EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 2:40:46 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


I was a graduate student back then. It was a plausible - if somewhat flakey - hypothesis at the time, and the silica contamination explanation didn't take all that long to falsify it. Nobody got all that excited about it.

The fact that you could stable chemical compounds out of the noble gases happened at much the same time - XeF2 was first reported at the end of 1962 (the lat year of my undergraduate degree) and the professor of inorganic chemistry at Melbourne promptly tried to make KrF2. Somebody else got there first (in 1963).

That was real science.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:46:18 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 08:39:08 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:12:07 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?

Here's a wiki article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater

Sort of like cold fusion; same group dynamics.


Rather different science. The fact that "polywater" wasn't pure water meant that the results that had been obtained were comprehensible.

Cold fusion is sustained by the fact that occasional samples of hydrogen or deuterium loaded palladium produce more heat than they ought to.

The effect does seem to be real, but pretty much impossible to reproduce reliably.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/scientists-in-the-us-and-japan-get-serious-about-lowenergy-nuclear-reactions

The bafflegab about heavy entangled electrons and protons doesn't strike me as all that plausible, but the idea that individual palladium nuclei were ending up a neutron or so heavier makes sense, and you can invoke quantum mechanical tunneling to get there.

Palladium doesn't have right sort of nuclear excited states for Mossbauer spectroscopy, but adding a neutron or two to a palladium nucleus releases a lot of energy, in the first instances as nuclear oscillations, which will decay by emitting high energy X-rays.

Palladium has a lot of stable isotopes - Pd-102, Pd-104, Pd-105, Pd-106, Pd-108 and Pd-110 - and most of them (Pd-102's natural abundance is only 1.02%) will be handy in any sample of natural palladium so the X-rays emitted are likely to be at a wavelength that would be absorbed by an adjacent palladium nucleus, producing the sort of distortion of that nucleus that would make proton or deutron capture more likely, so you might see the occasional burst of excess heat generation that people seem to find, but without the neutron generation that "cold fusion" was supposed to produce (and never has).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:27:23 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:12:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating)..


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?

Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.


It wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater

It was a series of interesting results, being pushed by Boris Derjaguin (in Russia) who had an impressive reputation. The first publication was in 1961, but nobody in the west took much interest until Derjagin presented some of his work in person on a visit to the UK, which persuaded other people to work on it, and they started getting mixed results, which eventually gave them a handle on what was actually going on.

In 1973 Derjagin published a letter in Nature which accepted the original results came from contaminated - rather than pure - water.

> Read the book.

Why bother?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

whit3rd
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:45 am   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 5:21:10 PM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:27:23 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

No scientific groupthink explanation is indicated; that's just a JL hobbyhorse.

Why do you pick on JL? I see lotsa signs of science group think.


But, not in polywater. No group in agreement. Maybe Blondlot and his assistants, with N-rays, fits that model.

John Larkin
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:45 am   



On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:21:05 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:27:23 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

It was an odd effect, with water apparently solidifying. It turned out
(if memory serves; that was a long time ago) to be an unexpected gel that
formed with some contaminants.

The 'it's a polymer' idea generated the name 'polywater' and was quickly
discounted. That was a failed hypothesis, not a group delusion.
It wasn't major, just widely discussed (and had a catchy name).
Some of the research was Russian, and communication was slow; the whole
affair took two or three years to blow over.

Why would anyone call it major? Or delusion? Slanted language and
catchy names are media illusions, not scientific delusions.

No scientific groupthink explanation is indicated; that's just a JL hobbyhorse.
Why do you pick on JL? I see lotsa signs of science group think.
It goes hand in hand with human group think. And in some ways it
looks to be baked into our research funding system. To get a grant
you need to publish and get cited. You get cited by being part of
whatever is hot (no climate pun intended.) If you are interested in
some backwater of science... well good luck, unless you are funding your
self... or slip it in on the side.

Group think is a problem all scientists should talk about.
(IMHO) Do you read Sabine H. on Backreaction?


http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02/maybe-im-crazy.html

Sabine rocks.

She sings too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3m9B9UQfhE



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:45 pm   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 3:12:07 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 06/02/2019 03:02, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 8:31:51 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).

Water isn't an easy experimental subject, because there's a LOT happening.
A theory with a lot happening, ought not surprise anyone.

Expanding on crystallization is because as water the molecules fit together in an dense manner but on solidification they rearrange to a lattice with a fixed spacing. The slipperiness is because of this, applying pressure melts the ice forming a thin layer of water which is a lubricant.

That certainly seems to be part of the effect. But it does not apply to
gallium, which also expands on freezing - when it is solid, it is not
slippery under reasonable pressure. (It is, of course, slippery when
there is melted gallium on the surface.)

The "pressure causes melting" idea does not explain why ice is slippery
even with low pressure, nor does it fully explain ice skating. The
slipperiness of ice is a combination of several effects.


Perhaps I have forgotten my chemistry, but I thought water was not a good solvent for non-polar materials. Ever hear of mixing like oil and water?


