Talk:Hexagonal water

can NMR even detect hydrogen bonds?

If structured (hexagonal water) is entirely a scam, then why does the National Institute of health (NIH) have research that suggests otherwise? Example, some studies suggest that it reduces plaque by up to 60%, others show that it lowers blood sugar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.123.1 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I fixed up the article a bit, borrowing from water cluster. I am a bit dubious about the whole NMR thingy. Its been years since I used one, but can they even detect hydrogen bonds at all? I thought it was restricted to molecular bonds? Yoenit (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the chemical shift / NMR frequency would be sensitive to mean differences in hydrogen bonding strength, and it's incorrect to imply that NMR can't distinguish between pure water and urine - NMR *spectroscopy* is widely applied to urine (see metabonomics). Simple NMR *imaging* cannot be used, although even then it can be used to measure diffusion coefficients and so could in principle show that water was not "clumped". The article as it stands implies that IR is a more sophisticated technique, whereas they are just good at different things. Not that these scam artists actually care or understand the techniques they name drop. 129.234.14.145 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made some slight adjustments in the article based on your comments. Yoenit (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nabi (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)I hereby refer to a book by PJ Pangman called Hexagonal Water - the ultimate solution which is a well researched given the bibliography at the back of the book. My friend runs a clinic in Gaborone here in Botswana and his HIV/AIDS patients report immediate relief after drinking the water. And that is something that Pangman documents in her book.

Placebo effect? There is no scientific basis for hexagonal water.--Charles (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation, but Placebo effect seems to get thrown out pretty regularly when there isn't a direct answer to why a particular effect works. That seems like a genuine question, by a thoughtful person. Placebo seems lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujumagicpants (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Placebo effect is surprisingly powerful. That is why drug trials use double blind procedures. I do not see anything "lazy" about raising it.--Charles (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinions in favor of this theory are missing for it to be objective, there are numerous scientists from diverse universities who support it, the fact that it "clashes with several established scientific ideas" is not a valid argument, established scientific ideas keep on getting knocked down, such is the beauty of science. This article seems pretty biased being that it does not present the arguments of the many scientists that do support the concept. Hucasys (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For someone who "I mainly work on articles relating to southern England and rivers and Roman roads, plus anything else that catches my interest. I take lots of photos wherever I go to upload to commons." How does this make you an authority on the measuring capabilities of NRM devices for 4th phase or structured water on Wikipedia? Also, there's zero references to Dr. Gerald H Pollack and the Pollack Laboratory at the University of Washington on this page which is extremely odd - he's pretty much the world authority on this subject. He's published two best selling books on his re-discovery of the substance. His most recent, is "The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor" is available for purchase at ebnerandsons.com.

If you want to get the proper scientific view on structured water - exploring the science as described by leading authorities, it would seem only logical to discuss Dr. Pollack's findings. Second, the placebo effect is quite powerful but no one knows how it works, so it's not like the mystery has been solved. It's quite well known that the living cells is filled with water. Evidence provided by Dr. Mae Wan Ho and others suggest the water in the living cell is structured differently. She also has best selling books on this subject. You seem to mock the idea that water could potentially have a more optimal molecular structure but give little considerations to the cells remarkable abilities to perform various tasks, such as signal transduction, which it does in a water substance.

Finally, maybe you could read up a little bit on Gilbert Ling who is a world expert on the living cell and water in the cell. In fact, "In 1969 Professor Raymond Damadian aware of Ling's structured water theory conceived the idea of non-envasively detecting cancers using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)" I mean, since 1969 they have been using the theory of structured water for MRI machines. Water in the cell is what these machines are detecting to find cancerous regions. So, its amazing that you attempting to argue that NMR machine cannot detect structured water. Its being done everyday, thousands of times a day, globally, and its been known since 1969.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DorfmanAdam (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC) 

