Paranoia Induced Stubborn Stupidity of Joe Postma

Allow me to help you. First let’s delineate the two different meanings of the concept of heat associated with radiant transfer between objects:

1) To absorb energy and have the molecules of the entity excited as a result

2) To have the measurable temperature of an entity increased as a result of an influx of energy.

Only the second of these two has any relevance to the laws of thermodynamics. The first does not.

Using #1 heating goes both ways, because energy goes both ways.
Using #2 heating only goes one way, from hotter to cooler.

You misunderstood something and you’ve been trying to force the square peg of #1 into the round hole of the second law of thermodynamics. Try putting the round peg of #2 into the round hole of the second law and you will find it works much better. And then you won’t have to embarrass yourself pretending to understand something you don’t.

Don’t waste too much time beating yourself up about this, Joe. You made an honest mistake. Apologize and forget about it. It doesn’t change the fact that global warming is still nonsense. Nor does any of this substantiate concerns that CO2 increases back radiation.

Jim McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Where do severe storms get their energy from?
http://wp.me/p4JijN-ck

Doswellian Lunacy Prevails in the Cult of Meteorology/Tornadogenesis
http://wp.me/p4JijN-6G

Postma’s Confusion About Heat

    1. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Joe:
      I don’t know either Greg. I think ST says that water vapour can only exist as steam and thus only if T >= 100C. And so the “water vapour” content in the air is actually composed of tiny liquid water droplets, not actual vaporous H2O.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Right. There is no steam in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s physically impossible. The water in moist air is comprised of little droplets/clusters, often too small to be seen. Consequently meteorologist’s claims that moist air is lighter than dry air are about as reliable as Al Gore’s claims about CO2-caused warming.

      Without the belief that moist air contains steam meteorology has no choice but reject the models they depend on to convince the public they know what they are talking about. They will be forced to find new models.

      The boiling point of water is determined by pressure and temperature. There is a wealth of laboratory evidence that proves/demonstrates this. There is zero laboratory evidence indicating the existence of gaseous H2O at temperatures and pressures below its boiling point. Zero.

      The fact that meteorologists chose to believe nonsense doesn’t mean that the rest of us are obligated to follow blindly.

      Joe:
      From my own research on the lapse rate question, one requires the latent heat density out of the condensation of vaporous H2O to liquid H2O, not liquid to ice H2O, in order to push the lapse rate down from 9.8 K/km to 6.5 K/km.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Your own research? What, exactly? Additionally, your explanation seems extremely contrived. Where is your data? How might I reproduce/verify your results? (And I know you don’t have any references.)

      The concept of “latent heat” is a nonsense concept. Empirically it’s meaningless (it’s never been measured or even detected). It’s sophistry.

      Joe:
      So in my opinion ST’s stuff isn’t supported by the evidence

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Yet you can’t clearly explain your opinion. You are confused. And when people become confused they tend to start pretending that they understand what they don’t understand. This is the reason so many people believe in AGW. They become confused and start pretending.

      Joe:
      I usually don’t let him post his stuff here. Why here anyway ST?

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Because in order to verify a scientific breakthrough you need to get through to people that recognize the importance empiricism over consensus. Is that not you?

      Joe:
      Bring people to your own site on the question. Don’t make it part of this site.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      You should be flattered that I am presenting you the opportunity to confirm a scientific breakthrough.

      Joe:
      Interesting too that you recently said that I shouldn’t waste my time anymore on the greenhouse problem…when it is THE ONLY problem that matters right now!

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      You have an engineer’s understanding of thermodynamics. You do the math accurately. But you misinform people when it comes to properly conceptualizing what is actually taking place. And since you are so good at the math people tend to assume that you must also understand it conceptually. And, well, you just don’t (as has been demonstrated vividly recently in this blog.) I don’t know the math that well, but I can conceptualize the phenomena and I know how to avoid the semantic confusion that is so common in scientific discourse. You are out of your element in that respect.

