This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hexagonal water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Hexagonal water appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 November 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
If structured (hexagonal water) is entirely a scam, then why does the National Institute of health (NIH) have research that suggests otherwise? Example, some studies suggest that it reduces plaque by up to 60%, others show that it lowers blood sugar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.123.1 ( talk) 03:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I fixed up the article a bit, borrowing from water cluster. I am a bit dubious about the whole NMR thingy. Its been years since I used one, but can they even detect hydrogen bonds at all? I thought it was restricted to molecular bonds? Yoenit ( talk) 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the chemical shift / NMR frequency would be sensitive to mean differences in hydrogen bonding strength, and it's incorrect to imply that NMR can't distinguish between pure water and urine - NMR *spectroscopy* is widely applied to urine (see metabonomics). Simple NMR *imaging* cannot be used, although even then it can be used to measure diffusion coefficients and so could in principle show that water was not "clumped". The article as it stands implies that IR is a more sophisticated technique, whereas they are just good at different things. Not that these scam artists actually care or understand the techniques they name drop. 129.234.14.145 ( talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Nabi ( talk) 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)I hereby refer to a book by PJ Pangman called Hexagonal Water - the ultimate solution which is a well researched given the bibliography at the back of the book. My friend runs a clinic in Gaborone here in Botswana and his HIV/AIDS patients report immediate relief after drinking the water. And that is something that Pangman documents in her book.
Just an observation, but Placebo effect seems to get thrown out pretty regularly when there isn't a direct answer to why a particular effect works. That seems like a genuine question, by a thoughtful person. Placebo seems lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujumagicpants ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Opinions in favor of this theory are missing for it to be objective, there are numerous scientists from diverse universities who support it, the fact that it "clashes with several established scientific ideas" is not a valid argument, established scientific ideas keep on getting knocked down, such is the beauty of science. This article seems pretty biased being that it does not present the arguments of the many scientists that do support the concept. Hucasys ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
For someone who "I mainly work on articles relating to southern England and rivers and Roman roads, plus anything else that catches my interest. I take lots of photos wherever I go to upload to commons." How does this make you an authority on the measuring capabilities of NRM devices for 4th phase or structured water on Wikipedia? Also, there's zero references to Dr. Gerald H Pollack and the Pollack Laboratory at the University of Washington on this page which is extremely odd - he's pretty much the world authority on this subject. He's published two best selling books on his re-discovery of the substance. His most recent, is "The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor" is available for purchase at ebnerandsons.com.
If you want to get the proper scientific view on structured water - exploring the science as described by leading authorities, it would seem only logical to discuss Dr. Pollack's findings. Second, the placebo effect is quite powerful but no one knows how it works, so it's not like the mystery has been solved. It's quite well known that the living cells is filled with water. Evidence provided by Dr. Mae Wan Ho and others suggest the water in the living cell is structured differently. She also has best selling books on this subject. You seem to mock the idea that water could potentially have a more optimal molecular structure but give little considerations to the cells remarkable abilities to perform various tasks, such as signal transduction, which it does in a water substance.
Finally, maybe you could read up a little bit on Gilbert Ling who is a world expert on the living cell and water in the cell. In fact, "In 1969 Professor Raymond Damadian aware of Ling's structured water theory conceived the idea of non-envasively detecting cancers using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)" I mean, since 1969 they have been using the theory of structured water for MRI machines. Water in the cell is what these machines are detecting to find cancerous regions. So, its amazing that you attempting to argue that NMR machine cannot detect structured water. Its being done everyday, thousands of times a day, globally, and its been known since 1969.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DorfmanAdam ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There are other water based scams, and i think there should be a generic article that mentions them all.
For example, EZ water, structured water, alkaline water etc...
http://greensmoothie.com/water/pollack.php
http://www.h302water.com
— unsigned comment added by Jsky87 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Use a search engine to look for "water exclusion zone" pages published in the past year / past month, and you will find several studies in peer reviewed journals.
Sometimes there comes a tipping point when the roles reverse and the skeptics turn into dogmatics refusing to accept scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.30.101 ( talk) 17:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am disappointed in the current article for Hexagonal Water and have been for some time. It is a disservice seeing as it is a type of molecular configuration of water being shown to be essential and even fundamental to life and health. This configuration has been researched and verified with thousands of hours by experts. Claiming hexagonal water is simply a scam ignores vast amounts of science from highly accredited professionals, and makes their findings and its benefits inaccessible to many.
