Return to
Chapter 3

© Copyright 1995 AD, Robert Lanigan-O'Keeffe, Sydney, Australia.
Not for copying, publication or distribution without permission.
Changing the Universe, Introducing The AD 2000 Æther Theory.

Advance to
Chapter 5

Table of ContentsPage #
Phlogiston.1
Developing the
Valency concept.
3
Metal Chemistry.16
Creating a vaccine.17
Rusting and Burning Reactions.18
Applying the Fixes.20
Nature's Chemistry.20
The Water-Ice Experiment25

CHAPTER FOUR

APPRECIATING CHEMISTRY'S ERRORS


A strange mutant pregnancy lasting almost 70 years began in Europe at the start of the Eighteenth Century, with the marriage of Alchemy to the Industrial Revolution. From conception around 1700, using a Phlogiston implant (Phlogiston, from the Greek word for fire-substance), the infectious contagious seed (describing the combustion process) germinated and grew as a mutating parasitic embryo that disfigured Alchemy's body of knowledge. The Phlogiston theory of combustion stated,

All combustible materials contain the ingredient Phlogiston,
which as combustion takes place, the escaping negative weight Phlogiston
slowly absorbs air, and in filling the space of the air becomes heavier.
Becker and Stahl did not realise the harm created by impregnating Alchemy with this notion promoted as fact without any basis in fact, logic and reason. With scientific apathy accepting this knowledge virus, giving explanation to the separation of metals from minerals, throughout Alchemy's heavy pregnancy, Phlogiston dominated and mutated logical chemical thought processes. (A more complete description of this false belief-set appears in Absolutely Æther.)

In 1774, for something to do, when Joseph Priestley began examining the action of heat on various substances, he found that red mercuric oxide and other reactions released a strange non-Phlogiston "pure air" gas. A candle exposed to this gas burns vigorously, a mouse becomes extremely active, and on breathing the vapour the researcher becomes extremely exhilarated, euphoric, and intoxicated. After he showed his friend and French opponent how to make the gas, Lavoisier's methodical application of causal research began the traumatic amputation of Phlogiston from scientific beliefs. With realisation, it became obvious that this gas, Oxygen, entered chemically reversible reactions with other elements through burning and heating processes. Facing tremendous scientific inertia, Lavoisier's evidence forced Alchemy to give birth to Chemistry. So great the indoctrination of the day, forming life-long beliefs, Priestley's blind acceptance maintained and defended the non-existent fiery Phlogiston principle until his death in 1804.

Throughout scientific infancy during the Nineteenth Century's first twenty years, academics and the upper classes nourished, nurtured, guided and protected the two chemical sciences of Chemistry and Alchemy from the tyranny and oppression of Christian fundamentalism, and the fall-out from the French revolution, where possessing intelligence and knowledge became a crime against The State. As the infant science of Chemistry learnt to crawl, to work and run, simple human experiences and expectations influenced the growing scientific knowledge base, belief-set and attitude. The adage, "give me the boy until the age of 7 years and I'll give you the man," proves itself applicable as Chemistry grew stronger and evolved, it became inevitable that many simple mistakes must enter the scientific belief-set, with youthful acceptance and enthusiasm accepting opinions, notions and speculation, superstition and ignorance, leading to many long-held beliefs passed from generation to generation. Scientific education and character development began with mother Alchemy's recipe books teaching philosophy and basic cooking (preparing, blending, mixing and heating chemicals); the father's capitalism placing profit above all other considerations, promoting expedience, research, deception, needs-and-wants satisfaction, without truth and without compassion; as the dysfunctional spoilt upstart obtained knowledge, Chemistry began a self-promotional exercise with propaganda proclaiming Chemistry as Nature's greatest science, responsible for all inventions and Nature.

In 1808, an English schoolmaster, John Dalton, suggested that matter could only be divided a specific number of times, to a finite point where but a single indivisible fragment remains. Dalton considered this particle, from the Greek, an atom, as a solid ball of pure matter, a fundamental building block. He argued that a pure element must be composed of the same unique atomic type, having specific properties not shared by other elements, where, Gold, Silver, Iron and Sulphur, as unique elements become involved in chemical fusion (with chemical addition reactions making molecules), and since the elements cannot be made through chemical fusion, Dalton inflicted a mortal wound into Alchemy's heart. As Alchemy died, she gave birth to metallurgy. Unfortunately, acceptance of Dalton's atomic theory introduced several knowledge viruses, with the atom being considered as first, indivisible, and secondly, unchangeable throughout time.

The Swedish medical doctor, Jön Jakob Berzelius, dabbling in Chemistry in his kitchen using primitive appliances, as he sought to determine the atomic weights of the known elements, through serendipity, identified many previously unknown elements, including Uranium, Platinum and the rare earths. By careful analysis, he constructed a theory of chemical proportions, and through expedience began using the technique symbolically representing each element with unique single and double letter codes. By grouping these letter codes together in their relative proportions he found the means to empirically describe the complex molecules they formed. Frustrated by the lack of suitable testing equipment, Berzelius deductively formulated an electrochemical theory based on the principle of chemical proportions.

Whether as a consequence of kowtowing to Christian fundamentalism, or his personal religious convictions, the fact that Berzelius treated life as sacrosanct impinged on his conclusions, which for almost 60 years split chemical science into two totally alien disciplines, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry. Based on the test of fire, where metals, water and rocks don't burn, organic materials such as wood, flesh, cloth, oil, and coal, all burn giving off smoke containing water vapour and Carbon dioxide. From this deluded appreciation, describing living molecules as absolutely different to non-living molecules, with the vitalist belief placing organic chemicals on a tall pedestal, his claims that inorganic chemicals cannot form organic chemicals, and that only organic molecules form organic molecules, he created immense problems that impacted from that time into the mid-Twentieth Century, with vitalism throwing Chemistry headlong into its modern Dark Age. With chemical analysis showing these organic molecules predominantly containing Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen, with others containing some Nitrogen, Chlorine, Calcium and Sulphur, far too many questions remained unanswered.

Across the English Channel, from a throw away remark made by Faraday, Davy independently expressed his visceral acceptance of the electro-chemical notion as the mechanism forming molecules. Davy convinced himself that chemical reactions seemed to involve polarised and non-polarised atomic charges that unite and balance. To Davy, the electricity produced by various voltaic cells seemed to confirm electrochemical properties as the mechanism responsible for a reaction's progress. Since Davy needed to substantiate this notion, he argued that as normal electrolysis fails to separate alkaline metals from all water based solutions, then dry electrolysis in air should separate Sodium Chloride (common salt) into the positively charged Sodium (Na) and negatively charged Chlorine (Cl) atoms.

In liberating Sodium this way, he assumed that the observations revealed the actual mechanism, thus he concluded, all chemical bonding, must be electro-chemical in nature. Due to the extremely high probability of error, the scientific method warns about drawing conclusions too early, especially during the explorative research stage. As Davy isolated other alkaline elements, using Benjamin Franklin's incorrect electrical theory reversing charge polarities, he incorrectly applied several observational illusions as the electrochemical theory's proof. Suspicion still falls on Davy for his notes assert using the dry electrolysis procedure in normal atmospheric conditions releasing two of the most highly reactive Group 1 elements that immediately react with the air. Although recognised as an error, because the chemical sciences never corrected Franklin's invalid notions of electrical charge and electrical current flow, enormous confusion comes from the fact that these sciences maintain Franklin's charge reversal when describing an element's apparent valency.

With so few elements known in 1829, Döbereiner identified a curious effect, relating similar metal elements in triplets by chemical properties, as triads, with [40Calcium, 87Strontium and 137Barium], as distinct from [7Lithium, 23Sodium, and 39Potassium]. Rather than dumping this term with the identification of more elements, consensus of opinion redefined it in terms of the law of proportions, grouping similar chemical reaction types together based on the atom's combining power, locating and defining Monads, Dyads; Triads, and so forth, slowly building a table of Group related reactions. Inevitable analytical mistakes entered the known element listing (showing the elements and their atomic weights). Rather than laughing at these apparent tragic errors and horrid mistakes, causal researchers must avoid being arrogant, or in presenting a bias. Foremost, it becomes necessary to seek an understanding of how these entries became perceived as amusing mistakes and unforgivable errors.


Developing the Valency concept

Although Davy's electro-chemical theory and the Berzelius chemical symbolism made explaining reactions relatively simple, electrochemical theory ran into serious trouble as the number of exceptions and contradictions grew, not just when new elements appeared, but also when research extensions convoluted all explanation. For instance, in 1852, when Edward Franklin extended the electrochemical bonding model and chemical proportions expressing an atom's combining power, using valency (valence, Latin for power) many exceptions appeared that demanded explanation. Hydrogen with its combining power 1 became positive 1 under the valency theory. Experimental evidence gave Oxygen a valency of minus 2 and Carbon with a valency of positive 4.

Before going on, it must be stated that in simply explaining the problems produced by the electrochemical theory's use, to avoid risking personal attacks claiming bias and preconditioned anti-scientific objectives (thus falling into a trap giving credence to humanity's ignorance), the causal researcher must exercise extreme scepticism by critically examining the scientific procedures and nomenclature used in describing and applying the electrochemical theory and its subsequent atomic models. The adage, "Know thy enemy" means that in order to separate fact from fiction, the researcher needs a working knowledge of the belief-set, its strengths, weaknesses and failures. Unfortunately, for the non-chemically minded novice reading this for the first time, owing to the contagious nature of these knowledge viruses and the extreme risk of infection creating non-objective bias, the novice should be more than careful, especially when researching the rest of this work. To those unfortunate and gifted students who abandoned Chemistry due to frustration and the confusion they experienced learning the extremely complex electrochemical theory, the rest of this chapter should be of great interest and importance, giving them closure.

According to Edward Franklin, "The attracting element is always satisfied with the same number," then, to satisfy the balanced equation requirement, Carbon combines with two Oxygen atoms forming Carbon dioxide, C4+O2-2

as 0 = 4 - (2 x 2).
Although the claimed charges neutralise in this equation, things now get rather messy, because a single Carbon atom requires 4 Hydrogen atoms in forming Methane CH4 as
C4+ + 2 H+2 = 4 + (4 x 1+) = 8+.
To explain-away this incorrect answer, as having made the rule, Chemistry now breaks the rule, magically changing Carbon's valency to 4-, or Hydrogen's valency to 1-,
so that either , 0 = (4 x 1+) - 4 or,
0 = 4 + (4 x -1) proves true.