Publishing a book that says something doesn’t automatically make it true. If I published a book that claimed the sky was purple, would that make it true? There are many fraudulent scientific journals that take any research that is submitted to them, whether or not the results stated can be backed up with experimental data. As it stands, only about 15% of journals even have instructions about submitting raw data and hardly any of them actually enforce it. This can lead to scientists publishing complete rubbish results in order to get further grant money. In the case I cited, this caused about 10,000 deaths in the UK because this scientist was able to publish fake data. More reading about this problem. Popular media generally jumps on these fraudulent reports without even bothering to look at the raw data, and the general public will generally take reports by the media as truth without ever questioning what they’re being told, which can be quite dangerous in some situations. This is how we end up with worldwide panics about completely wrong deductions, such as the conclusion that vaccines cause autism (the raw data from that famous experiment doesn’t support that conclusion) or that living next to a power plant can cause cancer (it doesn’t).

Gilbert Ling may have conceived the idea of looking for certain cancers using NMR spectroscopy, but has he actually succeeded in doing this, or was it just an idea he tried? If he has succeeded, what was this experiment and where is the raw data that supports this? Sesamehoneytart 00:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There are other water based scams, and i think there should be a generic article that mentions them all. For example, EZ water, structured water, alkaline water etc... http://greensmoothie.com/water/pollack.php http://www.h302water.com

— unsigned comment added by Jsky87 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC) 

Water Exclusion Zone

Use a search engine to look for "water exclusion zone" pages published in the past year / past month, and you will find several studies in peer reviewed journals.

Sometimes there comes a tipping point when the roles reverse and the skeptics turn into dogmatics refusing to accept scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.30.101 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Pollack has some articles, yes, but there are other explanations for the exclusion zone that are more consistent with what we already know about chemistry and physics (chemotaxis) see comments on my blog post [1]. Pollack is a quack and most of his wild claims about "EZ water" (ie hexagonal sheets) are not accepted and have ZERO scientific evidence for them. The exclusion zone is not evidence - there are other explanations which are much more consistent with molecular dynamics simulation, etc. Danski14^(talk) 13:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hexagonal Water Inaccurate Article

I am disappointed in the current article for Hexagonal Water and have been for some time. It is a disservice seeing as it is a type of molecular configuration of water being shown to be essential and even fundamental to life and health. This configuration has been researched and verified with thousands of hours by experts. Claiming hexagonal water is simply a scam ignores vast amounts of science from highly accredited professionals, and makes their findings and its benefits inaccessible to many.

This editor does not have expertise, knowledge or understanding in this field, and uses a tool called Huggle to monitor and automate editing and revert edits.

Simply stating fraud is incompatible with knowledge gained by researching the pioneers and leaders in the field as collected at and elsewhere, many with a lifetime of contributions and dozens of Chairs, Fellows, Adjuncts, and Accolades from their life's work. There are hundreds of papers supporting and relating to the hexagonal water phenomena, as well as dozens of books easily available that summarize this for the layperson.

I have asked for an intervention from Wiki and am following their recommendations by demonstrating here a civil request that this result accurately describe what Hexagonal Water is, starting with those that have provided evidence that has yet to be overcome by the scientific community as to its existence, properties, roles and effects on living systems.

This editor has been warned not to spam this topic with terms such as scam and hoax or police and repeatedly revert it. People searching this topic wish to know about this type of molecular formation and its properties and effects in a summarized and cited form. This should be supplied respectfully here instead, as part of the wiki service platform.

TimeTells (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

References

You cannot convince scientists by saying something "has been researched and verified with thousands of hours by experts". Scientific questions are not decided by measuring the time two parties invest in the question and giving the win to the party which has invested more time.

Neither are scientific questions decided by counting papers and giving the win to the party with more papers.

Wikipedia articles are definitely not written in the boasting, bluffing style you are employing here. If there are good sources supporting your view, you have to name the sources. Just claiming they exist is not enough. Your reasoning above is extremely weak, so demanding respect will get you nowhere.

