Ionized Water Systems - SCAM ?

[Pyrotex]

.. How is it possible to a ion to attract water molecules if they are non ionic?

First, you have no clue what the word "ionic" means.

 

Ionic refers to adding or removing electrons from an atom or molecule so that it has a net electric charge.

 

Adding salt to water does NOT ionize the water. The water molecules neither gain nor lose electrons. It is the Sodium (Na+) and the Chlorine (Cl-) that are ionized. The Sodium has one electron removed from the atom, leaving it with a net positive charge. The Chlorine has one electron added to the atom, leaving it with a net negative charge.

 

MRI uses electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range. It can affect any molecule that has a "polar" charge distribution. Water molecules are slightly polar. The electrons bound within a H2O molecule tend to spend less of their time on the side of the molecule where the Hydrogen atoms are attached, and more time on the other side.

 

The water molecule is always neutral. There is no net electric charge, and therefore no ionization. However, the water molecule does have a slightly negative side and a slightly positive side; it is polar. It is this polarity, this assymetry of its charge distribution, that gives water its unique properties.

 

Don't confuse Ionic, Polar and pH. They are entirely different things.

[freeztar]

I think Pyro did a good job of pointing out your argument, soma.

 

OH- and H+ (yes, it has to do with electrons)

 

---

 

Pyro, what do you make of the claims made by the authors of the paper that pH tended to aggregate near the electrodes? I honestly don't know enough about water chemistry to make anything of it other than "that's interesting". But surely there is a reasonable explanation (one that likely gives zilch support for the health benefits of "ionized water").

 

Surely we would expect different pHs based simply on the fact that H+ ions are found at one electrode and nearly absent from the other. But why would there be such a difference for pure water? One would expect differences I suppose, but I was a bit surprised by the numbers.

[Pyrotex]

...Pyro, what do you make of the claims made by the authors of the paper that pH tended to aggregate near the electrodes? I honestly don't know enough about water chemistry to make anything of it other than "that's interesting". But surely there is a reasonable explanation (one that likely gives zilch support for the health benefits of "ionized water")...

pH cannot "aggregate" any more than inches can aggregate near the "12" end of a foot ruler, or degrees F can aggregate near the bulb of a thermometer.

 

pH is a measure of the ratio of oxidizing and reducing ions in solution.

[freeztar]

pH cannot "aggregate" any more than inches can aggregate near the "12" end of a foot ruler, or degrees F can aggregate near the bulb of a thermometer.

 

pH is a measure of the ratio of oxidizing and reducing ions in solution.

 

Right, then please explain the following...

 

Previous work from this and other laboratories has demonstrated large pH gradients in water. Established by passing

current between immersed electrodes, pH gradients between electrodes were found to disappear slowly, persisting

for tens of minutes after the current had been turned off. We find here that these pH gradients reflect a genuine

separation of charge: at times well after disconnection of the power supply, current could be drawn through a resistor

placed between the charging electrodes or between pairs of electrodes positioned on either side of the midline between

original electrodes. In some experiments, it was possible to recover the majority of charge that had been imparted

to the water. It appears, then, that water has the capacity to store and release substantial amounts of charge.

 

[Pyrotex]

Right, then please explain the following... :hyper:

Okay,

what was in the water?

[freeztar]

Okay,

what was in the water?

 

They used a 10 nM (?) solution of NaCl, but the control (which showed "qualitatively similar results") was pure distilled water.

 

Dynamics of charging were studied using

the setup of Figure 1. The electrolyte was either distilled water

or 10 mM NaCl, as indicated. The DC power supply was set to

4 V. Representative plots of current versus time are shown in

Figure 3.

The results shown in Figure 3 were found consistently in 12

such experiments. Typical curves of current versus time showed

three phases: (i) a rapid initial falloff; (ii) recovery, with continued

growth; and (iii) steady current flow, continuing until the power

supply was turned off. When pure water was used instead of the

NaCl electrolyte, results were qualitatively similar; however,

current magnitude was lower, and transitions between phases

were less obvious.

ACS Publications - Cookie absent

[somasimple]

First, you have no clue what the word "ionic" means.

