Peter Vs Randi

[BillHoyt]

I'm unable to find any reference to the word "passivation" in the Forum or on the Commentary.

Where abouts does Randi use this word and in what sense?

Randi refers to the process here

 

[EHocking]

Randi refers to the process here

Got it now - thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

Mr. Morris, there is a new thread devoted to your idea that water clusters exist, they are so ephemeral that they exist in collective only, and then there is your ridiculous cliam that five molecules bind to five more molecules, which shows you didn't do your own search on hydrogen bonding.Be sure to ignore this Mr. Morris


1. You Mr. Morris make outrageous claims about the significanse of randi's statementa taken out of context.
-Randi says that there are no underground rivers.
Randi says:There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves.
-Randi says that there is no genetic change.
Randi says:By rights, this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't.
-Randi says that thoughts don't cause arthritis
Hey you got that right!
-Randi says that water doesn't cluster
Randi says in the correction:Mind you, the dreaded "clusters" of as many as six molecules occur frequently, but since they only last for three picoseconds (that's .000000000003 of one second) I don't really think that we have to be concerned..


2. You can't even get your own facts straight.

-"Those five water molecules bond to five other molecules, and so on.."
-"Thoughts or state of mind cause arthritis"

In short Mr. Morris it would appear to me is that you take a statement out of context and then attribute to it a meaning that you want it to have. Then you go and knock down your own misattribution.
Then if someone tries to engage you in reasonable debate , you shift the meaning of your own statements, and continue to try to misattribute meaning to Randi'words.

In short your appear to be a troll, in that you just seem to set up straw man argumenst and knock them down. When someone holds you to the substance of your own arguments then you claim that they don't mean what you said. You engage in name calling and don't even respond to polite posts except to become more shrill in your assertions.

You may be a damn fine architect or whatever you are but you are a poseur of a sceptic.

Thanks for being a troll howver, because that is what gives this board life.

 

[EGarrett]

I haven't seen much mention of this particular gem by Morris...

You Randi fans meet a dowser who claims that he can find water flowing underground. You wish to refute his claims, so you tell him - water does not flow underground except in caves. It's a dud argument that fails to change anyones mind, and if you read Randi you have no others.

I mean...how blatantly ignorant of the JREF and the skeptical thinking process can you be? It's obvious that he has NO idea whatsoever of how Randi challenges claims or how skeptics challenge claims (i.e. asking for evidence). So it's clear that he has no basis for his attacks...

 

[Beerina]

We will look forward to it.
And thanks for mentioning me by name in your latest commentary.

I've been mentioned in two!

Ok, stop it, I'm sure some of you have been mentioned in seventy two.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

I consulted an [ my insert : unnamed, possibly misquoted] Australian geologist about the Great Artesian Basin, and here's what he had to say:

even [my insert: with a map of where the water is on a large scale], localised geology will always do it’s best to thwart your efforts. [snip repetitive bit] ...local geology must be determined typically by drilling (however there are some geophysical methods that can help with localised effects these are somewhat useless with out significant drill hole information to use as correlation).
.

OK, I've caught up on my reading enough to have gotten this message from Petey about his beliefs... and the first statements he made on the SDMB was that he believed in the possibility of dowsing... albeit he felt it was less magnetic voodoo and more about repeated training in the art of dowsing allowing the practitioners to subconsciously pick up on geophysical "clues" in the landscape around them and freeing their central nervous system to react on an autonomic level with dowsing rods that serve as long thin levers to overproduce signs of small muscle reactions... or some such thing.

* Please correct my understanding of what you were trying to say back then, Pete... if I have gotten it wrong.

** PLUS - I'm sure we'd all like to know if you've modified your belief system since then... but from what I've read of your writings that seems to be the gist of it.

(BIG FINISH) Your source clearly refutes the system of dowsing you seem to believe in. He says, "local geology must be determined typically by drilling".

You know... drilling... UNDER the earth... NO CLUES on the surface will work... this is your chosen source and he says no surface clues will do the job.

