The Structure of Water and Other Liquids
    By Richard King | February 24th 2010 10:34 AM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    Recently, I came across a review paper that shows a considerable amount, of progress in the last decade or so, in the understanding of the structure of liquids. That paper
    “The Structure of Liquid Water; Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy” constitutes a comprehensive review of work in the field. The authors, Rustum Roy, W.A. Tiller, Iris Bell and M.R. Hoover, are not lightweights in the science field, though many mainstreamers are likely to find fault, not least because the thrust of the paper and the evidence contained, referred to, therein, is diametrically opposite to what the mainstream wish to hear.

    As the authors point out, the term structure is used in the materials science sense, to designate the three dimensional arrangement of atoms, or molecules, not the structure of s single molecule, or oligomer, as used in chemistry.

    The structure of water is due not to just the well known hydrogen bonds but van der Waals bonds between and among the various oligomeric (cluster) structural units.

    X-ray diffraction (XRD) is extremely useful for crystal structures but of no use for liquids. Currently, the only effective investigative tool for non-crystalline solids, such as glass structures, directly but only partially, is transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and this cannot be used easily, directly, on liquid structures. These difficulties have lead many scientists to hold the naïve view that all liquids, like most crystalline matter, are, broadly, completely homogenous structures down to the unit cell, atomic, or crystalline level and that they exhibit structural characteristics in line with the random network model, one of the two models developed in the 1930s for glasses.

    Zachariasen’s 1932 model for the structure of glass was arrived at by model fitting to X-ray scattering but is based on no direct data from other methods. Even so it has dominated thinking in physics and chemistry ever since. I recall such diagrams from the time of my Master of Technology Degree in Non-Metallic Materials at Brunel University during the 1970s.

    Opposed to Zachariasen’s model of a homogonous structure, was the early “crystallite” theory, which also brings back memories. That model posited that small 5-50 Ao fragments of various crystalline structures floated in a “monomeric sea”.

    Between the 1930 and 1980s the concept of a homogeneous (random-network), or heterogeneous (crystallite) structure for glass (frozen liquids) was reconsidered at various times. Transition electron microscopy (TEM) rather than X-ray diffraction (XRD) produced definitive relevant data in common boro- and alumino-silicate glasses, which showed a heterogeneous nano-structure of very many transparent glasses which have even 2 or 4 separate phases; a phase is defined as a region of characteristic structure, or composition separated by a surface.

    The whole of the glass-ceramic industry depends on this incipient nanoheterogeneity, or actual phase separation in glass, for its existence. The existence and the high probability of nano-heterogeneity in most strongly bonded glass and liquid structures are now established as the “standard model”.

    After surveying experimental data and the resulting thinking about glass and liquid structures over the last several deacedes, Roy, et al, conclude that the actual experimental data on the structrue of many glasses and liquids can be summarised as follows:

    a) The ubiquity of nanoscale heterogeneity in the structure of many covalently bonded liquids

    b) That such heterogeneity on the nanometer scale is the rule rather than the exception for the structure of all strongly bonded liquids (i.e. principally excepting ionic and metallic melts)

    The Structure of Water

    , et al, wrote their paper in the “language” of materials science. However, they found that, via some 17 million hits on Google for “structure of water”, materials scientists have rarely studied what is an extremely common material. The vast majority of papers on the “structure of water”, in the chemical and biomedical literature, started and, most often, ended with statements and claims about what molecules exist in water on the  basis of particular, increasingly specialised tools, with the prominence of hydrogen bonding in the molecules rarely being commented on.

    Roy, et al, cite a prodigious work on the structure of water, a web site by Martin Chaplin of South Bank University, London. As they say, it is an enormous, complex and well organised review of the entire field of water structure and related fields, like homeopathy, the treatment of the latter being unusual in that it is scientific, balanced and fair minded. The ambiguity in the chemical literature on the structure of water is well illustrated by the collected illustrations of that structure, as conceived, proposed, deduced.

    What comes out of all of this is that water, along with other liquids, has a structure, in the materials science sense, that can store information and have information impressed in it by means of epitaxy (shape), pressure generation, electrically, magnetically, etc., and that information can be retained.

