Fig 1.
Schematic diagram showing the two sample preparatory methods.
(A) Contact method: Deionized water mixed with the hydrophilic ceramic powder was agitated for 3 minutes and allowed to rest for 2 days. (B) Non-Contact method: A conical tube containing 50 mℓ of deionized water was inserted into the powder for 2 days.
Fig 2.
Schematic diagram of the potential measurement device.
A polyethylene water container was divided into two sections by a wall in the middle. The holes were covered by the Nafion® film or an aluminum foil separator. The two electrodes were placed at the extreme ends of the container.
Table 1.
Change of physical and electrical properties of water.
Fig 3.
Change in dielectric constants with the length of exposure time.
The water in a glass container was treated in a non-contact manner as described in Fig 1B. The dielectric constant of the control water has increased by 3.0% while that of the non-contact treated water has increased by 7.6% for the same time duration, 17 days.
Fig 4.
Change in redox potential with the length of exposure time.
(A) Redox potential decreased continuously from 329 mV to 309 mV during the 5 hours of additional exposure time after it reached the peak position. For the control water, it decreased from 337 mV to 331 mV for the same time duration. The value at the 0 hour of exposure time indicates the potential at the peak position. (B) Typical patterns of change in redox potential of the control and the non-contact treated waters. The potential decreases from the beginning of non-contact exposure.
Fig 5.
Electric potential measurement of water.
(A) Nafion® film was used as a separator between the two sections. The corresponding amount of powder was mixed with the water at the 0 hour time-point. (B) Potential generation in a non-contact manner. Nafion® film was used as a separator between the two sections. The vials were inserted into the water at the 0 hour time-point. (C) Aluminum foil was used as a separator between the two sections. The powder was mixed with the water at the 0 hour time-point. Note that the peak polarity has been reversed compared to the results shown in (A) and (B).
Fig 6.
Fractured surface of the ice as observed by cryogenic scanning electron microscopy produced by jet-freezing and in-situ breaking.
Fig 7.
Fractured surface of the ice as observed by cryogenic scanning electron microscopy produced by jet-freezing and in-situ breaking. The arrow in (C) indicates the bright boundary.
Fig 8.
Fractured surface of the ice as observed by cryogenic scanning electron microscopy produced by jet-freezing and in-situ breaking. Black arrow in (A) indicates the longitudinal length of a unit cell. This low magnification shows the overall pattern of the unit cell. The arrow in (C) indicates the bright boundary.
Fig 9.
String and wall-like form of ice from water treated in a non-contact manner.
These images were obtained from different locations of the same sample. (A) String form of ice that appeared as fibers. The diameter of the fiber was estimated to be 0.1 μm ~ 0.2 μm. (B) Co-existence of string form and cell-like boundary. (C) A possible transition stage of string form to cell-like form as the ‘degree of structure’ increases. (D) The three-dimensional cell-like structure resembling a sponge.
Fig 10.
Schematic diagram of the heterogeneous structure of water.
(A) A cell-like arrangement of water, with high-density water (exclusion zone) forming the walls (indicated with e-) and low-density ordinary water residing within the walled boundaries (indicated with H+). (B) Electric potential distribution across the boundary. High-density water in exclusion zone has negative electric potential while ordinary low-density water has positive polarity.