And who is this "The editor" you are talking about? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather you spend the time researching to increase you knowledge and understanding than critiquing me or my comment. It was a comment not an edit obviously and plenty of citations are included in my recent edit. TimeTells (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course you'd rather I spend my time any other way than contradicting your rookie mistakes. That would have gone without saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Spam, not Scam, Warning!

The person that moderates this page should be different than the person creating content for it. Especially when the content provides little information about what the topic is, and the author doesn't know much about the subject.

On my personal talk page TimeTells (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC) the current pages author "UN: McSly" is acting as Moderator and representing WIKI while continuing to revert articles back to theirs.

The article I provided shows that this is not fringe science but leading science. A real difference. See edit on 1/10/19.

It is against Wiki terms to keeps reverting articles, especially if you are not knowledgable about or a specialist in a subject. Acting as a WIKI Moderator to control pages is also against terms.

A more in-depth article with relevant-to-topic information and plenty of citations is available. See edit on 1/10/19.TimeTells (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the process to get a legitimate WIKI Moderator and Article for this topic here is. Can you help? TimeTells (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have "moderators". Anyone is free to edit the article, and anyone is free to revert edits that don't conform to Wikipedia policies. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:FRINGE. Bradv🍁 18:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As of June 13, 2019, this article is unbalanced and biased. The article's first sentence calls structured water a marketing scam, which it is; however, this article should focus on explaining the concept and the firm scientific foundations of the theory. There are peer-reviewed scientific reports. Where are these references (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hexagonal_water&oldid=877658033) in the article? Why were they deleted and replaced with the blatantly untrue statement "no evidence to support"? Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She uses the concept of structured water in her "provocative proposals" (theory), follows scientific method and her language reflects that. However, the religionists of "science" - or fake "scientists" - who wrote this article (as of June 13, 2019), try to discredit structured water by making claims like "there is no scientific evidence that supports the theory" (quote from this article). Any practitioner of real science knows, "no evidence" does not disprove the theory, and within the scientific method, it is not intended to disprove anything. As with so much that we have learned over that last century, having no evidence proves and disproves nothing. To make that assertion to discredit the concept of structured water is religion, not science. Having no evidence fails to disprove the theory, as the author apparently asserts. The practice of science always leaves the door open for new insights, new data, and new interpretations. People discrediting this are practicing a false religion that they call "science," but obviously have no understanding of science itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheraune (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh. I haven't seen that type of sermon for a few hours. It is always the same, whether it's about chemtrails or holocaust denial: an article about a pseudoscience is biased because it calls the pseudoscience pseudoscience, science becomes a religion when it does this, you cannot prove me wrong, blah blah blah. Yawn. In the future, just cut that generally applicable stuff from your complaints. It impresses nobody, it just makes people think you are one of those boring pro-pseudoscience clones permanently rattling off the same clichés again and again.

About the small part of your contribution that is not random noise: You link one specific version of the article, but it is not clear if you think that version was good or bad. You do not explain why "Stephanie Seneff" should be quoted. Why should a computer scientist have the competence to do research on water? Did she publish her results in something that deserves the name of "scientific journal", in a field that is relevant? Are you aware that universities have different faculties that teach different things and that there are many different brands of scientists? Are you aware that when a scientist of one stripe tries to do science of another stripe, she will fail abysmally unless she first learns the basics of that science for a few years, because every scientist is a layman outside his own specialty? Are you aware that no scientist can ever be impressed by parading credentials like "senior research scientist" when actual facts would be needed? Obviously not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed you posted essentially the same crap on the Talk pages of three other articles about other bullshit. Maybe you should have somebody write a template for that: you would just have to write, for example, {{BiasSermon|Hexagonal water|Stephanie Seneff|Senior research scientist}}, and the template would fill in all the rest and give exactly the stuff you wrote. Saves typing in the long term. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-11/Seneff-summary - She appears to be a published author in the peer reviewed journal 'Water' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.79.196 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not insert stuff in other people's Talk page contributions. It gives the reader the impression that it was written by somebody else, and it botches the format. I corrected that for you. That link is dead, and everything else I said still applies. Also, even if she managed to publish that, it is still a WP:PRIMARY source and thus not very relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Broken Links

The first two links in the article, which are used to support that claim that hexagonal water is a marketing scam are broken.