Because things apparently balance with this modification, Nature defies these arrogant scientific theories that order her to obey, and in her temper, researchers identify all manner of other molecular exceptions including, O3, H2O2, CO, CH2, CH3, C2H2, C2H4, and C2H6, et cetera. Although Chemistry explains-away some of these with single and double bonds between the Carbon atoms, these exceptions (including all the oxides of Nitrogen) identify a completely different mechanism that permits Carbon and all other active elements (including Hydrogen with just one electron) to change apparent valency. This concept of bonding sounds wonderful until that moment when causal researchers begin questioning the very nature of chemical bonding, seeking the responsible mechanism capable of holding atoms and molecules both together and apart.

The valency theory becomes very confusing due to the relativity of matter reactions where many simple reactions produced non-balanced products that fail to satisfy the theory. In working around these problems, it became necessary to modify the atomic properties, giving all atoms the supernatural ability to form molecules that exhibit multiple non-standard valencies. Even though the list of exceptions to the theory grew throughout the Nineteenth Century, requiring complex data tables to resolve and explain simple reactions, educators stated, "It makes good sense to accept the theory, for nothing else explains the observed reactions." With such indoctrination, educators stopped people from looking for the truth. From the cumbersome, inept and invalid electrochemical theory, inadvertently, Chemistry introduced a series of knowledge viruses that spread from Chemistry, into Metallurgy, Geology, Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Medicine, Agriculture, Horticulture, and Veterinary science.

In positioning each element according to its increasing atomic weight and separated into vertical columns by-way of similar valence reactions, the matrix layout shows horizontal layers, or rows, called The Periods, and into vertical columns, as Groups numbered from 1 to 8. The Group Number illustrates the known maximum positive valency, however it also refers to the negative valence of each element. Chemical relativity appears because chemists identified each element as being able to swap valency, exhibiting positive and-or negative valency potentials, like this:-


Periodic Group #

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

x

Chemical Name

Lithium

Beryllium

Boron

Carbon

Nitrogen

Oxygen

Fluorine

---

-- ? --

Chemical Symbol

Li

Be

B

C

N

O

F

---

- ? -

Positive Valency

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

?

Negative Valency

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

8

?

Note: This layout predicts the identification of Group elements.
No Group 8 elements exist in these periods.

Group 7 takes on a single valency of negative one or one minus (1-),
Group 6 as 2- , Group 5 as 3- , and Group 4 as 4-.


Valency swapping allows explanation of chemicals such as Sulphur monoxide (SO), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Sulphur trioxide (SO3). As more exceptions appeared, the multiple bonding patterns of certain atoms created many problems because multiple valence reactions produce non-predictable reaction outcomes. As Carbon exists in the middle of the period, with a positive or negative valency, as either 4- or 4+, and since theory allows Oxygen to react as either 2- or 6+, all manner of diverse chemical reactions should occur, but they do not. Without realisation, Chemistry allows mixed valencies where elements such as Carbon, Sulphur and Phosphorous, to simultaneously exhibit positive and negative combining powers, where radicals with apparently positive internal bondings also present negative bondings.

Taken normally as a double minus valency, the reaction of molecular Oxygen (O2 on Carbon must be C 4+ + O22- produces Carbon Dioxide, as CO2, so that the charges balance, as in [+4 - (2x2) = 0]. Although portrayed as true, motor vehicle exhaust gases and cigarette smoke contain Carbon Monoxide C4+ O2-, which as an exception shows an unbalanced reaction outcome, as 4 - 2 = 2. Here, Carbon presents a valency of two as in C2+ O2-, or Oxygen takes on the valency of four minus, as in C4+ O4-. Even stranger, Water as H2+1 O2- exists with the unbalanced Hydrogen Peroxide, H2+1O22-. Some reference texts also identify and refer to other Hydrogen oxides, such as Hydrogen dioxide H+1O22- and Hydrogen monoxide or Hydroxyl, as HO. Because so many Chemical exceptions naturally exist, a number that defies logical reasoning, despite chemical indoctrination claiming, "for nothing else explains the observed reactions," causal researchers must speculate on an atomic mechanism or process that actually produces the observational illusion of valency.

Water must be considered as one of the most common and most least understood of all the molecules, for Science gives it mystical and neutral properties. In most equations and crystal descriptions, Chemistry totally disregards its very presence, affect, effect, need, or requirements. Common Salt, Copper Sulphate, Nitric Acid, Calcium hydroxide and sugar, all contain water, yet chemical equations describe them exclusively as pure molecules, such as NaCl, CuSO4, HNO3, CaOH, and C6H12O6. With the description of water based solutions, neutral water's presence miraculously breaks apart whole molecules forming cations and anions, but then Chemistry describes other solvents dissolving whole molecules, without stumbling over the naive cation and anion concept. These solution bases include Carbon Tetrachloride, acetone, turpentine, oils, and the air. When describing solutions, Chemistry describes Sulphuric Acid as the pure chemical dihydrogen Sulphate, H2SO4, when this solution naturally breaks down in a typical reversible reaction (a fact that according to chemical definition identifies it as a solution), for as it liberates Sulphur trioxide (as a gas or in crystal form), the increased water content dilutes the solution and weakens the acid.

With the chemical sciences defending the rigid belief that the same number of constituent atoms produces unique chemicals, Justus Von Liebig upset the scientific community creating an enormous debate and great anger with his identification of a diverse and enormous group of molecules called isomers. Although the chemical formula over the entire range of isomers differ, isomers describe a family of two or more different molecules with different properties that share the same intrinsic chemical formula. Initially, the hostile scientific community refused acknowledging isomers, despite the analysis proving the shared chemical formula HNCO, applies to both cyanic acid and the extremely explosive fulminic acid. Obviously, something else, something other than the actual molecular components made the difference between dangerous explosives and acids, bases, oils, and apparently neutral chemicals.

When Friedrich Wöhler independently reached a similar conclusion, the scientific community began looking towards molecular structure as the culprit, but here, despite having best intensions, researchers like Wöhler and Liebig missed an important factor. Researchers often explain isomers comparing the gas Dimethyl ether and the liquid, Ethyl alcohol, for they share the common formula, C2H6O. To re-phrase a previous sentence, obviously, something else, something other than the actual molecular composition and structure makes the difference between dangerous explosives and acids, bases, oils, and apparently neutral chemicals. Rather than applying causal research at this moment, developing a notion and exploring chemical interaction and alignment considerations, several key points and issues must come to the fore.

Although Lothar Meyer (in 1864) identified a regular periodicy in chemical elements' volumes, when arranged by increasing atomic weight, howls of derision and laughter greeted John Newlands' proposal in 1866, that on arranging the elements in order of atomic weight, an apparent Law of Octaves seemingly relates one element to other elements eight positions away. With less than 60 known elements, chemists lampooned the concept of "Musical Chemistry", regarded this feature as a curious coincidence rather than anything important. Although a good answer, acceptance and the evolution of the periodic table came from an invalid belief-set. Documented by J.J. Thomson, Professor Meyer's research into progressively increasing floating magnetic structures identified a similar periodic relationship.

Dmitri Ivanovitch Mendeléeff refused to accept the prevailing chemical belief-set which stated, "all atoms exist as they always have been, as they are, and will always be, and will never be anything else, as the foundation-stones of the material universe which have existed from creation, unbroken and unworn." When he considered the law of octaves, creating an 8 × 8 matrix of 64 cells, pasting notes onto a wall listing each element and its properties according to atomic weight, the first twenty elements seemed to fit, however, as he advanced into the more heavy elements, problems appeared with missing elements, the strange effect of cramming nine Group 8 elements into just three cells, and the distinction between extremely active and moderately active elements sharing the same valency pigeon hole.

From Period 4, the periodic table took on a strange chessboard arrangement, positioning extremely dangerous elements side-by-side with relatively stable elements. In Group 1, active Cæsium, Potassium, and Rubidium sit alongside the more stable less reactive group 1A elements Gold, Copper and Silver. To complicate matters, positioning the known rare earth elements in periods 6 demanded squeezing them all into the space allocated for just one element! (Eventually two complete sequences became apparent, in Periods 6 and 7, named after the first lightest element in each series (Lanthanum and Actinium,) as the Lanthanides and Actinides.)

With less than 60 known elements, Mendeléeff argued that the empty cells he left in the chessboard layout indicated the existence of undiscovered elements. From neighbouring elements down the Group and across the Period he accurately predicted a missing elements' chemical properties. Some years later, proof came with the identification and properties of Scandium, Gallium, and Germanium, (respectively found in Scandinavia, the French Pyrenees, and in German mines). Although many considered the Periodic Law's amazing prophetic power as an apparently strong foundation, with further extensions to knowledge revealing more exceptions, like so many other generalisations that seemed true at the time, the test of time demanded the Lavoisier approach, abandoning and replacing deluded theory. Again, scientific inertia prevented change, consideration of any new idea, or the suggestion of correcting the Science.

Döbereiner's triad relationship and the chessboard periodic table design appeared in Chemistry books up until about 1950, with each Group's illustration identifying (on the left) the more active elements, and (on the right) the Group's "a-series" of least active elements, or the subgroup, defining and locating elements with the same effective valency.


Group 1 - 1a | Group 2 - 2a
Li |Be
| ||
Na |Mg
/\ |/\
/\ |/\
K\ |Ca\
|Cu ||Zn
Rb| |Sr|
|Ag ||Cd
Cs| |Ba|
Au ||Hg
|Ra

Due to the consistent sudden jump in increasing atomic masses from Group 7 to the next Group 1 element, Mendeléeff suggested a hitherto unknown Group of elements. Since no chemical molecule displayed an atomic weight that would suggest members of this missing Group, academics bandied various reasons for this Group's disappearance, perhaps as being far too active and not capable of forming normal molecules; far more active than the most active Monads, but with a valency of 8. In each hole meant for just one or two elements, in Periods 4, 5 and 6, Mendeléeff located three marginally active elements as a continuation of the active atomic masses. This reinforced the notion held by some that the missing Group 9's elements must be far less active, as part of the "A" series. When chilled into a liquid, the air finally revealed the missing ninth group, labelled as Group , to the surprise of all, the entire Group contained inert gases.

