• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

comments invited

Gavinimurthy said:
Hi Hans

I really woud like to hear about the short comings in this study, if any, in a scientific way, ofcourse.

Are there any material science specialists here?

Murthy
Click to expand...
I'm working on it. I'm not a material science specialist per se, but based on my first reading, I don't think that is necessary.

Hans
 
bvw12 said:
from roy's paper. any discussion?


Miyazaki et al. ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Science[/FONT], May 21, 2004) show infrared spectroscopic evidence for oligomers of different shape and sizes from n=4-27 in (H2O)n [41]. Shin et al. (May 21, 2004) present intriguing IR data near the 3.7μ O-H stretching band in oligomers from 6-27, around the “magic number” of n=21 [42]. From neither of these papers can one tell whether the authors believe that water—all waters under undelimited conditions—contain 100% of these molecules, or a majority. Nor is there any comment on how such clusters are distributed in space, or whether different size clusters are themselves formed into separate regions of the nano-heterogeneous bulk water.​


****​

Clearly the origin of some of the inherent confusion in the field is based on the materials scientists’ and the chemists’ use of the same term to mean different things. Chemists use “structure” to describe the structure of the molecules or ‘structural building blocks.’ Materials Scientists use “structure” to describe the 3-D structural architecture of the material. The former describe the size and shape of the bricks or cement blocks; the latter describe the shape and size of the walls and the room and how the bricks and blocks are arranged within it.​
Click to expand...
Hi Neil!

Be patient. You want us to actually read the paper, right? Or would you prefer just a quick perusing so you can accuse os of knee-jerk reactions afterwards? ;)

Well, things take time.

In the meantime, you could go back and remind the more enthusiastic members at hpathy that even if Roy could demonstrate an objective difference between a remedy and a control, homeopathy as a medical practice is still a long way from vindication. Skeptics often focus on the lack of substance in remedies because this is something even the lay-man can easily grasp, but you and I know that potentization is really periferal to homeopathic doctrine. The central point is whether like cures like is a universal principle or not.

Hans
 
Gavinimurthy said:
The word homeopathy is mentioned in the report. Not by me.

Murthy
Click to expand...
Murthy,

You still haven't answered the question: Do YOU understand ANYTHING from that report? Do YOU understand anything about the subject?

It is no point in us showing you how it is rubbish if you have no understanding of the subject or our explanation.

Now please don't be any more foolish than you look already. Be honest - do YOU understand this subject?

Yes or no, please.

Thanks
 
Gavinimurthy said:
There are nine types of ethanols mentioned on this site.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/TablePage/14577624

See the data for 493546 Ethanol.

UV absorption λ: 240 nm Amax: 0.40

λ: 250 nm Amax: 0.30

λ: 260 nm Amax: 0.30

λ: 270 nm Amax: 0.10

λ: 340 nm Amax: 0.10

*************

This is the data for specroscopic grade

UV absorption λ: 210 nm Amax: 0.40

λ: 220 nm Amax: 0.25

λ: 230 nm Amax: 0.15

λ: 240 nm Amax: 0.05

λ: 270-400 nm Amax: 0.01

The difference of absorbance between the two grades is self explanatory.

So, we can't jump to conclusions and declare the study of a reputed professor as bogus.

Perhaps 'selective blindness'?

Murthy
Click to expand...

Murthy,

The data you have shown is from a reputable firm, and they apply to what look to be properly produced and measured substances. That's good!

Now...please tell us: which of these ethanols did Roy use? Does he say which one? Please point out to us where Roy used these ethanols.

Because as far as I can tell, he doesn't say. For all we know, he could have been using illegal moonshine from a still in his back yard.

I await YOUR response with interest.

Thanks
 
does anyone here have any actual expertise in materials science? or, does anyone have any considered opinion regarding the general merits of this scientific discipline?​


this is also from roy's paper:​


<B>[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
Table I​
[/FONT]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Changes in different water properties, each requiring a[/FONT]​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]change of structure, each at a different temperature[/FONT]​


[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Property Comment[/FONT]​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]</B>[/FONT]​

Density Maximum at 4 °C​

Refractive index Thermal maximum near 0 °C​

Thermal expansion coefficient Changes from extremely high up to 6—7 °C​

to low (normal) above 12 °C​

Isothermal compressibility Minimum at 50 °C​

Isothermal piezo-optic coefficient Maximum near 50 °C​

Specific heat of water Minimum at 35 °C​

Table I and Fig. 13 show the extreme degree to which water’s properties are anomalous. Note first in the figure that the properties of the vast majority of liquids have
monotonic, linear, changes with some variable. Next, note the very, very different behavior of water. Next, note that it is not just one property in which very anomalous changes are found, but such changes are found in many properties. Note that the kink point or maxima or minima are all at different temperatures. These anomalies clearly tell the materials scientist that there is no way to achieve these phenomena except by a combination of two of our key conclusions about the structure of water. Across the transition point in properties there has to be a change of structure. Secondly, there must be several quite separate structural transitions to account for just the property changes noted. There is no prima facie way of telling whether such absolutely confirmed familiar behavior can be explained by complex rearrangement of just two (or five) states or clusters, or whether it requires simpler re-arrangements of many different states. The crystal chemical connection invoked by Robinson is certainly operative, but it is not necessary that water consists of a mixture of only “two states”, which by some juggling could be adjusted to try to explain the plethora of anomalies by utilizing only two structures. Our proposal is simply to posit that there are many possible structures.​
 
Last edited:
Zep said:
Murthy,

The data you have shown is from a reputable firm, and they apply to what look to be properly produced and measured substances. That's good!

