Does Water Have A Memory?

[exchemist]

not at all . 

 

if you can tell me that water doesn't change its geometry because of what it is exposed to , then I will think about it . 

 

otherwise your wrong .

Water does not change its geometry as a result of what it has been exposed to. Water molecules in the liquid state randomise from any given arrangement within a few femtoseconds. I quote from one of the references I provided earlier - which, quite naturally, you have not bothered to read:

 

“Our results highlight the efficiency of energy redistribution within the hydrogen-bonded network, and that liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within 50 fs” (Cowan 2005).

Edited March 10, 2017 by exchemist

[current]

Water does not change its geometry as a result of what it has been exposed to. Water molecules in the liquid state randomise from any given arrangement within a few femtoseconds.

 

Water does not change its geometry as a result of what it has been exposed to. Water molecules in the liquid state randomise from any given arrangement within a few femtoseconds.

 

 

what I mean't was its configuration under microscope . 

[exchemist]

To other readers, if you want a laugh, see this thread about water started by "current" under his other name, "river" on another forum: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/has-there-been-an-improved-understanding-of-water.135771/

 

The climax was reached when he proposed an experiment to encase an individual atom of oxygen or hydrogen in plastic, in order to determine whether it was in the solid, liquid or gaseous state. 

 

At that point I made my excuses and left the discussion.....

[current]

To other readers, if you want a laugh, see this thread about water started by "current" under his other name, "river" on another forum: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/has-there-been-an-improved-understanding-of-water.135771/

 

The climax was reached when he proposed an experiment to encase an individual atom of oxygen or hydrogen in plastic, in order to determine whether it was in the solid, liquid or gaseous state. 

 

At that point I made my excuses and left the discussion.....

In plastic ?, never proposed such an experiment .

[exchemist]

In plastic ?, never proposed such an experiment .

Post 83. of the thread I linked to.

 

I quote you:

 

"Perhaps plastic as a barrier 

The Solution: Powerballs

 

 

Powerballs are small solid balls or pellets of sodium hydride that are coated with a waterproof plastic coating or skin. Powerballs are stored directly in water. They can remain in water for months with little or no change to the coatings. As soon as a Powerball is cut in half under water the sodium hydride inside can react with the water to produce hydrogen."

 

But be patient: your ban on Sciforums expires in 8 days' time, so you will soon be able to drop the alter ego and go back to helping MR with his attempts to annoy scientists there. :)

Edited March 16, 2017 by exchemist

[current]

 

Didn't remember , figures you would .

 

Anyway what I was trying to do is understand water.

 

First bring a single atom , not mole of hydrogen , but a single atom of hydrogen , to the point of manifesting a liquid its self. By dropping the temperature to the point of when hydrogen becomes liquid , as a group , or mol. Of. Which is -253°C

 

Because if that is possible and so being , then the liquid comes from within the atom. Which then means that the liquidity originates within the atom.

 

Yes I am river

[exchemist]

Didn't remember , figures you would .

 

Anyway what I was trying to do is understand water.

 

First bring a single atom , not mole of hydrogen , but a single atom of hydrogen , to the point of manifesting a liquid its self. By dropping the temperature to the point of when hydrogen becomes liquid , as a group , or mol. Of. Which is -253°C

 

Because if that is possible and so being , then the liquid comes from within the atom. Which then means that the liquidity originates within the atom.

 

Yes I am river

Yes, I remember it, because it brought home to me the futility of talking to you about science of any sort.

 

In fact it was for me a seminal moment. I felt I had wasted hours of my time, trying in good faith to teach science to someone, when they were not prepared to make any effort to understand what I was saying. I put you on Ignore and resolved never to waste time trying to teach science to someone as hopeless as you, ever again. Since that time I have carefully scrutinised the replies of interlocutors I do not know well, to gauge whether they seem capable of taking in responses and reacting to them sensibly. If they don't, I bale at an early stage to save myself the time and frustration of talking to an idiot.  

[Maine farmer]

Yes, I remember it, because it brought home to me the futility of talking to you about science of any sort.

 

In fact it was for me a seminal moment. I felt I had wasted hours of my time, trying in good faith to teach science to someone, when they were not prepared to make any effort to understand what I was saying. I put you on Ignore and resolved never to waste time trying to teach science to someone as hopeless as you, ever again. Since that time I have carefully scrutinised the replies of interlocutors I do not know well, to gauge whether they seem capable of taking in responses and reacting to them sensibly. If they don't, I bale at an early stage to save myself the time and frustration of talking to an idiot.  

Does that mean you won't explain why one single atom can't be turned into a liquid?

[exchemist]

Does that mean you won't explain why one single atom can't be turned into a liquid?

