A new and rigid water model

Some years ago, I became fascinated by the electric properties of liquid water. One year ago, I realized that in order to understand these properties I first needed to investigate them in ice (see last post) . But I was lucky. The hard work had already been done. In the sixties, Jaccard developed a complete theory describing how charges are moving through ice. I was surprised. I intensively studied sold states during my studies, but nobody had ever mentioned the peculiarity of electrical conduction in ice.  Fig. 1 How electric conduction is  visualized in most solids. Jaccard understood that there must be a strong coupling between the orientation of the water molecules and the movement of the charges in ice and this really is a rear phenomenon. In most solids charges (like electrons, holes, ions, …) move without changing the structure (see Fig. 1). Not so in ice, however. The mechanism behind this will be addressed in our next post. The theme of this post is not the ex

In our last post we defended the idea that a useful water model should be as simple as possible. Recent water models describe water as a heterogeneous mixture, thereby raising more questions than answers. In my search for simplicity, I found the model of Narten, Danford and Levy (developed in the sixties) that fundamentally changed my view on the water structure. Fig. 1 The magnified structure of a snow flake  Their main idea couldn’t be easier. Narten, Danford and Levy assumed that liquid water just has the structure of ice.  As a matter of fact, the structure of ice is really remarkable. The hydrogen bonds structure the water molecules in a hexagonal crystal structure whose symmetries are visible in the shapes of snowflakes (see Fig. 1). Also special is that the ice structure is very open. The water molecules are sitting rather far away from each other allowing extra water molecules to sit in between them. In theory, there is room for one extra water molecule per 2 water mole

We already know that most people have wrong ideas about the structure of water ( see last post ). In this post we will show that even specialists have difficulties to make sense of the water structure. In spite of the many existing scientific models, none of them has been chosen to be the ultimate one. Is this a problem? How bad is it that our scientific knowledge still has some blind spots? It is not bad at all. Blind spots are a blessing, challenging researchers to tackle new problems. They are just a normal part of scientific evolution. There is a problem, though: nobody seems to be aware of the black hole around the water model. Hydrogen is the most important component of water. Water is the most abundant molecule on the planet earth.  It plays a dominant role in our climate and the energy balance of our planet. It is essential for life and has an enormous impact on our health. It is one of the best solvants making a big variety of chemical reactions possible. Water is the bu

The answer to the question is a little embarrassing. In most science lessons a wrong model for liquid water is taught. So science itself is responsible for our bad understanding. But let us first start with the good news. The scientific models for the water molecule, ice and water vapour are excellent and a good starting point for a better understanding of liquid water.   FIg. 1 The water molecule is polar. The water molecule is the fundamental building block of water. It consists of two small hydrogen atoms bound to a 16-fold heavier oxygen atom. Water is nothing more than burned hydrogen. The water molecule is electrically neutral but the center of positive and negative charges are located in different places. This fact gives the water molecule its most important property: it is a  polar molecule. The center of the negative charge is located more in the oxygen atom leaving the hydrogen atoms positively charged (Fig. 1). The polarity of the water molecule is large compare