      BTW, who was it back in September of 2013 that informed the various participants in the “back-radiation” discussion about the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have to do with net flow of energy and not just the flow? It wasn’t you, Joe. It was me. (And, frankly, it still seems you don’t get it.)

      The worst thing you can do in science is claim you understand something that you actually do not understand. Because after a while you start believing your own lies. Then you become the thing you are fighting against.

    2. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      DurangoDan says:
      2015/06/04 at 9:15 AM
      ST: The frequency of a photon is induced by the temperature of the emitting body.

      ST:
      As you surely know, I never stated otherwise.

      DurangoDan:
      Saying that the frequency of photons from the emitting body must be higher than the photons emitted by the receiving body in order to increase the temperature of the receiving body is the same as saying heat flows only from warmer to cooler. That’s all.

      ST:
      You are sidestepping my question. You stated, “photons must have a higher frequency than the photons emitted by the receiving body in order to heat that receiving body, . . .”.

      That is BS and you know it. Busted again.

      DD:
      Regarding moist air being buoyant in dry air, Arfur’s explanation fits perfectly well with empirical observation.

      ST:
      LOL. “Empirical observation?” Arfur’s explanation was solely a reference to consensus. Do you know what empirical means?

      DD:
      I know that you don’t like the idea of “cold steam”, but unless Arfur’s explanation somehow damages our life experience (as belief in the GHE clearly does) I don’t see why we need your alternative explanation. If you can show a relative benefit in adopting your explanation, let’s hear it.

      ST:
      Might the pope have made the same dumbass request to Galileo?

      DD:
      One interesting aspect of water vapor being lighter than air is the measurement of barometric pressure as an indicator of the strength of hurricanes. My explanation of the reduced barometric pressure is that water vapor has displaced the oxygen and nitrogen molecules and since water vapor (MW: 18) is lighter than dry air (MW: 28), the pressure at the bottom of that cyclonic region of moist air is therefore reduced. The lower the pressure, the more water vapor in the air and the higher the potential energy release when the water vapor gives up its latent heat. Beautiful, even though we lost our beach house to Ivan in 2004.

      ST:
      Amateurish.

    3. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Tom OregonCity says:
      2015/06/05 at 7:11 PM
      It would be good if Joe would correct these misunderstandings about the basics of thermal radiation, but perhaps I’ve just missed those posts:

      ST:
      I don’t think you missed anything, Tom. Joe is a bit confused.

      Tom OregonCity says:
      Arfur Bryant wrote: “The radiation emitted by the cooler object is completely irrelevant to the warm object.”

      That cannot be correct. Since the heat flow from hot to cold is the net of radiation between the two, the heat LOSS RATE of the warmer object is slowed by the radiation from the cooler object. If that were NOT the case, Q’ would not be reduced by a cooler object.

      ST:
      Of course you are correct. I think Joe had the flu the day his thermodynamics professor discussed this.

      Tom OregonCity says:
      That is precisely why there is an effect by so-called — and here demonized — “backradiation”: it can’t HEAT the surface, but as the heat equations show, it does slow the rate of energy loss from the surface. Not a trivial, dismissive thing.

      ST:
      The con job that AGW advocates put forth in regards to backradiation is much worse than the honest errors Joe is making here.

    4. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Will Janoschka:
      Why should anyone ever accept that? Such has never been demonstrated! The amount of EMR flux detached from a radiating surface is always limited by any opposing radiance or electromagnetic field strength at that frequency. No EMR flux shall emit in a direction of higher radiance at that frequency! Would you accept that heat flux in a conductor between two temperatures requires flux proportional to each absolute temperature in opposing directions, or is the only flux proportional only to the difference in thermal potential between the two temperatures!

      ST:
      Will, you have obviously misinterpreted the laws of thermodynamics. These laws deal with net flow. You don’t get that. The laws don’t dictate that the energy doesn’t go both ways or is absorbed only one way. That is something you created.

