Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/19/2007 8:22:40 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		OK, I know there are ionic bonds and covalent bonds, I know there are isotopes. I don't know it all (surprise) and I am not quite grasping what these people are saying, of course it might be all BS.

http://www.johnellis.com/

In the beginning I can smell the post hoc ergo propter hoc. The way they put things simply does not convince me. In no way am I going to believe all of their claims, but then as I have said before, that doesn't mean it is all BS.

For example "Years ago the hydrogen bond angle was X and now it is X, and cancer is " rampant or something. They claim adding as little as 2% of this water to a body of water can somehow purify it. I find that hard to believe, if not impossible. But there are more things on heaven and Earth .........

The closest I can glean from their info at the moment is that they use extremely high intensity light. They mention killing aspergillus niger. They speak of disease markers in the water.

Their site, and their ads in AFP seem to be written to be convincing, but I see unrelated facts. I see conclusions drawn from facts that do not prove their association with these claims. I have an open mind though, so is all water not created equal ? Is there a difference in the "hydrogen bond angle" of which they speak ?

Now even with my studies, I will keep an open mind. I still maintain that most disease is caused by improper diet. I also maintain that this ideal diet is not the same for people of different lineages. Because science is so fucked up now, these things are not being explored, it's all about money.

But in a way, I also do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Who knows that there haven't been some subtle changes in our precious H2O ? And who can say that these changes do not affect people's ability to proerly absorb and process the nutrients in the food they eat ?

So, although they have not convinced me, I do not dismiss what they say about the water. It may be out of the mouths of babes, those who understand chemistry to a great degree but do not understand the cause of most disease. Perhaps they have something here, perhaps their water will make you healthier, I cannot say either way.

So first, on my logical path to VALID answers, I need to know more about this hydrogen bond angle idea. If I remember right, what makes hydrogen hydrogen and oxygen oxygen are the specific number of protons, electrons and neutrons in the atoms. Although hydrogen has no neutrons. Whatever the case when they combine to form water, isn't the molecular structure predetermined by these properties ?

Now, I don't dismiss this unless I can dismiss carbon dating. They speak of the electrons in the water. Well it should be clear how many electrons are there, unless it is ionized.

I have heard from another source however, that drinking distilled water is not the optimum thing, because of some of the ionic properties, this is second hand from a professor at Case university. I could fix it so I can meet this guy, but it would be a big PITA.

I want y'all to understand now, I am not after proving or disproving the claims about health benefits from their wonderwater. And I don't think people know what causes things because they have letters after their name. If they have letters, their mind is cluttered with how many ccs of what to give a guy that is 184.5 lbs and how to do surgery. Things like that.

Logically you adress the base question first. Is there anything to this hydrogen bond angle theory ?

If there is, could it have an effect on our ability to absorb and properly process nutrients we consume in our food ? (I think this is a yes, if the previous statement was a yes)

Just like Wallach, I believe him almost completely, but I don't agree with some things. Flooding the body with minerals it missed out on can't fix it once the damage is done.

Actually Wallach made alot more sense. But just because Ellis doesn't doesn't mean he is dead wrong.

So is there really a difference in the water ? Has anyone checked out water from the poles, which was frozen a long time ago.

They claim their machine increases the hydrogen bond angle to 114 degrees, and "it stays that way". Does that mean other water is less stable ?

No conclusions can really be drawn until we know if this is brains or bunk. And nobody can just up and say it is bunk. Many discoveries happen with the incorrect conclusions drawn.

To put it another way, the letters after the name do not infer ny cognitive ability, just knowledge. Drawing the correct conclusion is an art, a very rare talent these days.

To do so we need to know if this hydrogen bond angle thing is a bunch of crap, or advanced, but not stated correctly, with incorrect conclusions.

Any insight on this ?

T
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/19/2007 8:32:21 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		quackwatch.org is your friend.

http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/ellis.shtml

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/19/2007 8:40:13 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline 		The angle of the particular atoms in a molecular bond of a chemical like water (h2o) is determined by the quantum mechanics of atomic particles.

Somebody who suggests that they can change physics makes me want to call the guys with the nice jacket that has arms that tie in teh back.

I drink a lot of water.  I put things in it (like Emergen-C) to add electrolytes and trace minerals that my cells need to perform proper metabolism.  Distilled water does not have these things in it.  Since your body needs them, drinking only distilled water may or may not cause your health to suffer.

Of course, most of these can be found in a varied diet.

However, I have not taken chemistry in years.  I would recommend you research for yourself how to modify the atomic bonds between two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen and see if anybody has come up with an approach that survived peer review.

If that is too much trouble, ask the john ellis people to provide you with peer reviewed comments in a credible science journal.  I imagine the response you will get back is something on the order of "Scientists are bad and ignorant and cannot be trusted, unlike us."

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/19/2007 9:58:21 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		No, they appear to be quoting MDs and such, but like I said, those letters mean nothing to me. Well, not all that much.

Let's put it this way, old carbon is different than new carbon, otherwise carbon dating is impossible. Actually I don't put much faith in carbon dating, but that is not the point.

If water is actually H2O, something we really don't have any way of knowing, how can the guy on devicewatch be sure ? He can't.

I agree with most of it, the claims are false. But not proven wrong or warrantless. Like I said, the water, not the claims.

In that venue, let's hit a bit of physics. Hydrogen has one proton and one neutron. Two oxygen molecules combine with it to form water. Like I said, forget all the health claims right now. We are talking water.

Now undoubtedly, the oxygen molecules are at a certain angle. This angle is determined by the properties of the atoms. If one were to form water using negatively charged oxygen atoms, that is those with extra electrons, what would happen ?

We still have the case of a professor at Case saying that distilled water is no good. This is someone in the regular scientific community. This is someone with nothing for sale. This is someone simply talking to a worker in the building, someone he gets along with and is friendly with.

If we can't say unequivocably that all water is the same, then we cannot effectively debunk this. The medical claims I dismissed right away, they have no evidence. But is the water actually slighly different ?

There is another case back in the 70s where some water vapor got trapped in some cappilary type tubing, very small. This is very obscure, and did not hit the media at all. In these tubes condensed a form of water. They confirmed that it was H2O, but had formed a complex molecule. The properties, however, were different. The boiling and freezing temperatures were different, yet they said it is indeed H2O, probably by spectral analysis. That's about all they had back in the 70s.

A number of debunkers held their theories that it was something leaching out of the glass, all this shit, but in the end the debunkers were debunked. I'll try to find the article. I was a teenager when I read it, so bear with me. Info this old is not likely to be on the net, I might have to scan it and upload it.

The theory is that because the water condensed in such a small space there were many collisions, forming new bonds that hadn't been seen before. There was speculation abound, that it was some sort of contaminant, and that was investigated, but it still turned up to be H2O.

I will not buy into any of these claims, I want to solve this water issue. Is water water and that is it ? Or is there more ?

One thing that bebunks the theory is that the water in the oceans is largely millenia old. Many people on the muni water supply get water from lakes etc, and from wells, who knows how old the water is ?

But what of the ocean ? Many countries run sea water through reverse osmosis to get potable drinking water. That water is old, so is it better ? AND last but not least, is there a way to know, to prove or disprove ?

Now think about this. "Years ago the hydrogen bond angle was.....". Now just how would they know that ? They would have to have a sample of old water and an electron microscope or something. Some way to measure it indirectly even. Did they find that old water has a measurable characteristic than "new" water ?

I think I might call their number. I want to ask them exactly that question. If they go round in circles like the religious fanatics who need to be killed I will know. "How do you know the hydrogen bond angle was wider in the past ?". Now if they say "We took samples from Antarctica and found some differences" I would be very interested in listening, but if they make a U-turn back to their bullshit and say "Just look at the cancer rates" they are done. Stick a fork in them.

What's worse I think they are a Christian organisation, which means even if they are dead wrong I don't know if they are lying. And they take great stock in the fact that they have this "Crystal Mountain" research center. Fuck that. I don't care if you find cures in heaven or my basement.

Yes, I agree they do pander to the sickly. And every week for the last few years their ad makes it sound like this is a brand new discovery.

All this is damning, but the theory. The fact that possibly something about the atoms, or the way they are combined is different. That is what I am after. Is it possible ?

T

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/19/2007 10:24:32 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline 		Don't bother. To the extent that there is any variation, which I'm not claiming there is, you're designed to live off the same composition you find in nature. It's more likely to do harm than good, and the money could be better spent on something else, like a genetics test to find out if you have any conditions you should know about to avoid them.

I'm a transhumanist with an obsession about pharmacology, and my slave is a naturopath, so I'm open to a lot. But when they start whipping out the "scientific" explanations that somehow haven't resulted in patents or widespread marketing from other companies, it's time to close your mind again. The sensible alternative stuff doesn't sprout from science, and pretty much vice-versa. These people are out for a quick buck.

Read up on Life Extension or something instead. They'll give you snakeoil that might have something sensible to it instead.

Or, stick with the serious L.E. places, and they'll point you in the direction of the research that details what does what.

For instance, low doses of l-deprenyl, increasing with age, apparently tends to prevent Parkinsons and Alzheimers.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/19/2007 10:38:15 PM   
SDFemDom4cuck


Posts: 2809
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: P'burgh PA
Status: offline
quote:

However, I have not taken chemistry in years.  I would recommend you research for yourself how to modify the atomic bonds between two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen and see if anybody has come up with an approach that survived peer review.


I hope I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by modifying the atomic bonds of water but I'll give this a shot.

One can do so by focusing a photoelectric energy through/into it. The incoming photon interacts with an inner orbital electron, this electron leaves the orbit and it is then refilled (or snatched)  from another of the outer orbits to take its place and rebalance back to its natural (stable) 2 electrons. Also through the "Compton effect" Where the incoming photon interacts with an outer K shell electron and knocks it out of the orbit. Thus ionizing the atom.

These are the basic principles of radiation and more physics based than chemistry I think. The problem with modifying the atomic bonds of H2O is that you can easily cause a chemical reaction that then produces H2O2 or hydrogen peroxide destabilizing the cell and leading to cell necrosis...the basis of what occurs in radiation poisoning. Of course on a lesser degree it can also be seen as having a carcinomic affect as well in future.

As far as stabilizing the bond angle...It's hard to tell. There's a question as to whether it's even relevant. Is there a peer review journal that this has been published in? Is there further research toward the same regard or that has been done to back it up?


_____________________________

Ms Jo

She dealt her pretty words like Blades -
How glittering they shone -
And every One unbared a Nerve
Or wantoned with a Bone -

I want a sensitive man - one who'll cry when I hit him.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/19/2007 11:37:27 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		I have been thinking about just that Ms Jo. Now they claim to have patents in 50 countries, but what does that mean ?

They claim to have MDs swear by their water.

They claim that people have raved about it, it has singlehandedly purified cisterns and wells.

But what does that mean ?

And someone mentioned, even if their water is different, is it really better ? (kinda).

So let me boil this down. You shoot alot of photons through it and that disrupts, or modifies the pattern of the electrons' orbits in the oxygen atom. Even with the same overall ionic charge, it can act differently in a molecule, because when that happens of course the attraction/repulsion gradient will be affected.

So this is actually a possible theory. The high intesity light acts somewhat like a laser, but the water is not lasable. But that does not mean it is not changed. Lasers specifically aim to excite electrons to higher orbits. It is when this collapses that light amplification happens.

Hmmmm.

So, while ignoring all of the medical aspects of this, it seems that all water might not be created equal. At this juncture we have no medical evidence, but we have quite a few extant facts indicating that there is not just one way to put H2O together.

Going to get my grain of salt now. There is a possibility that water was different, there is a possiblility that it affects our health. There is a possibility of alot of other things.

I need to think on this a bit. Later. Thanks for getting into it.

T

(in reply to SDFemDom4cuck)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 12:29:44 AM   
shallowdeep


Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		In short, it's BS.

Differences in atoms:

First, to answer your question about whether or not atoms can be fundamentally different: the answer is yes. Carbon dating, as you noted, relies on this fact. The same type of atom (i.e. an element) may have different numbers of neutrons in individual atoms. These configurations are called isotopes. For instance carbon usually has 6 neutrons, but may also have 7 or, very rarely, 8. The configuration with 8 neutrons, carbon-14, is radioactive. This means that eventually the neutron decays away and the atom becomes one of the other, stable isotopes. To do radiocarbon dating, an assumption is made that that the relative quantities of various carbon isotopes in the world have been relatively constant in the past. Then, based on the relative quantities of the carbon isotopes found in formerly living matter, a very good estimate of when that carbon was added to the living thing (and hence when it was alive) can be calculated using known rates of decay for radioactive isotopes.

However, this has nothing to due with chemical bonds which are dependent solely on the number of electrons and protons present. Neutrons, which have no electrical charge, have no impact on chemical bonds which are electromagnetic in nature.

Molecular bonds and bond angles:

Molecular geometries are ultimately due to the quantum mechanics, but if you can accept that there are certain known stable (for quantum mechanical reasons) configurations of electrons, then VESPER theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR ) can be used to explain bond angles using more intuitive electromagnetic forces. I'm not going to explain it fully and will assume some familiarity with chemistry, but feel free to read the Wikipedia entry to learn a bit more (it seemed ok, given a quick glance) or look it up in an introductory chemistry textbook.

The number of protons is what determines an element. Electrons are usually relatively mobile and are going to try match the number of protons in an atom. Otherwise, there will be either a positive or negative charge on the element that will repel or attract additional electrons until the atom is neutral again.

The central atom in water is oxygen which needs eight valence electrons to be stable. A neutral oxygen molecule only has six, so it 'wants' two more to obtain a stable configuration. Similarly, neutral hydrogen atoms are stable with two valence electrons but only have one, so they 'want' one more electron. The result is that two hydrogen atoms will covalently bond with one oxygen atom to share electrons so that all three atoms have stable valence shells. You can think of it as the electron splitting its time between two locations so that both 'think' they have a extra electron. This forms a water molecule.