It can dissolve and mix with many non-polar materials - sugar being a
rather important one for biology. Of course it does not dissolve all
non-polar materials - but it handles more than most polar liquids, and
can support an extraordinarily wide range and quantity of dissolved
substances.


Who told you that sucrose is not polar? It has eight OH groups which are very similar to the water molecule and create local dipoles which attract water molecules allowing individual sugar molecules to dissolve.

Sugar may not be ionic, but it is very much polar.


Rick C.

-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:45 pm   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
Quote:

"Polywater" was clearly nonsense from its first conception. But at the
time, in the 1960's, all sorts of drivel was treated as /possibly/ true
by the USA, because there were rumours that the Russians knew more than
the Americans, and could somehow make a secret weapon.

But you are right, it /was/ investigated scientifically for a while.


Nothing wrong with that. It is entirely reasonable for an area of research to develop around a new idea until it is proven wrong. The standard for acceptance of results (from what I recall) was a statistical analysis with a threshold of 95% likelihood your results did not happen by random chance. That's not a high bar. That means 1 in 20 reports may be wrong. If say, three reports all agreed or correlated by chance (1 in 8000 chance of this happening) there will be some significant interest. So there will be false starts in science quite often really. Time and repetition will out the false reports and keep science on the righteous path.


Rick C.

+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

John Larkin
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:49:47 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

Quote:
On 06/02/2019 17:27, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:12:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?


Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

"Polywater" was clearly nonsense from its first conception. But at the
time, in the 1960's, all sorts of drivel was treated as /possibly/ true
by the USA, because there were rumours that the Russians knew more than
the Americans, and could somehow make a secret weapon.

But you are right, it /was/ investigated scientifically for a while.


Read the book.


I am not going to buy and read a book just for that. (It may be an
interesting book - but I have hundreds that are higher up on my to-read
list.)


The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.

Lots of other "sciences" aren't subject to serious experiment, so can
propagate mass delusion among their experts. Such fields are subject
to wild swings, on the order of a generation, about 20 years.

[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

David Brown
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:45 pm   



On 07/02/2019 20:12, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 3:12:07 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 03:02, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 8:31:51 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).

Water isn't an easy experimental subject, because there's a LOT happening.
A theory with a lot happening, ought not surprise anyone.

Expanding on crystallization is because as water the molecules fit together in an dense manner but on solidification they rearrange to a lattice with a fixed spacing. The slipperiness is because of this, applying pressure melts the ice forming a thin layer of water which is a lubricant.

That certainly seems to be part of the effect. But it does not apply to
gallium, which also expands on freezing - when it is solid, it is not
slippery under reasonable pressure. (It is, of course, slippery when
there is melted gallium on the surface.)

The "pressure causes melting" idea does not explain why ice is slippery
even with low pressure, nor does it fully explain ice skating. The
slipperiness of ice is a combination of several effects.


Perhaps I have forgotten my chemistry, but I thought water was not a good solvent for non-polar materials. Ever hear of mixing like oil and water?


It can dissolve and mix with many non-polar materials - sugar being a
rather important one for biology. Of course it does not dissolve all
non-polar materials - but it handles more than most polar liquids, and
can support an extraordinarily wide range and quantity of dissolved
substances.

Who told you that sucrose is not polar? It has eight OH groups which are very similar to the water molecule and create local dipoles which attract water molecules allowing individual sugar molecules to dissolve.

Sugar may not be ionic, but it is very much polar.



It is a /long/ time since my school chemistry. Thank you for the
correction - I was mixing non-ionic and non-polar.

whit3rd
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 1:01:34 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Quote:
The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.


All science has self-correcting elements. Rarely is science 'corrected'
by anything other than scientific works... though some frauds have
been corrected forensically, that were billed as 'science'.

Quote:
[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.


String theory is a large class of math models, is more in need of
weeding than of correcting. And 'multi-universe' is a philosophical
model, more for the purpose of providing alternate frameworks for
understanding than for testability. There won't be any 'correction' possible
until we can connect either evidence, or other theories, to that puzzle piece.

The naiive ideas of 'correct' 'wrong' and such, are useful for true/false tests,
but rarely if ever show up in science. 'Interesting', 'fertile', 'calculable' are
the kinds of virtues one should ask for, and even the much-maligned string
theory has several such virtues. Einstein's cosomological constant, too,
has been considered, rejected, reconsidered, incorporated, estimated...
we're not sure if it's wrong or not, but it can't be avoided.


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:31:39 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 07/02/2019 20:12, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 3:12:07 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 03:02, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 8:31:51 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating)..

Water isn't an easy experimental subject, because there's a LOT happening.
A theory with a lot happening, ought not surprise anyone.

Expanding on crystallization is because as water the molecules fit together in an dense manner but on solidification they rearrange to a lattice with a fixed spacing. The slipperiness is because of this, applying pressure melts the ice forming a thin layer of water which is a lubricant.

That certainly seems to be part of the effect. But it does not apply to
gallium, which also expands on freezing - when it is solid, it is not
slippery under reasonable pressure. (It is, of course, slippery when
there is melted gallium on the surface.)