    5. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Greg House:
      I allow me to humbly suggest this “both ways” mantra to be dropped

      ST:
      Based on what? You just confirmed you have no experimental evidence that contradicts it. Right?

      ST:
      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    6. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/trmm-satellite-coming-home-next-month/#comment-192280
      Curt says:
      In radiative heat transfer, we now understand that the heat transfer is a result of energy exchanges between the objects. Objects radiate energy based on their temperature and emissivity, without any regard to what they are radiating toward. (How would they know, anyway?) The hotter object radiates more energy to the colder object than the colder does to the warmer, but the colder object does radiate a non-zero amount of energy to the warmer. The difference between these two is what we call the (net) “radiative heat transfer” from the hotter to the colder object.

      ST:
      This is correct. This is what I’ve been saying for two years now. Does anybody have a fundamental (non semantic) disagreement about what is stated here? Joe Postma?
      Will? Arfur? Dan? Greg? Don’t be coy, now. Tell us what exactly you find mistaken about this explanation.

      Note that this indicates energy EXCHANGE between the objects. The energy doesn’t go one way, it goes both ways.

    7. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Joe Postma:
      . . . there is no concept in thermodynamics that thermal energy will or even can diffuse from a cool object to a warmer one, just because the cool object contains thermal energy; in fact, this directly contradicts the set of Laws of Thermodynamics.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      This is crazy talk, Joe. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to gross flow. The apply to net flow. Do you not know the difference? What you indicate here is, clearly, gross flow, not net flow.

      How is it that you’ve managed to ignore the many people that have tried to straighten you out on this point, Joe?

    8. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      ST:
      You are confused, Joe.

      There are two very different meanings that are associated with the words heat, heating, and heated. One of these meanings is applicable to the laws of thermodynamics. The other is not applicable. You have transposed them. You have applied the one that is not applicable and you have not applied the one that is applicable. This is the source of your confusion.

      Allow me to help you. First let’s delineate the two different meanings.

      1) To absorb energy and have the molecules of the entity excited as a result

      2) To have the measurable temperature of an entity increased as a result of an influx of energy.

      Only the second of these two has any relevance to the laws of thermodynamics. The first does not.

      Using #1 heating goes both ways, because energy goes both ways.
      Using #2 heating only goes one way, from hotter to cooler.

      You misunderstood something and you’ve been trying to force the square peg of #1 into the round hole of the second law of thermodynamics. Try putting the round peg of #2 into the round hole of the second law and you will find it works much better.

      Don’t waste too much time beating yourself up about this, Joe. You made an honest mistake. Apologize and forget about it. It doesn’t change the fact that global warming is still nonsense. Nor does any of this substantiate concerns that CO2 increases back radiation.

Postma Gets Schooled

solvingtornadoes says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Arfur Bryant:
Not the most considerate way to answer a request but, ok,

ST:
You ignored my request. You failed to dispute anything I stated. You need to delineate your assumptions first. Explain to us why you assume moist air contains steam. Without that your argument is nonsense.

I’ve had the same conversation over and over again. It always goes the same way. You point me to a bunch of sheep that make the same mistake you make and you think you’ve presented an argument. You haven’t presented an argument. First tell us why you believe that moist air contains steam. The fact that other people make the same assumption is not an intelligent argument. Without that assumption your argument is, obviously, nonsense. If you can’t explain why you think this assumption is reasonable (and I know you can’t) then the discussion is over (so the discussion is over):
http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A

Arfur, answer this one question: Do you or do you not have any direct evidence of gaseous H2O at temperatures below its boiling point? If you do I will send you a check for 10,000 dollars.

Humid air is heavier than dry air, not lighter.

Arfur Bryant:
“Using Avogadro’s Law and the ideal gas law, water vapor and air will have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP.

ST:
Water vapor is only an ideal gas above it’s boiling point. So this explanation is nonsense.

Arfur Bryant:
Please note that air which has water droplets in it is heavier than dry air, but that’s not what you said…

ST:
Please note that all air that is at temperatures below the boiling point of H2O exists in droplets, not individual molecules of H2O.