 

The water molecule is always neutral. There is no net electric charge, and therefore no ionization. However, the water molecule does have a slightly negative side and a slightly positive side; it is polar. It is this polarity, this assymetry of its charge distribution, that gives water its unique properties.

 

Don't confuse Ionic, Polar and pH. They are entirely different things.

A molecule may be neutral taken as a whole and have local charges because is it a polar molecule.

BTW, ionization occurs in water.

Water ionization,the ionic product (Kw) of water and pH

[Pyrotex]

Yes, I know water is polar and said so. That is, however, not the same as ionized. A molecule or atom must either gain an extra electron or lose an electron to be ionized.

 

The 10 mM solution of NaCl, would be 10 milli-Moles of NaCl per liter of water, if my college chemistry is remembered correctly. Sodium has an atomic weight of 23. Chlorine has an atomic weight of 35.5. A "Mole" of NaCl would therefore be 58.5 grams. A "Moler solution" of salt would be 58.5 grams in one liter of water. 10 mM would therefore be 1/100 as much, or about 0.6 grams of NaCl per liter of water. Not much.

 

So, what could be causing the gradient of pH? Water can disassociate into H+ and OH-. These are true ions. The H+ would sound like a naked proton, but it "grabs" onto electrons from other molecules and briefly uses them to satiate its need for a charge. Think of Tarzan swinging from grapevine to grapevine. Tarzan = proton; grapevine = shared electron.

 

4 volts is not a big potential. But, lacking other info, we must assume that what happens is that the tiny fraction of water molecules that (briefly) disassociate into H+ and OH-, are the cause of the gradient. The electrodes attract H+ to one side and OH- to the other. The presence of other ions (Na+ and Cl-) help in keeping the H+ and OH- from recombining quickly. So, the gradient would be more easily measurable with the weak salt solution.

 

What surprises me is that the gradient is maintained for so long after the juice is turned off. (???)

 

I'd say it has to be the H+ and OH- doing this because you cannot use polar molecules to create a net charge in a volume.

[freeztar]

The 10 mM solution of NaCl, would be 10 milli-Moles of NaCl per liter of water, if my college chemistry is remembered correctly. Sodium has an atomic weight of 23. Chlorine has an atomic weight of 35.5. A "Mole" of NaCl would therefore be 58.5 grams. A "Moler solution" of salt would be 58.5 grams in one liter of water. 10 mM would therefore be 1/100 as much, or about 0.6 grams of NaCl per liter of water. Not much.

 

Thanks Pyro. I see my confusion now. I typed in "nM" in the post above and when I tried to make sense of that, the only thing I could figure was "nano-mole", which just seems ridiculous. "mM" makes much more sense.

 

So, what could be causing the gradient of pH? Water can disassociate into H+ and OH-. These are true ions. The H+ would sound like a naked proton, but it "grabs" onto electrons from other molecules and briefly uses them to satiate its need for a charge. Think of Tarzan swinging from grapevine to grapevine. Tarzan = proton; grapevine = shared electron.

I like that analogy. I hadn't even considered how the ions "move". I'll have to study up on this to get a better understanding.

 

4 volts is not a big potential. But, lacking other info, we must assume that what happens is that the tiny fraction of water molecules that (briefly) disassociate into H+ and OH-, are the cause of the gradient. The electrodes attract H+ to one side and OH- to the other. The presence of other ions (Na+ and Cl-) help in keeping the H+ and OH- from recombining quickly. So, the gradient would be more easily measurable with the weak salt solution.

 

What surprises me is that the gradient is maintained for so long after the juice is turned off. (???)

Would one not expect the ions to rapidly associate once the voltage was gone? It seemed surprising to me, but I've never really read such a paper before.

 

I'd say it has to be the H+ and OH- doing this because you cannot use polar molecules to create a net charge in a volume.

 

I agree. Perhaps it's the gradient becoming net-isotropic that causes the resulting output of charge? :)

 

But, yes, to repeat, in any case, this gives no justification to the claims of the health benefits of "ionized water". Perhaps we should split this off?

[Pyrotex]

I share your wonderments and concerns at the logic (or lack thereof) of water being made to "hold a charge". And "recovering" the charge. This makes NO SENSE at all when you think of it.