You wondered what effect adding electrons might have. The answer is that you would no longer have water. The only reason the oxygen and hydrogen bonded was so they could share electrons. If the hydrogen can get an electron somewhere else that makes it more stable than sharing with the oxygen, it will leave and you won't have water anymore.

So, the oxygen atom in a water molecule has eight electrons which, again for quantum mechanical reasons, group into four pairs. Two of these pairs are shared with the hydrogen atoms (one each). The other two pairs are unshared. Each pair of electrons, whether paired or not, can be thought of as a line (really more of an egg shaped volume where the electrons have a high probability of being) sticking out from the central oxygen molecule. The pairs are made up of negatively charged electrons. The same charges tend to repel each other, so you have four pairs that want to get as far away from each other as possible (while still being near the oppositely charged, positive nucleus to which they are attracted). If you play around with the 3D geometry of this, you'll find that a tetrahedron with the lines separated by 109 degrees gets the most separation possible. It turns out that in water the two shared pairs take up a little less space than the unshared pairs, so the shared pairs (and the hydrogen atoms they bond) get pushed a bit closer together, to about 104.5 degrees, while the larger unshared pairs get a bit more spacing. This tetrahedron is the ONLY stable configuration possible for water (Some more complex molecules do have multiple, stable configurations called 'isomers' but water does not). This angle is somewhat subject to variation with temperature but at anything near room temperature it's going to be very close to 104.5 degrees. Any bond angle that varies from this will be pushed back into shape by the repulsion between electron pairs. The charge of an electron is understood to be a fundamental, fixed quantity. As a result, the strength of the repulsive forces are also fixed and the average bond angle will be as well.

Health effects:

So, although it's not possible, would changing the bond angle even have any effect? Probably not, especially for the 10 degrees or so claimed. The bond angle doesn't particularly affect the chemical properties of the compound. In some cases, with complex molecules, a particular isomer may be able to form hydrogen bonds with another complex molecule while another isomer of the same molecule can't because they don't fit together in the same way. A number of biological receptors are actually sensitive to such differences in stereoisomers. However water is of such a simple, small shape that ten degrees difference couldn't really prevent it from forming hydrogen bonds with anything it would have otherwise.

As to the reason extensive intake of distilled water is sometimes discouraged, it really has nothing to do with the actual water (H2O). Rather, it centers on the concentrations of minerals dissolved in the water. Specifically, distilled water has none. As a result, diffusion causes some of the minerals in your blood to be dissolved in the water instead. The same thing happens with most relatively pure water, but to a somewhat lesser degree. If you drank a bunch of water and weren't replenishing the minerals, there could be health effects due to mineral deficiencies. As an extreme example: if someone drinks a very excessive amount of water, the loss of electrolytes from the blood will result in water intoxication, which can be fatal. However, providing you get enough salt and other minerals from sources other than water there is no reason not to drink distilled water.

[edited for grammar and brain slip with carbon isotopes]

< Message edited by shallowdeep -- 4/20/2007 12:34:01 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 2:07:27 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		I haven't visited that website, but from what you tell I can say that it is nonsense.
 
Shallowdeep has provided a cogent explanation. No more need be said.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 3:54:28 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Nitpicka that I am I believe that the explantion of dating by the Carbon-14 method is not quite accurate. lol

quote:


.........decays away and the atom becomes one of the other, stable isotopes. To do radiocarbon dating, an assumption is made that  the relative quantities of various carbon isotopes in the world have been relatively constant in the past.


I believe
The Carbon-14 degrades to Nitrogen
When the object "dies" Carbon-14 is no longer ingested by the object and therefore the decay which is taking place all the time starts to cause that quantity present in the object to diminish.
Accurate dating then requres an assumption about the total quantity present at the point of death.

"In the world" should say "in the object being dated"

yours truly
Prof. A K Demik  PhD Univ of Calcutta (failed)


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 4:28:36 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		C14 is calibrated by measuring the ratio in objects of known age, like tree rings. But you are quite right. I know of one very serious error in C14 calibration - but I am not telling what.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 6:15:47 AM   
windchymes


Posts: 9410
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline 		I have some chemistry background (not much, a little) and I'm not going to try to give some explanation why or why not this might or might not be true.

However, I will say that if these men stand to make a lot of money by people jumping on their bandwagon, then I'd bet they're full of BS.  People have been selling snake oil for centuries and getting rich off those of us who stand in eternal hope of finding magic cures for what ails us.

As far as having letters after their names....trust me, that does NOT guarantee that they are wise.  It is possible to spend four years in medical school and still not know their butts from cottage cheese.  Hell, look at the "MD's" on television doing commercials for Hydroxy-cut and other fast weight-loss pills, when everyone knows the only real way to lose weight is slowly with diet and exercise. 

< Message edited by windchymes -- 4/20/2007 6:16:29 AM >

_____________________________

You know it's going to be a GOOD blow job when she puts a Breathe Right strip on first.

Pick-up artists and garbage men should trade names.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 6:20:31 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		Reading this through tells me why I dropped chemistry at 14 and only did physics 'cause the teaching staff forced me to.

However, it seems to me that such a miraculous discovery would be world news - and we'd have heard it second in the UK (maybe third after Canada). This is the first I've heard of it - which as an enthusiastic watcher of TV documentaries, news broadcasts and reader of strange websites, tells me that it cant be all that great, and maybe is a load of rubbish that wouldnt stand any form of review - because if it did stand up, and were true and I'd discovered it, everyone would know!

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 11:15:05 AM   
shallowdeep


Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

I believe
The Carbon-14 degrades to Nitrogen

Absolutely right, thanks for catching that... I appreciate nitpicks. In carbon-14 the extra neutron eventually decays into a proton, forming nitrogen-14. It was late and I was simply trying to make the case that isotopes exist (using the carbon dating example that the OP brought up) but aren't relevant to understanding molecular bonds (apparently without thinking... I also initially wrote that carbon-14 had 14 neutrons and used "due" instead of "do").

quote:


When the object "dies" Carbon-14 is no longer ingested by the object and therefore the decay which is taking place all the time starts to cause that quantity present in the object to diminish.

Yep.

quote:


Accurate dating then requres an assumption about the total quantity present at the point of death.

"In the world" should say "in the object being dated"

Ultimately yes, but the quantity present at the time of death is directly dependent on the relative abundance of the carbon isotopes in the environment (or "world") while the organism was living. By "in the world" what I really meant was "in the atmospheric CO2 available for incorporation into living organisms." The rate of decay of carbon-14 is considered to be a fairly well known constant, so determining the radiocarbon years is a straightforward calculation if you assume the levels of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere have been constant over time. In practice this isn't a perfect assumption, as there have been fluctuations. As a result, there is a need to calibrate radiocarbon years to actual years. This can be done using tree rings, ice cores, or other samples that give an indication of the variation in relative abundance of carbon isotopes over time and that can be independently dated, to calibrate the radiocarbon dating (as others have mentioned).

As an aside, I really would be interested in hearing Rule's issues with calibrations (or reasons for not telling?) as, while no expert in radiocarbon dating, the theory makes perfect sense to me.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 11:37:57 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shallowdeep
(or reasons for not telling?)
It is big. I have known about it for more than twenty years now, but I am not telling because I want to publicize about it myself. But there are other projects that also occupy me...

(in reply to shallowdeep)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 12:40:59 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

No, they appear to be quoting MDs and such, but like I said, those letters mean nothing to me. Well, not all that much.



MDs are not necessarily chemists.

quote:



Let's put it this way, old carbon is different than new carbon, otherwise carbon dating is impossible. Actually I don't put much faith in carbon dating, but that is not the point.



Carbon dating works because Carbon 18 is present in a certain percentage at the time something is formed, and then loses neutrons from the atomic structure (and becomes Carbon 16) at a specific length of time.  So the ratio of Carbon 18 to Carbon 16 is what allows radiocarbon dating.

quote:



If water is actually H2O, something we really don't have any way of knowing, how can the guy on devicewatch be sure ? He can't.



We do, actually.

Take one kilogram of water.  Subject it to electrolysis and end up with 16/18 by mass of oxygen (element 16) and 2/18 by mass of hydrogen (element 1 times 2 atoms)

quote:



In that venue, let's hit a bit of physics. Hydrogen has one proton and one neutron. Two oxygen molecules combine with it to form water. Like I said, forget all the health claims right now. We are talking water.

Now undoubtedly, the oxygen molecules are at a certain angle. This angle is determined by the properties of the atoms. If one were to form water using negatively charged oxygen atoms, that is those with extra electrons, what would happen ?



There are two atoms of hydrogen connected to one atom of oxygen in water (H2O)

It is the hydrogen atoms that are at an angle.

quote:



We still have the case of a professor at Case saying that distilled water is no good. This is someone in the regular scientific community. This is someone with nothing for sale. This is someone simply talking to a worker in the building, someone he gets along with and is friendly with.



Fair enough.  But what exactly does "no good" mean? 

The problem I have with claims of this nature is people are told something is good or bad, and then get emotional and inarticulate when asked "why is it good or bad?"