This editor does not have expertise, knowledge or understanding in this field, and uses a tool called Huggle to monitor and automate editing and revert edits.
Simply stating fraud is incompatible with knowledge gained by researching the pioneers and leaders in the field as collected at [1] and elsewhere, many with a lifetime of contributions and dozens of Chairs, Fellows, Adjuncts, and Accolades from their life's work. There are hundreds of papers supporting and relating to the hexagonal water phenomena, as well as dozens of books easily available that summarize this for the layperson.
I have asked for an intervention from Wiki and am following their recommendations by demonstrating here a civil request that this result accurately describe what Hexagonal Water is, starting with those that have provided evidence that has yet to be overcome by the scientific community as to its existence, properties, roles and effects on living systems.
This editor has been warned not to spam this topic with terms such as scam and hoax or police and repeatedly revert it. People searching this topic wish to know about this type of molecular formation and its properties and effects in a summarized and cited form. This should be supplied respectfully here instead, as part of the wiki service platform.
TimeTells ( talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
References
The person that moderates this page should be different than the person creating content for it. Especially when the content provides little information about what the topic is, and the author doesn't know much about the subject.
On my personal talk page TimeTells ( talk) 15:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC) the current pages author "UN: McSly" is acting as Moderator and representing WIKI while continuing to revert articles back to theirs.
The article I provided shows that this is not fringe science but leading science. A real difference. See edit on 1/10/19.
It is against Wiki terms to keeps reverting articles, especially if you are not knowledgable about or a specialist in a subject. Acting as a WIKI Moderator to control pages is also against terms.
A more in-depth article with relevant-to-topic information and plenty of citations is available. See edit on 1/10/19. TimeTells ( talk) 15:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the process to get a legitimate WIKI Moderator and Article for this topic here is. Can you help? TimeTells ( talk) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
As of June 13, 2019, this article is unbalanced and biased. The article's first sentence calls structured water a marketing scam, which it is; however, this article should focus on explaining the concept and the firm scientific foundations of the theory. There are peer-reviewed scientific reports. Where are these references (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hexagonal_water&oldid=877658033) in the article? Why were they deleted and replaced with the blatantly untrue statement "no evidence to support"? Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She uses the concept of structured water in her "provocative proposals" (theory), follows scientific method and her language reflects that. However, the religionists of "science" - or fake "scientists" - who wrote this article (as of June 13, 2019), try to discredit structured water by making claims like "there is no scientific evidence that supports the theory" (quote from this article). Any practitioner of real science knows, "no evidence" does not disprove the theory, and within the scientific method, it is not intended to disprove anything. As with so much that we have learned over that last century, having no evidence proves and disproves nothing. To make that assertion to discredit the concept of structured water is religion, not science. Having no evidence fails to disprove the theory, as the author apparently asserts. The practice of science always leaves the door open for new insights, new data, and new interpretations. People discrediting this are practicing a false religion that they call "science," but obviously have no understanding of science itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheraune ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The first two links in the article, which are used to support that claim that hexagonal water is a marketing scam are broken.
The first link to wired a wired article doesn't have any actual information in it and appears to be an opinion piece. The video links in the "article" are broken as well.
The second link is to a google doc that offers nothing.
It appears that the entire wikipedia on Hexagonal Water was written to demonstrate it as a scam, but not to provide unbiased information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrellRell ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Gave it a read, makes sense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrellRell ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The article in question ignores the findings of Dr. Gerald Pollack PhD. Chimosabe ( talk) 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This has little to do with the actual article but do we have a page on Wikipedia explaining this? What is vibration-rotation-tunneling? I known what quantum tunneling is and I know what rotation and vibration energy levels are, but what is this? The same goes for the exclusion zone. I think it would be easier to understand this article if there was a bit about these topics on Wikipedia. 2A02:181F:0:80A7:1CD2:DA5A:E917:E2F5 ( talk) 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to see "structured water" labelled a marketing scam. Are you totally sure there isn't real science somewhere at the back of it? I did a web search for "structured water" and up came a whole bunch of (presumable) marketing scams--and a journal article published by Oxford University (Michael I Lindinger, Structured water: effects on animals, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 99, Issue 5, May 2021, skab063, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab063). Further digging turned up further journal articles dealing with "structured water"--indicating that it is something acknowledged by, and in the process of being investigated by, science. See, for example Grba, Daniel N, and Judy Hirst. “Mitochondrial complex I structure reveals ordered water molecules for catalysis and proton translocation.” Nature structural & molecular biology vol. 27,10 (2020): 892-900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0473-x (sorry different bib. style format) and Zhang, Chi, Xiaoyi Li, Zichen Wang et al., "Influence of Structured Water Layers on Protein Adsorption Process: A Case Study of Cytochrome c and Carbon Nanotube Interactions and Its Implications," J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 4, 684–694. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b10192 (ditto). One of the original papers on the topic seems to be Higgins, Michael J., Martin Polcik, Takeshi Fukuma et al., "Structured Water Layers Adjacent to Biological Membranes," Biophysical Journal, Volume 91, Issue 7, P2532-2542, October 01, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.106.085688. (Please clean up my citations if you can and desire to do so.)
By the way, scientists can make valuable contributions outside their area of expertise. It isn't common, but it's possible; although "new" findings by scientists out of their field should be handled with caution until confirmed by scientists who possess the relevant expertise (as well as, of course, supported by further experiments).
N.B. Someone gave a TED talk on "structured water" which is how I first heard about it.
2600:1700:27D0:6580:B897:E034:9BF8:D874 ( talk) 18:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
structured water;
This article must set a record for Wikipedia for illogical arguments claiming to show that EZ water is a "marketing scam". There have been water-based marketing scams for years, but that's no more a proof that EZ water is a marketing scam than the existence of far right and far left political extremists is proof that respectively Republicans and Democrats are political parties both destroying America. Likewise "First show us that you can produce a bottle of structured water and then we will talk" makes about as much sense as "show us you can produce a bottle of surface tension and then we will talk."
The editor /info/en/?search=User:Hob_Gadling reminds me of some other editors I've seen on Wikipedia claiming to be a subject matter authority when it's painfully obvious they have no clue about the actual science involved and are simply playing the bully role of someone with a bee in their bonnet claiming a connection between marketing scams and genuine science. This article badly needs to be completely replaced with an article written by those with actual science degrees, ideally a Ph.D. I have one and have over 6,000 Wikipedia edits under my belt since 2007 or so including many on radiation physics but I'd need to read up on the physical chemistry of states of water before I felt confident getting the facts right.
That said, it is obvious to me that EZ water has essentially the same structural stability as graphene and other 2D chemical structures discussed here. Statements like "I find it hard to believe that such a situation would be stable." make no more sense than the statements by French aeronautical scientists between 1903 and 1908 that they found it hard to believe that a heavier-than-air flying machine could be built. Eventually the Wright brothers had to ship one of their machines to France to convince those skeptics.
This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 08:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
French aeronautical scientists: their maths was fine, according to the then known strength of materials, you could not build a heavier than air flying device from materials available at that time. I assume the calculations predate the 1900s. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The reason I asked you for a reliable source is that I was unable to find even one in the articleThis is the tu quoque fallacy. You do not have a reliable source for your opinion, so you avert attention by claiming that neither does the other side.
Irrelevant to hexagonal waterMaybe, maybe not. "Cluster water" and "hexagonal water" are used interchangeably, such as here: [2]. As long as we do not have a good reason to separate the two terms in two articles, it should stay in the same one. The use of that source could be worded better.
This is an uninformed opinion articleIt is not marked as an opinion piece. If one could make a source unreliable by claiming it is just opinion, we would have to delete all of Wikipedia because flat-earthers, moon landing deniers and their ilk would shoot all sources down they do not like.
claiming to be a subject matter authorityYou are distorting facts. I never did that. You avoided an outright lie by wrapping the claim into a "reminds me of", but it is still not valid reasoning.
This is what happens when one person makes Wikipedia. It's not a scam at all font just read the top searchs 2600:6C60:0:1179:E818:E592:6D43:221 ( talk) 14:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hexagonal water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Hexagonal water appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 November 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
If structured (hexagonal water) is entirely a scam, then why does the National Institute of health (NIH) have research that suggests otherwise? Example, some studies suggest that it reduces plaque by up to 60%, others show that it lowers blood sugar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.123.1 ( talk) 03:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I fixed up the article a bit, borrowing from water cluster. I am a bit dubious about the whole NMR thingy. Its been years since I used one, but can they even detect hydrogen bonds at all? I thought it was restricted to molecular bonds? Yoenit ( talk) 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the chemical shift / NMR frequency would be sensitive to mean differences in hydrogen bonding strength, and it's incorrect to imply that NMR can't distinguish between pure water and urine - NMR *spectroscopy* is widely applied to urine (see metabonomics). Simple NMR *imaging* cannot be used, although even then it can be used to measure diffusion coefficients and so could in principle show that water was not "clumped". The article as it stands implies that IR is a more sophisticated technique, whereas they are just good at different things. Not that these scam artists actually care or understand the techniques they name drop. 129.234.14.145 ( talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Nabi ( talk) 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)I hereby refer to a book by PJ Pangman called Hexagonal Water - the ultimate solution which is a well researched given the bibliography at the back of the book. My friend runs a clinic in Gaborone here in Botswana and his HIV/AIDS patients report immediate relief after drinking the water. And that is something that Pangman documents in her book.
Just an observation, but Placebo effect seems to get thrown out pretty regularly when there isn't a direct answer to why a particular effect works. That seems like a genuine question, by a thoughtful person. Placebo seems lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujumagicpants ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Opinions in favor of this theory are missing for it to be objective, there are numerous scientists from diverse universities who support it, the fact that it "clashes with several established scientific ideas" is not a valid argument, established scientific ideas keep on getting knocked down, such is the beauty of science. This article seems pretty biased being that it does not present the arguments of the many scientists that do support the concept. Hucasys ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
For someone who "I mainly work on articles relating to southern England and rivers and Roman roads, plus anything else that catches my interest. I take lots of photos wherever I go to upload to commons." How does this make you an authority on the measuring capabilities of NRM devices for 4th phase or structured water on Wikipedia? Also, there's zero references to Dr. Gerald H Pollack and the Pollack Laboratory at the University of Washington on this page which is extremely odd - he's pretty much the world authority on this subject. He's published two best selling books on his re-discovery of the substance. His most recent, is "The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor" is available for purchase at ebnerandsons.com.
If you want to get the proper scientific view on structured water - exploring the science as described by leading authorities, it would seem only logical to discuss Dr. Pollack's findings. Second, the placebo effect is quite powerful but no one knows how it works, so it's not like the mystery has been solved. It's quite well known that the living cells is filled with water. Evidence provided by Dr. Mae Wan Ho and others suggest the water in the living cell is structured differently. She also has best selling books on this subject. You seem to mock the idea that water could potentially have a more optimal molecular structure but give little considerations to the cells remarkable abilities to perform various tasks, such as signal transduction, which it does in a water substance.
Finally, maybe you could read up a little bit on Gilbert Ling who is a world expert on the living cell and water in the cell. In fact, "In 1969 Professor Raymond Damadian aware of Ling's structured water theory conceived the idea of non-envasively detecting cancers using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)" I mean, since 1969 they have been using the theory of structured water for MRI machines. Water in the cell is what these machines are detecting to find cancerous regions. So, its amazing that you attempting to argue that NMR machine cannot detect structured water. Its being done everyday, thousands of times a day, globally, and its been known since 1969.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DorfmanAdam ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There are other water based scams, and i think there should be a generic article that mentions them all.
For example, EZ water, structured water, alkaline water etc...
http://greensmoothie.com/water/pollack.php
http://www.h302water.com
— unsigned comment added by Jsky87 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Use a search engine to look for "water exclusion zone" pages published in the past year / past month, and you will find several studies in peer reviewed journals.
Sometimes there comes a tipping point when the roles reverse and the skeptics turn into dogmatics refusing to accept scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.30.101 ( talk) 17:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am disappointed in the current article for Hexagonal Water and have been for some time. It is a disservice seeing as it is a type of molecular configuration of water being shown to be essential and even fundamental to life and health. This configuration has been researched and verified with thousands of hours by experts. Claiming hexagonal water is simply a scam ignores vast amounts of science from highly accredited professionals, and makes their findings and its benefits inaccessible to many.
This editor does not have expertise, knowledge or understanding in this field, and uses a tool called Huggle to monitor and automate editing and revert edits.
Simply stating fraud is incompatible with knowledge gained by researching the pioneers and leaders in the field as collected at [1] and elsewhere, many with a lifetime of contributions and dozens of Chairs, Fellows, Adjuncts, and Accolades from their life's work. There are hundreds of papers supporting and relating to the hexagonal water phenomena, as well as dozens of books easily available that summarize this for the layperson.
I have asked for an intervention from Wiki and am following their recommendations by demonstrating here a civil request that this result accurately describe what Hexagonal Water is, starting with those that have provided evidence that has yet to be overcome by the scientific community as to its existence, properties, roles and effects on living systems.
This editor has been warned not to spam this topic with terms such as scam and hoax or police and repeatedly revert it. People searching this topic wish to know about this type of molecular formation and its properties and effects in a summarized and cited form. This should be supplied respectfully here instead, as part of the wiki service platform.
TimeTells ( talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
References
The person that moderates this page should be different than the person creating content for it. Especially when the content provides little information about what the topic is, and the author doesn't know much about the subject.
On my personal talk page TimeTells ( talk) 15:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC) the current pages author "UN: McSly" is acting as Moderator and representing WIKI while continuing to revert articles back to theirs.
The article I provided shows that this is not fringe science but leading science. A real difference. See edit on 1/10/19.
It is against Wiki terms to keeps reverting articles, especially if you are not knowledgable about or a specialist in a subject. Acting as a WIKI Moderator to control pages is also against terms.
A more in-depth article with relevant-to-topic information and plenty of citations is available. See edit on 1/10/19. TimeTells ( talk) 15:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the process to get a legitimate WIKI Moderator and Article for this topic here is. Can you help? TimeTells ( talk) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
As of June 13, 2019, this article is unbalanced and biased. The article's first sentence calls structured water a marketing scam, which it is; however, this article should focus on explaining the concept and the firm scientific foundations of the theory. There are peer-reviewed scientific reports. Where are these references (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hexagonal_water&oldid=877658033) in the article? Why were they deleted and replaced with the blatantly untrue statement "no evidence to support"? Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She uses the concept of structured water in her "provocative proposals" (theory), follows scientific method and her language reflects that. However, the religionists of "science" - or fake "scientists" - who wrote this article (as of June 13, 2019), try to discredit structured water by making claims like "there is no scientific evidence that supports the theory" (quote from this article). Any practitioner of real science knows, "no evidence" does not disprove the theory, and within the scientific method, it is not intended to disprove anything. As with so much that we have learned over that last century, having no evidence proves and disproves nothing. To make that assertion to discredit the concept of structured water is religion, not science. Having no evidence fails to disprove the theory, as the author apparently asserts. The practice of science always leaves the door open for new insights, new data, and new interpretations. People discrediting this are practicing a false religion that they call "science," but obviously have no understanding of science itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheraune ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The first two links in the article, which are used to support that claim that hexagonal water is a marketing scam are broken.
The first link to wired a wired article doesn't have any actual information in it and appears to be an opinion piece. The video links in the "article" are broken as well.
The second link is to a google doc that offers nothing.