Now...please tell us: which of these ethanols did Roy use? Does he say which one? Please point out to us where Roy used these ethanols.

Because as far as I can tell, he doesn't say. For all we know, he could have been using illegal moonshine from a still in his back yard.

I await YOUR response with interest.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I will try to contact Dr.Roy and get the details. Be patient till then.

Murthy
 
hi, hans -

yes, i want you all to read the paper thoroughly. the reason i have excerpted is to provide some passages that appear deeply considered enough to warrant a thoughtful response, somewhat beyond stating that the paper "...is total rubbish and not worth the time to read it" or "the study is total garbage."

really, what makes you think i'd have any concerns for possible knee-jerk responses from this group?:)

anyway, i know you will give serious consideration to roy's paper, and i hope others here might do the same, as in fact many of the comments so far in this thread have done. roy's cv, after all, is pretty substantial, and his paper carefully considered enough to deserve a serious review. btw, for those who have only seen the ppt, i strongly recommend the full manuscript (http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf).

neil
 
Originally Posted by bvw12
or, does anyone have any considered opinion regarding the general merits of this scientific discipline?

PixyMisa said:
Yeah.

If it's only water that's special, what's he doing mucking about with ethanol?
Click to expand...

the "scientific discipline" i referred to was Materials Science, not dr roy's specific paper.
 
Last edited:
Gavinimurthy said:
I will try to contact Dr.Roy and get the details. Be patient till then.

Murthy
Click to expand...
In saying this, Murthy, you have now demonstrated that you do NOT understand what you are writing about here. You are simply being a parrot for Rustom Roy. If you did understand any of his work at all, you would have at least been able to find and state which ethanols Roy used in his testing, but you can't and you have to go and ask him yourself.

You have referred above with your link to Sigma Aldrich to something completely pointless to your discussion - data about substances that probably had whatever nothing to do with Roy's testing at all. It is like telling us about sea water, when we really want to discuss the river water from the mountains. A pointless exercise.

This whole exercise demonstrates clearly that you have simply accepted Roy's presentation as being valid and useful and true and supporting homeopathy, without having the slightest idea or understanding yourself if it is. You do not seem to know or understand that Roy's presentation is a load of speculative codswallop. It is a dreadful piece of work, and makes homeopathic theories look even more stupid as a result.

You really do need to get yourself a better education, Murthy, as soon as possible. For a start, the basics of physics, chemistry and maths would be highly recommended. This isn't a difficult thing to achieve...
 
hans,

on the question of pertinence to homeopathic practice, we disagree. after all, if the remedies are nothing but water, as you believe, then homeopathy can not be a "real" medical intervention.

the ability to certify a distinct physical characteristic to homeopathic remedies, from that pov, is an absolutely necessary condition to being able to substantiate homeopathic claims. it may not be sufficient as an ultimate proof, but without it there is no chance of a proof; further, with it we can amputate a good portion of the skeptical argument, that is, that part of it that deals with what is or is not likely to occur in future developments in physics.

neil
 
bvw12 said:
hans,

on the question of pertinence to homeopathic practice, we disagree. after all, if the remedies are nothing but water, as you believe, then homeopathy can not be a "real" medical intervention.

the ability to certify a distinct physical characteristic to homeopathic remedies, from that pov, is an absolutely necessary condition to being able to substantiate homeopathic claims. it may not be sufficient as an ultimate proof, but without it there is no chance of a proof; further, with it we can amputate a good portion of the skeptical argument, that is, that part of it that deals with what is or is not likely to occur in future developments in physics.

neil
Click to expand...
An excellent starting point.

Now here's the next question: How do you propose to ensure that any proof you obtain is sufficiently robust as to be effectively unassailable? What is your criteria for "proof"?
 
Introduction, first sentence:
The “structure of liquid water” receives some 8 million hits on Google and the “structure of water” over twice as many.
Click to expand...
Nope. Try it: The first phrase returns 32,300 hits; the second, 224,000.
 
Gavinimurthy said:
There are nine types of ethanols mentioned on this site.
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/TablePage/14577624

See the data for 493546 Ethanol.

UV absorption λ: 240 nm Amax: 0.40
λ: 250 nm Amax: 0.30
λ: 260 nm Amax: 0.30
λ: 270 nm Amax: 0.10
λ: 340 nm Amax: 0.10

*************

This is the data for specroscopic grade

UV absorption λ: 210 nm Amax: 0.40

λ: 220 nm Amax: 0.25
λ: 230 nm Amax: 0.15
λ: 240 nm Amax: 0.05
λ: 270-400 nm Amax: 0.01

The difference of absorbance between the two grades is self explanatory

So, we can't jump to conclusions and declare the study of a reputed professor as bogus.

Perhaps 'selective blindness'?

Murthy
Click to expand...
The "493546" Ethanol is potable, anhydrous ethanol. It is not as clean as the spectroscopic grade. No matter, neither corresponds to the spectrum of pure ethanol shown on p. 28 of the lecture you are promoting. Most particularly, and this is very important (so- pay attention), the slide on p. 28 shows an absorption max. at 325 nm which does not belong to pure ethanol.

The "nux vomica" spectra could simply be potable alcohol. There are many possible explanations for the slight differences among them. PixyMisa is correct- stringent controls are required before one can claim the "differences" are real.

I am not accusing Roy of cheating. I am questioning his competence in this matter.
 
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 171,000,000 for structure water. (0.17 seconds)

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 24,000,000 for structure liquid water. (0.22 seconds)

In a hurry to dispute every sentence, too many mistakes are being made. Watch it out.

Murthy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom