Today I decided to show you a mostly cosmetic update on my water vapor nanotube post. The major reason for this is that my last post had the correct idea, but a rather ugly depiction of the concept. I wanted to convey the concept that water vapor forms a beautiful helical assembly, comprised of covalent and hydrogen bonds helically encircling a nanotubular surface both clockwise and counterclockwise. However, I was so excited to share the idea that the image itself was not at all symmetrical.
You see, Blender is a powerful tool, if you use it with an engineer’s precision. However, when developing ideas, one tends to be a bit more free-handed, like an artist. So this was what happened in my last post.
But already immediately after finishing the initial image, I already knew what I needed to do to make it better. I won’t share with you exactly what I did, because the easiest is just to show the outcome.
So here is the water vapor nanotube:
As you might remember from high school chemistry, the red balls are oxygen atoms, and the white balls are hydrogen atoms. The white cylinders are covalent bonds, and the hazy blue helical arcs are hydrogen bonds.
If you look carefully, the same pattern perfectly repeats itself endlessly. Perfectly in accordance to all rules of physics and chemistry. And mathematics and biology, if we start counting subjects.
So, if this is my theory of the structure in which water is transported in plants, what was the previous theory? Mostly a bunch of vague hand-waving. Nothing too specific so anyone could be proven wrong. But neither was it very helpful.
Here is what it looks like in the hexagonal lignin lattice:
And here a close-up:
Next, you might ask, is this really something that should go into the article on the structure of lignin. I think it is, because without the proposed nanopore, there really isn’t a good way to introduce the concept of cylindrical water vapor to the public.
And how sure am I that I’m correct? Pretty sure. Again, the reason for this is that I’m not exactly overturning an existing theory. What was there before was too vague to be called a proper theory.
Comments