The "pressure causes melting" idea does not explain why ice is slippery
even with low pressure, nor does it fully explain ice skating. The
slipperiness of ice is a combination of several effects.


Perhaps I have forgotten my chemistry, but I thought water was not a good solvent for non-polar materials. Ever hear of mixing like oil and water?


It can dissolve and mix with many non-polar materials - sugar being a
rather important one for biology. Of course it does not dissolve all
non-polar materials - but it handles more than most polar liquids, and
can support an extraordinarily wide range and quantity of dissolved
substances.

Who told you that sucrose is not polar? It has eight OH groups which are very similar to the water molecule and create local dipoles which attract water molecules allowing individual sugar molecules to dissolve.

Sugar may not be ionic, but it is very much polar.



It is a /long/ time since my school chemistry. Thank you for the
correction - I was mixing non-ionic and non-polar.


Just as a foot note, it is the combination of a long chain hydrocarbon with a very polar acid group that makes soaps to dissolve non-polar molecules in water. The hydrocarbon part attracts other hydrocarbon molecules (hydro-phobic) and the polar end (hydro-philic) attaches to the water molecules.

These same soap molecules will stick to themselves at the hydro-phobic end with the hydro-philic end outward to form a double layer of molecules in a sheet. (An illustration here would be worth it's weight in golden understanding) This sheet can wrap around to form soap bubbles with a water on the inside and outside. When the water evaporates enough the layer will separate and the bubble pops.


Rick C.

++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:45 am   



On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:18:03 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 1:01:34 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.

All science has self-correcting elements. Rarely is science 'corrected'
by anything other than scientific works... though some frauds have
been corrected forensically, that were billed as 'science'.

[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.

String theory is a large class of math models, is more in need of
weeding than of correcting. And 'multi-universe' is a philosophical
model, more for the purpose of providing alternate frameworks for
understanding than for testability. There won't be any 'correction' possible
until we can connect either evidence, or other theories, to that puzzle piece.

The naiive ideas of 'correct' 'wrong' and such, are useful for true/false tests,
but rarely if ever show up in science.


Well, some sciences use experiments.

Who was it that complained about experiments ruining beautiful
theories?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 12:16:20 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:18:03 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 1:01:34 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.

All science has self-correcting elements. Rarely is science 'corrected'
by anything other than scientific works... though some frauds have
been corrected forensically, that were billed as 'science'.

[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.

String theory is a large class of math models, is more in need of
weeding than of correcting. And 'multi-universe' is a philosophical
model, more for the purpose of providing alternate frameworks for
understanding than for testability. There won't be any 'correction' possible
until we can connect either evidence, or other theories, to that puzzle piece.

The naive ideas of 'correct' 'wrong' and such, are useful for true/false tests, but rarely if ever show up in science.

Well, some sciences use experiments.


Some science is susceptible to experiment, and experiments are a great way of collecting the evidence you think you need. Sometimes intellectual error can manifest itself in the experiments that don't get run.

Quote:
Who was it that complained about experiments ruining beautiful
theories?


https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_huxley_101763

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Huxley was a comparative anatomist, which is to say an observational rather than an experimental scientist, so his idea of a fact would be one that somebody had dug up, or got revealed when he chopped up an unfamiliar animal.

No experiment involved.

The Natural History Museum in New York has a cute display which contrasts what Huxley thought about the evolution of the horse - based on the evidence available back then, which they've got on display - with the current point of view based on the evidence which has been dug up since then (of which they display a representative sample mixed in with what Huxley knew about).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 8:01:34 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:49:47 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 17:27, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:12:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?


Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

"Polywater" was clearly nonsense from its first conception. But at the
time, in the 1960's, all sorts of drivel was treated as /possibly/ true
by the USA, because there were rumours that the Russians knew more than
the Americans, and could somehow make a secret weapon.

But you are right, it /was/ investigated scientifically for a while.


Read the book.


I am not going to buy and read a book just for that. (It may be an
interesting book - but I have hundreds that are higher up on my to-read
list.)


The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.

Lots of other "sciences" aren't subject to serious experiment, so can
propagate mass delusion among their experts. Such fields are subject
to wild swings, on the order of a generation, about 20 years.


John Larkin has a blind spot when it comes to observational sciences. Geology is necessarily observational, and the nearest I can think of to a "wild swing" in geology was the slow acceptance of continental drift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

Wegner articulated the idea in 1912, but it took a lot of observations - many of them impossible when Wegner first published - to accumulate enough evidence to make the case persuasive. The magnetic stripes that run parallel to the oceanic ridges seem to have been the critical evidence, and those observations seem to date from about 1947, but it still took about twenty more years before the idea was accepted orthodoxy.

Quote:
[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.


John Larkin is to be congratulated for appreciating that his ideas are fatuously superficial in at least one area. One could hope that he'd progress to learning enough to realise that his ideas are fatuously superficial in many more areas, but I'm not optimistic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

whit3rd
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:16:20 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Quote:
Who was it that complained about experiments ruining beautiful
theories?


Complaint?

....slaying of a beautlful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

Read between the lines: that's a boast.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map