The first link to wired a wired article doesn't have any actual information in it and appears to be an opinion piece. The video links in the "article" are broken as well.

The second link is to a google doc that offers nothing.

It appears that the entire wikipedia on Hexagonal Water was written to demonstrate it as a scam, but not to provide unbiased information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrellRell (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@KrellRell: The first link works although I also noticed the youtube video is no longer live. Per WP:DEADLINK this isn't a problem though. I've updated the second link to a copy of the document hosted elsewhere. Regarding "unbiased information" you might want to have a read of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV - we're not going to pretend that this has any factual basis and it is not biased to do this, only representing what has been published elsewhere. SmartSE (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gave it a read, makes sense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrellRell (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pollack

The article in question ignores the findings of Dr. Gerald Pollack PhD. Chimosabe (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Chimosabe If there is missing information and you have an independent reliable source to support it, please offer your suggestions for changes here. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vibration-rotation-tunneling (VRT) spectroscopy

This has little to do with the actual article but do we have a page on Wikipedia explaining this? What is vibration-rotation-tunneling? I known what quantum tunneling is and I know what rotation and vibration energy levels are, but what is this? The same goes for the exclusion zone. I think it would be easier to understand this article if there was a bit about these topics on Wikipedia. 2A02:181F:0:80A7:1CD2:DA5A:E917:E2F5 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A marketing scam misapplying real science?

I was surprised to see "structured water" labelled a marketing scam. Are you totally sure there isn't real science somewhere at the back of it? I did a web search for "structured water" and up came a whole bunch of (presumable) marketing scams--and a journal article published by Oxford University (Michael I Lindinger, Structured water: effects on animals, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 99, Issue 5, May 2021, skab063, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab063). Further digging turned up further journal articles dealing with "structured water"--indicating that it is something acknowledged by, and in the process of being investigated by, science. See, for example Grba, Daniel N, and Judy Hirst. “Mitochondrial complex I structure reveals ordered water molecules for catalysis and proton translocation.” Nature structural & molecular biology vol. 27,10 (2020): 892-900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0473-x (sorry different bib. style format) and Zhang, Chi, Xiaoyi Li, Zichen Wang et al., "Influence of Structured Water Layers on Protein Adsorption Process: A Case Study of Cytochrome c and Carbon Nanotube Interactions and Its Implications," J. Phys. Chem. B 2020, 124, 4, 684–694. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b10192 (ditto). One of the original papers on the topic seems to be Higgins, Michael J., Martin Polcik, Takeshi Fukuma et al., "Structured Water Layers Adjacent to Biological Membranes," Biophysical Journal, Volume 91, Issue 7, P2532-2542, October 01, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.106.085688. (Please clean up my citations if you can and desire to do so.)

By the way, scientists can make valuable contributions outside their area of expertise. It isn't common, but it's possible; although "new" findings by scientists out of their field should be handled with caution until confirmed by scientists who possess the relevant expertise (as well as, of course, supported by further experiments).

N.B. Someone gave a TED talk on "structured water" which is how I first heard about it.

2600:1700:27D0:6580:B897:E034:9BF8:D874 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

First show us that you can produce a bottle of structured water and then we will talk. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I cannot; I don't dispute that "structured water" is a (presumable) marketing scam. What I found is that "structured water" is acknowledged by science and is an area of active research. In other words, yes there are (presumable) marketing scams, but maybe the Wikipedia article should discuss the science, and spin the related scams off to their own page "hexagonal water (marketing scam)" or at least their own section "marketing scams alleging health benefits from hexagonal water." 2600:1700:27D0:6580:B897:E034:9BF8:D874 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

1. There is no evidence of broad scientific support for structured water;
2. There is no evidence that one can produce a whole bottle of it.