Causal research students should carefully examine old chemistry reference texts such as Alexander Boden's "Handbook of Chemistry", first published in 1937. A work written for advanced secondary school students, the fourth edition (of 1944) included the most up to-date Periodic Table (copied below), with several omissions; incorrect positioning of Period 7 elements placing Uranium in Group 6; different chemical symbols; and some incorrect entries (such as element 43). Comparing this list to the Bohr periodic table reveals a number of problems and errors, some of which Bohr directly transposed into the currently accepted periodic table.


Click on image to enlarge.
Boden, 1944, Chemistry.

As some reactions did not seem to liberate electrons, Chemistry adopted two major bond types; those that liberate electrons and those that do not. As the early Nineteenth Century belief-set locked the explanation of chemical bonds as Covalent and Ionic, as the principle bonding mechanism holding molecules exclusively together through electron sharing. In stumbling around the problem of explaining the bonds found in many crystal structures, such as that between the Carbon layers in a graphite crystal, a third bond soon emerged called the Van der Waal's force that replaces logic and fact with a semi-permanent weak electro-static bond. The researcher must understand and appreciate the fixed indoctrinated scientific mind-set, where everything in Chemistry must be explained using the electrochemical theory, irrespective of the theory's truth or accuracy, because Science accepts no other explanation without changing out the entire scientific paradigm.

When Nineteen Century chemists defined valency using Oxygen, they came across far too many confusing exceptions. To illustrate a complete reaction series and the law of octaves, present day educators call on the highly reactive element Fluorine, as indicative of the element's maximum valency, for its single negative valency strongly attacks almost every other element forming progressively increasing proportions across the period. But even here, in the following complete series of randomly selected elements from each group, Nature throws up several strange exceptions to this deluded and invalid theory. The first exceptions appear with the explanation of Group 8 and Group Ø molecules.


GROUP 7 added to GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 GROUP 4 GROUP 5 GROUP 6 GROUP 7 GROUP 8?
Fluorine
(F) plus
Sodium
(Na)
Calcium
(Ca)
Boron
(B)
Carbon
(C)
Phosphorous
(P)
Sulphur
(S)
Iodine
(I)
Osmium
(Os)
gives NaF CaF2 BF3 CF4 PF5 SF6 IF7 OsF8
a ratio of 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8
So then, 1+7=8 2+6=8 3+5=8 4+4=8 5+3=8 6+2=8 7+1=8 8 ± 8, =0 or =16

(Note: The known Inert gas molecules include, H:Ar:F, H:Kr:F, H:Xe:F and H:Rn:F.)

Fluorine's reaction attacking Osmium forming OsF8, stretches logical acceptance because Osmium and the other Group 8 elements exist with 8 electrons, and as a complete orbit, the valency theory allows them to grab 8 more electrons. If true, then valency must technically prevent such reactions, because the value of 8 defines a complete orbital, where inert gas atoms appear as 8 + 0 = 8. In certain environments, reactive Osmium works as a wonderful catalyst, being far from inert, Like all the other Group 8 elements, Osmium falls into the category of exhibiting multiple valencies, typically x2+, or x3+. From the laboratory contrived inert gas molecules, the inert gases appear with a valency of x2+.

When elements on the right-hand side react with elements on the left-hand side, the right-hand elements generally dominate the reaction, giving a relatively correct view of what valency should be, with negative valencies. However, in the above situation, when Iodine (a right-side atom of the same Group) reacts with Fluorine, it does so as a positive valency, forming IF7.

Truth does not appear with the reaction relativity across the period or across a reaction sequence because Fluorine naturally forms the molecule F2, not F8. This introduces another problem when Chlorine reacts across Fluorine's parent period. The reactions with Chlorine appear similar, until the reaction strikes Fluorine, where the valency theory falls over.


  Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon
  LiCl BeCl2 BCl3
B2Cl3
B2Cl4
B4Cl3
B8Cl8
B9Cl9
B12Cl11
CCl4 NCl3
NCl5
ClO2
Cl2O
Cl2O4
Cl2O6
Cl2O7
Cl6O
ClF
ClF3
*FCl5
Ne
ratio 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:5 no reaction
*Exception!

Something appears very wrong in the Chlorine-Fluorine reaction, when some authorities deliberately state that the reaction forms FCl7. This known exception to the rule, FCl5, stands alone which educators explain away with the deceptive statement, "the periodic law has its strengths and its weaknesses." When taught as fact, this totally unscientific-unacceptable statement challenges scientific credibility, for when a theory stands in error, or when the theory cannot explain the basic reactions that it must explain, or when a theory involves contradiction, uncertainty, or chaos, then, under the terms and conditions of the Scientific Method, the theory must be rejected and considered invalid, deluded, and wrong until proven true, at which point all other contradictory theory must be removed! A suitable mechanism must exist that gives reason, explanation and prediction to all natural events and reactions. If a theory cannot explain vital parts of the natural environment where these reactions transpire, or cannot accurately predict a reaction's outcome from first principles, causal research must reject and replace that theory. This factor being the fundamental test of all scientific theories.

Causal research reveals that indoctrination and peer pressure maintains, reinforces and defends the scientific acceptance of these tragic exceptions, contradictions and erroneous theory. Around the start of the Twentieth Century, the atomic model made several evolutionary jumps as serendipity led to the identification of radioactive elements and the electron. To maintain electrochemical theory, J.J. Thomson extended Dalton's atomic model and distributed both positive and negative charges equally in its core. Although his idea seemed valid, critical abuse came from the arrogant scientific community maintaining long held deluded beliefs. Without any real concept of matter, based on terrestrial illusions the scientific community rejected both Meyer's magnetic atomic model, and Thomson's balanced charge atomic model. With an incomplete picture of matter, Thomson could not adequately explain the atom's strange mass differences suggesting a hitherto unknown neutral particle, nor could he prove his theory. Even when the neutron revealed itself in 1934, the relationship between the number of neutrons to the atomic number (or number of protons) became another scientific mystery, because the scientific community accept an invalid atomic model.

Thomson battled the terrestrial illusion of exploding chemical batteries, for the ignorant argued that when charges neutralise, the atom must short out and explode. During this time of enormous change, electric lights replaced gas mantles in the streets, theatre, and in the home; motor vehicles began replacing the horse and cart; Marconni retaliated and attacked the arrogant scientific community's pecuniary rejection of radio transmission; while world politics rapidly headed to a point of starting the war to end all wars. With so little known, about the atom, about electricity, about magnetism, about gravity, about radiation, about the magnetic spectrum, speculation and errors hijacked the sciences creating self-proving tendentious theory based on terrestrial illusions.

In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, "Rutherford splits the atom." Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.

Indoctrination created Chemistry's biggest problem, a closed mind-set where the chemical sciences place Davy's electrochemical theory, the electron-cloud atomic model and valency, as being above Nature. The currently accepted electron cloud atomic model may appear wonderful when sketched on paper, however, any three dimensional animation of such a model instantly generates unsolvable problems that serve to confuse. Although claimed to be like the Solar System, with a central body, orbited by electrons, that any astronomer should be able to compute, Chemistry and Quantum theory deliberately mystify the theory's abject failure, calling on the uncertainty principle and peer pressure to give this model credibility. Without giving the student any other option, educators overcome a student's acceptance problem through stealth, "Well suppose this is true, then, this must occur and here you see that it does..."

Faced with so much contradictory theory to learn and master, many students, kowtow to the educator's wisdom and simply give up, accepting without question, a totally illogical and invalid group of concepts because this belief-set has been accepted and maintained for such a long time. The model below cannot explain chemical bonding, elasticity, conductivity, transparency, energy transfer, and a host of other known properties of matter. This model can only be used as a means to keep atoms apart, preventing all chemical reactions.



Image courtesy of Bittwise (a kindred longhair site).

The problem of the coaxial capacitor must be considered when examining the atomic model as composed of orbiting electrons around a positively charged nucleus. This effect appears with the Van de Graaff generator where theory states that an electron cloud sits on the spherical electrode's outer skin. Any positive charge applied to the centre of this sphere does not change the outer skin's polarity, nor does increasing or reducing the charge potential. The skin remains negatively charged until neutralised or by reversing the charge polarity, making the skin positive. Apart from Hydrogen and Helium, and perhaps Lithium, changing polarity with the loss of electrons, all other elements maintain a negative electron cloud potential, because the electron cloud coaxially encloses the positive nucleus. Any concept of using electron clouds to create a mechanism that allows attraction and chemical bonding must be deluded as electrostatic repulsion between negative charge clouds must prevent molecules, crystal structures and solids ever forming. Large electron clouds (like Iodine, Lead, Uranium and Cæsium) must strongly repel other large atoms.

Chemistry's acceptance of this flawed electron-cloud atomic model seems enigmatic for it confuses everything, to such a degree that although Chemistry expounds great knowledge about molecular structures, bond lengths, bond angles, bond strengths and molecular properties, the replaced Dalton atomic model must be used when explaining simple molecular structures. As a knowledge virus, the electron cloud atomic model fails Science, with poorly conceived, illogical and invalid atomic-chemical theory presented as fact.

Any attempt to equate a heliocentric model (a solar system) to the atomic model as an atomic nucleus-centric orbital system strikes great difficulty, for such models cannot explain molecular structure and crystalline precision, since a material's physical and chemical properties require a fixed and relatively stable stationary positional-centric atoms that align and position themselves within a linked and inter-connected crystalline structure. Rather than describing the nature of the problem, where the Moon's orbit travels with the Earth around the Sun, and with the Galaxy through the Universe, deception plays an important role in giving this atomic model credibility. When educators use the expression "Solar system-like", they do so out of indoctrinated expedience as a mind-numbing convincing argument, despite the fact that they cannot explain how the Moon, planets, or a star can represent atoms in a solid block. Described by orbital theory, since all atoms mutually orbit the nearest atoms, then absolute chaos reigns supreme, as matter would never form a solid. Each atom must orbit a neighbouring atom, and these must orbit other atomic pairs that orbit atomic groups, as globular clusters, in describing a solid, then the Moon, Earth, Sun and Galaxy all need to be stationary, locked into a fixed non-orbiting positional-centric system.