You did insert a hopeful little bit from your unattributed source about there being some geophysical methods that can help with localised effects . But the sentence doesn't end until he says that those methods are useless with out significant drill hole information . And I'll bet a million dollars that those "methods" don't include dowsing.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Actually, I think I've seen one of the reasons people like Pete get upset at Randi.

Randi gets a cool personal Avatar and yet he hasn't done his 50 posts to the forum yet.

Special privileges can really get some people upset... brings out the social champion in otherwise mild folk. I'll bet it's something like that.

Heck, he's just a misunderstood hero... he's not the petty little person he's been portrayed as... by his own words...

* I'm sorry. That was uncalled for and unprofessional... luckily, I'm not getting paid for this.

 

[JamesM]

General Chemistry, McQuarrie and Rock, ISBN 0-7167-1806-5

Read it cover to cover. You need to.

Sorry, jj, are you suggesting that reading this book will tell Peter about the concept of 'passivation' w.r.t. water 'clusters'? I must disagree.

I've got two degrees in chemistry, I work in the physical chemistry department of a university and I've never heard the term 'passivation' used in this way.

So I went to the library and looked in General Chemistry by McQuarrie and Rock. There is no mention of 'passivation' in there. That was the third edition, so I tried the second edition. No luck there, either.

So I went and checked some other general chemistry textbooks. Nothing on 'passivation'. So I moved onto the physical chemistry textbooks. Nada. Then I tried some physics textbooks, just to be sure. Zilch. The 'Physical Chemistry: A Comprehensive Treatise' came up empty, and so did the dedicated books on water I then went on to check, including the seven volumes of 'Water: A Comprehensive Treatise'.

In short, I could find no mention of 'passivation' as used to refer to the structure of water in either general chemistry textbooks, physical chemistry textbooks, or specialised water textbooks.

It's certainly possible that the term is used in very specialised applications, but I think the onus is on those who claim that Peter has made some basic scientific error in not knowing what 'passivation' is, to provide a reference to it.

I ask for this in the spirit of genuine inquiry, not to score points off anyone. But I also think it's rather unfair to imply that Peter Morris lacks basic chemistry knowledge because he hasn't heard of 'passivation' in this context. I understand that many of you will think that the time for dealing with him even-handedly is long gone, but that is hardly a great advertisement for critical thinking at its finest.

Finally, I am slightly baffled by this comment of Randi's:

The free “arms” available on the six molecules are fully occupied in forming up the “lattice” or “crystal” assembly, and that is a complete, saturated – though transitory – arrangement. This is called, “passivation,” and until that 6-molecule assembly breaks up, none of those molecules can “get together” with any other molecules.

Certainly, theoretical calculations have been carried out on hexamers of water, but I am unable to make any further sense of this. Once again, any references or explanation would be very much appreciated.

 

[Moose]

I'm demostrating the errors of James Randi, not advocating dowsing. Randi claims it's easy to find water. It's actually pretty hard. You require an expert geologist - not a dowser - to find water.

I realize I'm a few pages back. I also realize that nothing in this post equates real evidence.

Speaking as a layperson (maybe 12 years old at the time), when my grandfather build a house (more accurately, modified/rebuilt a trailer-home) into a nice split-level home on a hillside), he needed to have a well dug.

This involved a couple of local boys with a drilling truck. They drove up, asked granddad if "here was convenient" to where he planned on putting the pump [paraphrased, the conversation happened in a local canadian dialect of french"].

At about 80 feet down, they struck water.

I was nearby the whole time. I remember listening to my granddad talking with the drillers about how deep they'd go and where they'd try next if there was no water there. Nobody seemed very worried about it.

No geologists, no surveyors. I did not see a single piece of paper (other than the invoice) involved in the operation.

Friends of ours near a city chose to dig a well rather than access the city supply. The first try, they found water 20ish feet down. Useless, as it was salty.

They tried another hole something like 40 feet away, they had to go down quite a ways, but they found water.

Again, no "expert" geologists were involved. Just some guys with a truck.