    In their conclusion, Roy, et al, point out the key role of the nano-heterogeneity of liquid water and the resulting ease of change of structure. They go on to say that the understanding and mental images of the structure of water have been radically distorted in the minds of most scientists and, thence, the medical community. Liquid water (OH2) like its remarkably similar analogue SiO2, is not a homogenous structure at the molecular level. It is a dynamic equilibrium among changing percentages of assemblages of different oligomers. The structure, architecture, and these assemblages, or units, themselves are dependent on temperature, hence it’s many anomalous property temperature relationships, as well as on pressure and on composition. As a result the structure is more responsive to composition of low level solutes, to  magnetic fields and to “subtle energies”.

    There is an extreme structural flexibility that predisposes the water to change by both epitaxy and succussion, the latter introducing the possibility of a stable nano-air bubble colloid.

    The latter factors provide a theoretical feasibility for, as the authors put it, “the robust outcomes data of dozens of researchers in the homeopathic field, who have reached more or less similar conclusion by other routes”.

    To quote the following paragraph directly:
    “The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy, of the different specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the primitive criticism of homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the molecules. Structures change properties vastly more easily and dramatically than chemistry changes them. Beyond the homeopathic field, such an enormous structural pliability also provides a plausible framework for the claims of the most reliable workers in the field of “subtle energies” to be able to change the structure and properties of water.”

    Also, in the words of the paper, relating to homeopathy, with which I have to agree:
    “The central thrust of this paper, which has presented an argument which nullifies the simpleminded argument of ‘zero concentration of solute, hence no possible effect,’ is that it is structure NOT composition which ahs the effect.”

    As Roy, et al, say, their paper outlines testable hypotheses about the ability to alter the structure of water in the ultra-dilute regime, though epitaxy, coupled with succussion (vigorous shaking) generating pressure and nano-bubbles leading to properties markedly different than those of untreated water.


    Gerhard Adam
    ...that can store information and have information impressed in it by means of epitaxy (shape), pressure generation, electrically, magnetically, etc., and that information can be retained.
    This is the kind of sentence that sounds like it says something, but really doesn't.  What is meant by "information"?  What kind of information?  How can it be examined?  How can it be used?  How is such "information" retrieved?

    What does it mean to store information "electrically" or "magnetically"?  What are the laws of physics/chemistry that are involved?  Where is there a demonstration of storing and retrieving "information" in this form?

    This sounds quite similar to the use of the term "energy" by paranormal investigators, almost as if the word has mystical properties that render it beyond questioning.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Richard King

    I blogged about the generality of the paper to which I referred (“The Structure of Liquid Water; Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy" (; I am still absorbing the detail – it is 30 very full pages with 117 references. If I had been writing a technical paper rather than a blog, I would have taken in more of the detail and the relevant references first. There are mechanisms that come to mind, as well as non-mechanisms. Also, Tschulakow, et al, suggest one in “A new approach to the memory of water” and papers such as “The ‘Memory of Water’: an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions.” By Elia, Napoli and Germano are generally supportive of of the notion of “memory” in water.

    I was prompted to do an Internet search by the arrogant approach of the “There’s nothing in it” by the anti-homeopathy campaign, particularly as there has been much discussed about the “memory of water” with the blatant statement on the “10:23 Homeopathy: there’s nothing in it” ( website that water has no memory, a point which is stressed. My science goes back half a century to standards that were, apparently, somewhat higher than is practiced today, including, if you make a statement it is only opinion, if more than that the statement needs to be substantiated; there is no substantiation that water has no memory – matters not that it appears unlikely, that is subject, not objective, though the objectivity of science is an illusion, if one thinks deeply enough it is “obvious”. What I conveyed, via the blog, was that the general thrust of
    research in the last decade, or so, is that there is indication, strong indication it seems, that at least some of the statements of the anti-homeopathy brigade is false. That does not mean that I accept that homeopathy works, just that matters are not as simplistic as some people would have the rest of us believe. Much the same goes for other areas of CAM and many matters outside mainstream science, more appropriately, flatland science, following discussions in relation to another blog on this site.

    There are fairly obvious ways in which information is stored in other contexts, as I wrote, I am trying to find time to delve deeper as far as water is concerned – no pun intended. It is an area I would, probably, have been researching some time ago but for circumstances which are easily accessible on the Web.

    The “laws of physics/chemistry” are a human notion and represent the best understanding at the time they were propounded. There is nothing absolute, or immutable, about the “Laws of Science”; that may be the case with “flatland sceicen2 but it is not with Reality.

    am well aware of higher energies and structures, and considered that as a possibility for a mechanism connected with homeopathy, then found that there is a possible basic materials science explanation which may be instead of the other level, or as well; the way these things work the two are inseparable but that is another story.