To calculate the necessary orbital requirements, the forces involved, the energy needs, the mechanism of electron sharing, precise bond lengths and strength, the orbiting electron theory miserably fails. If given by divine intervention, a positional interconnected geometry, the orbital path of a shared electron means that one of three situations logically applies;

The highly unlikely probability of these possibilities becomes illogical as the structures reach obvious design limitations. The design limitations appear when one attempts to describe the positional structure of a simple chain molecule or a solid. Unfortunately, Chemistry gets around these problems by invoking one's faith in the unknown, playing on uncertainty. Subsequently, Chemistry appears to lack all credibility when applying astronomical concepts to the atom's innermost workings. Chemical theory answers questions concerning the atomic mechanics with the self-deluded tautology, "The mechanics of how electrons orbit the atom, magnetism, electrostatics and the formation of chemical bonds will remain scientific mysteries. We do not know why or how they work, but we know they work through electro-chemical means." This totally baseless explanation must be considered as both an insult and a research challenge.

According to Bohr's version of the electro-chemical theory, each atom tends to form a complete inert atom, and so requires a total of eight electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell to satisfy the molecule's over-all atomic structure. This means that each atom must share one or more electrons, so that each atom in the molecule effectively carries '8' electrons in the outer shell. When satisfied, the reaction ceases, as the molecule can no longer enter other reactions. This naive, mystical, and mythical belief established itself in the foundation stone of the modern periodic table and Chemistry. However, since the animated Rutherford atomic model fails to explain simple chemical reactions and molecular alignment, in adopting many of Chemistry's invalid notions, and whatever else fitted, Chemistry gave birth to a mutant off-spring, Quantum Theory. Through a process of guesstimations and closest-fit approximations, Niels Bohr determined the Periodic Table's present shape.

Rather than simplifying chemical bonding explanation, deceptive sophisticated theory produced a rather powerful dilemma where the elements cannot possibly form stable molecules. Gravitational theory demands that all molecules spin, with each atom orbiting the mutual gravitational centre, and therefore cannot form a solid. When it came to explaining the Group 8 elements, already having 8 electrons in the outer orbital, these elements instantly form molecular exceptions to this unproven atomic theory. Then again, when two positive, or two negative valency elements react together, the reaction products fail the theory. The Group 8 elements, (Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Osmium, Iridium and Platinum), when described in non technical electrical terms as electrical batteries, should be the most active, most powerful, with a valency of 8 because electrical theory dictates that a power of 8 must present a much greater potential difference than a power of 1. Comparing Group 8 to Group 1 and Group 7 - as an 8-volt electrical battery compared to a 1-volt or a 7-volt battery, this analogy reverses the known chemical reactivities, because the exclusive singular charges of Cæsium (Group 1) and Fluorine (Group 7) remain the most highly reactive elements in the periodic table, then something must be terribly wrong in the science when without logical deduction, blind faith establishes false beliefs that have no scientific basis.

Across the same period, Lithium to Neon, Oxygen's reactions markedly differ from Fluorine (which produces similar reactions of Chlorine, with the exception of molecular Fluorine (F2)), as Fluorine's intensely powerful bond energy forces positive valencies from the period's members, thus,

Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4Group 5Group 6Group 7Group Ø
+ F    LiF   
+1
   BeF2   
+2
   BF3  
+3
   CF4   
+4
   N2F2   
N2F4
NF3
NF5
   OF6   
+6
F2
molecular
- Ne -
 singularity 
+ O    LiO2   
Li2O
Li2O2
   BeO       B2O3      CO   
CO2
   NO   
NO2
N2O
N2O2
N2O3
N2O4
N2O5
   O2   
O3
molecular
OF6 - Ne -
 singularity 

Blindly working around Benjamin Franklin's deluded electrical theory with charge polarities reversed, the acceptance of blatant contradiction with the Phlogiston-like rules promoted as fact without any basis in fact, logic, proof, mechanism, and reason, chemical theory promotes as truth, that valency must balance at the end of the reaction; where a positive ion (if corrected should be a negative ion) combines with a negative ion (which should be a positive ion) producing a neutrally charged balanced molecule, Chemistry fails to explain the non-balanced reaction outcome of balanced reactions, where the formed molecules exhibits active molecular affinities and non-zero electronegativities.

With educators illustrating valency using the spontaneous reaction of Sodium (Na+2 (splitting forming two negative ions)) and at the same moment, Chlorine (Cl-2 also splitting forming two positive ions)), the anhydrous Sodium Chloride dimer formed (Na+Cl-), although balanced, cannot be considered as the final reaction product, because this terribly unbalanced molecule actively reacts with environmental water vapour growing the crystal salt (...:H2O:NaCl:H2O:...) When cornered, academics open a can of worms, citing many diverse speculations for this effect, some describing the disparity between the components' electronegativities, while others consider the dipolar charge distribution structuring back to back NaCl molecules. Rather than treating the valence potential with a fixed value, electronegativities refer to molecular reactivity producing numerous valence potential differences, so that


[-1] [+1], [-2] [+2], et cetera.

Due to educators explaining chemical bonding without adequate mechanism, many students face an acceptance problem, where confusion presents a barrier to understanding. Because chemical theory states that inert gas atoms satisfy the 8 electrons in the outer orbital requirement, then all Group 1 elements, logically, in having just one electron in the outer orbit, if true, this electron must present a charge of -1, hence the Sodium ion should be identified as a negative, as Na-1, not as the positive ion Na+1. Equally, with 7 electrons in the outer orbit, Group 7 elements should be negative as Cl-7, and that these electron clouds should not enter a chemical reaction because theory states the Chlorine nucleus containing 17 protons balances the attractive force of its 17 orbiting electrons, then, as theory states, the atomic electrostatic fields must actively present a force of repulsion between Sodium and Chlorine. Even on paper, drawing Sodium and Chlorine as static models, seems to explain that Sodium fits into Chlorine, through a male-female coupling, but then the theory fails to explain the reasons behind complete Chlorine and Sodium molecules spontaneously breaking apart, chemically uniting, releasing energy, and a precise spectral line series.

Good theory must have mechanism with predictable expectations, not exceptions. Because the accepted chemical theory works without mechanism and far too many critical exceptions exist, then causal research must deny giving the theory credibility. Even as a tool, the reactions of Hydrogen with Oxygen show gross exceptions that cannot be accepted. When chemically combined, the molecular pairs give rise to the common balanced reaction producing water (dihydrogen monoxide). After reaching an ignition point, the lightest element Hydrogen, with just one electron and given a single positive value by consensus, reacts with Oxygen, as a double negative value, described by the balanced equation,


2.H1+2 + O2-2 2.H1+2 O2- as dihydrogen monoxide or water vapour.
difference = 0

Then again, Hydrogen and Oxygen react forming exceptions to the valency theory.
H1+2 + O2-2 H1+2 O2-2 as Hydrogen Peroxide
difference = -2

And , H1+2 + 2.O2 2.H1+ O2-2 as Hydrogen Dioxide
difference = -3


Even though the reaction products breakdown, or eventually form Water through a chemical reaction, such simple exceptions push the valency theory's credibility to its limit. Then again, other strange reactions fail the valency theory because the reaction products only form in the presence of a catalyst, where the attraction to a third non-reacting molecule produces stresses and molecular distortions that the desired reaction producing these strange reaction products takes place. The catalyst could be a sheet of heated bare Copper, over which the hot gases pass. Consequently, when molecular Nitrogen (N3-2 ) or another previously made nitrate reacts with molecular Oxygen (O2-2), the presence of different catalysts, and different environmental conditions (temperature and pressure), produce a range of predictable reaction products. Since both elements can swap valencies, chemical relativity takes control where one atom takes on the role of being positive, and the other as negative, or where different reaction products link forming more complex molecules. The following table identifies the fact that when chemical reference books identify N2 O3 as a balanced reaction product, invalid arguments lead to a deception of implied truth, because in this situation, with Oxygen considered as 2-, then Nitrogen must exhibit a positive valence of 5+.

N2 + O2 NO N O2 N2 O N2 O2 N2 O3 N2 O4 N2 O5
The differences
as N3-2 & O2-2: -5 -7 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16
as N3+2 & O2-2: +1 -1 +4 +2 0 × -2 -4
as N3-2 & O2+2: -1 -2 -4 -2 0 × +2 +4
as N5+2 & O2-2: +3 +1 +8 +6 +4 +2 0
as N3-2 & O6+2: +3 +9 0 +6 +12 +18 +24
as N5-2 & O6+2: +1 +7 +4 +2 +8 +14 +20
as N5+2 & O6-2: -1 -7 -4 -2 -8 -14 -20

This truth table reveals only 2 valency correct reaction products, being N2 O and N2 O5, where both Nitrogen and Oxygen appear as chemical hermaphrodites, fully swapping between positive and negative valencies. The incorrect use of sign swapping Nitrogen and Oxygen without correcting the value creates a trap that many respected authorities fall into, and with them establishing a false belief, created and spread yet another knowledge virus. Although giving just two correct answers, the empirical mathematics of valency fails to predict situations where chemical bonds link different molecular structures through the Nitrogen or the Oxygen components (such as ..N:N.., or ..N-O:O-N..).

To relieve the problem of such exceptions, chemical theory states that some elements like Nitrogen form bonds with themselves, as single NN, double as NN or triple NN bonds, but this modification fails to explain how or why such occurs. In the quiescent molecular state, Chemistry cannot explain molecular gases existing as atomic pairs (i.e. H2, F2, O2, N2, Cl2, Al2, Hg2 et cetera), irrespective of valency. Chemistry fails to explain the reasons for atmospheric Nitrogen (N2) remaining almost inert when exceedingly high temperature Oxygen burning reactions take place. One should stand well back when any Nitrogen based product ignites and burns in the atmosphere owing to the availability of atmospheric Nitrogen increasing the reaction's ferocity.

