Photosynthesis

New water and oxygen molecules are produced during photosynthesis. Is it from an endothermic or exothermic reaction? Never had that oxygen been considered as exothermic. Exothermic, it would mean a change of phase.In the discussion, the monomer is considered, which is seen as the building block. To become a monomer - CH2O -, a CO2 molecule must get four hydrogen ions, to produce the monomer and a molecule of water. The question is: is it four or two water molecules that will provide the four protons for the monomer.
Up to now, to provide for the four hydrogen radicals, as for building the monomer, the prevailing MODEL do propose two molecules of water to provide for the four protons. Hence you can have an endothermic process. And that implies that there is no change of phase: liquid-liquid phases (atoms which were in a molecule in liquid phase are still in a molecule in liquid phase).
Why the scientists had not tried the four water molecules model; so each water molecule will provide hydrogen radical and hydroxyl radical. But they clung to their redox model, because it comes from a top specialist in the field of bio-physics, a misunderstanding.
Park S. Nobel, 1974, does propose two models in order to get the four protons. Either, you can have four hydrogen, ion or radical, from two or, from four molecules of water. He sketched one of the model but not the other. The sketched one has become ipso facto the reigning model for Biology and Biochemistry; and it is the false one.
((Is the fact, that in teledetection they observed at the start of photosynthesis, at ground level, a drop of temperature has helped scientists to accept their model? So photosynthesis is cooling.))
Park S. Nobel specifies that we must investigate the other model, b; it is as good as the other but he did not sketch it.
model 'a'
2H2O ==> 4H + O2 ,
4H + CO2 ==> CH2O + H2O
model 'b'
4H2O ==> 4H + 4OH ,
4OH==> O2 + 2H2O ,
4H + CO2 ==> CH2O + H2O
ELECTRON CHAIN TRANSPORT.
During his sketching of model a, m. Park Nobel has coined the expression: the electron chain transport. But he specifies that the word 'electron' does not mean electron, it stands for electron and proton. And that is what we called radical. So the "electron-chain-transport had never existed", be model ‘a’ true or false. It would have been: the radical chain transport, the right name. But there would be no chain of transport for proton. I propose a flip-flop process, insofar as I understand it.
The splitting! Water is abundant in the chamber of the leave. CO2 have to be in its liquid form, as an acid.
CO2 + H2O ==> H + HCOO [It is the concentration of CO2 the determining factor of the output of photosynthesis; some experiments prove that. Very short units 3C (3C, three monomers), and longer are observed.
The stomata do not have to be specifically open to let in the CO2 as where go water go CO2. What will open stomata?
CO2 is in water as a weak acid. In a tree, water climbs. Two other liquids also go up with the water from the roots to the crown: the xylem. There an elaborated sap is produced, and is circulating from one leave to the other, from the topmost down to the roots: the phloem. The junction of these liquids must be at the chloroplast. On the side of water, there are the chlorophylls. These ones will attract water molecules. Facing the chlorophylls through the membrane are ... the other metals, an arrangement of metals that binds the fragments of molecules of that sap that travels from the top leave to the lower leaves down to the root, the phloem, and the HCOO. Once the water molecule is split, the radical H goes to the other side: flip, and once is put in position the molecule is released in the phloem: flop.
In model 'a', two hydrogen ions must be extracted from one molecule of water. And the chamber of the leave (and the xylem down to the root) must contain such a manner of atom as a nude O, then. Is the splitting of the two hydrogens from one water molecule, done at once, or successively? In both case, the atoms will have to have electric charges. Try whatever combination and, always, you have a charge. And for alleged redox reaction, that too means voltage. Who has ever taken an electrical shock when touching a leave?
Model 'b' was already proven by the year 1969. Top chemists around the world had succeeded in proving that there is a formation of radicals (J. Phys. Chem., 1969, 73, 1066), and that is confirmed by Park S. Nobel too. And to get radicals that can only be done with model b. So the four protons are provided from four water molecules.
So a water molecule is split in two radicals, the H· and the OH·. These two have a very short life. They are the required endothermic reaction. The others are all exothermic.
I found in a textbook of advanced inorganic chemistry, Wilkerson (?), a reference ... from J. Amer. Chem. Soc (1969, 91, 2661), are sketched two chlorophyll a, which maintained fixed a molecule of water. So the water molecule can't move, can't rotate. Somehow, sun rays will break the water molecule liaison; as to such an immobilized molecule it can be imparted energy, energy that can break the bond.
A liant orbital becomes an antiliant orbital with input of energy from sun: a water molecule become two radicals, [H] and [OH].