    It is quaint how mainstream science tends to go on about non-physical energies being beyond the pale, implausible, etc., when mainstream science cannot does not understand energy and cannot define energy. The so-called definitions of energy are not definitions at all, merely descriptions of what the physical senses perceive energy to do. Similarly, those of us who have our non-physical senses open to some degree, rather than mostly closed as the majority of people do, can describe what non-physical energies do.

    The terms “normal” and “paranormal” are subjective, as everything is anyway, bar One.

    There is nothing particularly wrong with “mystical” non-physical energies. As science cannot define energy, why complain about others using the term. I easily feel higher energies, sometimes see them and, occasionally, here them. I am well used to non-physical energy fields, though describing the human aura type of energy field as a stress energy tensor in non-Einstein Minkowsky Space-Time means a little to most people who are well aware of them as it does to the flatland scientists; some fairly convincing science has been done in that field, at least convincing to non-flatlanders. See The 3-Fold Way”, K. Korotkov and A. Levichev (; I came across it when I surmised that the aura could be modeled in tensor form as many fields are in engineering, except that it is just engineering mathematics to engineers, tensors being a physicists term, though my mathematics is rustier than it was and nowhere near Levichev’s level – as I recall he is a double PhD mathematician.

    Gerhard Adam
    As science cannot define energy, why complain about others using the term.
    That's not really true.  Science may not be able to "define" energy specifically but it clearly has numerous laws and explanations that work scientifically.  Therefore when someone else uses the term, they are indicating that their phenomenon also obeys such laws.

    If that isn't true, then it is being proposed as a completely new phenomenon and as such warrants new evidence and "laws" or explanations.  The problem with all of it, seems to be the reluctance to provide actual data instead of mere speculation. 

    Hence the problem with "water memory".  Water doesn't have enough components to it to have a "memory".  I'm sure the argument is that computers use 1's and 0's and convey tons of information, so it doesn't take much, but that isn't a true argument.  The 1's and 0's don't convey any information until there is something to interpret them.  Similarly with an idea like "water memory".  Having a "memory" isn't particularly useful unless you can identify the mechanism by which such "information" is interpreted.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Richard King

    Science has numerous laws and explanations that work as far as energy is concerned but that is within what is currently known by science and does not exclude that which is not currently known, no more than classical mechanics “excludes” quantum mechanics; there is a very great deal above and beyond what can be accepted at the current level of science.

    Therefore when someone else uses the term, they are indicating that their phenomenon also obeys such laws.

    As I wrote, “laws”, in the science sense, are only best representations at a given stage of knowledge. Not being able to accept limitations of knowledge is a large contributing factor to experiments by mainstream scientists in areas they purport to understand but, in reality do not, being meaningless because they are not taking into account matters which need to be for a proper understanding.

    For example, Richard Wiseman’s “Twitter experiments” last year on Remote Viewing. Firstly, it was not Remote viewing, just bog standard telepathy, or attempted telepathy, as Remote viewing is precisely structured and his experiments were not. Secondly, because, as I recall, he spent half an hour concentrating on a particular subject. I know from personal experience of telepathy, really as a “receiver”, rather than a “sender”, that concentrating is about the last thing you do; as with many other things, what is Reality, as opposed to mere physical reality, is, in very general terms, diametrically opposite to that which the mainstream supposes. Those experiences are on the Internet on a very old web site of mine, I will try to move them to a newer web site in the near future, as I will with the St Faith Church experience, mentioned below.

    Edzard Ernst had experimented in my modality, Spiritual Healing. He has not a clue what he is doing or talking about, he cannot define Spiritual Healing, does not understand it, cannot accept the underlying “mechanism”, so he makes basic errors in his experiments, fails to rule out obvious variables, though, knowing about such matters, I am well aware those variables are extremely difficult to rule out; see Psychic Engineer, Trick or Treatment Review, Spiritual Healing

    One “law” at that level is that energy travels from the right hand to the left hand. The left hand is the most sensitive, the receiving hand. I am easily able to generate a flow of energy between my hands, sufficient for someone to put there hands between mine and feel it, everyone, as far as I can recall, so far, with particularly sensitive people, Carol, a crystal recreation therapist particularly coming to mind, pulling their hand away and shaking it because it tingled so much.