Applied through many backdoor approaches, indoctrinated scientific zealots call on faith, uncertainty, and implied truths, tautologies give Chemistry a degree of apparent credibility and acceptability. As an indoctrination technique, scientific zealots use the classic distraction, a tautology that directs the student towards acceptance through telegraphic linking, "no one knows but the reactants form the chemical products according to the valency theory". As a scientific cop-out, such an uncertain explanation hides the fact that indoctrination reinforces chemical theory's uncertain foundations. Proof and credibility comes from truth, especially when theory exactly explains each step-by-step process from the attraction of different molecules, to atomic impact events where molecules separate and reaction products form, while atomic and molecular response reactions absorb, and-or liberate energy through the reception and transmission of matter originated signals-of-change. Since the exposed pieces of chemical theory's jigsaw puzzle apparently reveal a different picture of Chemistry and a responsible mechanism, that more accurately explains Nature's chemical reactions, causal research procedures must be applied.

Owing to Sodium's strong reactivity, with Sodium's 11 electrons, the atom exists naturally in various salts. When refined into the metal molecule Na2 vapour, or as a soft solid as Nan, compatibility permits spontaneous contact reaction events remove this pure molecule from Nature's Universe. The same applies to the Chlorine atom with its 17 electrons, being artificially refined into the Chlorine gas molecule, Cl2 or as a liquid Cln, existing naturally in various salts. Another way of stating the obvious considers the unbalanced nature of the molecular field structure, aligning and then rapidly attracting compatible molecules (such as water vapour) from the local environment, growing crystal structures which when analysed identifies NaCl as a single molecule, not Na2Cl2.

Due to compatibility, any attempt to rust Sodium in a Chlorine rich atmosphere results in a spontaneous burning reaction, producing the dimer 2.NaCl, perhaps as Na2Cl2. As this burning reaction occurs, liberating a great deal of energy without the need to overcome the initial reaction inertia or threshold energy, the observed spectrum shows the resonance responses of individual Sodium and Chlorine atoms. In explaining this effect, the simple expression, Na2 + Cl2 2. NaCl inadequately describes the reaction processes, suggesting that the Sodium molecule splits into two individual atoms, each with 11 electrons and that the Chlorine molecule also splits into two atoms, each exposing 17 electrons. For absolutely NO good reason, as the Sodium molecule splits, each Sodium atom takes on a positive charge with each atom ejecting an electron, and then as the Chlorine molecule breaks apart, magically each atom creates an electron before the chemical reaction even starts. Chemical theory also states that each molecule contains a negative cation and a positive anion, when these molecules contain anion and cation pairs.

This description becomes less confusing when applying the necessary fixes to Benjamin Franklin's inadequate and confusing electrical theory. If the causal researcher confirms the electrochemical valency concept, correction involves changing valency's charge signs, because as Sodium carries an electron greater than inert gas requirements, if true, then it must exist as a negative ion (as a cation, not positive), and Chlorine being one electron less than the inert gas requirement, as a positive anion. Due to chemical science blindly accepting Franklin's electrical notions (((theory?))) reversing the ion's polarity, with labelled anions as cations, and labelled cations as anions, then according to the observational illusion without mechanism, "As like charges repel and unlike charges attract", then the positively charged Anode attracts negatively charged Anions, and the negatively charged Cathode attracts the positively charged cations. Without making this correction, since the theory cannot explain how or why the Chlorine molecule breaks up, gaining or creating electrons before the formal reaction, chemical theory becomes rather bizarre.

Contradictions<,/a> appear with some chemical theory stating that Chlorine atoms rob electrons from the Sodium atoms, but then Thomson's view of molecular and atomic neutrality prevents these reactions occurring, for neutral molecules do not attract other neutral molecules. Although the reaction of Sodium and Chlorine points directly to another very active mechanism, the confusing situation produced by this and many other contradictions leaves far too many unanswered questions that students, researchers and academics cannot answer in that environment, in that time frame, so, acceptance comes from expedience and indoctrination. When applied in a three step process, electron sharing invokes the following rather complex, sophisticated and illogical reaction behaviour.


The Reactant's
initial hypothetical
Sodium Na2 Na1+ + Na1+
two anions
= 11e + 11e = 22e 10e1+ + 101+ + 2e1-
electron exchange
events.
Chlorine Cl2 Cl1- + Cl1-
two cations
= 17e + 17e = 34e 18e1- + 18e1- - 2e1+

Reaction products
described by an
electron charge
balance of zero.

Na1+ + Cl1-
anion+cation
Na1+Cl1- = 10e1+ + 18e1- = 28e0 as + 2e1- + 2e1+ = 0e
The reaction energy = 48 Kcal

To go any further at this point, the causal researcher needs to understand the working mechanism and processes at the atomic level when different atoms or molecules come together in spontaneous reactions, such as that between Sodium (Na2) and Chlorine (Cl2). The actual order of events being the most important to the understanding of things. Although Chemistry uses the concept of electron sharing as the mechanism holding different atoms together, in the same discussion, chemical educators contradict this describing bond lengths, bond strengths, bond angles, electron affinities and electronegativities. Rather than the gain or loss of a single electron producing an integer value directly related to the electron's potential, chemical reactions produce non-related electron potentials best described as fractional electron events rather than whole events. To confirm or deny electron sharing and valency concepts, to determine the validity of correcting valency reversals, a researcher must determine the actual atomic processes involved in chemical bonding, giving suitable reason for the obvious affinity between neutrally charged molecules; explaining how and why these molecules break apart, the moment when electrons do break away, perhaps flowing along a conductor, to that moment when the electron actually becomes shared.

Metal Chemistry

Since the periodic table locates metal elements on the left side, and with Chemistry describing the metal's properties of malleability, apparent lustre and conductivity as a consequence of "free electrons in the outer electron shell", making the metal atoms cations, acceptance of Benjamin Franklins electrical notions produces a contadiction that defines metal anions as cations with negative valencies, and negative non-metal cations as anions with positive valencies.

With Chemistry concentrating on cross-table reactions between non-metal and metal elements, it avoids the obvious problem of explaining chemical reactions between metals and the exclusive reactions between metal elements. Although accepting and illustrating non-metal to non-metal reactions (such as Sulphur with Oxygen or Chlorine), this "science" ignores all but a few metal to metal reactions, stating a myopic view that because metals conduct electricity, atomic charges short-out in the metal, therefore, metals cannot form chemical bonds with other metals, as chemical bonds only work between non-metals and metals. Mixing metals therefore form alloys, amalgams, and metal mixtures. This seriously in error false belief created the divorce absolute between Chemistry and Metallurgy.

Nature's Chemistry works between all the elements, forming chemical bond types that Chemistry does not appreciate, comprehend, or understand, because of the truncated, wrong and invalid belief-set. The chemical model deliberately ignores metal chemical reactions, that form metal chemical reaction products with crystalline structures, that liberate and-or absorb energy like any other chemical reaction. Despite chemical theory placing metal chemistry outside Chemistry's range, Nature repeatedly provides the evidence which categorically states that metal reactions obey the same intrinsic Laws of Nature without the presence of the fifteen non-metal elements.

Metal chemical reactions exhibit threshold energies, producing metal molecules with specific bond structures typical of every other chemical bond, where chemical bonding liberates and-or absorbs energy, producing reaction products with specific bond angles, bond length and bond strength. Spontaneous metal-metal reactions occur (similar to the Sodium and Chlorine reaction, such as mixing Potassium and Mercury, where the reaction gives off intense heat and light even in a vacuum.) As the reaction products slowly cool, they too form crystalline solids. Silver-Mercury crystals naturally exist in Nature's geology as Ag2Hg 2 and Ag2Hg3. To close the door to metal chemicals invalidates Chemistry.

Creating a vaccine.

Produced by arrogant academic inertia preserving the status quo, honouring those who came before, rejecting necessary correction, the problems experienced within this scientific demarcation created a tangled mess of delinquent, sophisticated, inept, truncated, and erroneous theory that inaccurately describes an exclusive 12.5% of Nature's chemistry, a mess that self-impregnated itself and mutated, spawning numerous virulent knowledge viruses that jumped the scientific demarcation barriers, infecting the other sciences. Some academics openly turn on Chemistry's arrogance, expressing the belief that, "Since Chemistry made the bed, Chemistry must sleep in it." The causal researcher must reject this view, looking at Nature's greater picture, developing a vaccine that quarantines and eliminates these virulent infections from the sciences.

In taking a step back in time, tracing such error trails to their sources, noting junction points where a particular knowledge virus mutated or jumped a demarcation barrier, the causal researcher becomes more aware of the problems stemming from the accepted preconditioned bias found throughout the scientific belief-set. With only the view that Nature's Science works with simple expectations, where simple process reactions produce Nature's precision, order, and apparent harmonious chaos, the researcher must explore various possible scenarios that could best explain natural events as natural expectations without exception. In dwelling on chaos and uncertainty, the sciences failed to recognise the fact that like a computer, Nature obeys a simple set of machine language instructions that through logical operations, matter's response reactions produce natural expectations. By totally divorcing the self from accepting the scientific preconditioning, rejecting all notion of scientific truth in humanity's sciences, Nature reveals the very mechanism and machine language of Nature's very BEING, the machine language instruction set.

Just as crystal can be seen, felt and the precision measured, the structure of each crystal presents Chemistry with several keys to Nature's BEING, telling an amazing story where through procedural replication at the atomic level, simple response reactions produce alignment and precision. Although every chemist and geologist must study crystal structures to gain accreditation, misguided educators often put crystallography in the too-hard-basket because the accepted electrochemical and atomic theories classify crystal structures as scientific mysteries.

In lampooning the orbiting electron atomic model concepts, Dalton's atomic model and crystal structures reveal chemical bond lengths, bond strengths and precise bond angles, that identify chemical bonds as originating from a positional-centric atomic structure, with atomic alignment forming molecular and crystalline structures throughout the Universe. Physics describes the passage of sound by considering matter's atomic and molecular interconnections. Solids need these atomic and molecular interconnections to exist. Through simple atomic processes directly related to a mechanical atomic structure, repulsive and attractive forces between molecules and atoms give rise to the precision, placement, alignment and orientation of common structural molecules, which through replication, layer upon layer, builds the eventual crystal shape. Specific magnetic relationships locate, position, and align each atom in the molecules which connect with other molecules into an organised crystalline matrix that fills the Universe.

