[Bored chemist]

Hydrogen bonding is done with hydrogen protons, which are the fundamental containment of positive charge in our universe, interacting with electrons;

Many materials, for example, ethane, have hydrogen in them but do not have hydrogen bonding.
In order to get hydrogen bonding you need another, different, atom- another nucleus- for example, you could choose ethanol as an example, where the presence of oxygen  gives rise to hydrogen bonding.
You could also pick ethylamine as an example where the nitrogen atom is involved.
But the real system is more complex; if you move the oxygen to the middle of the molecule you get dimethyl ether which does not have hydrogen bonding.
On the other hand, if you move the nitrogen to the middle of the molecule, you get dimethylamine- which is still hydrogen bonded.


Real chemistry is much more complicated than you seem to understand, and it isn't ruled by the mumbo-jumbo you are talking.

[Kryptid]

protons, which are the fundamental containment of positive charge in our universe

Given that protons are not fundamental, this isn't true. You'd be better off talking about up quarks, which are (as far as we know) fundamental.

[puppypower (OP)]

I was educated as an applied scientist. Not all science can be applied, to create new products in tangible reality that can have wide spread use. For example, dark matter may be an important part of theoretical physics, but since it can't be isolated and manufactured in the lab, it can't be used in applied science to build a bridge. Applied science needs tangible things and not theoretical things. This is not to say that theoretical things  are not important to science; placeholder for math.   

Quarks are a tangible part of experimental science, but they have a very short self life. They are of interest to physicists, but, when isolated by experiments, they don't have a long enough duration in reality to be useful to applied science. We cannot yet generate the needed gravity to induce GR based time dilation persistency for permanent quarks configurations like protons. This is why I stick to protons and electrons that formed when gravity and GR was huge.

The proton and electron are very common, widely available, and very sturdy and persistent. These are not theoretical, or a by-product of experiments; cart leading the horse, but a persistent form of natural containment for positive and negative charge. This is cheap and available anywhere.

Positrons are natural and can form from energy or directly from matter, such as with beta decay. But since we live in a matter universe, these are not that useful to applied science except for new type of bombs or perhaps energy generation. For life and water protons and electrons are the best choice for cheap raw materials. Not everything is useful in specific application of applied science.

If we compare the proton to the electron, the proton is heavier and the positive charge is not a fully integrated part of the proton, since it can be isolated and shifted into other containment forms, such as into a positron; beta decay. The proton is a stable composite but it was not designed to be a single particle.

The electron is lighter and has more mobility than the proton. It cannot be broken down further. It is considered a single particle state with both mass and negative charge. It is like Joe the business owner and Joe the husband. It is one person with two roles, which may not always be easy to separate. He may boss around his wife or be too accommodating to salesmen. On other days, the line is more clear cut.

The electron will not be very useful for fusion reactions, since it is not a good building block for fusion, where quarks needs to move about and swap. It is better designed for working two jobs separately and combined, in community with other electrons. The proton, by not having its positive charge contained in a permanent way, is more flexible in terms of fusion, allowing the positive charge to be shared with the nuclear forces; weak and strong.

If we isolate a proton and an electron, both have a single charge, but their different natural containments styles impact the EM forces that each can and ill generate. The lighter electron is always in faster motion than the proton, except under high energy conditions; particle accelerators. At room temperature, the election generates a stronger magnetic component to the EM force of its negative charge, than proton does for its positive charge, by virtual of the higher average electron velocity. The charges may balanced, but the EM force is not balanced, at the conditions of life. This is the practical reality that I need to deal with, rather than try to force a square peg in a round hole.

In water, if we compare the oxygen nucleus with the hydrogen proton, the hydrogen protons of oxygen can share positive charge better, within the oxygen nucleus, compared to the isolated hydrogen proton. The nucleus protons of oxygen can share with the electrons via the EM force, but also with the neutrons and other protons within the nucleus. Nucleus sharing should increase the magnetic contribution of the positive charge, due to its enhanced mobility in its confined nuclear space, with the enhanced magnetic wave addition able to overcome some of the positive charge repulsion; Pauli exclusion principle. This will not match the electron, in terms of nucleus orbital arrangements, due to less EM force potential, but it will have an impact on how the electrons need to align. After helium, spherical orbitals alone do not optimize all the magnetic addition of higher atoms.