Does he have any information to prove why it is bad?  Is his pattern such that he repeats the same sentence over and over again until we start to take his word for it?

quote:



If we can't say unequivocably that all water is the same, then we cannot effectively debunk this. The medical claims I dismissed right away, they have no evidence. But is the water actually slighly different ?



That would be my question.

I suspect the water itself is not different.  That would be a violation of the laws of physics.

I suspect there is something else, a trace mineral or whatever, that is either in the water or not in the water, that makes it better.

On a related note, distilled water is water that is evaporated (turned into a gas using heat) and then recondensed by running it through a cool (turned into a liquid using the lack of heat) pipe.  What is left behind for the most part are all the solids, chemicals, etc., that do not evaporate at 212 STP.

Distilled water, like distilled alcohol, is not 100% pure water.  Some substances are transported by water molecules as they evaporate.  So what you end up with is 95% pure water.  Distill it again, you end up with 99% water.  And so on.

quote:



There is another case back in the 70s where some water vapor got trapped in some cappilary type tubing, very small. This is very obscure, and did not hit the media at all. In these tubes condensed a form of water. They confirmed that it was H2O, but had formed a complex molecule. The properties, however, were different. The boiling and freezing temperatures were different, yet they said it is indeed H2O, probably by spectral analysis. That's about all they had back in the 70s.



What chemical did it form?

This makes no sense.  Water has certain properties due to it's atomic structure.  These people are stating that something with an identical atomic structure has different properties.

Red flag.

How does this work?

quote:



A number of debunkers held their theories that it was something leaching out of the glass, all this shit, but in the end the debunkers were debunked. I'll try to find the article. I was a teenager when I read it, so bear with me. Info this old is not likely to be on the net, I might have to scan it and upload it.



I would be interested in reading it.

quote:



The theory is that because the water condensed in such a small space there were many collisions, forming new bonds that hadn't been seen before. There was speculation abound, that it was some sort of contaminant, and that was investigated, but it still turned up to be H2O.



The only thing I can imagine happening to cause this is somehow one or more of the atoms in the water molecules in that substance ended up with extra or fewer neutrons.

It has been too long for me taking chemistry to remember what effect this might have, although I wonder if this might be where the term "Heavy Water" comes from.

Not sure I want to drink a substance that sheds neutrons (i.e. is radioactive) but whatever floats their boat.

quote:



I will not buy into any of these claims, I want to solve this water issue. Is water water and that is it ? Or is there more ?

One thing that bebunks the theory is that the water in the oceans is largely millenia old. Many people on the muni water supply get water from lakes etc, and from wells, who knows how old the water is ?



Water in rivers and oceans evaporates.  Recondenses, falls as rain, goes back into lakes and rivers and oceans.  And so on.  It is a dynamic cycle.  But water is a very corrosive molecule and tends to eat away at rocks and dirt and stuff as it runs which flows off into the ocean.

quote:



But what of the ocean ? Many countries run sea water through reverse osmosis to get potable drinking water. That water is old, so is it better ? AND last but not least, is there a way to know, to prove or disprove ?



While an ocean is old.  There is no evidence existing that any particular molecule in it is older than any other particular molecule in it.

The information you present sounds like it is trying to make the claim that it is.

quote:



Now think about this. "Years ago the hydrogen bond angle was.....". Now just how would they know that ? They would have to have a sample of old water and an electron microscope or something. Some way to measure it indirectly even. Did they find that old water has a measurable characteristic than "new" water ?



That would be a good question.  I imagine the only way they could know for sure would be to check it with ice cores.

What puzzles me about ice and water is the dynamism of the substance.  While ice doesnt change,  and water doesnt change,  I remember reading somewhere that an individual molecule might break off from an ice cube and become water, whereas an individual molecule from water might freeze and become ice.   What I am trying to say is that even if an ice core has been there for eons, I suspect the individual molecules have moved around inside or outside of it subject to the heat or lack of.  I could be wrong about that; it has been a long time since I took chemistry.

quote:



I think I might call their number. I want to ask them exactly that question. If they go round in circles like the religious fanatics who need to be killed I will know. "How do you know the hydrogen bond angle was wider in the past ?". Now if they say "We took samples from Antarctica and found some differences" I would be very interested in listening, but if they make a U-turn back to their bullshit and say "Just look at the cancer rates" they are done. Stick a fork in them.



My next question if they say "we took some samples from Antarctica," I would ask them when they did core samplings in Antarctica?  Who was involved?  Was it a private company?  What was their control sample?  When did they take the core sample?  Who issued them permission to take core samples from Antarctica?