(( if it had been so easy to break the second hydrogen of a molecule of water as in model 'a' , there would never have been what we called alcohol; I would believe the breaking of the second hydrogen liaison of the former water molecule, be more difficult; so for Nature, the easiest way would be to utilize only the method of model b))
Modern scientists (biology, biochemistry) still consider a stream of electrons, as we may encounter in an electronic wafer (under tension). They know not a different mechanism. So they forced the theory. A new manner of liaison, the radical and metal interaction, has to be proposed. The concept of radical had failed to implant by the year 1930. Bio-inorganic chemistry is the missing chemistry. Catalysis, now have to get a new face, the bio-catalysis.
Bio-metals. In organic chemistry, there is a lot of molecules. The atoms have a number of liaisons according to the number of valence. On the outer layer there are electrons. But it is not the electron that will make the liaison, it is the orbital. Electrons are in orbital. Two electrons will fill an orbital. Such full orbital do not engage new liaison. Consider N and O; Nitrogen has five electrons in its outer layer; Nitrogen will have one electron less than Oxygen and will have a bigger valence number. How that. For O, a new electron result in an orbital filled with two electrons, so -1 for the valence number. In real chemistry we do not consider electron; we consider orbital.

TO BUILD A PERIODIC TABLE.
A periodic table is composed of horizontal layer and vertical row. The first case has N equal to one; there is no adjacent case, the second is helium, with s orbital and n equal to two. The second horizontal layer can have the s and the p orbitals. The third can have s p d. And now you are ready for advanced course in inorganic chemistry.
In the whole periodic table, you have seven horizontal layers possible and you have the orbitals s, p, d, f, as to fill them. s is one orbital, p is three orbitals, for d and f, I five and seven orbitals.
There are some laws as there is a maximum of eight electrons on the outer electron layer. Eight electrons is three p and one s orbitals that are full. They are inert, and the valence number must be zero then. There is a distinction between atomic orbital and molecular orbital; consider C, carbon, or P, phosphorus, which has a d orbital empty.
With some training a student would be able to make his own periodic table quite easily.
The BUG.
What bugs biochemistry and biology is the concept of radical. There is the redox concept. There are reactions with that manner of motor. But radical reactions, I would say, are those guided by metals. Chlorophyll is an example. The enzymes are metal. If the electron chain transport as expression has never existed, science evolution would have been different. Redox reactions exist, but not only redox ones exist. But I found few titles on the net, the revolution is coming. The inert metals are those which finally give life. As Jesus has suggested with his story about adorers and rock; rock are granite. The first life has appeared on the surface of granite near water.
The metals. A metal is said to be having a 'coordination number'. And that is not the number of electrons on the outer layer, the valence number. You can have much more liaisons than the outer layer of electrons would have permitted with the law of valence, as in chemistry and organic chemistry. Most of them, if not all, have much more liaisons than the outer valence electrons law permits. A chlorophyll structure is a good example. A suspended magnesium atom! The electrons of valence, the half-filled orbitals will unite with half-filled orbital. A half-filled orbital will require a half-filled orbital. Subtract the valence electron number to the Coordination number, and you have the sites of liaison that can be filled with orbitals, radical-molecules or radical-atoms, and/or the whole family of ligands. And according to the arrangements of metals, you may have different actions done to the molecule. The trio Pt, Ru, Rh is said to split water and produce hydrogen H2 (that would be free energy, once you own the machine). Hot Pt is said to split the water molecule, producing hydrogen. You heat Pt and from the air atmosphere, hydrogen is produced. Advanced researches are trying to replace platinum with other metals; they say the quantity of platinum is too small, so the production platinum machine is stalled.
When life had emerged from water, it was the atoms of metal in the granite which obliged the molecules and the gases to act in specific manner. Catalysts. There were formed the first processes. The pseudo membranes will shift to chloroplast and mitochondria. Eventually a primary mushroom will associate with chloroplast and mitochondria or with mitochondria. Henceforth the mushroom, the plant and the animal kingdoms as well as the unicellular kingdom have evolved from these first processes having happened at the interface of granite and water. As Jesus suggested, we are adorers coming from the rock.
These actions of the metals are the missing theory in biology.
===================
SUN RAYS ADDITION, RESONANCE.
They named two chlorophylls, a and b, in the model a; some author will propose up to four different chlorophylls. But you have only one magnesium element (for chemistry, the isotopes do act the same). And there is a lot of associated pigments (plasts) to explain. Those last ones have a function. While absorbing irrelevant frequencies, only two colors would be added in order to give the water molecule the energy for splitting. The two colours, yellow and red, if the other frequencies are absorbed, will add without interference.