 

To hold a charge, this must occur: The water and container must act as a Leyden Jar (capacitor) and keep the charge from leaking. Not easy. How would the charge manifest??? Excess OH- ions, probably. But you can't have excess OH- ions -- every time you created one, you would also create a H+ ion simultaneously. ;)

 

OTOH, passing a current through the water (which is how the experiment was described) does NOT put a net charge in the water. A current does NOT put a net charge in ANYTHING!! Hello?!?!

 

A current passes electrons through a conducting substance and out the other side (electrode). A current is created with a potential difference between the two electrodes. This potential can "SEPARATE" charged ions (in equal amounts) temporarily as we saw with the H+ and OH-. You can store electrical energy in the substance (battery) by causing a reversible chemical reaction. But you don't do it by storing a "charge".

 

The more I think about this, the more I think that the purported academic paper describing the experiment is totally bogus. It uses all the right science words, but it uses them WRONG.

[somasimple]

Bogus and cited in PubMed...

 

Langmuir. 2007 Nov 6;23(23):11890-5. Epub 2007 Oct 16.

 

Visualization of charge-carrier propagation in water.

 

Klimov A, Pollack GH.

 

Department of Bioengineering, Box 355061, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.

 

The electrical properties of water in the region between parallel electrodes were investigated using pH indicator dyes. Different pH values corresponded to different colors, which could be registered by a video camera. Imposition of electrical current was able to produce zones of constant pH around, and well beyond each electrode: extremely low pH around the positive electrode and extremely high pH around the negative electrode. The border between alkaline and acid zones was jagged and separated by only a narrow layer of water with neutral pH. When the water was replaced by various salt solutions, similar zones were observed. Again, passage of current produced large zones of extreme pH values near and beyond each electrode. Alkaline zones appeared to propagate from the negative to the positive electrode in narrow channels through the neutral solution. When the power supply was disconnected from the electrodes and replaced by a resistive load, a potential difference was registered, and current flowed through the resistor for some period of time. Hence, the acid and alkaline zones appear to carry opposite charges throughout their volume.

 

PMID: 17939693 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

Ion hydration and aqueous solutions of salts

 

The dominant forces on ions, and polar molecules, in aqueous solution are short range chemical interactions involving the spare outer electrons on the water molecules with cations, and positively charged atoms, and hydrogen bonds donated from water molecules with anions [1190] and negatively charged atoms. Both processes involve effective partial charge transfer from the ion, or charged atom, to water. The resulting interactions with water are quite different with the anion-hydrogen bond interactions being enthalpically much greater than cation-lone pair electron interactions for the same size ions due to the closer approach of the atoms [1418]. Longer-range electric fields (< 3 nm), due to the ionic charges are weak relative to water-water hydrogen bonding [1190].

[freeztar]

I share your wonderments and concerns at the logic (or lack thereof) of water being made to "hold a charge". And "recovering" the charge. This makes NO SENSE at all when you think of it.

 

To hold a charge, this must occur: The water and container must act as a Leyden Jar (capacitor) and keep the charge from leaking. Not easy. How would the charge manifest??? Excess OH- ions, probably. But you can't have excess OH- ions -- every time you created one, you would also create a H+ ion simultaneously. ;)

 

OTOH, passing a current through the water (which is how the experiment was described) does NOT put a net charge in the water. A current does NOT put a net charge in ANYTHING!! Hello?!?!

 

A current passes electrons through a conducting substance and out the other side (electrode). A current is created with a potential difference between the two electrodes. This potential can "SEPARATE" charged ions (in equal amounts) temporarily as we saw with the H+ and OH-. You can store electrical energy in the substance (battery) by causing a reversible chemical reaction. But you don't do it by storing a "charge".

 

The more I think about this, the more I think that the purported academic paper describing the experiment is totally bogus. It uses all the right science words, but it uses them WRONG.

 

Ok, we are on the same page then.

 

Have you read the entire paper? Their methodology seems sound. The results are, on the other hand, questionable. It's interesting that the paper was written by scientists at the University of Washington in 2008. This is the type of paper you would expect from the 70's, or earlier even.

 

Either this paper describes water activity unknown to chemists, or it's fishy. I'm going fishing...