In fact, about half of my extended family reside in rural areas with successful wells. Just how many "expert geologists" are there in the world?

Apparently, water isn't all _that_ hard to find.

 

[jj]

Sorry, jj, are you suggesting that reading this book will tell Peter about the concept of 'passivation' w.r.t. water 'clusters'? I must disagree.

I agree that "passivation" isn't what it's usually called, but M&R will lead him to hydrogen bonding, and to how fast the bonds come and go (by the way, isn't JR's bond time a bit short, then again, it's been a few years)...

What M&R will do is teach him, if he wants to learn, is about the very temporary nature of any inter-solvent bonds in mildly polar fluids.

The term "passivation" that I know usually involves making semiconductors less able to gather surface or volume impurities.

 

[teddosan]

"passivation"

"Passivation" is not a term that relates specifically to water. It is simply the process whereby molecules become unable to react with other molecules. Randi used the term a bit incorrectly, I think, though his meaning is still understandable. I think what he was trying to say is that when a water molecule bonds with five others, all six become "passivated." In other words, they are all unable to react with other molecules to form a cluster larger than six. I don't believe that Randi was naming the bonding process "passivation," but rather was naming the concept whereby the molecules become unable to react with molecules outside of their cluster-of-six.

 

[JamesM]

Re: "passivation"

I think what he was trying to say is that when a water molecule bonds with five others, all six become "passivated." In other words, they are all unable to react with other molecules to form a cluster larger than six.

I rather hope he isn't saying that. Water molecules cannot bond with five others, they can bond with at most four other water molecules. Water hexamer substructures do exist, but each water molecule is bonded to only two other members in the hexamer.

And water most certainly can form clusters larger than six, much larger. And also smaller.

BTW, jj, the life time of an H-bond in water is about 1-20 ps.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: "passivation"

BTW, jj, the life time of an H-bond in water is about 1-20 ps.

Thank you. So the 1 ps was the short end.

I guess the other question is, given the dissassociation behavior of water, how long before a typical molecule undergoes disassociation and gets back together, perhaps not with the same H+?

Let me state it better, assuming pure water, what is the half-life of a water molecule, meaning with the same two H's and single O? How long, on average, will a given molecule remain associated as the same atoms? Assume that we have enough H+ (or H3O's) to make it unlikely to rebond to the same H+, i.e. we have a at least a gram or so.

 

[JamesM]

Re: Re: Re: "passivation"

I guess the other question is, given the dissassociation behavior of water, how long before a typical molecule undergoes disassociation and gets back together, perhaps not with the same H+?

I'm not entirely sure. The Grotthus mechanism means that water molecules will dissociate, but they recombine within femtoseconds. However, if there was a change in hydrogen bonding at the same time, then the ions have a longer life time. The average water molecule (at 25oC) dissociates by the latter mechanism about twice a day, i.e. it is a very rare event. I'm not entirely sure how long the ions persist - either on the order of picoseconds or microseconds (the sources I just checked were a bit ambiguous).

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "passivation"

I'm not entirely sure. The Grotthus mechanism means that water molecules will dissociate, but they recombine within femtoseconds. However, if there was a change in hydrogen bonding at the same time, then the ions have a longer life time. The average water molecule (at 25oC) dissociates by the latter mechanism about twice a day, i.e. it is a very rare event. I'm not entirely sure how long the ions persist - either on the order of picoseconds or microseconds (the sources I just checked were a bit ambiguous).

Fair enough, the reason I asked is because it shows that for water-based homeopathic "remedies" by the time the user takes them, not only is any "shape" gone, but the original water molecules are gone, too

 

[robinson]

For anyone interested in the first ten pages of this discussion from Mr. Morris, please see:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...ghlight=underground+AND+stream#post1870117838

Have fun.

???

Why are all these broken links happening?

 

[Ersby]

???

Why are all these broken links happening?

A while back the board went down and a lot of stuff was either wiped or got new urls.

 

[robinson]

Damn. I see that now. Frustrating for an old researcher like myself.

But then, Google knows all, sees all, find all, and allows the eternal joy of