    Another “law” is that at higher levels than the physical there is no line of sight restriction. In the mid 1990s I met someone in St Faith Church, Havant (Hampshire, U.K.) front of me and a little to my right. I saw her in detail (down to the stitching on her clothes); both front and back, although she never turned around, though I was also seeing the church as it was in another time as well. It took me two pages of type script to describe the scene in all the detail I saw, including the woman from the front, although she had her back to me throughout; her name, it transpired later, was Jeanne, a very famous Jeanne.

    A third “law” is that there is no appreciable attenuation of higher energies by the physical universe; based on very rudimentary experiments; having generated a flow of energy between my hands I moved them so that sheets of various materials was between them, wood, glass metal (specifically aircraft grade aluminium) with no detectable variation in energy flow. There is interaction between such energies and the physical for numerous reasons, though how much depends on the frequency, as well as type I have just been told, reminded, of the energy.

    The matter of water memory, if indications of the results of research during the last decade are valid, is a subject in its early stages. Plate tectonics was not accepted for decades, though I am not aware that the Earth’s crust waited for science to accept the reality of plate tectonics before it started moving. I find much of modern science, or at least the way it is propounded that daft; there is a great deal of “it cannot be because there is no science to show that it can be”; as if Creation waits for mere humans, mere scientists at that, to give assent to what can be done; a small minority of sentient beings, on a ball of rock 8,000 miles in diameter, using a system of attaining knowledge that is no more than four, or five, hundred years old in its present form, deign to decide what can and cannot be in a universe 27.4 billion light years across and 13.7 billion years old, to the best estimate, understanding, guess! Never mind that both time and the physical are illusions anyway, though that is another story.

    Gerhard Adam
    ... or at least the way it is propounded that daft; there is a great deal of “it cannot be because there is no science to show that it can be”
    I think that you know better than what you're implying by that phrase.  I know of no scientific situation where science denies a phenomenon simply because there is no explanation1.  Instead, science denies a particular explanation for a phenomenon when it introduces too many unknowns that are compounded by further unknowns.  This is precisely the problem I have with your explanations.

    In the first place there is only the subjective description and acceptance that a phenomenon even exists, however if we assume that it does, then we are further limited because there is no explanation given that describes it in scientific terms.  Using words like "energy" or "information" don't provide a means by which testing can be conducted or verification occur.

    After decades of this, it can only lead one to conclude that the phenomenon being described is purely subjective and has no basis in fact.  This is very similar to the issue around people's belief regarding UFO's.  UFO's, by definition, are quite reasonable since they are "unidentified".  However, the problem occurs when people allege an identification that is based on numerous other questionable assumptions, ultimately concluding that such an object has been identified as a craft and visitation from another planet.  This latter position requires a great deal more proof than the mere point of having seen something that was unidentifiable.

    As you well know, it is the function of science to try to examine and test phenomenon in an effort to tease out the laws of nature.  However, it is not incumbent upon science to pursue every claim, regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable someone thinks it may be. 

    You're also confusing the issue of science in regards to claims like plate tectonics or quantum mechanics.  Despite what some may claim, science has never been about knowing it all.  Each new development may occur against opposition, but it also has the distinction of ultimately being tested and verified, and thereby gaining acceptance.  There is no merit in using an argument that science doesn't explain everything to introduce a phenomenon that can't be replicated.  If you can produce a phenomenon that has no scientific explanation and provide a means by which it can be tested, then there is an opportunity to advance knowledge. 

    1 Although it is reasonable to deny a phenomenon if it cannot be reproduced. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Richard King

    I think that you know better than what you're implying by that phrase.
    i.e. ... or at least the way it is propounded that daft; there is a great deal of “it cannot be because there is no science to show that it can be”

    Of course I know better than that; what I wrote was, essentially, a word caricature of the approach of the science flatlanders.

    Science is in no position to deny anything, only to concede that it does not know. It may assign probabilities based on knowledge at the time but denial of something requires proof, at least by my standards of science. As I wrote before, either something is opinion, or it is backed up by some form of proof, though that proof can only ever assign a probability, never an absolute.

    Obviously, other people have a different view of science and different standards. As I have written elsewhere, if  “Trick or Treatment?” had been given to me to assess at engineering report level I would have dismissed it out of hand; poor structure, poor and inconsistent reasoning, no references, numerous factual errors, etc., etc. as a dissertation I would not have given it a pass mark, for similar reason; perhaps 30%?

    I know science is not about knowing it all.