With plasts different from the chloroplasts.
The colors of the autumn leaves are from these unexplained plasts, when higher plasts began to deactivate. But how do they add. On the same chloroplast, or on two chloroplasts.
If the addition is done on two plasts, then each plast has for absorbing its working frequency a different core (the plasts are not with chlorophylls in the chloroplast; they formed their own plasts beside chloroplasts).
Plasts that are as chlorophyll in the chloroplast.My preference goes to the addition on one site because now you can have a resonant phenomenon. Resonance is a mystery but it works. Here, supposed we give a value of three to yellow and one for red. If added on two different sites, the addition gives four. But if it is added, according to resonance, at one chlorophyll, then you have much more than four. It is the resonance; you created energy, energy that was nowhere and that you get only with a contraption. So no need for two distinct chlorophylls, a and b, and then any plast also have a magnesium atom as a core; and those plasts are in the chloroplasts. I suppose. Minor differences make the job. Water is split.
It is believed that if a leave is green it is because green is not absorbed. False: because it is incomplete. True and false. A leave is green or yellow, or red, etcetera, only because the adding of two colors. The wave adding give green and the green is not absorbed.
In a tree, you have two major circulations: the xylem and the phloem. One is ascending water, tap root water; the other is the elaborated sap. The CO2 is present in its liquid form, the acid. The xylem is also composed of two unknown liquids. The xylem liquids will end in the chamber of the leave. There you have the chloroplasts. In those you have the chlorophylls. It is said that there are other plasts than chloroplast. The chlorophylls must be at the junction in the chloroplat. They mobilized water molecule which will be split. Facing the chlorophylls through the membrane are the metals. In the literature they propose such as "tetranuclear manganese cluster and tyrosyl radicals", etcetera. I don't know what metals are facing the chlorophylls thru the membrane. But when they will attract the [H] while, previously, the CO2 in its liquid form (acid) is already in position, as well as any of the stuff coming from the other leaves are already maintained on this side in position, the phloem. When the radical H moves, they associated with the already present molecules fixed by the metals, and, that releases that new group altogether, becoming part of the elaborated sap, which will go on to the other leaves, to other chloroplasts, down to the roots: the phloem. Hence, incomplete molecule will be completed as it travels down to the roots.
If the energy is not taken, by this splitting activity, there is phosphorescence. The chloroplasts have evolved, producing different molecules with the same manner of splitting the water molecule but with different arrangement of metals facing the chloroplasts, hence producing different molecules.
[[I saw once a micrograph of a chloroplast. There were white bands. The author points them out, but give no interpretation. My interpretation now. Chlorophylls do align on either side. They attracted a water molecule over this gap (the O-H). As sun provides energy, the chlorophylls do attract more each member. Eventually the liaison is split. I suppose these white bands in the chloroplast are where the CO2-liquid do pass through the membrane easily with the hydrogen radical.]] It is but a suggestion. The fact is that a liant orbital has to become an antiliant orbital as for the water molecule to be split. Some implications. So, all the output of photosynthesis is exothermic. Burning wood or newly formed water molecule, all are undergoing exothermic reaction.
You have an explication for turgescence. Nobody has done it yet.
This bulk of water-oxygen is expulsed, by photosynthesis, at a greater speed than evaporation speed. And when it turned from translucent to white, the cloud is at the highest altitude, and is a very thin one. From this high, (cirro-cumulus), the clouds will become denser, and blacker as they lose heat, and as they get lower. Subsequent photosynthesis will put heat in these cloud formations; I don’t think the cloud will be able to get higher; it will maintain only its altitude. And the clouds coming from evaporation (stratus, cumulus) are at lowest altitudes; never to be higher, always needing energy to remain in place, cooling the system.
As clouds are produced there is a 'wind' produced in all direction about a growing plant. Horizontally, they nullify; and vertically they can’t nullify, as there is no ‘wind’ going towards the roots. About the years 1970s, Ecology books registered that kind of observation. When I was at university, I never stumble upon that information again. And there is no name for that.
I bet they missed the stream going upwards. Otherwise they would have known the exact cloud formation process.
I suppose as according to the theory of vectors, they nullify somehow horizontally but not vertically. That transparent stream of water-oxygen going up will revert to the white of clouds at the upmost position in altitude. Transparent to white at the higher elevation, from there they will lower, becoming bigger, gray.
The wind.