And most importantly, "Was your scientific work reproduced by other scientists not involved with your organization and was it peer-reviewed?"  That one, I suspect will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  What you will get back is a long dissertation on the incompetence of other scientists.

quote:



What's worse I think they are a Christian organisation, which means even if they are dead wrong I don't know if they are lying. And they take great stock in the fact that they have this "Crystal Mountain" research center. Fuck that. I don't care if you find cures in heaven or my basement.

Yes, I agree they do pander to the sickly. And every week for the last few years their ad makes it sound like this is a brand new discovery.

All this is damning, but the theory. The fact that possibly something about the atoms, or the way they are combined is different. That is what I am after. Is it possible ?

T


Good luck, Termyn8or.  I would be fascinated to hear how it turns out.  I suspect they will get really emotional and true-believerish, but I am old and cynical.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/20/2007 10:19:02 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		I appreciate the astute reponses.

Perhaps I am actually tring to play devil's advocate here, but that is because I am in search of the truth.

I try to think forward, and I also think backward. One must do both simultaneously. To give an example. A hundred or two years ago carbon was carbon, but now they do carbon dating.

Forget all the crap on that website, let's focus on something else. What if, even with the same number of electrons, the layers of the orbits were changed. This is all supposition, but I want to explore it. There is no ionic charge.

This may be yet one property of matter we have not yet discovered. Like carbon dating a hundred or so years ago. People would've told you that you were crazy if you said anything about carbon dating.

To me, this is just a hint of something like that, that is why I want to explore it. I am not going to buy those people's machine. Not even to take it apart. They have serious errors in their logic.

Like when they claim they can just add it to a well and it'll make the rest of the water better. Are they saying the contact with their superwater casuses the other water to become superwater ? That claim can't mean much else.

I don't buy it and I never did. What I am after is future discovery. Something real believe it or not, and always remember one of the first rules of logic:

The only thing impossible is to prove impossibility. That would require omnipotence.

Nuclear fission and fusion, bring that in a couple hundred years ago and you're likely to be burned at the stake.

I fully realize that when a person's scientific beliefs are challenged they might not react quite as expected. But human development is fueled soloely by those who exceed.

So they can tell how old something is by measuring what specific KIND of carbon is in it. Water, or more specifically oxygen caould not have had a change, from millenia ago to when you got here ? Nobody can say that.

So in a way, refigure the situation. If carbon can change why can't oxygen ? Fuck that wevbsite, it means nothing now. If any changes happened to our oxygen or hydrogen, there would be a difference in the water.

Something we cannot as of yet measure. Y'know there was a time before Geigher counters were invented. There was a time when even voltmeters were not invented.

When Ransom Eli Olds said he could use that waste product from oil distillation, they thought he was crazy I am sure. That substance is known as gasoline. They used to throw it away, burn it in the fields. Now we burn it on the streets. While I am sure simultaneous research was going on all over the world, he did it here.

Now look at the price of gas.

This nutzoid theory could be a nutzoid theory, or something that is proven true a few years hence. Of that I have no doubt, but only of the possibility.

I appreciate all the really good reponses, but not one actually disproves that this water might be slightly different. Can you really prove something is impossible ?

So why didn't the Prof say that distilled water leaches nutrients, but instead focused on the ionic preperties ? Why did he say that ? How can water even be ionic ? But then again, we thought carbon was carbon up until a certain date. No carbon 16, 18, 19 or anything. Carbon was carbon.

Now "educated" people are basically saying the same thing about oxygen.

Yes, I did make an error in the OP, it is H2O not O2H. Just one of those days, Mom had a heart attack and there is just too much going on. Oh well, I'll deal with it.

I'll find that article.

T

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/21/2007 2:03:58 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		Quantum mechanics does not recognizes electron orbits as such any more, but probability clouds. In chemistry various orbital theories are used. Read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory
 
Oxygen has three stable isotopes: O16, O17 and O18. Read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_isotope_ratio_cycle
Oxygen has fourteen unstable isotopes. Read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen
 

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/21/2007 3:11:31 AM   
shallowdeep


Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		First, some of the small questions:

quote:

If carbon can change why can't oxygen ?

It can. Oxygen has a number of known isotopes. In fact, pretty much every element, even hydrogen, has multiple isotopes.

quote:

If any changes happened to our oxygen or hydrogen, there would be a difference in the water.

Yes and no. Some things, like the density of the water, would be somewhat different. In the case of radioactive isotopes, the water might be radioactive and decay into other elements. However, isotopes only change the number of neutrons in the nucleus of an atom, NOT the electrons which dominate the way atomic bonds form. As a result, the chemical properties of water formed from different isotopes would be virtually identical.

quote:

why didn't the Prof say that distilled water leaches nutrients, but instead focused on the ionic preperties ? ... How can water even be ionic ?

