21–30 of 45 posts
> They proposed that instead of the Van der Waals forces that normally draw water molecules gently together, polywater was composed of molecules locked in place by stronger chemical bonds, somehow catalyzed by the quartz capillary tubes. Aren't water molecules held together by relatively strong Hydrogen bonds? And if there are stronger bonds in polywater, what are they, then, covalent bonds?
> They proposed that instead of the Van der Waals forces that normally draw water molecules gently together, polywater was composed of molecules locked in place by stronger chemical bonds, somehow catalyzed by the quartz capillary tubes. Aren't water molecules held together by relatively strong Hydrogen bonds? And if there are stronger bonds in polywater, what are they, then, covalent bonds?
[deleted]
> They proposed that instead of the Van der Waals forces that normally draw water molecules gently together, polywater was composed of molecules locked in place by stronger chemical bonds, somehow catalyzed by the quartz capillary tubes. Aren't water molecules held together by relatively strong Hydrogen bonds? And if there are stronger bonds in polywater, what are they, then, covalent bonds?
[deleted]
I think it's unfair to lump the faster-than-light-neutrino experiment in as bad science. They pretty much said "this is really odd, please suggest your explanations".
Media overhypes a cautious plea for assistance made by scientists. Scientists receive their assistance, and announce that the discrepancy has been resolved. Media looks foolish, and claims the entire incident is indicative of flaws in the current state of science. Good times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Media overhypes a cautious plea for assistance made by scientists. Scientists receive their assistance, and announce that the discrepancy has been resolved. Media looks foolish, and claims the entire incident is indicative of flaws in the current state of science. Good times.
Then there was the part where the scientists resigned/were forced to resign. That part was truly overkill.
Notwithstanding the error, the properties described seem like they might be useful in some contexts, eg the low freezing point.
With any of these scientific breakthrough the proof is in the pudding. They've got to get some sort of prototype invention that uses their science to validate it. If they can't get their prototype device to work then something's wrong with the science.