In the case of oxygen, the oxygen atom, as oxide, is able to hold two extra electrons compared to its nuclear protons. The enhanced magnetic fields of the electrons, compared to the protons and positive charge, need to lower EM potential by adding with each other, instead of with the protons, exclusively.

Hydrogen bonding will require these induced electrons share also with the lower positive charge magnetic component of hydrogen proton. This allows for a binary switch between the two states. Within the hydrogen bond, all the forces of nature are in balance, including the nuclear forces of the oxygen via its positive charge sharing.

In life, hydrogen protons are both reduced and oxidized. Reduced hydrogen such as with carbon contain more energy potential. These hydrogen are covalently bonded to carbon, but can share electron density via polar bonding; van der Waals, with other organics. The energy difference between these states is high, so this binary is not very useful expect for helping to trigger chemical reactions. The hydrogen proton, via hydrogen bonding has a better balance between polar and covalent bonding and can act as a switch. The difference has to due with the carbon and oxygen nucleus induction, with oxygen and hydrogen bonding more stable. Nitrogen is in the middle.

[Kryptid]

when isolated by experiments,

Quarks can't be isolated.

These are not theoretical

Nor are quarks.

but a persistent form of natural containment for positive and negative charge.

So are up and down quarks (when inside of protons)

Not everything is useful in specific application of applied science.

What does it matter whether it is "useful" or not? Reality doesn't care whether we find something useful.

[Bored chemist]

This is why I stick to protons and electrons that formed when gravity and GR was huge.

GR has only been huge for about a hundred years.

Positrons are natural and can form from energy or directly from matter, such as with beta decay. But since we live in a matter universe, these are not that useful to applied science except for new type of bombs or perhaps energy generation

You might not be clever enough to find an application for them.
Others have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography

. It is like Joe the business owner and Joe the husband. It is one person with two roles, which may not always be easy to separate.

It is more like Joe with the property of being 70Kg and Joe with the property of being 5' 6"

The mass and charge of an electron are properties, not roles.

The proton, by not having its positive charge contained in a permanent way,

The charge on a proton is fixed, not flexible.

If we isolate a proton and an electron, both have a single charge, but their different natural containments styles impact the EM forces that each can and ill generate. The lighter electron is always in faster motion than the proton, except under high energy conditions; particle accelerators. At room temperature, the election generates a stronger magnetic component to the EM force of its negative charge, than proton does for its positive charge, by virtual of the higher average electron velocity. The charges may balanced, but the EM force is not balanced, at the conditions of life. This is the practical reality that I need to deal with, rather than try to force a square peg in a round hole.

In water, if we compare the oxygen nucleus with the hydrogen proton, the hydrogen protons of oxygen can share positive charge better, within the oxygen nucleus, compared to the isolated hydrogen proton. The nucleus protons of oxygen can share with the electrons via the EM force, but also with the neutrons and other protons within the nucleus. Nucleus sharing should increase the magnetic contribution of the positive charge, due to its enhanced mobility in its confined nuclear space, with the enhanced magnetic wave addition able to overcome some of the positive charge repulsion; Pauli exclusion principle. This will not match the electron, in terms of nucleus orbital arrangements, due to less EM force potential, but it will have an impact on how the electrons need to align. After helium, spherical orbitals alone do not optimize all the magnetic addition of higher atoms.

In the case of oxygen, the oxygen atom, as oxide, is able to hold two extra electrons compared to its nuclear protons. The enhanced magnetic fields of the electrons, compared to the protons and positive charge, need to lower EM potential by adding with each other, instead of with the protons, exclusively.

Hydrogen bonding will require these induced electrons share also with the lower positive charge magnetic component of hydrogen proton. This allows for a binary switch between the two states. Within the hydrogen bond, all the forces of nature are in balance, including the nuclear forces of the oxygen via its positive charge sharing.