It appears that the entire wikipedia on Hexagonal Water was written to demonstrate it as a scam, but not to provide unbiased information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrellRell ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Gave it a read, makes sense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrellRell ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The article in question ignores the findings of Dr. Gerald Pollack PhD. Chimosabe ( talk) 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This has little to do with the actual article but do we have a page on Wikipedia explaining this? What is vibration-rotation-tunneling? I known what quantum tunneling is and I know what rotation and vibration energy levels are, but what is this? The same goes for the exclusion zone. I think it would be easier to understand this article if there was a bit about these topics on Wikipedia. 2A02:181F:0:80A7:1CD2:DA5A:E917:E2F5 ( talk) 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to see "structured water" labelled a marketing scam. Are you totally sure there isn't real science somewhere at the back of it? I did a web search for "structured water" and up came a whole bunch of (presumable) marketing scams--and a journal article published by Oxford University (Michael I Lindinger, Structured water: effects on animals, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 99, Issue 5, May 2021, skab063, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab063). Further digging turned up further journal articles dealing with "structured water"--indicating that it is something acknowledged by, and in the process of being investigated by, science. See, for example Grba, Daniel N, and Judy Hirst. “Mitochondrial complex I structure reveals ordered water molecules for catalysis and proton translocation.” Nature structural & molecular biology vol. 27,10 (2020): 892-900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0473-x (sorry different bib. style format) and Zhang, Chi, Xiaoyi Li, Zichen Wang et al., "Influence of Structured Water Layers on Protein Adsorption Process: A Case Study of Cytochrome c and Carbon Nanotube Interactions and Its Implications," J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 4, 684–694. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b10192 (ditto). One of the original papers on the topic seems to be Higgins, Michael J., Martin Polcik, Takeshi Fukuma et al., "Structured Water Layers Adjacent to Biological Membranes," Biophysical Journal, Volume 91, Issue 7, P2532-2542, October 01, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.106.085688. (Please clean up my citations if you can and desire to do so.)
By the way, scientists can make valuable contributions outside their area of expertise. It isn't common, but it's possible; although "new" findings by scientists out of their field should be handled with caution until confirmed by scientists who possess the relevant expertise (as well as, of course, supported by further experiments).
N.B. Someone gave a TED talk on "structured water" which is how I first heard about it.
2600:1700:27D0:6580:B897:E034:9BF8:D874 ( talk) 18:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
structured water;
This article must set a record for Wikipedia for illogical arguments claiming to show that EZ water is a "marketing scam". There have been water-based marketing scams for years, but that's no more a proof that EZ water is a marketing scam than the existence of far right and far left political extremists is proof that respectively Republicans and Democrats are political parties both destroying America. Likewise "First show us that you can produce a bottle of structured water and then we will talk" makes about as much sense as "show us you can produce a bottle of surface tension and then we will talk."
The editor /info/en/?search=User:Hob_Gadling reminds me of some other editors I've seen on Wikipedia claiming to be a subject matter authority when it's painfully obvious they have no clue about the actual science involved and are simply playing the bully role of someone with a bee in their bonnet claiming a connection between marketing scams and genuine science. This article badly needs to be completely replaced with an article written by those with actual science degrees, ideally a Ph.D. I have one and have over 6,000 Wikipedia edits under my belt since 2007 or so including many on radiation physics but I'd need to read up on the physical chemistry of states of water before I felt confident getting the facts right.
That said, it is obvious to me that EZ water has essentially the same structural stability as graphene and other 2D chemical structures discussed here. Statements like "I find it hard to believe that such a situation would be stable." make no more sense than the statements by French aeronautical scientists between 1903 and 1908 that they found it hard to believe that a heavier-than-air flying machine could be built. Eventually the Wright brothers had to ship one of their machines to France to convince those skeptics.
This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 08:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
French aeronautical scientists: their maths was fine, according to the then known strength of materials, you could not build a heavier than air flying device from materials available at that time. I assume the calculations predate the 1900s. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The reason I asked you for a reliable source is that I was unable to find even one in the articleThis is the tu quoque fallacy. You do not have a reliable source for your opinion, so you avert attention by claiming that neither does the other side.
Irrelevant to hexagonal waterMaybe, maybe not. "Cluster water" and "hexagonal water" are used interchangeably, such as here: [2]. As long as we do not have a good reason to separate the two terms in two articles, it should stay in the same one. The use of that source could be worded better.
This is an uninformed opinion articleIt is not marked as an opinion piece. If one could make a source unreliable by claiming it is just opinion, we would have to delete all of Wikipedia because flat-earthers, moon landing deniers and their ilk would shoot all sources down they do not like.
claiming to be a subject matter authorityYou are distorting facts. I never did that. You avoided an outright lie by wrapping the claim into a "reminds me of", but it is still not valid reasoning.
This is what happens when one person makes Wikipedia. It's not a scam at all font just read the top searchs 2600:6C60:0:1179:E818:E592:6D43:221 ( talk) 14:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)