Prove me wrong. Science isn’t about what you believe or how many people carry the same belief. It is about reproducible experimental evidence. And you have none.

 

solvingtornadoes says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Arfur:
No need to get stuffy about this, ST. We’re all just trying to get the facts straight, I’m sure.

I completely understand your distinction between ‘heat and heating’ but you are still wrong when you state: [“A cooler object can and does heat a warmer object.”]

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
The devil is in the details of which words each one of us, somewhat arbitrarily, choose to represent different concepts. In the context of the definitions that I provided, it is perfectly reasonable to state that, “A cooler object can and does heat a warmer object.” I think my thinking on this issue is consistent within itself and that is the best any of us can hope for.

Maybe part of the confusion is my use of the word “heat” to describe a process and the word, “heating” to describe the results of a process. I can see how some might suggest that for purposes of conceptual clarity that this could be reversed. We can go around in circles forever debating which word is the right word. The larger point I’m trying to make here is that when people are dogmatic about semantics progress stops and it turns into a shouting match.

Whatever the case, when a packet of energy comes off one entity and is received by another entity the energetic state of the second entity is increased as a result. The temperature and/or relative temperature of the two entities makes no difference. If you think the laws of thermodynamics indicate otherwise I would only suggest that you be cognizant of the fact that the laws of thermodynamics do not contradict this interpretation in that these laws deal with the net Greg House says:

transfer of energy.

Joseph E Postma says: “I don’t know either Greg.”
=================================

I know now: it is all about more energetic photonic vibrators.

solvingtornadoes says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Joe:
I don’t know either Greg. I think ST says that water vapour can only exist as steam and thus only if T >= 100C. And so the “water vapour” content in the air is actually composed of tiny liquid water droplets, not actual vaporous H2O.

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Right. There is no steam in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s physically impossible. The water in moist air is comprised of little droplets/clusters, often too small to be seen. Consequently meteorologist’s claims that moist air is lighter than dry air are about as reliable as Al Gore’s claims about CO2-caused warming.

Without the belief that moist air contains steam meteorology has no choice but reject the models they depend on to convince the public they know what they are talking about. They will be forced to find new models.

The boiling point of water is determined by pressure and temperature. There is a wealth of laboratory evidence that proves/demonstrates this. There is zero laboratory evidence indicating the existence of gaseous H2O at temperatures and pressures below its boiling point. Zero.

The fact that meteorologists chose to believe nonsense doesn’t mean that the rest of us are obligated to follow blindly.

Joe:
From my own research on the lapse rate question, one requires the latent heat density out of the condensation of vaporous H2O to liquid H2O, not liquid to ice H2O, in order to push the lapse rate down from 9.8 K/km to 6.5 K/km.

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Your own research? What, exactly? Additionally, your explanation seems extremely contrived. Where is your data? How might I reproduce/verify your results? (And I know you don’t have any references.)

The concept of “latent heat” is a nonsense concept. Empirically it’s meaningless (it’s never been measured or even detected). It’s sophistry.

Joe:
So in my opinion ST’s stuff isn’t supported by the evidence

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Yet you can’t clearly explain your opinion. You are confused. And when people become confused they tend to start pretending that they understand what they don’t understand. This is the reason so many people believe in AGW. They become confused and start pretending.  You are no different.

Joe:
I usually don’t let him post his stuff here. Why here anyway ST?

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Because in order to verify a scientific breakthrough you need to get through to people that recognize the importance empiricism over consensus. Is that not you?

Joe:
Bring people to your own site on the question. Don’t make it part of this site.

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
You should be flattered that I am presenting you the opportunity to confirm a scientific breakthrough.

Joe:
Interesting too that you recently said that I shouldn’t waste my time anymore on the greenhouse problem…when it is THE ONLY problem that matters right now!