Without any need for divine intervention, molecules and molecular groups with the same chemical and magnetic structure organise themselves by specific gathering and positioning mechanisms within a crystal structure, growing solid crystal structures based on common replication. Crystal structures as, gases (the atmosphere, molecular pairs, inert gases), liquids (the oceans, water, oil), all solids (land, animals, plants, minerals, rocks), and plasma (nuclear soup and the intergalactic medium), all require a positional-centric atomic model with molecular positional-centric structures to form. Consequently, each atom must have a semi-fixed design structure with specific bonding sites occurring at precise locations, so that when another atom links with it, the arrangement takes on a specific positional-centric orientation that reacts and interconnects with neighbouring structures. Thus, the Universe must be identified as an enormous crystalline structure, one of alignment, precision and flexible fixture.

Blinded by ignorance, and a follow-the-leader mentality, chemical theory missed something obvious, something that explains and identifies Nature's responsible mechanism. From this point, this chapter seeks to isolate the actual mechanism of Nature's BEING, the very reasons for an atom's internal composition giving rise to its reactiveness, chemical bonding sites, distortions and its cumulative response effects.

Rusting and Burning Reactions.

Generally, the sciences incorrectly describe slow and fast chemical process reactions by the terms corrosion, reduction, and oxidation, when other active processes take control. As Chapter 6 describes in greater depth, slow corrosion processes greatly differ from the more rapid burning reactions, producing a completely different range of reaction products, and different again from catalyst related reactions. Although refining prepares the elements for chemical bonding, incompatibility prevents many refined elements (such as Nitrogen, Chlorine, Fluorine and Oxygen) directly attacking specific elements.

Unlike Sodium's spontaneous reaction with Chlorine producing a burning reaction with one outcome, atmospheric Oxygen's direct attack on Sodium begins a slow rusting process forming Na:O2 and then Na2O2, progressively migrating Oxygen more deeply into a Sodium block. Any chemical attempt to separate Sodium from these oxides triggers a burning reaction process forming Na2O, liberating O2. When these metal oxides dissolve in water, other full chemical reactions occur, which according to chemical theory produces the strong alkali Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH - Caustic Soda).

On the other hand, environmental circumstances promote non-metal elements rusting and burning. Although Sulphur (as 6+ or 2-) reacts with Oxygen (as 2- or 6+), forming the following oxides (SO, SO2, SO3, SO7, S2O3 and S2O7), the reactions all involve changing matter's environmental conditions (temperature-pressure) before the reactions occur. Some Chlorine oxidation reactions occur slowly, however, due to Chlorine's odd value valencies not matching Oxygen's even value valency, other problems appear when juggling empirical mathematical relationships to suit the known molecular compositions. According to the valency theory, denoting Chlorine as either 1- or 7+ and respectively, Oxygen as 6+ or 2-, then Cl1-6 O6+ and Cl7+O2- could be true to theory, however, fractional bondings do not occur in Nature. With O2- being invalid, then Cl7+2O2-7 becomes more viable until considering the point where the two molecules join using two bonding sites perhaps forming Cl7+2O2-6. Then again, as a chemical hermaphrodite, valency could be expressed simultaneously as being both positive and negative, with one chemical bonding pattern using positive valency, and another bonding pattern using negative valency.

Anyone toying with the laws of relative valencies (such as Cl being 7+ or 1-), soon discovers that these laws do not universally apply, especially when certain elements do not form double or triple bonds. Because Nature breaks the rules fashioned by the indoctrinated, opponents in other faculties state that Chemistry adopts the "make a rule and break it" philosophy. Although the rules taught as gospel do not always fit, Nature's reaction products reveal a commonality of sequence products, irrespective of the claimed valencies involved, where a powerful working mechanism repeatedly appears. Nature's mechanism forms natural expectations, where environmental conditions alter the mechanism's structure giving the element specific bonding sites that under the valency theory, appear as illogical reaction products. In Nature's Chemistry, stressed and unstressed Chlorine forms the following expectations, as logical oxides.

Cl O , Cl O2 , Cl2 O , Cl2 O2 , Cl O5 , Cl2 O7


Irrespective of an element's quoted relative valency, Nature's mechanism gives rise to particular bonding patterns, some of which appear in the table below, with the oxides of Hydrogen (H as ±1), Lithium (Li as 7- or 1+), Nitrogen (N as 5+ or 3-), Phosphorus (P as +5 or -3), Sulphur (S as 6+ or 2-), Chlorine (Cl as 7+ or 1-), Potassium (K as 7- or 1+), and many other elements.

-- Li O2 -- -- -- Li2 O Li2 O2 -- -- -- --
-- H O2 -- -- -- H2 O H2 O2 -- -- -- --
N O N O2 -- -- -- N2 O N2 O2 N2 O3 -- N2 O5 --
-- P O2 -- -- -- -- -- P2 O3 P2 O4 P2 O5 --
S O S O2 S O3 -- S O7 -- -- S2 O3 -- -- S2 O7
Cl O Cl O2 -- Cl O5 -- Cl2 O Cl2 O2 -- -- -- Cl2 O7
-- K O2 -- -- -- K2 O K2 O2 -- K2 O4 -- --

For printing reasons, this listing does not include the full oxide series of Phosphorus,
which should also include P4O6, P4O7, P4O8, P4O9, and P4O10.

Because Lithium's valence exceptions challenge chemical theory's validity, Lithium provides the key needed to untangle the apparent bonding pattern mystery. When taking Oxygen as either 6+ or 2-, and Lithium as 7- or 1+, logic dictates that Lithium (with only 3 electrons) would never ever present a 7- valency. Deductions made from the known chemical formula give Lithium respective valencies of 4+, 1+ and 2+.

Li O2 , Li2 O and Li2 O2 .


The adage, "Appearances deceive, Nature does not," applies to deluded sophisticated chemical theory and its empirical mathematical predictions, that with Chemistry using the wrong chemical model, described by Benjamin Franklin's electrical notions, these apparently illogical reactions stand as very logical expectations in Nature's Universe, identified by a simple mechanism producing compatibility related, rusting and burning trends. Common bonding patterns indicate a simple mechanism that immediately challenges the accepted atomic model with electrons orbiting a central core.

X2 + Y2 [ 2(X Y) , X Y2 , X2 Y , and X2 Y2 ].
X2 + Y2 [
2(X Y) , X Y2 , X2 Y3, and X2 Y5 ].

Best described by the trap mechanism, opportunistic magnetic chemical reactions slowly take place establishing chemical bonds, perhaps without liberating or using any energy. Once the molecule forms through magnetic slippage, the chemical bonds prove just as strong as those formed through rapid burning reactions.

Applying The Fixes.

Examination of the fabric of each science reveals ad-hoc repairs, convoluted theory, contradictions and mysterious holes where parasitic theory actively attacked many areas of the fabric, removing necessary reinforcement. Only Nature's strongest fibres can repair the rotting and weak fabric of much deluded and invalid science. All ad-hoc repairs must be unpicked and the fabric rewoven. Nature reveals that such repairs only require one fibre of resilient knowledge as being enough to withstand scientific scrutiny while holding the weight of argument. That fibre identifies as the truth. The same laws and rules apply to the sciences as apply to Nature. Because Nature's Science covers all faculties woven and intertwined together, any change to the foundations of one faculty must alter the foundations of all other faculties. In linking the sciences together as the Science of Nature, as a crystalline matrix, the weave must allow flexibility while giving strength and rigidity.

Rather than being carried along within the active body of a science, as accepted theory, or as a known error, relics and artefacts of the past must be honoured and remembered, put aside, and displayed in a Museum, not maintained as truth. The interaction between Nature's chemical elements, the dimensional elements of Nature's Ordinates, Nature's physical elements, and the human element, must be considered together. For the sciences to work in Nature, as all processes and operations occur at the atomic level, one process step at a time, the hub of all science must be the atom and its interaction to the local atomic environment. With this appreciation, the atom becomes the focus of Nature's diverse elements in Nature's Universe.

As the Rutherford construct fails, the atomic model must be changed to one that works. The atomic model must be one with Nature; one that works in every situation; a model that satisfies all conditions and situations without exception or mystery. All events in Nature's Universe involve the magnetic interactions of matter. Knowledge of the magneto-mechanical atomic model will soon open the doorway to understanding Nature's most buried secrets.

NATURE'S CHEMISTRY:

In Nature's Universe, one must examine Chemistry from a different perspective, where the interaction of mindless matter creates the illusion of complex rules and laws. Blind to humanity's laws, simple atomic mechanisms and processes produce simple reactions, that create events and liberate signals-of-change at the atomic level affecting the local atomic environment. The mechanics of mindless matter's reactions and interactions reveals the nature and shape of the atom, including matter's various atomic magnetic structures that allow multiple bonding structures. Unlike any atomic model that came before, all matter's properties and the apparent reaction complexity can be predicted from first principles using both the magneto-mechanical atomic model and the simple responsive laws that apply to mindless matter. The overwhelming weight of evidence supporting this as a replacement scientific paradigm comes with application and non-empirical accurate prediction.

Displaying the difference between theoretical predictions established under scientific dogma and the magneto-mechanical atomic model becomes relatively easy when describing the actual mechanism and process reactions responsible for the chemical bonding processes. Unfortunately, Chemistry deliberately strips out many of the processes in writing the chemical reaction giving only an empirical, incomplete and deluded view. Chemistry fails to acknowledge the existence of the often forgotten, most misunderstood and maligned common molecule, needed in most metal-non-metal chemical reactions, common water. A crystal of Copper Sulphate with its rich blue translucent colour, being described by its incomplete chemical formula, a formula that should include a great deal of water. Put the two molecules together, water and anhydrous Copper Sulphate and the rich blue crystalline structure grows as the solution concentrates with evaporation.

Treated as a mundane and neutral chemical that does not seem to take any active role in many diverse chemical reactions, Water remained a virtual mystery even though needed for the reaction process. As the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde molecule in the world, regulation does not force water providers to label their product with official health warnings stating, "Water Kills". Irrespective of purity, in sufficient quantity, all water forms can kill, having the ability to cut through steel; crush a ship; or short-out and make lethal an electrical circuit. Then again, water provides great benefits as a life-saving drink, to a means of generating electrical power.

