highflyaddict wrote:
This is blah blah marketing that does not mean anything!
Ionisation of what? Precipitation of what?
...
The term "solid water" is not defined. Is it "gelled" water? Surely no "water in the solid state" = ice
No chemical modification: this is indeed the case in all "retainers". The water remains H²0. Adsorption phenomena occur ...
That said, if the water ionizes, as written, it is no longer H²0. So H + + OH- ???
So chemical transformation anyway?
I think earlier that the water H²O forms an electric "dipole", which is not an ion. The phenomenon explains, among other things, why soap foams in water and why we can make bubbles. So that the water can be fixed by one of the dipoles on the polymer: it is probable. That this fixation is weak enough so that the plants can then withdraw water: just as likely (the absorption capacity (suction force) of the plants is important. They "draw" water where you can always press the earth, or the peat, nothing will flow!
So I can understand.
Just nothing revolutionary, outside the sales pitch to coat it.
So, yes, I persist.
Scientists are men like the others. Some people have the weakness of having a big ego like that and need to be talked about. Others need ads to finance new work and make a lot of foam with little (I'm not saying that this retender there is not much more powerful than those who have existed, it is quite possible - I say, it's nothing new).
Journalists, in the summer, need to fill their newspapers. Sometimes, they are trainees. They do not ask many questions and hastily package an article on the basis of an agency dispatch. More and more, the articles are written by agencies common to a lot of newspapers ...
A real science journalist would have asked himself a few questions, such as the one I asked above (quantity of powder per hectare to obtain the 100 quintals promised, not to mention the fact that a field is a "cropping system" in which also enter fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, machines ...). From a simple calculation, he would have seen that it does not stick (nobody found an error in what I wrote?). And he would have
at least nuanced !
For me this article is the same level as gossip! That's what caught me. I do not have anything against this scientist, even if he does a lot of moss.
And so, I think that will not revolutionize anything at all. See you in 10 or 15 years, if I'm still alive.
PS: I share with many, after 12 years of development sprojets in Africa, the conviction that the resolution of the problems of undernutrition, of underdevelopment does not come from a "technical miracle". I don't want to be long on "systemic" approaches which consider a society as a whole, from social beliefs and rules to technology, including organizations, economy, etc ...
All those who have looked at the mpouvemùest de like fair see that as soon as the market is there, the peasants organize themselves very well, improve the techniques and ... live better. It suffices to pay "reasonably" for the merchandise they produce ... Multiple examples for those who want to explore the question ...
For the others, there is the powder that like cocaine, risk to truffle a little perception and degenerate a euphoria with no tomorrow ...
It is, I remind you, only my point of view, which I share with those who I feel that they reflect in this direction ...