[freeztar]

Ion hydration and aqueous solutions of salts

 

What do you make of this somasimple? (besides the bolded text)

You realize they're talking about salts, right? ;)

[Pyrotex]

Bogus and cited in PubMed...

Langmuir. 2007 Nov 6;23(23):11890-5. Epub 2007 Oct 16.

Thanks, somasimple. ;) I'll look this up later, see what kind of journal it is.

...The electrical properties of water ...were investigated using pH indicator dyes.

Fascinating and clever idea! How many dyes, I wonder. How many colors?

...electrical current was able to produce zones of constant pH around, and well beyond each electrode: extremely low pH around the positive electrode and extremely high pH around the negative electrode.

I would certainly expect this. The areas of pH are where the ratios of H+ to OH- are much greater or much less than 1.00.

...When the power supply was disconnected from the electrodes and replaced by a resistive load, a potential difference was registered, and current flowed through the resistor for some period of time. Hence, the acid and alkaline zones appear to carry opposite charges throughout their volume...

Aha!!!!!

A potential difference was registered. Yes. That is entirely plausible. But notice, nothing is said about a "charge" stored in the water, or a "charge recovered" from the water. A slight voltage was still detectable between the zones of low and high pH -- until they neutralized, of course. My guess is, they would neutralize in a matter of seconds for a container of about 1 liter volume. It might take much longer, if the container was larger. NOTE that the author conveniently failed to say HOW LONG the potential difference lasted.

 

I can't object to anything I saw in the quoted material.

 

But can we conclude from this that water could be a source of electricity? The sad answer is NO. The potential difference registered at the end was probably much smaller than the original imposed voltage. And probably lasted for a minute or less, depending on the container size. Even if a load were NOT put in place, the pH differences of the wate would neutralize very quickly. You cannot even STORE electrical energy in water.

 

Can we conclude that water can "hold a charge"? Again, NO.

[freeztar]

A potential difference was registered. Yes. That is entirely plausible. But notice, nothing is said about a "charge" stored in the water, or a "charge recovered" from the water.

 

That's what the whole article is about. Read it!

 

A slight voltage was still detectable between the zones of low and high pH -- until they neutralized, of course. My guess is, they would neutralize in a matter of seconds for a container of about 1 liter volume. It might take much longer, if the container was larger. NOTE that the author conveniently failed to say HOW LONG the potential difference lasted. ;)

 

This is also a problem I see with the article. How long did they wait before measuring the induction? It's not explicitly stated. :(

 

I can't object to anything I saw in the quoted material.

 

But can we conclude from this that water could be a source of electricity? The sad answer is NO. The potential difference registered at the end was probably much smaller than the original imposed voltage. And probably lasted for a minute or less, depending on the container size. Even if a load were NOT put in place, the pH differences of the wate would neutralize very quickly. You cannot even STORE electrical energy in water.

 

It depends on what you mean by "store". Apparently, according to this experiment, the water did "store" electricity. But, like you, I think it has to do with the H+ and OH- getting back together that creates the voltage reading they see in pure water.

If this is the case, it can not be said that water will hold this electricity for any length of time. It's even more ludicrous to suppose that this "held charge" will benefit the body in any way. I'm sure the stomach thinks quite differently. :shrug:

 

Can we conclude that water can "hold a charge"? Again, NO.

 

Read the study, dude. It's interesting. It makes no claims to the OP. Somasimple provided it as support of his claim, but it holds no water. (pun intended)

 

On its own, it's an interesting study. :)

[somasimple]

What do you make of this somasimple? (besides the bolded text)

You realize they're talking about salts, right? :)

Right!

Do you know pure water, yes?

BTW,your point of view is water is neutral => It can't store charge....

 

Hmm, I have another example:

Nitrogen (N2) is neutral, so is oxygen (O2) and you insist in the fact that water is neutral, too.

 

Well, how is a cloud (made from these neutral molecules), able to store the little charges we call thunder and lightning? ;)

 

I think that you do not have a clue about what a cluster is! :)

[freeztar]

Right!

Do you know pure water, yes?

BTW,your point of view is water is neutral => It can't store charge....blah blah blah trolling

 

Is that my point? :)