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
You have an engineer’s understanding of thermodynamics. You do the math accurately. But you misinform people when it comes to properly conceptualizing what is actually taking place. And since you are so good at the math people tend to assume that you must also understand it conceptually. And, well, you just don’t (as has been demonstrated vividly recently in this blog.) I don’t know the math that well, but I can conceptualize the phenomena and I know how to avoid the semantic confusion that is so common in scientific discourse. You are out of your element in that respect.

BTW, who was it back in September of 2013 that informed the various participants in the “back-radiation” discussion about the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have to do with net flow of energy and not just the flow? It wasn’t you, Joe. It was me. (And, frankly, it still seems you don’t get it.)

The worst thing you can do in science is claim you understand something that you actually do not understand. Because after a while you start believing your own lies. Then you become the thing you are fighting against.

Why are Jet Streams So Fast? Can you explain?

The air speed within jet streams can be as much as 300 miles an hour.  Why?  How?  What causes this?

Do you have an explanation?

 Plasma

Spin That Underlies the Twist

Meteorology as a System of Belief

 

Why Scientists Believe Stupid Things

 Why Scientists Believe Stupid Things

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm

“Most people who haven’t studied physics or chemistry find it hard to believe that humid air is lighter, or less dense, than dry air. How can the air become lighter if we add water vapor to it?”

Only dumb people that don’t understand science believe moist air is lighter than dry air.

“Scientists have known this for a long time.”

Whenever I see this statement I know that what follows will be based on conjecture that was put forth a long time ago and that has never been measured.

“The first was Isaac Newton, who stated that humid air is less dense than dry air in 1717 in his book, Optics. But, other scientists didn’t generally understand this until later in that century.”

They didn’t “understand”it?  What’s to understand?  Just measure it so you are not guessing.  Jeez!!!

“To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the container.”

This is just dumb.  Note how they are just assuming moisture is steam.  In fact there is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (steam) and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that steam can only exist above it’s boiling point.

“Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works.

Imagine a cubic foot of perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which each have a molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) . Another 21% of the air is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular weight of 32 (2 stoms with atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a mixture of other gases, which we won’t worry about.”

This is just stupid.  Note that they never even addressed the issue as to steam in our atmosphere.

Meteorologists are the dumbest people in science.

Molecules are free to move in and out of our cubic foot of air. What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules would leave — remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air stays the same.

The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two hudrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, replacing nitrogen and oxygen with water vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that is, it’s density decreases.

<snip>

“Wait a minute, you might say, “I know water’s heavier than air.” True, liquid water is heavier, or more dense, than air. But, the water that makes the air humid isn’t liquid. It’s water vapor, which is a gas that is lighter than nitrogen or oxygen.”

Wrong, water vapor is not a gas.  It is a liquids.

Moist air is heavier than dry air.

Postma’s Obsession

  1. solvingtornadoes says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Greg House:
    “Joe, is there a clear physical evidence that a colder object does emit IR specifically towards a warmer object?”

    ST:
    Of course there is. The rate of cooling of the warmer object is less than it would be without its proximity to the cooler object. How was this ever not obvious?

  2. solvingtornadoes says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    JP:
    “It’s sophistry and bullshit of course, and stupidity. Because each term is not itself heat in any case. Only the difference is heat, as per the equation. As to what happens to the energy from the cool object…nothing happens to it, and it certainly doesn’t raise the temperature of the warmer object anyway! Idiots.”

    ST:
    Joe, there are three different things at play here and unless you are very careful, specific, and deliberately explicit you will only open the door to more sophistry. There is energy, a noun. There is heat, a process. And there is increase or decrease in measured temperature, what is commonly called heating. If you are not perfectly clear as to which of these three you intend you will only open the door to confusion and more sophistry.

    If you pave the road to sophistry you can’t criticize those that travel it.

    I suggest that you reread what you wrote above and be extremely critical of where there might be any confusion as to which of these three meanings you intend in each instance and revise to remove any possibility of misinterpretation.