With water's exclusion, Chemistry's credibility suffers, stretched beyond breaking point, for the make a rule and break it philosophy reaches its most depraved point. Chemical theory maintains when any molecule dissolves in water, that molecule mystically breaks apart forming ions in solution, as positive and negative ions, called anions and cations, in agreement with Benjamin Franklin's deluded electrical theory. But then Chemistry describes acids and bases (such as Sulphuric Acid and Calcium Hydroxide) as chemicals devoid of water when these chemicals only become acids and bases when dissolved in water forming a solution. Rather than looking towards the active ingredient making water based solution acid or alkaline, chemical theory relates the solution's corrosive power or strength through the amount of "free Hydrogen ions" and-or "free Hydroxide ions" in solution.

Since, not all solutions contain water, the question of defining a solution becomes problematic, demanding an answer describing solvents and the processes that change the solvent into a corrosive agent. A can-of-worms appears when the causal researcher begins asking simple questions, such as, does water dissolve the other chemicals or do the other chemicals dissolve and modify water's properties. Do ions actually exist? Do other non-water solvents produce similar acid-base effects? The answers must include, "the most active molecule... and the reaction depends on molecular compatibility."

The following list identifies several molecules from strong acids and bases to simple salts.

Although the following questions may appear silly, the importance of each answer gives an indication as to the processes involved. What defines the role of water in each of these chemicals? Why should these chemicals be so powerful in certain applications, in certain environments? Why should simply dissolving a gas or a salt in water produce such nasty corrosive chemicals? The reason for posing these naive questions illustrates that the accepted truths exist without solid foundations. In each case, water plays a very important role, not just in the method of delivering the chemical, not just in making the chemical, but in becoming actively involved in the reaction mechanism's response processes. To understand any chemical reaction demands re-thinking how chemical reactions work. It becomes necessary to forego using the concepts of valency, ions in solution and those techniques used in writing chemical equations.

By far the most obvious notations suggesting full molecules in solution appears with reversible reactions and in the growth of solid crystal structures in concentrated solutions. For instance, the stronger the HCl component in the solution, the greater the rate of breakdown into Chlorine and water. The classical method of writing the reaction does not indicate the return process reactions for the disposal of Hydrogen or the liberation of Chlorine. Often researchers assume that the acid steals atmospheric Oxygen and combines it with the free Hydrogen remaining in the solution through a replacement reaction forming water, often without the necessary energy exchange.

When considered in the scheme of things, with the presence of other chemicals changing water's molecular alignment, then as chemical reactions involve stepped reactions, one process at a time, chemical reactions cannot be instantaneous. Crystal growth strongly identifies the fact that as whole molecules exist in solution, changing water's molecular alignment, forming temporary chemicals, then the chemical equations must be written in a totally different way, including water as an active ingredient. With this apparent presumption, the water inclusive chemical equations illustrate the mechanism and the processes involved in the common chemical reactions defined by the terms, dissolving, evaporation, sublimation, et cetera. The identification of Nature's mechanism does not change the reactants or the reaction products, rather, 95% of chemical theory must be scrapped and revised because the science must replace invalid methodology, theory, procedures, dogma, and explanation.

With this challenge thrown at the feet of Chemistry and the chemical sciences, under the flagship of the Scientific Method, concerned academics, scientists, researchers and students must apply causal research to validate or deny the various issues raised. When an electrical current passes through distilled water, altering the water molecules' alignment, it causes a specific molecular alignment, a directional change where the water acts as an acid in one direction and as a base in the other direction. Although many ignorant of the fact that distilled water presents a high electrical resistance to conductivity, the resistance still identifies the fact that electrons migrate through the most pure water. Hence, as water slowly attacks one electrode as an acid, and the other electrode as an alkali, literally eating them away over several days, producing certain reaction products, as described more fully in Chapter 10's "designed to fail water experiment", it appears that when chemicals react with water they enhance this alignment, making the solution acidic or alkaline. Thus, the writing of chemical equation involving water should illustrate that fact. The more intense the alignment, the stronger the acid or base.

In Nature's Chemistry, ALL water based solutions involve chemical reactions with water, forming temporary chemical bonds and an alignment change. The problem requiring urgent attention being the need to resolve how such a chemical formula should be written, since many existing problems stem from inferior empirical methods that ignore very important considerations. When a science contains so many fundamental errors, the only method capable of resolving inherent problems involves a three dimensional chemical approach that supplies the correct answers without using valency. Some of the chemical descriptions, equations and formula covered in the next few pages appear formidable, almost intimidating, only because the author adds water into the scheme of things, presenting a nomenclature that attempts to describe three dimensional chemical structures on a plain page. As a general guide, with examples, this difficulty reaches a compromise that maintains some of the old empirical methods, and to some may appear as a better method.

To illustrate the point, in a two-dimensional equation referring to a three-dimensional crystalline structure, referring to an arbitrary chemical molecule "YyXx" (representing an active ingredient such as CaO , SO2 , et cetera), then water's relationship to this molecule in solution appears as:-

It could be that the more active molecules become the solvent, chemically reacting with water, perhaps actually burning the water molecule causing chemical disassociation (such as with the addition of pure Sodium to water, burning the water molecules liberating Hydrogen, as Sodium Hydroxide forms aligning water in the solution). Equally, the atmosphere could be considered as a solvent when liquids and solids evaporate, ablate, or sublime. This approach to Nature's Universe, treating the solvent as the more active molecule, becomes more apparent throughout this work as causal research students develop an understanding of the atomic mechanisms and energy-forms involved. Due to relative abundances, an observational illusion appears because the actual solvent may be incorrectly described as the solute.

Researchers should raise questions as to the actual process reactions needed to manufacture different acids, bases and salts. In the main, these all involve dissolving or reacting an active molecule in water, when the processes involve a full, partial, or reversible chemical reaction. As an interim measure, this temporary nomenclature distinguishes acids by placing water before the driving component, and alkalies with the driving component before the water, while placing water of crystallisation in italics on both sides of the component. By definition, solutions involve reversible reactions, where depending on environmental conditions, the dissolved molecules leave or re-enter the solution.

When sulphur trioxide dissolves in water, the simple process forms Sulphuric acid as, H2O:(SO3)
Nitrogen dioxide dissolved in water forms Nitric acid as, H2O:(NO2)
Dissolving Chlorine gas Cl2 in water produces Hydrochloric Acid H2O:HCl and H2O:(H:Cl:O) (which also reacts in a reversible reaction with itself forming H2O:Cl2O + H2O)
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water forms Carbonic acid as, H2O:(CO2)
Calcium Oxide dissolved in water forms Calcium Hydroxide as, (CaO):H2O
Sodium Chloride NaCl absorbs atmospheric water molecules as H2O:[(NaCl):H2O]
The reaction of Copper Hydroxide and Sulphuric Acid, giving rise to a salt and water,
as Copper Sulphate in the crystal form as [(3H2O:CuO:SO3):4H2O]
Calcium Hydroxide attacked by Carbonic Acid form a salt plus water,
where the salt dissolves in water forming Calcium Carbonate as, [(1H2 O:CaO:CO2):2H2O]

Since Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and water aligns to the Carbon dioxide molecule forming Carbonic acid as

nH2O:(CO2)
then as this reacts with a Calcium Hydroxide solution, composed of dissolved Calcium Oxide, the water aligns as an alkali.
(CaO):nH2O

The reaction between the two solutions forms a crystalline salt, where water and the two component aligning chemicals, Calcium Oxide and Carbon Dioxide link together as Calcium Carbonate
[nH2O:(CaO:CO2):nH2O]

As described by the "classic" Acid-Base neutralisation reaction occurs where an Acid plus Base gives salt plus water.

nH2O:(CO2) + (CaO):nH2O [nH2O:(CaO:CO2):nH2O] + H2O

When heated, Calcium Carbonate breaks down into water and Calcium carbonate before releasing Calcium Oxide and Carbon Dioxide as:

[nH2O:(CaO:CO2):nH2O] + Heat (CaO:CO2) + nH2O
(CaO:CO2) + Heat CaO + CO2

Although releasing a great deal of Carbon Dioxide, Lime manufactures mine and process naturally occurring Limestone (Calcium Carbonate) deposits into Calcium Oxide (CaO as lime), which, when mixed with fine dry sand, powdered shale and clay makes the basic Portland cement mix. On site, depending on required application, strength and flexibility, construction workers proportionally add water, sand, gravel and steel to the mix, forming a thick mud that as the Calcium carbonate crystals grow, they interconnect and lock these foreign particles into a solid mass, as a cement, concrete, or aggregate. Humanity copied Nature in the development of this process, with sedimentary rocks showing many degrees of strength, hardness and flexibility, where the CaO:nH2O chemically bonds with Silicon dioxide minerals, and other chemicals (Aluminium silicates) forming resilient rock structures, often much harder than parent limestone.

As a gaseous molecule formed when Hydrogen and Chlorine burn together, Hydrogen Chloride (H:Cl) exhibits a very high affinity to water, producing a local alignment that literally pulls water vapour from the atmosphere producing an extremely corrosive and dangerous gas, Hydrochloric acid. Although often referred to by its anhydrous chemical formula HCl, as an acid requiring water in its formula, nH2O:(HCl), this clear commercially available liquid when stored in brown acid storage bottles, turns yellow, as it leaches Iron from the glass.

Similarly, when dissolving Chlorine (Cl2), Hydrochloric Acid forms as the Chlorine attacks the water molecule so powerfully that the Chlorine dissolves the water, where it seems to dissociate and then combines as both hydrochloric and hypochlorous acids, as given by

3H2O + Cl2 H2O:(HOCl) + H2O : (HCl)

This reaction discounts the ions in solution concept, because common salt (NaCl) when ionised into Na+ and Cl- ions should burn the water, forming a non-stoppable chain reaction, releasing energy infinitely. As an example of this effect, when applying 10,000-Volts continuously to 1 cc of water in a pressure chamber, as the water molecules break apart, then burns, and recombines, breaks apart and recombines again for the duration of the spark, the on-going explosion of water produces a superheated steam-Hydrogen-Oxygen mix releasing a great deal more energy than put into the reaction. This extremely dangerous reaction reaches a plateau, where at a precise temperature and pressure the reaction strikes the chain-reaction equilibrium point.