Germane WP:RULES: WP:FRINGE and WP:QUACKS. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

1. This appears to be a developing area of science; I'm not sure what the criteria of broad scientific support are, nor how work in a developing field of investigation fits into them. At least one of the claims about structured water (the science not the scam) is "easy" to falsify: either it remains structured under particular conditions for over 2 months (instead of 200 femtoseconds) as mentioned in the JAS article or it doesn't. I hesitate to try analogies, but for what it's worth, consider String theory. It doesn't, ifaik, command broad scientific support but hasn't been pushed out of scientific respectability. I don't think there is this moment everybody says "okay now it's science." Consensus usually doesn't happen overnight. Tentative scientific findings were scientific before consensus about them was reached. But, I guess, scientists can't be publicly confident their findings are right until the probability that they are not wrong is 5-sigma or better.
2. This, imo, isn't relevant.

I don't see what WP:RULES has to do with this discussion. 2600:1700:27D0:6580:B897:E034:9BF8:D874 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Masaru Emoto wasn't a scientist at all, he was a loon. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The TED talk mentioned above might be this one by Gerard Pollack. (He also has a book entitled The Fourth Phase of Water.) (I found this page trying to follow up on his talk.)

Water autoionises to a degree, and one of the species present is hydroxide hydrate (H₃O₂) aka bihydroxide ion. His claims start with one that this species nucleates on hydrophilic surfaces. If you believe his diagrams you end up with a 10 micron layer of liquid crystal pure hydroxide hydrate which excludes solvands and solid impurities, and creates a charge separation between a negatively charged surface layer and a positively charged bulk. I find it hard to believe that such a situation would be stable. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous article

This article must set a record for Wikipedia for illogical arguments claiming to show that EZ water is a "marketing scam". There have been water-based marketing scams for years, but that's no more a proof that EZ water is a marketing scam than the existence of far right and far left political extremists is proof that respectively Republicans and Democrats are political parties both destroying America. Likewise "First show us that you can produce a bottle of structured water and then we will talk" makes about as much sense as "show us you can produce a bottle of surface tension and then we will talk."

The editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hob_Gadling reminds me of some other editors I've seen on Wikipedia claiming to be a subject matter authority when it's painfully obvious they have no clue about the actual science involved and are simply playing the bully role of someone with a bee in their bonnet claiming a connection between marketing scams and genuine science. This article badly needs to be completely replaced with an article written by those with actual science degrees, ideally a Ph.D. I have one and have over 6,000 Wikipedia edits under my belt since 2007 or so including many on radiation physics but I'd need to read up on the physical chemistry of states of water before I felt confident getting the facts right.

That said, it is obvious to me that EZ water has essentially the same structural stability as graphene and other 2D chemical structures discussed here. Statements like "I find it hard to believe that such a situation would be stable." make no more sense than the statements by French aeronautical scientists between 1903 and 1908 that they found it hard to believe that a heavier-than-air flying machine could be built. Eventually the Wright brothers had to ship one of their machines to France to convince those skeptics.

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Vaughan Pratt Thanks for your opinion. Are you proposing a specific course of action? Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If those sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors. If the sources are accurately summarized, but are in error themselves, you will either need to take that up with the sources, or offer new reliable sources that offer a different point of view. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Which "reliable source" did you have in mind? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who brought a concern to this page, I can't tell you what sources to use to support your position. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason I asked you for a reliable source is that I was unable to find even one in the article, making it a fair challenge for you to produce one. But ok, let me show why the article has no reliable sources at all supporting the article's premise that hexagonal water is a marketing scam, namely by addressing each of the ten sources in turn. Reading all ten is going to take a while.