    I am not introducing phenomena on the argument that science cannot explain everything; I am discussing phenomena that come within my awareness and that of many other people. Some people having no sight does not preclude the sighted experiencing the phenomenon of light. Some, the majority, of people not being sensitive, or of very limited sensitivity, to phenomena, events, which are beyond the physical senses, does not preclude those of us who do have sufficiently open higher senses experiencing what we do; mine have been that open for only two decade, before that I was very limited. Besides, I am only discussing not attempting to offer proof; science is simply not up to it at present, at least not in the general sense, though, as previously indicated, there are people who are making progress.

    As you well know, it is the function of science to try to examine and test phenomenon in an effort to tease out the laws of nature.  However, it is not incumbent upon science to pursue every claim, regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable someone thinks it may be.
    Agreed, although if science does not examine and test, then it has no justification in pronouncing on that which it has not investigated and tested and even if it does, any pronouncement should take into account the quality of that investigation and testing, as well as that if the investigators.

    You're also confusing the issue of science in regards to claims like plate tectonics or quantum mechanics.

    Not really, again I was caricaturing.

    Despite what some may claim, science has never been about knowing it all.
    Again, agreed, though it does not come over that way, at times, from the flatlanders.

    There is no merit in using an argument that science doesn't explain everything to introduce a phenomenon that can't be replicated.

    I have not done so. I, along with others, am aware of certain matters and know that they exist, whether science can handle them, or not. Whether science can detect, handle, understand such matters is irrelevant; we experience them, period. If other people cannot accept that, fine; they go there way, we go ours; they have there understanding, we have ours.

    In response to the “quack”, “woo”, “yah boo sucks” attitude of a large proportion of the flatlanders, the attitude of by far the greater majority of my colleagues, who, mostly do not have scientific backgrounds, is not derision returned but more of a shrug, a slightly sad but accepting smile and the almost never spoken but mutually understood, “Never mind, they will grow up and understand, one day, it is inevitable. This is just part of their experience, learning; as it has been, is, ours, at other times.” The mountain, like any other, has only
    one summit, so, it is like being well above the foothills, while seeing people struggling in those foothills, but being well aware that they will complete the journey, in their own time.

    If you can produce a phenomenon that has no scientific explanation and provide a means by which it can be tested, then there is an opportunity to advance knowledge.

    There are more ways of attaining knowledge than science. There are means by which some phenomena can be tested but they are at the outer reaches of current science, at the limits of scientific ability. Others are beyond present science. For intuitive, non-scientific knowledge, experience and other reasons, my understanding is that the frequencies of at least some of the energies with which healers deal, or at lest encounter, are near, at, or above Planck Frequency. I have the beginnings of an idea as to how to link frequencies at that level with available, or developable, detectors but there is a long way to go.

    It is the flatlanders that are the impediment to knowledge, not us. We have it, our way; if they want it there way, that is, largely, up to them.

    1 Although it is reasonable to deny a phenomenon if it cannot be reproduced.

    If that is your understanding of science and that is your wish, fine. It is not my understanding, or standard, of science.

    However, having written the above, I am as I have written before, at least elsewhere, well past the constraints of science, both professionally and personally.

    Engineers use science but it is not the “be all and end all” that it is, or seems to be, to scientists and others. The engineering approach is just that, engineering. If there is science that is useful, then it can be used, though how, where, to what extent, is still down to engineering judgment, otherwise just keep to the engineering. Engineering uses heuristics, crudely, rules of thumb; science is simply another engineering heuristic. It is science which is the “lesser”, not engineering. As Billie Vaughn Koen puts it, in “The Method”; engineering is not applied science; science is applied engineering.

    I have concluded that the engineering method, as opposed to any particular engineering practice, is a better way to approach many matters that are difficult, or, apparently, intractable to science on its own; no prejudgments, or arrogance, just get on with it and do the best that can be done within the constraints of the situation to achieve at least a little progress and better understanding.

    I am also beyond science on the mystic level; hence some of the wordage above. That is also why I feel entirely at home when attending the Scientific and Medical Network “Mystics and Scientists” conferences at the University of Winchester and similar events. Being an engineer, part of me is scientist; being a healer with open higher senses, part of me is mystic. It is intriguing as I understand science which the general run of healers do not and understand the higher matters that leave the scientists uncomprehending.

    On the engineering method approach matter, I had an interesting conversation with a representative of a South Coast University at “The great Big business Debate Meeting” at the Rose Bowl, Hampshire. A Professor she thought would be interested, according to the Postgraduate Prospectus she showed me and gave me, “retains strong links with his former employer, Brunel University”, which is my University, at least in the sense that both of my Degrees are from there. If it had not been for certain circumstances in Hampshire I would have been engaged in that sort of research long ago. There are ways but by far the greater majority of scientists, in excess of 99%, are simply not up to the job.