I have no problem explaining it to an intelligent fellow such as yourself. :)

 

It's all in the linked thread, but essentially, the physical phases of matter (solid, liquid and gaseous) are BULK properties of a group of atoms or molecules. These terms have no meaning for individual atoms or molecules. Consider what it means for something to be liquid. It means the atoms or molecules have enough thermal energy to move past one another, but most of them do not have enough to escape from the collective intermolecular attraction of their neighbours. It follows from this that you cannot speak of a single atom or molecule as being in a liquid state. 

 

In a solid, there is a more or less rigid structure in which the atoms or molecules are held, in fixed orientations relative to each other. You could I suppose try to argue a pair of molecules bound in such a way was "solid", but then you can get molecular "dimers" in the gas phase, for example NO2, so that doesn't really work. You need an extended array of molecules to say they are in the solid state. 

 

And in a gas, the defining feature is that the molecules have enough thermal kinetic energy to escape from neighbouring intermolecular attractions and completely occupy any container they find themselves in, rebounding off the walls and thus creating what we call pressure. So again it is  meaningless to think of a single molecule as being in the gas phase, as it has no attractions due to its neighbours to escape from. 

Edited March 19, 2017 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

Well of course, water has a memory!

 

[CraigD]

Of course, nobody doubts that you can store information for a long time using H₂O in a solid state – just write on it with an ice chisel, like this:

 

It’s when people don’t distinguish solids from liquids that things get weird and confused. The fact that homeopathy is still the underlying explanation for a big, profitable family of businesses, even after the discovery of atoms pretty much completely discredited it as a scientific theory, doesn’t help.

[Maine farmer]

I have no problem explaining it to an intelligent fellow such as yourself. :)

 

It's all in the linked thread, but essentially, the physical phases of matter (solid, liquid and gaseous) are BULK properties of a group of atoms or molecules. These terms have no meaning for individual atoms or molecules. Consider what it means for something to be liquid. It means the atoms or molecules have enough thermal energy to move past one another, but most of them do not have enough to escape from the collective intermolecular attraction of their neighbours. It follows from this that you cannot speak of a single atom or molecule as being in a liquid state. 

 

In a solid, there is a more or less rigid structure in which the atoms or molecules are held, in fixed orientations relative to each other. You could I suppose try to argue a pair of molecules bound in such a way was "solid", but then you can get molecular "dimers" in the gas phase, for example NO2, so that doesn't really work. You need an extended array of molecules to say they are in the solid state. 

 

And in a gas, the defining feature is that the molecules have enough thermal kinetic energy to escape from neighbouring intermolecular attractions and completely occupy any container they find themselves in, rebounding off the walls and thus creating what we call pressure. So again it is  meaningless to think of a single molecule as being in the gas phase, as it has no attractions due to its neighbours to escape from. 

Well said, and it did need saying.  Maybe I knew the explanation, but I couldn't have explained it that well, and I wonder how many readers of current's postings might be believing his postings

[current]

 

You guys have not watched any of the videos on the topic of does water have memory.

 

You just spout off what you and go off on a tangent .

 

I hoped that someone had the courage to watch at least one youtube video on the theory .

[current]

Yes, I remember it, because it brought home to me the futility of talking to you about science of any sort.

 

In fact it was for me a seminal moment. I felt I had wasted hours of my time, trying in good faith to teach science to someone, when they were not prepared to make any effort to understand what I was saying. I put you on Ignore and resolved never to waste time trying to teach science to someone as hopeless as you, ever again. Since that time I have carefully scrutinised the replies of interlocutors I do not know well, to gauge whether they seem capable of taking in responses and reacting to them sensibly. If they don't, I bale at an early stage to save myself the time and frustration of talking to an idiot.

 

Science is about observation , experiment and see what unfolds .

 

Until then you have NO idea of what could be found because of the experiment

 

Refer to my post# 57

Edited March 21, 2017 by current

[exchemist]

Science is about observation , experiment and see what unfolds .

 

Until then you have NO idea of what could be found because of the experiment

 

Refer to my post# 57

My post 60 re-explains what was explained to you in that thread, about why your proposed experiment, such as it was, made no sense at all - at a number of levels. But you were too thick, lazy, or trollish  - or a linear combination of the three - to take it in.

 

Evidently nothing has changed. That's why I gave up with you on sciforums. And why I am now going to give up with you on this forum as well.  

[current]

My post 60 re-explains what was explained to you in that thread, about why your proposed experiment, such as it was, made no sense at all - at a number of levels. But you were too thick, lazy, or trollish  - or a linear combination of the three - to take it in.

 

Evidently nothing has changed. That's why I gave up with you on sciforums. And why I am now going to give up with you on this forum as well.

 

Well good exchemist I'm more than glad you gave up . Your old school thinking leads to nothing new . Therefore is irrelevant .

 

And well I see your insults and the like as what science does to new thinking , always the same . Has been for at least 1000yrs. Until the experiment is tried and the results are in , well shall actually find out who is in the right .

 

Until then , your insults and arrogance of course have not deterred me at all .

[DrKrettin]

Until then , your insults and arrogance of course have not deterred me at all .

 

Damn