[1] Irrelevant to hexagonal water as it refutes "microclustered water", which was patented in 1998, five years before the discovery of hexagonal water.

[2] This is an uninformed opinion article by Wired contributor Aaron Rowe, who writes on a wide variety of technical subjects. Being merely Rowe's opinion, it does not meet WP:RS.

[3] This is an excellent warning by Alabama water scientists about many water scams including bottled hexagonal water. As I wrote above, that's like selling bottled surface tension. A scam based on selling bottled surface tension does not make surface tension itself a marketing scam, any more than selling bottled hexagonal water makes hexagonal water itself a marketing scam. You can't bottle surface tension, and you can't bottle hexagonal water for the same reason since it's a surface phenomenon.

[4] Dead link. Presumably to a company that no longer exists but presumably pitched bottled hexagonal water back in 2011.

[5] Dead link. Presumably like [4].

[6] Similar warning to [3].

[7] Excellent article about bulk water. Although it doesn't mention hexagonal water, it is easily inferred that hexagonal water can't exist under the conditions they tested for. It's a pretty convincing proof of the impossibility of bottling hexagonal water.

[8] Similar warning to [3], by a chemist specializing in NMR.

[9] Concerns ice. No one has ever claimed to find hexagonal water in ice, which is a very different (namely solid) phase of water. Hexagonal water exists at ambient temperatures and pressures.

[10] Completely irrelevant. (a) It predates the discovery of hexagonal water by 6 years (cf. [1] above). (b) Not surprisingly it makes no mention of hexagonal water.

The illogical arguments in this article could equally well prove that graphene is a marketing scam. Just as there's no such thing as bulk graphene, there is no such thing as bulk hexagonal water.

This article could easily be fixed by moving it to (i.e. renaming it as) Bottled hexagonal water.

Independently, someone with the requisite background should write a real article about the exclusion zone (EZ) in water. The evidence for the exclusion zone is clear enough, though I'm not enough of a physical chemist to judge whether EZ water is caused by the hexagonal structure of H₃O₂ + e^- as described at 7:00 at youtube video i-T7tCMUDXU . If no one steps up to that plate, I suppose I could research the topic and write it myself. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

About French aeronautical scientists: their maths was fine, according to the then known strength of materials, you could not build a heavier than air flying device from materials available at that time. I assume the calculations predate the 1900s. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason I asked you for a reliable source is that I was unable to find even one in the article This is the tu quoque fallacy. You do not have a reliable source for your opinion, so you avert attention by claiming that neither does the other side.

Irrelevant to hexagonal water Maybe, maybe not. "Cluster water" and "hexagonal water" are used interchangeably, such as here: [2]. As long as we do not have a good reason to separate the two terms in two articles, it should stay in the same one. The use of that source could be worded better.

This is an uninformed opinion article It is not marked as an opinion piece. If one could make a source unreliable by claiming it is just opinion, we would have to delete all of Wikipedia because flat-earthers, moon landing deniers and their ilk would shoot all sources down they do not like.

You are using the No true Scotsman fallacy when you claim that there are no reliable sources in the article. The Wired article is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. WP:IDLI is not a reason to exclude it.

claiming to be a subject matter authority You are distorting facts. I never did that. You avoided an outright lie by wrapping the claim into a "reminds me of", but it is still not valid reasoning.

This is just another one of those empty "I know better than any reliable source" rants that do not belong on Wikipedia. If you are such a great expert, write an article and get it published as a reliable source. Maybe we can cite that. If you cannot get it published, Wikipedia is correct in not accepting it either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is much ado about nothing: the OP claims that hexagonal water only exists upon the surface of water. The OP needlessly antagonizes other editors. However, I don't find that renaming this article to Bottled hexagonal water would be unreasonable. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable, but is it what most people will be likely to look for if they were looking for this topic? 331dot (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"is it what most people will be likely to look for if they were looking for this topic?"

