[mad aetherist (OP)]

Gerald Pollack – Weather and EZ water – July 29 2018 -- 1:01:03..
Wonderful stuff by Pollack.  I will mention a few items............

X-sections of vapour coming off a cup of coffee. Mosaic structure of surface of coffee.
Structure of bubbles & droplets.  Protons push out & give spherical shape.
Tubicals extend down into coffee.  Tubicals rise & emerge to give vapour.
Humid air scatters light, especially in summer.
Clouds have charge.  Clouds held aloft by charge.
Clouds attracted to Earth by inducted charge.  Rain falls due to downwards attraction.
Charge increases atmospheric pressure.
Rubbed balloon attracts a stream of falling water.
Wind is due to charge gradient with altitude.
Wind east to west is due to daily movement of Sun affecting amount of charge.
Tradewinds go east to west, jetstreams go west to east.
Raindrops fall ten times as fast as expected.
Charge affects development of tornadoes.
Induction helps to lift refrigerators.
No weather forecast ever mentions charge.

[chiralSPO]

Ok, now I have watched some of the videos and done some more research.

A few takeaways:
There are lots of people trying to sell H₃O₂ or H₃O₂ generators, making claims about its healing and cleansing properties. This is snake oil, either being peddled by scammers or those who have been scammed.

Dr. Pollack appears to be genuinely interested in finding the truth, rather than trying to scam people. He is observing and measuring many real phenomena, but I question his interpretation. He is making very extraordinary claims, with little evidence to back them up. Additionally, he appears to have made some obviously wrong claims: for instance, his explanations of clouds, steam, mist, etc. are easily debunked (we can observe the exact same phenomena with substances other than water, like acetone and dichloromethane, neither of which are capable of dissociating into protons, or hydrogen bonding with itself).

I would recommend that people be very critical about his proposals.

[chiralSPO]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

Interesting, & i will work my way throo that over the next week.  But a quick look doesnt impress me at all, lots of bad arguments (against EZ water) obvious even to me a non-scientist. There is no argument against the pH dye findings of a uniform negative throo the EZ due to its chemistry & a gradated positive floating around in the nearby H2O bulk water with strongest color adjacent due to Faraday induction.

But the standard science mafia's continual failure to find a big multi-micro-meter layer (they keep finding only a thin multi-nano-meter layer) is a worry. It might be because the mafia keep referring to hydrophobic interfaces whereaz Pollack says EZ needs hydrophilic.

Funny, try reading some of that attempted debunking but swap the word vanderWaals with the word EZ water & vice versa.

Have u links to acetone etc giving same (vapor i think) effects? Where acetone forms droplets in air (especially a vizible fog).  I couldnt find any.

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

Here is Dr Robitaille's video, & the footage where he explains some of the hex stuff. 

16:21. 

In addition to the text written on the pix in the video, Dr R says......
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.......

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

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.......

This is exactly what I was talking about. He has an unstable molecular system drawn in his video.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

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.

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.......

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

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).

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.

None of that has anything to do with the pi system or the claimed sp² hybridization of the oxygen atoms...

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

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).

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).

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.

None of that has anything to do with the pi system or the claimed sp² hybridization of the oxygen atoms...

[Kryptid]

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.

I wouldn't say that I necessarily accept all of that, but I don't straight-out reject it either.

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).

Right.

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

I'm uncertain about it.

(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).

Correct. It goes against what we know of chemistry.

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

If his EZ water requires the structure he proposed, then that would be my argument against it.

(ii) u dont agree with Robitaille's microwave etc claims re water, & hencely

What microwave claims about water?

(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).

His claim that the microwave background is caused by the oceans is ridiculous. The temperature variations in the oceans are constantly shifting. If the CMBR was caused by that, then CMBR maps would reflect those constant fluctuations in temperature. They don't.

[evan_au]

a step by step explanation of how water goes black in the optical under pressure

Since this is different behavior than normal Water, it suggests that, under pressure, liquid water turns into yet another phase (which is not EZ water).

thems 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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

a step by step explanation of how water goes black in the optical under pressure

Since this is different behavior than normal Water, it suggests that, under pressure, liquid water turns into yet another phase (which is not EZ water).