On a continent, cloud-stream mechanism is active. With the rotation of the planet, these up-going streams are forced to go elsewhere... that creates the wind. It also do put some heat on the above already present clouds, then these clouds can continue towards north, eventually the ice cap, participating then to the building of the ice cap. The clouds will reach the pole north only if there is continuous vegetation. They will receive heat; much more with that mechanism of wind forming, the wind would be reinforced and clouds will continue north. If not, some regions have inundations and the ice cap is thinning.
TORNADOES, HURRICANE.
And as we seem to have a more virulent season of tornadoes, there is now an explanation for that. Those wind-like streams, all around the planet, must create as a pressure against the cosmos; must maintain the structures of the atmosphere. Say a balloon. When photosynthesis production decreases, local pressure deflates. The balloon once deflated, then tornadoes get in; that is the cosmos is coming lower as to get its share of heat and molecules. Tornadoes will appear at the weakest of the production of photosynthesis.
I don't see clearly how the structures of the upper atmosphere are acting, but the hurricane will appear where the production of new molecules by unicellular organisms is at minimum. Over the hot sea! For the cold sea, where the unicellulars are producing new photosynthesis molecules (active), the hurricane strength will drop.
You don't want tornadoes, hurricanes, prime the forest.
Hurricane and tornado will appear at a weak production of photosynthesis. For hurricane, it is the annual weakest production. Hurricane is the hand of the cosmos. And that effect of pressure drop has nothing to do with the heat of the hot sea.
Earth magnetic field.
The electromagnetic field, about the planet, will retain the plasma. Plasma is from the photosynthesis production. There is a building of a heat layer about the planet with that magnetic field. Less molecules there is, less heat is building in that layer around the planet.
With a weaker production, there is less heat building there. The missing heat, the cosmos will get it from the core and the mantle.
There is but one solution: to prime a forest, with thinning, trimming, planting tree-seeds and prescribed burning.
GLOBAL WARMING.
We will have global warming only if there is an increase of photosynthesis.
AGING PLANET.
A planet will lose its forests. That is, the forests are losing efficiency... desertification. The building-heat about our planetary orb do follow growing vegetation, and that is very sensible to the moon; I do not say I understand that fully. The global building of heat will be displaced. How! Forests producing new molecules emit a stream of gas and water; they all will meet in the atmosphere as opposing currents. There is the pole north. If your region has a resulting wind going toward you, you have the cold of the pole. If the resultant wind is going from your location, you remain with your heat.
According to their position to the moon, locally, there is a different attraction on the water, and the light reflected by the moon is different; these two factors will apply to all patches of vegetation, and there is always a different output.
If permafrost regions are becoming hotter, that implies that the rapport of strengths is modified. Their vegetation is becoming better, and they have rains; or ours is in a weak production stage. South forests are weakening, and that displaces the building heat to the north. With weakening go the drought and the inundations.
Ice cap.
To be melting the polar ice cap, the sea water must be at 0° Celsius. To do so, during winter there would be no ice in the St-Lawrence river. If the coldest of the water bodies, is hot enough to melt its ice, then hotter water bodies will have no ice; but it is not so. The ice cap is deep in the cold water. As that sea water is cold enough, that will cancel any heat bring by a warm day of summer. I would bet, you go there in summer hottest day, make a hole and you will see your hole patched by ice in no time; because that sea water will be at minus 2 or 3 centigrade (below 0º, the ice would be forming). It would melt only if that sea water becomes hot enough; and that implies a lot of rains about the planet; as photosynthesis is the generator of rains...
My prediction 'Les Territoires du Nord-Ouest', for America, would be the last bastion for humanity. Would they choose to live in the desert, so as not to invade that area? As to keep running, the water-producer-area, the electricity-producer-area.
Eventually life will be wiped from the surface of our very planet, as it had done for planet mars. The universe sucks heat from the planet, from the moon, from the sun. Photosynthesis do compensate; it creates energy, heat, when producing new molecules. They are the new oxygen, water, etcetera, molecules done by photosynthesis, all, exothermic. When the photosynthesis do fail to produce heat, Cosmos do take its bite of heat elsewhere in the mantle and the core. Then volcanoes, the acceleration of building forces of tsunami, tornadoes, hurricanes, are the reaction to photosynthesis stalling.
As for the moon with no photosynthesis, its fate would be to break apart in pieces, to become a ring about our very planet. Earth, Sun, Moon, comets will become dust in the universe, as they lose heat to the Cosmos they eventually will be sucked by the black hole. Galaxies are born while others disappeared. Universe is always equal to itself.