Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof
General Confusion Surrounding Hydrogen Bonds and Polarity in Water Molecules
(Retraction: The mechanism that I indicate in this is wrong. But the basic concept is correct. The actual mechanism is much simpler and much more basic than that that I indicate in this post.)
There is a lot of confusion about implications of hydrogen bonds that are shared between water molecules in water. There seems to be contradictory messages. Some have described the bonds that exists between H2O molecules in liquid water as very weak, thus allowing for the fluidity and gentle character of water. Others draw attention to the high boiling point of H2O, it being much higher than that of its two constituents hydrogen and oxygen. Moreover, this dichotomy is not only evident in the strength of the hydrogen bonds between H2O molecules, it is also reflected in the surface tension (the residual electromagnetic energy) that is produced by H2O molecules. In liquid water this surface tension is very slight, almost nonexistent. In the gaseous phase of water, steam, the surface tension emitted by each H2O molecule is high.
So then, which is it? Are the hydrogen bonds that exist between water molecules weak and is their surface tension slight or are the hydrogen bonds strong and the surface tension they emit strong? It can’t be both, can it? Well, actually, yes, it can be both and in fact it is both. To understand why it is both you first have to understand a concept I refer to as the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof. To understand how this works you first have to understand that both the strength of the bond an H2O molecule contributes to any shared hydrogen bond it has with another H2O molecule and the strength of the surface tension produced by that same H2O molecule is a result (is a function of) the polarity of the H2O molecule. This is a simple enough concept. Most people have no trouble grasping this. Where it gets confusing is that people assume that polarity is a constant and it’s not.
Polarity is a Variable
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces) the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen bonds with adjoining water molecules. Consequently the strength (polarity) of the H2O molecule is neutralized in liquid water since most (not all) hydrogen bonds have been completed in most (not all) of the water molecules in the liquid. The strongest (most electro-magnetically active) form of an H2O molecule is when it is by itself, as in steam, because none of its polarity has been neutralized by hydrogen bonds. (Note: the H2O molecules in steam, having their full polarity, have 20 to 80 times* the magnitude of electro-magnetic energy than does the H2O molecules in liquid water.) And therefore the strongest hydrogen bond that can exist between any two water molecules is one in which both of the water molecules share no other hydrogen bonds with any other water molecule. And the weakest hydrogen bond any two can share is when both water molecules also share hydrogen bonds with three other water molecules. Likewise, the H2O molecule produces 20 to 80 times* the surface tension when it is by itself (as in steam) as it does when it is in liquid water.
This is hereby retracted. This is not the correct mechanism. Hydrogen bonds DO NOT have an effect on polarity. Polarity is a constant.
* Why do I say “20 to 80 times?” Because I don’t know the correct amount. It is a guesstimate. The reasoning that underlies this guesstimate is something I may present in another post. Frankly, the whole subject of hydrogen bonding and polarity is obscure—at least to me. I scoured various physics papers on the subject—most having been written by Chinese graduate students—and these have, I admit, left me somewhat confused. I highly encourage anybody to do their own research and, hopefully, improve upon my limited ability to explain what I don’t fully understand.
So, H2O molecules are strong (high bond strength and high surface tension) individually (when at full polarity) and weak (polarity neutralized by hydrogen bonds) collectively. Polarity is not a constant. It is a variable. Hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that neutralize polarity and the breaking of hydrogen bonds (ie. heating, agitation and/or spinning [see my blog post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth’s Atmosphere]) is the mechanism that activates (reactivates) polarity.
Impossibility of Cold Steam in Earth’s Atmosphere
One of the implications that results from this phenomena (Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) is to dictate the impossibility of there being any steam (mono-molecular H2O) in the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is far too cold and the individual H2O molecules are far too electro-magnetically active (as mentioned above, they are as much as 80 times more electromagnetically active than in liquid water) for this to be possible. Nevertheless people continue to assume that the moisture in moist air is mono-molecular H2O (steam) when in actuality that is physically impossible. There are many reasons that people make the mistake of assuming that water can remain mono-molecular at the ambient temperatures:
1) They are unaware of the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof. Specifically, they observe the benign nature of liquid water and extrapolate this observed weakness to molecular H2O, not realizing that individually and in very small clusters (under 10) the H2O molecule produces high electro-magnetic energy that makes staying singular or small virtually impossible.
2) They assume that since steam is clear that air that is clear must also contain steam (mono-molecular H2O). They fail to consider the possibility that miniature droplets/clusters (10 to 25 molecules per cluster/droplet) might also be invisible when mixed in with air.
3) They are uneducated in chemistry and physics and, therefore, do not realize that concepts like the temperature at which a substance boils is not flexible/transitory. (The thing that is especially perplexing to me about this one is how physicists and chemists didn’t notice this absurdity being put forth by meteorologists.)
4) They are confused about the concepts of partial pressure and/or vapor pressure.
5) They get on the internet and go to Wikipedia which completely fails to draw any kind of distinction between steam (mono-molecular H2O) and vapor which sometimes denotes steam and other times denotes a mixture of dry air with unspecified (either or both mono-molecular or multi-molecular) H2O.
6) They graduated from a meteorology program and, therefore, the distinction between mono-molecular H2O and multi-molecular H2O was never delineated or discussed and, consequently, they graduated with the false confidence that the distinction is irrelevant.
(Note: meteorology has built a cult understanding around the concept of convection. The dirty little secret hidden inside the notion of convection is the assumption that “cold steam” (mono-molecular H2O) persists in our atmosphere. This is not something that is ever discussed by meteorologists. It’s a taboo subject. A student or graduate of a meteorology program that does not honor this taboo might, for example, find themselves at odds with faculty or even denied opportunities for employment.)
7) They are unaware that the notion has never been tested or measured. (Many falsely believe the notion has been tested and measured. One might even say that it is somewhat of an urban legend in that there are some that claim to have seen confirmatory tests and measurements in high school and college textbooks. However, like sightings of bigfoot, these reports have thus far failed to be confirmed.)
8) Despite the availability of terminology that is perfectly descriptive and that carries no ambiguity, they stubbornly insist on using ambiguous terminology. This confounds their ability to fully grasp the complexities of the subject and, consequently, they lose patience and resign themselves to a less accurate but simpler understanding. (The biggest culprit is the phrase, “water vapor,” See #5 above for details.)
9) They haven’t thought about it. (I suspect this may be the most prevalent of all.)
Spinning of Chains of H2O to Create Structural Plasma That Conserves Energy in a Stream Flow
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth’s Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water droplets/clusters—a direct result of wind shear—causes these droplets to elongate into chains of partially reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with structural integrity. It is important to note that without the concept that is the subject of this post (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this would not be possible. Specifically, without the increase in polarity that results from the breaking of two of each H2O molecules four bonds (breaking of three of four bonds on the H2O molecules at the ends of each chain) as the chains lengthen, the remaining bonds within the chain would (theoretically) not have the strength to maintain a bond when subjected to the centrifugal force of the spinning. Likewise, without the increased polarity and the ensuing increase in surface tension that results from two of its four bonds having been broken in the context of the chain, the molecules within the chains would not produce enough surface tension (electro-magnetic energy) so that these chains can collectively maintain structural cohesiveness as a plasma and the plasma would, therefore, not have the resilience to be effective at reflecting energy back into the flow of a jet stream to achieve conservation of energy in earth’s atmosphere, as explained therein. (Note: I highly recommend that you read Conservation of Energy in Earth’s Atmosphere).