When I followed up Jones's suggestion that the binding energy of the water is 498 calories.......
=============================================================== http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html#c5 If the heat of vaporization of water at 100�C is 539 cal., then subtracting the 41 calorie work component suggests that the actual binding energy of the water molecules at 100�C is 539 - 41 = 498 calories. =============================================================== .......it struck me that since this value is so close to 5 times the number of calories required to raise the temperature from 0 to 100 degrees C, someone would have noticed and made the necessary connection to the possibility of volume and area dimensionality. I suppose 5 is not a particularly suggestive ratio - unlike 3 say which immediately suggests Cartesian dimensions - and a difference of 0.4 per cent is not that small. And in view of the complete failure of anyone to spot the weird water power laws given on Chaplin's website suggests that people just don't think about such things with sufficient curiosity and persistence to arrive at the correct conclusion. Musing on the dimensionality and binding energy fit I remembered a rather better known case of a weird coincidental conjunction [an appropriate word because of its astronomical other world overtones ;-) ], namely, the proximity of the velocity of light to a value of 3. Google calculator gives the speed of light as 299 792 458 m/s which is only 0.07% different from 300 000 000 m/s. Now some might be thinking. "Grimer has really lost it this time. Doesn't he realise that if light was expressed in different units, miles per second say, this coincidence would completely disappear." Quite so - which suggests that the key lies in the units that the speed of light is expressed - i.e. the key lies in the way that the metric system was set up. But some might reply. "The connection between the metric measurement of length and the second is completely arbitrary. You have nothing more than a coincidence." Mmmm..... but there *is* a subtle connection between the metric measurement of length and the second. And this connection conjoins light and water - which must explain how water is able to store light in the form of positive and negative strain energy. =============================================== The original definition of the gram was the mass of 1 cm� of water at its maximum density (at 4 �C). This idea was carried over into the SI system so that the kilogram is the mass of 1000 cm� of water, and this volume is defined as the liter, so that 1 liter of water has a mass of 1 kilogram =============================================== The cubic centimetre deals with the length part - but what's all this with the gram? What on earth do grams have to do with seconds? Well, mass is a measure of inertia. And both Ing.Saviour and I have independently shown that the dimensions of mass are the reciprocal of velocity, i.e. time/length. Go to his website and look up the back posts if you want a blow by blow account. It can be concluded therefor that the proximity of c to 3.10^n is not simply a coincidence, but a clue to an intimate relationship between light and water. Graneau has recognised this but has restricted his vision to sunlight, i.e. visible light. Vortex's resident guru, Horace, has outflanked this suggestion by recognising that other electromagnetic radiations, such as microwaves, might be more convenient. I trust that other Vorts will be able to contribute to these developing concepts as constructively as Jones, Horace and Richard. Cheers, Frank Grimer ======================================= dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux =======================================