In life, hydrogen protons are both reduced and oxidized. Reduced hydrogen such as with carbon contain more energy potential. These hydrogen are covalently bonded to carbon, but can share electron density via polar bonding; van der Waals, with other organics. The energy difference between these states is high, so this binary is not very useful expect for helping to trigger chemical reactions. The hydrogen proton, via hydrogen bonding has a better balance between polar and covalent bonding and can act as a switch. The difference has to due with the carbon and oxygen nucleus induction, with oxygen and hydrogen bonding more stable. Nitrogen is in the middle.

Yadda yadda yadda- the usual meaningless word salad.

How did you think that the electron was considered to be two particles when absolutely nobody and nothing said that it was?

[Bored chemist]

In life, hydrogen protons are both reduced and oxidized.

Oxidation is the process of removing electrons.
How do you remove electros from a proton?
It hasn't got any.

You should stop posting tosh.

I was educated as an applied scientist.

Is that a way to admit that you never had any education in anything deeper?
That would certainly explain a lot.

[puppypower (OP)]

I would like to look at the water and oil affect, from the POV of the unification of mass and negative charge; electron. This water-oil affect is important to life, since water can force organics to interact via containment modules, held together by water and surface tension. This surface tension also has the secondary affect of adding free energy to the containment surface. Evolutionary change can occur much easier at the early stages of evolution.

If we mix water and oil and shake, we will form an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate into two layers. This is driven by water and hydrogen bonding. Surface contact between water and oil prevents water from forming optimized hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is a very strong secondary bonding force, stronger than the van der Waals forces that organic use for secondary bonding. Water leads the separation since it has more potential energy; surface tension, due to its hydrogen bonding.

Surface tension implies stretching; tensile strength, of bonds, thereby increasing the space requirement relative to pure water. Matter takes up space, while surface tension, causes the space requirement of the same matter, to increase. There is a mass connection.

If we ran this same water and oil experiment in zero gravity, after mixing surface tension will also appear, but the two liquids will not completely separate. Gravity lowers the space requirement to close the deal, while zero gravity allows for more space.

Part of the separation of water and oil is lowering surface tension and part is due to gravity lowering the space that can be occupied by the matter; electrons. In gravity, the water is denser and heavier than oil and it sinks allowing the water bubbles to combine. The oil floats as it separates and then combines. Gravity closes the deal in terms of minimizing electron space. This final space allotment has an impact on the final free energy within the electron's EM forces; different probability function.

If we look at a cell, the water and the organics do not all separate into two layers. Rather the water and organics remained under various levels of surface tension, all spread out at different levels; organelles. This reminds me of water and oil in zero gravity. The space allotment remains sort of high. The mass connection is being tweaked via the EM side of the electron unity and the mass potential helps with the enzymatic boost.

[Bored chemist]

I would like to look at the water and oil affect, from the POV of the unification of mass and negative charge

Mass and negative charge are not unified.
You are still talking nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

If we mix water and oil and shake, we will form an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate into two layers. This is driven by water and hydrogen bonding.

If you shake a hydrocarbon oil like cyclohexane with a perfluorocarbon oil, they will form an emulsion, and if you let that settle, the two layers will separate out.

But no hydrogen bonding will be present in either layer.

So, your "explanation" makes no sense.

[Just thinking]

I agree water is the most important and fundamental aspect of life and is a true miracle Puppy power tells it very well.

[Bored chemist]

Puppy power tells it very well.

No.
He talks a lot of nonsense and says plenty of things that are clearly not true.

[Just thinking]

Sometimes people sound confused only due to the dilemma discovery. We make a discovery then try to dismantle it then it takes time to study and reassemble and make meaning of what we have. most of the time we can find the truth embedded within the confusion.

[Bored chemist]

Sometimes people sound confused only due to the dilemma discovery. We make a discovery then try to dismantle it then it takes time to study and reassemble and make meaning of what we have. most of the time we can find the truth embedded within the confusion.

And sometimes people like PuppyPower just keep posting bull.

[The Spoon]

Sometimes people sound confused only due to the dilemma discovery. We make a discovery then try to dismantle it then it takes time to study and reassemble and make meaning of what we have. most of the time we can find the truth embedded within the confusion.

