio of area to mass. Again, that makes the material more soluble. Now, you may also be aware that water is a pretty good solvent.In particular, very high purity, hot water- of the sort that might be condensed into a capillary tube- is a very aggressive solvent. So, you have particularly soluble sodium silicate, under conditions that make it very likely to dissolve. So, it's pretty much bound to dissolve in the water. And you know that solutions of silicates in water are very viscous. So why would you then write "Small amounts of impurities don't cause water to gain that much viscosity. " Nobody is talking about small amounts of impurities, we are talking about something akin to silica gel soaked in waterglass. That's the problem. These guys keep saying stuff that's superficially reasonable, but doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny by people who know anything about, for example, silicates.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 01:08:11I thort that (3) is a no brainer, the the EZ has a negative charge. The positive charge goes into the adjacent bulk water.Well, if you had thought just a bit harder, you would have realised it's not water if it is charged. So, yes, it's a no brainer; and you didn't get it. What does that tell you?