    While explaining my approach to the University representative, I pointed out the shortcomings of Edzard Ernst, Richard Wiseman, et al, in their search in certain areas, and Richard Dawkins tendency to say, write, “Now looking at this from and engineers’ point of view …”, only to look at whatever it is as just a scientist. I also said that, having started learning my science in the 1950s, I was not disposed to take any lessons in science, at least basic science from anyone, which is what many of the flatlander blogs, etc., set put to do, to the Internet public, at least, and make a hash of it; it is almost child’s chemistry set science level.

    Go with the understanding that is comfortable for you; that is as it is meant to be.


    I'm sure you're well aware of Becker's The Body Electric. Although tangential to the 'memory of water' theory I think it relevant to healing. Why has nobody picked up that baton? Maybe they have, I don't know. Also, hahnemann was at pains to say how important shaking the solution was. This is indeed done, but he did it by shaking it in his hand thereby possibly creating a small but significant EM field. At the miniscule currents Becker was working at these could produce measurable effects. If I recall Becker stopped getting funding. Now that tells a story.
    Richard King
    I was aware, or at least had heard of Becker's The Body Electric but it is not something I have read much about. However, doing an Internet search on the subject turned up your Xomba contribution "Robert Becker, the author of The Body Electric gets disconnected ( As, at that point he "went Home", I regard him having become more connected; we are, to a large extent, disconnected while we are in the physical.

    I am well aware that there is more to life than the the physical body but such matters are beyond mere electric; I am well used to conversing, among other things, with those beyond the physical. However, I have not had time to catch up with the "body electric" approach, so am not sure how much it has become a metaphor rather than literal. Such matters are well beyond the physical and it was my discomfort about using physical terms to refer to them that prompted me to write a piece about the human aura and how reference is made to it (

    Quite apart from the materials science evidence for structure and information in liquids that seems to have come up over recent years, I know there is non-physical structure to everything physical; without the non-physical, the physical would not exist. The non-physical very definitely does carry information; how long it will take flatland science to catch up with that, Ii am not aware, though, by that stage, it will no longer be flatland science, more real science, or should that be Real Science.

     If I recall Becker stopped getting funding. Now that tells a story.

    It often does. The flatlanders do not like their boat being rocked. Others knowing better than they, Heaven forbid; oh, I forgot, most of them are atheists.

    Do read The Body Electric - you may still find it on as a digital copy. It isn't a metaphor, he was researching the currents from nerves that make limbs regrow, and not just in salamanders.
    Dear Richard,

    I have 27 years of experience in hydration of biopolymers and the topics all around it. I confess, I was never considering homeopathy as a vicious anti-science, but, to my mind, this medical branch is not free from an appreciable portion of psychotherapy.

    This is why:

    1. It is tremendously difficult to somehow experimentally disentangle the "placebo effects" from some real physical-chemical background.

    2. The water still remains the Fatally Misunderstood Queen of all the liquids. The main problem is that the conventional statistical mechanics, in its Boltzmann-Gibbs representation, isn't capable of describing the water properties, because this theory is based on the ideal gas picture. The latter works well, if you manage somehow to skillfully re-normalize all the intermolecular interactions in your system, to redefine some new quasi-particles of the ideal gas. This is already hardly possible for the so-called "simple" liquids - and this is sheer inapplicable to water or similar stuff. It is even not completely clear what "hydrogen bond" in fact is: The Grotthuss ideas about the proton transfer in water are already about 200 years old, but still not correctly assessed in the physical-chemical sense. If the Grotthus processes really take place, then one has to accept that H2O molecule in the liquid state is metastable - or even unstable. If so, in turn, you have some intricate non-linear dynamical system instead of a kind of quasi-solid with linear harmonic vibrations of molecules with respect to each other (and the atoms within the molecules). Moreover, there are even experimental data on noticeable quantum effects in water - already at room temperature ...

    Well, there is a wealth of experimental information on water structure which awaits its correct explanation. After the latter somehow surfaces, one could go on with the debates about homeopathy etc.

    The paper you are discussing is very interesting, for it brings a new, fresh standpoint into the community. But it still does not manage - regretfully - to answer the main question: What is the liquid water ? ...

    Respectfully yours,

    Evgeni Starikov