Reading the whole talk page, it would appear that I'm not the only one who came here looking for more information about hexagonal water, which is a proposed mechanism for the exclusion zone found at the surface of water. In my case I wanted to find out what physical chemistry modeling of it had been done because I was thinking of doing such modeling myself in order to evaluate the credibility of the proposal. I was therefore as shocked to read in the first sentence that it was a marketing scam as I would have been if I'd come to an article on surface tension and been told in the first sentence that surface tension is a marketing scam. (Which for all I know it may well be in the medicinal hydration industry, about which I know exactly nothing.)

" 'Cluster water' and 'hexagonal water' are used interchangeably".

That's perhaps the biggest problem with this article: the reader seeking information about hexagonal water is led to believe that it is interchangeable with "cluster water". In an article evaluating hexagonal water as a model of the exclusion zone, the reader would be mystified by seeing it referred to as cluster water. Whereas no one knows what "cluster water" is, hexagonal water can be simply described as graphene with each carbon atom replaced by an oxygen atom and each σ-bond replaced by a hydrogen atom, and differing from graphene by having one left-over electron for each oxygen atom. Like graphene it only exists (if at all) in 2D sheets, in this case at the surface of water. As such it is one of several proposed structures for the exclusion zone found at the surface of water. The reason I came to this article was to learn more about that particular proposal, such as how credible it was. When I was informed that it was nothing but a marketing scam my immediate reaction was "That's ridiculous." Please excuse the reflection of my reaction in my written response, for which I apologize.

Perhaps less disruptive than moving the article to Bottled hexagonal water might simply be a hatnote to the effect of "This article is about the marketing of so-called structured water, such as cluster water or hexagonal water, as having health benefits. For hexagonal water as a proposed model of the exclusion zone found at water surfaces, see Exclusion zone (physics)." Had such a hatnote been there I would then have immediately proceeded to that article (which I only learned of an hour or so ago) and would have not been at all bothered by this article. This hatnote would have the additional benefit of justifying links to articles complaining about structured water that predate the earliest appearances of the notion of hexagonal water, though in that case "hexagonal water" seems a strange name for an article about structured water scams that predate the "hexagonal water" one. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Back then, I did not see that "surface phenomenon" thing among all the railing.

Your suggestion sounds reasonable. Free energy probably had a similar problem once, since the term is used by scientists with one meaning (or rather, several) and by pseudoscientists with another, and now it is a disambiguation page that links to the science articles and the pseudoscience articles. Maybe making a disambiguation page would be best. This page would be renamed "hexagonal water (pseudoscience)", and the disambig page would link to it and to "Exclusion zone (physics)". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A dab page was another possibility that had occurred to me. My experience with hatnotes vs. dab pages in this sort of situation is that there is a convention that the most likely meaning of the name gets the original page with no parenthetical clarification plus a hatnote linking to the less likely meanings. But when editors can't agree on which meaning is most likely then a dab page is used and all articles get parenthetical clarifications. Not wanting to get into an argument over which meaning of "hexagonal water" was more likely I figured that leaving the present article as the primary one was the path of least resistance, but I'll leave that call to others.

In this case there is yet another possibility. Make "hexagonal water" simply a REDIRECT to Exclusion zone (physics) and give that page a hatnote something like "For hexagonal water as a pseudoscientific hydration product see Hexagonal water (pharmaceutical)".

As an aside, for the present article I would think "pseudoscientific" might be a more suitable term than "scam" for an encyclopedia, see Homeopathy for example. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I just implemented the simplest solution, "For multi". If people think there should be a dismbiguation or another meaning is more popular, they can do that or come here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Water

This is what happens when one person makes Wikipedia. It's not a scam at all font just read the top searchs 2600:6C60:0:1179:E818:E592:6D43:221 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out above, hexagonal water only exists upon the surface of water. How do you bottle the surface of water? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)