Yes, i see that at 17:50 of his video Dr Robitaille says that if EZ in the surface of water is compressed then electrons might delocalized & band lengths are shortened, delocalized electrons i think giving blackness. That change might deserve to be called a different phase, even if it exists for short periods, & even if only near underwater atomic explosions, but at least it can be observed on Earth by Earthlings using their eyes (unlike the umpteen supposed phases of ice that cant ever be observed even if u exploded an atomic bomb at one of Earth's poles).

thems 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?

No the black phase has been easily observed on Earth many times, & has been called "the oil slick".  It is described in THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS written in 1977 which is where Dr R got the idea.  At 20:55 the video shows this black phase in footage of the underwater blast at the Bikini Atoll in 1946.  But i suppose that some of us might not call an atomic blast natural.  But Pollack doesnt mention this stuff, it is Dr Robitaille.

[Bored chemist]

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,

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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,

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. Thusly conservation. 
But anyhow here is a link to what is in effect the content of one of Pollack's videos.
Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life
Gerald H. Pollack,* Xavier Figueroa, and Qing Zhao
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680624/

I am now looking thinking re how EZ water helps make lightning.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

The original reference to Pollack's stuff.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/08/17/gerald-pollack-the-fourth-phase-of-water/

Some links to some of Pollack's stuff.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf
https://www.pollacklab.org/research
https://ecee.colorado.edu/~ecen5555/SourceMaterial/Pollack13.pdf


Miles Mathis mentions Pollack. http://milesmathis.com/poll.pdf
Pollack then tells us why water theory is so moribund: two major discoveries that the mainstream didn't
like were forcibly suppressed in recent decades, leading everyone but the berzerkers to bail. First,
polywater was discovered by Nikolai Fedyakin in the late 1960's. Polywater was just water forced
through narrow capillary tubes, as in a plant. It showed some structured characteristics, including
increased viscosity. Since mainstream science didn't like the idea of polywater (they later said, “it
should have been dismissed on theoretical grounds alone”), great pressure was applied to force the
researchers to admit that there were impurities in the water and that these impurities explained the new
qualities. This wasn't true, because the amount of impurities said to be in the water couldn't explain the
qualities of the water using mainstream theory. Small amounts of impurities don't cause water to gain
that much viscosity. We will see more proof of this in a moment with Pollack's experiments in the EZ.
But for now, I beg you to notice that polywater confirms my charge channeling as well as my theory of
transport in plants. This is the real reason the mainstream was so irrationally militant against the idea
of polywater. Polywater immediately provided an easy alternative explanation to the pressure-flow
theory that had been ascendant since 1926. It also threatened to undermine all mainstream theory of
cell transport in animals as well as plants. Beyond that, many probably saw it as a threat to electron
orbital theory—which it was. Since this fiasco was in the late 1960's and early 70's, it also threatened
the rising theory of the strong force, and through it all of QCD. For this reason, all of mainstream
physics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, including
intimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.
http://milesmathis.com/poll2.pdf

[Bored chemist]

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.

I 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?

[Kryptid]

For this reason, all of mainstream
physics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, including
intimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.

Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!

[Bored chemist]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physics_suppression.png

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass. But anyhow most of his stuff is re EZ next to all kinds of materials.

I 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?

I didnt realize that things that had charge were different things.  So there is no such thing as cloud to cloud lighting, it is actually not-cloud to not-cloud (the not-clouds being made of not-water)(ie water with charge), & then after the lightning they become clouds again.

So there are five phases of water -- gas (H2O in eg air) -- vapour (EZ water in eg air) -- liquid (bulk H2O water) -- EZ water (found only in thin layers at interfaces) -- solid water (ice).
And five phases of not-water -- all of the above but with charge.  Or ten if u differentiate negative & positive.

But i dont believe its not-water.
If u take away an electron or two from water then surely it is water anyhow.
If u add a proton or two then praps there is a real change to real chemistry, & praps in some cases the water becomes not-water.
I guess it depends on how many properties one wants to look into, & within any one property how finely u divide that into divisions or classes or sub-phases or something.

How about the neutrons. 
We & Pollack havent mentioned heavy water.  Isnt that a phase?  U can separate HW from bulk water. What would a cloud of heavy water look like?  How low would it be compared to light water?  And if HW is a phase then it would deserve its own five sub-phases.

And then light water would be a phase -- & it too would deserve its own five sub-phases. 
Or praps LW doesnt form EZ water (ie EZLW). Likewize HW (ie EZHW).