In terms .of whole molecules in solution, when chilled, a bath of hydrochloric and hypochlorous acid does what most solutions do when chilled; the water begins dumping of all dissolved incompatible matter from the solution, growing yellow Chlorine Hydrate crystals;

[6H2O:Cl2].
Three possibilities explain this strange effect; Some may correctly argue that since the tests capable of confirming or denying an observation involve destructive analysis, a high possibility exists that chemical testing does not always tell the truth owing to secondary chemical reactions taking place. The above reaction uses three water molecules, however, as the crystal grows in a passive chemical reaction, the structure absorbs water, requiring six water molecules. This indicates that the presence of a Chlorine molecule changes water's chemical alignment in such a way, that in perhaps positioning itself across and parallel to the intact Chlorine molecule, giving the illusion of two distinct acids, for one side of the complete water molecule simulates hypochlorous acid while the other side simulates hydrochloric acid. With Nature's illusions being very deceptive, any attempt to separate or test these two molecules produces full reactions with the formation of both hydrochloric and hypochlorous acids. The mechanism driving this effect becomes more apparent throughout in next few chapters.

Another method of producing Hydrochloric acid involves reacting Chlorine with steam, producing by volume of steam containing about 20% Hydrochloric acid and Oxygen.


3H2O + Cl2 2 ( H2O : (H:Cl)) + O2

Equally, the acid-base reaction between Sulphuric acid and Calcium hydroxide in producing the crystalline salt Calcium sulphate salt, and water involves using a diluted acid and a diluted alkali, so,
nH2O + (CaO):2H2O + 2H2O:(SO3) [H2O:(CaO:SO3):H2O] + 2H2O + nH2O

Rationalisation of this equation illustrates the reason for the production of a salt and water. Although dumping water as the two active ingredients unite in the reaction, crystal growth requires the addition of water, taking water from the solution's initial reactants as an essential building block. This negates the concept treating water as the neutral transport and storage medium.

To classically explain Sulphuric acid as being a powerful acid because of the amount of free Hydrogen in the solution does not explain a plethora of observational evidence identifying water's alignment as a primary reactant. As illustrated by the workings of a lead-acid electrical battery cell, the process demands examining the atomic and molecular structure of the molecules in solution, where alignment change permits triggering the reaction, turning it "On" and "Off" with ease, and being able to change the rate of chemical activity through an external electrical circuit. This explanation requires scrapping all orbiting electron atomic models and re-starting Chemistry on a firm foundation. To identify the change in the structure of water and to understand how the solution actually works, takes logic and very little research skills.

Water must not be considered as the only solvent, for chemicals such as Petrol, Acetone, Turpentine and the air all dissolve chemicals. Equally, the solvent may be a solid. A classic example of this being Sodium Chloride for it dissolves water vapour from the air. The black glass-like solid Obsidian shows molecular movement over time, which as Oxygen migrates into the solid at a constant rate, in forming a bucket brigade of chemical oxide reactions, changes the black Obsidian to a clear glass, which archaeologists use to independently and accurately date ancient arrow heads and tools, to human activity around 25,000 years ago.

Many diverse experiments reveal a contaminant's effect on various solutions and solids, from a massive body of water, to a crystal's composition and properties. In some cases, as little as one part in a thousand million can be detected. The actual processes taking place show the intimate molecular couplings producing the effects of colour filtration, to a smell. When polarised light passes through pure water, it does so totally unaffected. The addition of a tiny quantity of sugar produces a structural change twisting the plane of polarisation through an angle dependent on the sugar concentration. Although the electrical resistance of high-grade distilled water indicates an almost perfect insulator, however having an electrical resistance indicates that this water allows some conductivity. A small quantity of any contaminant (such as air) greatly alters the water's structure, and suddenly water becomes a very good conductor. Water's structural change becomes very pronounced with increasing voltage.

A simple experiment showing the changes in water's structure requires using two small absolutely clean polystyrene drinking cups three quarters full of distilled water. A great deal of care should be taken to avoid contaminating the distilled water. Dissolved air, oil and perspiration may alter the experimental results. Although un-necessary, one could accurately weigh all the components used. A single 60 cm length of insulated Copper power wire forms the electrodes. First, after cutting the cable in half, and treating one 30 cm length at a time, the procedure involves removing 1 cm of insulation from each end. This length must again be cut in half, and at the mid-point, removing 2 cm of insulation from both pieces at the cut point. This ensures that both 2cm long electrodes have very similar compositions. This effectively creates two nearly identical Copper electrodes. The wires must be bent and placed on opposite sides of the cup so that the submerged electrodes do not touch or rest on the bottom. They must freely hang off the cup's side, and prevented from falling into the water. With a small piece of adhesive tape, mark one electrode as the positive terminal. Then, with an ohm meter, connect the positive terminal to the meter's positive terminal and measure the resistance of the distilled water, perhaps 4 to 10 million Ohms (M). Carefully place this cup in the freezing compartment of a fan forced refrigerator and freeze it solid. This becomes the experimental control.

Part 2 of this experiment follows the same procedure, with the exception that in this cup of distilled water, the researcher adds just one gram of clean dry fine common salt (NaCl). Let the salt dissolve itself while preparing the other electrodes. Cut the second wire in half and prepare it in exactly the same way, and then measure the electrical resistance. TThis should give a reading around 30K to 40K Ohms (~35K). Place this cup on the other side of the freezer and leave to freeze for 24 hours.



Figure 4-1 The Salt-Ice Experiment

After 24 hours of freezing, the electrical resistances of both solid ice containers must be measured again. Note Well: Each cup can only be removed from the freezer for a maximum time of 45-seconds else the entire experiment must be re-done from start with new components! Take one measurement series at a time. Since the results can be seriously affected by reversing the electrical measurement polarity, always connect the sample's positive to the meter's positive. First remove the distilled water cup and in this 45-second time frame, take the six (6) independent resistance measurements needed at five-second intervals, by connecting the meter only at the five second markers. When measuring the salt ice, it becomes very apparent why this experiment demands a fast observational speed. Although the distilled water ice appears clear, the salt water ice appears a translucent white. Do Not allow the Ice to thaw. On completion at the 45-second mark, return each cup immediately to the freezer and leave in this frozen state for about three months. Do Not Cover. Do not allow the terminals to make contact with any other material in the freezer. Do not wipe or clean the terminals during this phase. Do not allow the freezer to lose too much heat by opening the door every five minutes. If the frost-free refrigerator fails or defrosts, the experiment must be re-done from start.

At the three month point, remove both samples from the refrigerator and place each cup on a clean piece of white filter paper or blotting paper on a stable, flat level surface and allow to thaw. Examine but do not adjust the wires or vibrate the cups during the thawing process. Great differences will be observed. Ablation or sublimation of the ice directly into the air being quite apparent. The Salt cell appears quite interesting as salt deposits grow on the salt cell's outer terminals (those exposed to the air); and amazing corrosion appears on and around both electrodes in the frozen ice. Even the air exposed terminals show corrosion. As the white ice begins to thaw, the ice for one centimetre radius around each electrode appears discoloured; and as the ice thaws, blue and black precipitates settle to the bottom around each corroded electrode. As the salt-ice melts from the electrical terminals, Copper chloride, Copper nitrites and Copper oxides stain the filter paper from the water drops that fall from the terminals.

Finally, remove the electrodes and melt and carefully strip off the remaining insulation from the corroded electrodes for this reveals that both Copper wires exposed to the salt solution internally corroded for the entire length of each cable, with one cable turning blue and the other turning black. In comparison, the distilled water cell appears rather boring because its terminals and the water itself remain almost pristine.

Exercise: Attempt to explain all the observed effects in conventional terms. When dismantling the experiment, if previously weighed, then weigh all the components and compare the results. Calculate the ablation rate.

This single experimental procedure, could best be described as several simultaneous experiments, identifying numerous observational effects that this work explores. Although slow, the experiment identifies many different chemical processes, from the change in electrical resistance to the reasons for the strange discolouration of the solid salt ice around each terminal. Although one should repeat the experiment 5 times, (perhaps taking 15 months), one experiment should do, as the experimental results remain relatively consistent.

A second follow-up experiment could be used as a confirmation of this. The primary process of electrolysis in the air powered by the solid saline chemical cell attacking the salt water vapour, identifies entire salt molecules at work in the ice and in the atmosphere. Although the total experimental time required in completing both experimental phases of six months, seems a bit long, the observational illusions often appear within the first month! In explaining the magician's trick, when initially set up, the act of testing the solution's electrical resistance with an ohm meter, the meter circuit charged and aligned the salt solution, so that the salt ice became a saline voltaic cell which when frozen still operates producing a low electrical voltage and a very low strength molecular alignment field in the frozen atmosphere between the electrodes, thus in the cold dry atmosphere, the air establishes an electrical circuit. To confirm this effect as true, during the confirmation phase of the experiment, introduce a second saline cell, but at no point measure the resistance of this cell, or for that matter should it be introduced to anything electrical. Keep this third cell isolated and well away from the actual saline cell or it may, through proximity and atmospheric molecular alignment that triggers the voltaic cell into operation.

The greatest chemical charging of this saline cell actually occurs at the 24 hour point, in rapidly measuring the frozen cell's electrical resistance by pulsing the cell with a small electrical charge, which strongly aligns the melted water immediately around the electrodes and causes the Copper atoms to be blown from the electrodes, into the ice where they do oxidise. After that first frozen day, in that 45-seconds of electrical testing as the conductors transfer heat into the ice, the speed of electrical resistance change in the saline ice gives a fascinating insight into matter's response reactions.

----------- END CHAPTER FOUR -----------

Version 7 size = 8,950
Version 8 October 2005, Word Count = 15,085



Return to
Chapter 3

© Copyright 1995 AD, Robert Lanigan-O'Keeffe, Sydney, Australia.
Not for copying, publication or distribution without permission.
Changing the Universe, Introducing The AD 2000 Æther Theory.

Advance to
Chapter 5

Hosting by WebRing.