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

  3. solvingtornadoessays:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Greg House:
    “So I take it as there is no physical evidence for cold radiating towards hot, . . .”

    ST:
    Is there any evidence that it doesn’t?

    Greg House:
    or suggestion how humble me COULD prove it experimentally if I wish. But as for now we have zero evidence.

    ST:
    If you attempt to disprove it you will fail.

    Greg House:
    I allow me to humbly suggest this “both ways” mantra to be dropped

    ST:
    Based on what? You just confirmed you have no experimental evidence that contradicts it. Right?

    1. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Arfur Bryant says:
      The mere presence of another cooler object can either reduce or increase the rate of cooling depending on the cooler object’s temperature.

      ST:
      I agree, the cooler object would just have to be warmer than the surroundings.

      AB:
      Well, actually, heat is also a noun.

      ST:
      True. I guess I’m saying that heat (in contrast to what most people first assume) is a process, not a thing. Energy is a thing. Heat is the process by which energy changes its location.

      AB:
      However, I do agree with you that radiation is emitted from both the warm and cool objects (and in all directions). Heat, though, only flows one way.

      ST:
      Well, this is where things get real confusing. Being a process that is the result of energy changing its location, heat actually travels in all directions due to the fact that energy travels (changes location) in all directions also. Heating, being the measurable increase in temperature that results from the process of heat, only takes place in the cooler of the two objects. Heating is not a process. It is the result of a process. Heating sounds like a process, but it’s not. It’s the result of a process. Heat sounds like a thing, but it’s not. It’s a process.

      So, heat travels in all directions. Heating takes place in the cooler of the two objects and reduction in rate of cooling takes place in the warmer of the two objects.

      AB:
      Any suggested reduction in rate of cooling is entirely dependant on the temperature difference, not the energy transfer.

      ST:
      Same difference.

    2. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      MS:
      This made me think of a real world experiment. Take a stove and heat a pot of what to boiling temperature (100C) and then set it on the counter away from the heat and measure its rate of cooling. Now with the room temperature the same (a/c set at same temp should do it — 23C?) we do the same thing but set the pot of boiling water (100C) next to a pot of cooler water which is at say, 50 C, and then check the rate of cooling of the first pot (the pot of boiling water) again.

      As I understand it, S.T. claims the cooling rate of the first pot would be changed and Greg House says it would not change. Would this experiment settle the matter?

      ST:
      Yes, that would settle it.

      However, it might be difficult detecting temperature differences in pots of water. It might be easier to just use two metal plates.

Solution to the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?

In a previous post I presented a challenge: What is the mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?  In this post I provide the solution.

In the previous post I provided a link to another video that contained a hint.  We will get to that further along.  First I would like to discusss another concept/conjecture for which I provided no hint but for which I had previously discussed in a prior post on this website entitled: Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof.  Therein I asserted that unlike other types of bonds the force associated with a hydrogen bond is consumed (neutralized) by the completion of a bond between two water molecules.  Consequently when a water molecule has two bonds on its negative oxygen molecule the polarity is neutralized and the resulting force of the bond disappears (2∂ – 2∂ = 0∂). So, when there are two hydrogen bonds completed the positively charged hydrogen atoms just kind of float.  The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns pulling them back.

However, and most significantly, when there is only one hydrogen bond completed then there is a considerable amount of the polarity induced bond strength remaining (2∂ – 1∂ = 1∂).  This remaining bond strength creates a very hard bond.  This is the same hard bond associated with ice.  Through this we can understand why ice expands as it hardens since the hardening has to do with excluding one of the two bonds, forcing it away.

Through this understanding we can also, I contend, understand the strange behavior of non-Newtonian fluids: when force is applied the starch molecules, being very small, exert inter-molecular force on the water molecules.  By tearing off the first of the two molecules (which comes off fairly easily) the starch leaves behind one hard connection.  So, essentially, what is happening is that the starch is forcing the water to become ice for a fraction of a second.  This explains the mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids.

Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk)
Solving Tornadoes