In short, you can dismiss what Poopy posts as utter nonsense.

[Just thinking]

I'm lost for words.

[Bored chemist]

I'm lost for words.

It's a pity PuppyPower is seldom in that position.
I don't know why he hasn't been banned as a troll.

[Origin]

It's a pity PuppyPower is seldom in that position.
I don't know why he hasn't been banned as a troll.

I agree, he posts complete nonsense and does not even respond to questions or comments.

[Just thinking]

Have you come across Hamdani yusuf yet.

[puppypower (OP)]

If we mix water and oil and shake, we will form an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate into two layers. This is driven by water and hydrogen bonding.

If you shake a hydrocarbon oil like cyclohexane with a perfluorocarbon oil, they will form an emulsion, and if you let that settle, the two layers will separate out.

But no hydrogen bonding will be present in either layer.

So, your "explanation" makes no sense.

Your problem is you have a chip on your shoulder, and did not even read what I said. Your first instinct is to criticize but never contribute.This topic is about water and life and the discussion you quoted; read the quote you chose, was about a water and oil emulsion. Due to your lingering grudge, you tripped out, and went in a different direction to criticize what was not even said. Your problem appears to be you cannot contribute to new theory discussions, nor have I ever seen you come up with any new theory of your own. Outside the box does not mean tripping out and critiquing what was not even written. Try to focus better.

In a water and oil emulsion, water self binds via the secondary bonding forces of hydrogen bonding. The oil can also self bind, through the secondary binding forces of van der Waals forces. Hydrogen bonding is the strongest of the two secondary bonding, and therefore contains more potential when it is disrupted by the emulsion. Hydrogen bonding will drive the reversal, with the van der Waals of the oil, taking advantage of the opportunistic situation that the water creates.

This drive by the water, via its hydrogen bonding, occurs  throughout life. If we take away the water the organics are dead and do nothing. If we add any other solvent, we still do not get life and few if anything will work as designed.

The question is why is water so different? Water can form up to four symmetrical hydrogen bonds per molecules of water; two donors and two receivers. This can extrapolates into extended tertiary polymers of hydrogen bonded water. These can form cooperative hydrogen bonding which adds even more stability. This secondary and extended tertiary hydrogen bonding structure gives water the strongest push of all solvents, in terms of creating opportunity for the organics.

Ammonia can also form four hydrogen bonds; one donor and three receivers. However, the 3 to 1 asymmetry limits its extended tertiary structures. Ammonia cannot take hydrogen bonding as far as water. Water, via hydrogen bonding, sort of does with its tertiary structures, what carbon does with its primary bonding; extended polymer structures. In the case of life, organics react to the push of the water's extended hydrogen bonding, allowing them to become active.

Ammonia can't quite close that deal via tertisty structures. It remains somewhere between a aqueous and organic solvents; seondsry and tertiary, with the organics too loose to function as designed. They need the water's extra tertiary squeeze and its 3-D caging, that adds surface free energy for catalysis.

Hydrogen bonds also act as a binary switch as shown by the pH affect. The hydrogen bonds of water can go from a polar attraction between two water molecules, all the way to the same hydrogen proton becoming part of a new covalent bond. This range allows the transfer of information through a hydrogen bonding binary switch, with each setting on the switch having different muscle and free energy. There will be volume changes for muscle, between polar and covalent, as well as free energy changes via enthalpy and entropy. While the 3-D tertiary matrix of water is wired into all the organics as an integrating push tool.

I have tried to add the unified nature of the electron, where negative charge and mass are unified. This is inferred from particle collider data that shows that the negative charge of the electron is not a separate particle from its mass. They are unified. The proton and positive charge are not unified quite as deep and can be separated in particle accelerators. This unique situation is part of the hydrogen bonding phenomena.

In our natural reality on earth, positive charge can be attached to the proton and the position. Positrons can form from matter through beta decay. At ambient conditions we can witness two states of positive charge. Negative charge only has one state at ambient conditions. We can form a negative proton, but this is not natural to the surface of the earth. Positive charge has more flexibility.

[Bored chemist]

Lots of silly words and yet, still...

your "explanation" makes no sense.