I'm not sure, you'd have to be more specific about what he said. It's possible he was referring to salts which, when dissolved in water, disassociate into ions... which would be the same thing. The other way water can be ionic is that, at any given moment, some of the water is actually disassociated into hydrogen H+ and hydroxide [OH]- ions.


quote:

I appreciate all the really good reponses, but not one actually disproves that this water might be slightly different. Can you really prove something is impossible?


Ah, the big question...

No. Science is founded on empirical observations. There is always the possibility that the current scientific explanation for a set of observations is not correct or incomplete. Science has its limits, and the absolute certainty you seek is one of them.

What science does give you is a logical framework to analyze the physical world from. Science is really two related steps: experimentation and theorizing. Scientific experimentation is essentially gathering observations, but with extra effort made to ensure that the observations are reliable. A scientific theory does not become widely established unless it is able to explain the experimental observations that have been made so far extremely well. Sometimes future observations, wether due to technical advances in equipment or a new approach, can not be explained. In that case the theory may be modified to explain the new observations or, in some cases, scrapped entirely in favor of a better explanation. What science ideally represents, then, is NOT some absolute truth, but the best possible cumulative explanation of what humans have observed of our universe. Initially you said you were looking for 'valid' answers. Unfortunately, the definition of 'valid' is somewhat subjective. 'Scientific' provides a fairly well-defined standard for validity.

You're right to be skeptical of dismissals of unusual ideas as unscientific BS. Skepticism is, in fact, at the root of the scientific process. But skepticism is only constructive within a logical framework. No theory is scientifically valid without compelling experimental evidence to support it. Similarly, no criticism of an established scientific theory is scientifically valid without compelling experimental evidence to support it.

This doesn't mean the new ideas are necessarily wrong. But without evidence, they can't be scientifically valid. What a new theory can do is motivate the experimental phase of the scientific process where evidence can be gathered to support or contradict the theory.

Very well established scientific theories have extensive supporting observations backing them that allow for a high degree of confidence in them. Unfortunately, this is only truly convincing to a skeptic if you happen to know what those experimental observations that led to the development of the theory were. Unfortunately, the body of scientific knowledge has become so large that knowing everything is not a real possibility. However, the nice thing about science is that if there is a specific phenomena that interests you, you can trace back the development of the relevant theory to compelling, reproducible, experimental results. It may require taking a substantial number of courses or reading a bunch of material, but it is possible to do.

As an example of sorts: Your initial question was about the possibility of stable 114 degree bond angles in water. I freely admit to not being able to "prove" this is impossible. Claiming otherwise would not be scientific. However, if given a choice of staking my life on surviving a typical duration car ride or on the chance of the average bond angle of a large bucket's worth of H2O molecules at room temperature being closer to 104.5 degrees than 114, I'd have to go with the bond angle. Current scientific theory precludes the possibility of 114 degrees being stable and, because I have some understanding of where that theory came from and have not seen any compelling evidence opposing it, I'm pretty confident in it. The good news is you don't have to accept the word of an anonymous poster lurking on the forums of a site whose typical member is probably more interested in erotica than the scientific method. =) If you really are interested, you can trace the development of the theory. Ultimately, only you are going to be able to convince yourself.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit - 4/21/2007 11:56:21 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Nice, shallowdeep;

"Skepticism is, in fact, at the root of the scientific process."

Indeed. After hearing evidence contrary to popukar beliefs I have found many popular beliefs to be incorrect.

Question of the day : Is someone looking at this bond angle in an electron microscope or  is this data derived secondarily ?

I want to know about what the Prof said too, does he really know that ? Or was he "taught" that ?

That is the crux of the whole thing. Do you know more than you have been taught ? If not, you had poor teachers. I draw conclusions, but I don't mean in the sense of the finality of the word. Everything is game.

Logic is a funny thing. They say a lack of chromium or vanadium causes diabetes, or a malabsorbtion condition. They can't prove it but I believre it. Other evidence exists.

To prove this wrong you have to get a human to live for a period of years on a controlled diet, lacking those minerals.Nobody has done that, yet I still believe it, why ?

It makes sense.

Facts have to fit along woith other facts, forming something like a knowledge lattice in the mind. Anything that doesn't fit is kept on the outside. That which is accepted is brought into the knowledge lattice and affects future judgements obviously.

I think there are alot of people who got this all fucked up, and alot of them are doctors, etc. The people who mislead the world know how to build a knowledge lattice that is false, no question about it. But they did not mislead me.

I will never stop. They say this but I know that. I will always question everything.

I used to have a sig on usenet:

Compliance is futile,
You must resist.

T

(in reply to shallowdeep)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Chemists ? A question, even if you know a little bit Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125