Note: this is a raw text version of Lo's reply to Engelking, as transcribed by John Collins and posted to the Raging Bull ATEG board. There are some known errors in this document. I hope to work out corrections with Collins and Lo and replace this raw version with a corrected one. -- Dave Touretzky ================================================================ April 2000, Profesor Paul Engelking University of Oregon. Dear Professor Engelking: Recently I became aware of a piece written by you critical of a paper I published in Modern Physics Letters. I appreciate your taking the time to write this critical assessment. I wish however that you would have afforded me the professional courtesy of sending me a copy of what you made public before doing so. As you well know, as a scientist one of the means by which we advance the cause of science is through publishing our findings as I have done my entire scientific career. I not only expect but welcome criticism of my work. It is one of the reasons why scientists publish their work. As you know, I had delivered this paper at a convention rather than publishing you might well have delivered your paper disagreeing with me and the audience would have been afforded the opportunity to join the scientific argument and discussion. Publications offer the same opportunity. After you have had a chance to review my response to your criticism I would very much like for you to call me so that we can discuss these issues further. As you may know, the internet is a vehicle which can be used to distort scientific findings, inflict economic damage on individuals and companies for any number of motives which are not always legitimate. American Technologies Group has done a great deal of independent testing on its various catalysts. The results of the tests stand on their own merits regardless of whatever detractors may have as their personal agendas. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely. Shui-Yin Lo Ph.D. ================================================================ Rebuttal of Professor Engelking's Argument By Shui-Yin Lo An E-Mail from Professor Paul Engelking, University of Oregon, was posted on the Internet with a commentary from the bulletin board host ``IE Crystals Debunked!'' Professor Engelking apparently was responding to a query from Mark Dallara and his E-Mail is presumed to be a commentary on the Shui-Lin Lo paper ``Anomalous State of Ice'' published in Modern Physics Letters B, 10(19):909-919, 1996. Professor Engelking stated he found the theory to be erroneous in several places and cited two problems with one of the basic calculations. Problem 1, E & M The crucial point of Prof. Engelking's critique is which is the correct form of Gauss law to use in the problem being addressed: Equation 1 * D ds = Q ** Or Equation 2 * E ds = Q ** · * closed surface (I could not find the symbol for this J. Collins) · ** quantum of charge. Professor Engelking stated that the correct form to use for a polarizable medium such as water is equation one and that use of the second equation was not correct. He went on to say ``If Lo's statement of Gauss? law would be true, it would be true only in a vacuum; it is incorrect in a polarizable medium such as water.'' Gauss' law as stated in equation 2 is certainly true in a vacuum. However, a water molecule consists of one nucleus of oxygen and two nuclei of hydrogen plus ten electrons surrounding them, all of which are in vacuum. Since all water molecules consist of nuclei, hydrogen and electrons in vacuum, Gauss' law as expressed in equation 2 is fundamentally correct in any situation, contrary to Professor Engelking's assertion. The quantity of D in equation one is a derived one and has meaning only in a macroscopic medium. The definition of D and derivation of equation 1 from equation 2 are found in published papers (J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Section 4.2, p. 103: L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, Chapter 2, Section 6, p.36). Considering the published work of Jackson, and Landau and Lifshitz, equation 1 may be used when considering a macroscopic medium of water liquid but not in a small water cluster. Equation 2 is used when counting the layer of water molecules around an ion with only two or three layers. The number of water molecules is small. It is not correct to use equation 1 as it would be likely to yield an incorrect result, as pointed out in the paper ``Anomalous State of Ice''. Another point that is crucial in the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that is has to be applied to an isolated system. For a system that interacts with its surroundings, entropy can actually decrease, e.g., A human being is more ordered than his surrounding entropy. In order to maintain such order, entropy inside a human actually has to decrease to enable him to grow. This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the entropy of his surroundings increases. Since the crystals occupy only a small percentage of the aqueous solution, they are by no means isolated. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to IE crystals unless the surrounding water solution are also taken into account, which was apparently not considered by Professor Engelking when he critiqued the Anomalous State of Ice. The Professor mentions, ``For a spontaneous phase change to occur, this would have to be made up by an ever greater decrease in the internal energy.'' The possible existence of such a phase transition in very dilute solutions has actually been measured [Lo and Li, Onsager's Formula, Conductivity, and Possible New Phase Transition, Modern Physics Letters B, 13(25)885-893, 1999]. Professor Engelking is incorrect when he stated that, ``when Lo calculates the field around a charge he neglects this contribution to the field E by the polarization of water'' because polarization is an average of the quantities of dipole moment of the water molecules and is not valid for a small number of water molecules. The origin of polarization comes from the existence of the dipole moment in water molecules, which is already accounted for in equation 2.2 (Anomalous State of Ice). Further scientific research has been conducted since the 1996 published paper, verifying the importance of the dipole moment. Some of this work is documented in the Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties of Water clusters (IE), (World Scientific, 1998). This volume contains pictures showing the electric field emitting from the electric dipole moment. Numerical values were measured to give the dipole potential coming from the dipole moment. Recently, there has been large scale use if IE solutions in the printing industry and in the electricity generating industry to solve some of their problems. The successful use in both of these industries rests on the electric properties of the IE solutions, and validates the correctness of the theory as presented in Anomalous State of Ice. Problem 2. Thermodynamics Professor Engelking stated ``Lo's crystals don't spontaneously form is the same reason that water at room temperature doesn't spontaneously freeze: although energetically allowed, the process is entropically forbidden. The entropy of the world would have to spontaneously decrease, violating the second law of thermodynamics.''. While this point is apparently not covered in Anomalous State of Ice, in another published paper A.W Adamson Physical Chemistry, 3rd ed. (Academic Press 1956) there is discussion of some of the measurements taken wherein the amount of the IE solutions made is estimated to be approximately 3% of the total volume of the water solution. The volume of the prepared aqueous solutions will not entirely become IE crystals as presented by Professor Engelking. The analogy the professor makes with ordinary ice is also incorrect up to two orders of magnitude. The Professor stated that water molecules are ``normally able to move about 4 ð steradians, this is a constraint of about 1/125th of free motion of the water dipoles.'' It is true that water molecules can rotate freely in the gas phase but in liquid phase the water molecules are not free. They are connected by the hydrogen bonds with neighboring water molecules and the amount of orientation for each water molecule is greatly restricted by the geometric configuration of neighboring water molecules. In all liquid water models, water molecules are not free, and they do form water clusters. The model investigated by Pauling ( G.W.Robinson.S.B Zhu. S.Singh and M.W.Evans, Water in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. World Scientific, Singapore 1996) has a cage and another model examined by Robinson et. al. (F. Francis ed Water A Comprehensive Treatise, V, 1-4 Plenum, New York. 1972) had a hard core. Another model had a flickering cluster (P.G. Debenedetti, Metasiable liquid, Concepts and Principle Princeton University Press, 1996). There is no consensus on how much of a solid angle a water molecule can rotate in a liquid phase. It is certain that it is not 4r that Professor Engelking stated and is most likely a value much less than 4 ð. References 1. G.W. Robinson, S.B. Zhu, S. Singh and M.W. Evans, Water in Biology, Chemistry and Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996). 2. F. Franks (ed.) Water: A Comprehensive Treatise, V. 1-4 (Plenum, New York, 1972). 3. P.G. Debenedetti, Metastable Liquid, Concepts and Principle (Princeton University Press, 1996). 4. D. Eisenberg and W. Kauzmann, The Structure and Properties of Water (Oxford University Press, New York, 1969). 5. R.A. Robinson and R.H. Stokes, Electrolyte Solution, 2nd ed. (Butterworth, London, 1970). 6. F.H. Stillinger, Science 209, 451 (1980). 7. S.D. Colson, T.H. Dunning, Science 265, 43 (1994). 8. S.S. Xantheas, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 4505 (1995). 9. T. Schindler, C. Barg, G. Nieduer-Schatterburg and V.E. Bondybey, Chem. Phys. 201, 491 (1995). 10. K. Lau, J.D. Cruzan and R.J. Saybally, Science 271, 929 (1995). 11. C.J. Grueich, J.R. Carney, C.A. Arrington, T.S. Zurel, S.Y. Fredericks and K.D. Jordan, Science 276, 1678 (1997). 12. K.D. Jordan, Science 276, 1678 (1997). 13. L.J. Barbour, G.W. Orr and J.L. Atwood, Nature 393, 671 (1998). 14. S.Y. Lo, Mod. Phys. Lett. B10, 909 (1996). 15. S.Y. Lo, A. Lo, W.C. Li, T. Lin, H.M. Hua and G. Xu, Mod Phys. Lett. B10, 921 (1996). 16. S.Y. Lo, Proc. First Int. Symp. Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties of Stable Water (IE)Clusters (World, Scientific, 1998), p.3: C.Y. Wong and S.Y. Lo, ibid., p.48 17. R.C. Weast (ed.), Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, D. 167-169. 67th ed. (The Chemical Rubber Co. Press, 1986). 18. A.W. Adamcon, Physical Chemistry, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, 1986). 19. See, e.g. R.J. Donelly, Experimental Superfluidity (University of Chicago Press, 1967). 20. S.Y. Lo and W.C. Li, to be published in Russian Physical Chemistry. 21. P. Debye, Polar Molecules (Chemical Catalog C, New York, 1929). 22. J.B. Hassed, Aqueous Dielectrics (Chapman and Hall, London, 1973).