Incredible ..... solid water!

[Obamot]

Journalistic perhaps, unless LePoint.fr is in the pay of this brave chemist ...

Thank you for the link, I'm interested.

I feel on my side, to answer a possible - and very thin - question of dangerousness, that the equation risk / benefit is quickly done: out of ten deaths in the world nearly six out of ten, still die because of undernourishment!

1) Acrylic polymers have shown great harmlessness, since they largely replace dangerous or even deadly products.

2) The latex present in salads that grow in our gardens (present in the white liquid that appears when cut) is much more toxic, and yet is just as natural as the non-harmful polymers found spontaneously in nature. .

6) The designer - as a chemist - declares that the water molecules are not denatured. By his patent, he commits his responsibility ... He must know what he is talking about!

4) Plants, very fragile organisms if any, seem to be content with it since they proliferate there.

5) Increasing the volume of agricultural production in the arid zone by 1600% would certainly solve the problem of undernourishment in the world, thereby reducing the population explosion, the main cause of high infant mortality, which results from this, and therefore of have a decisive impact on the environment.

Since you give a link, I give another, on hunger in the world:

the mortality due to undernourishment represented 58% of the total mortality in 2006 : "Worldwide, approximately 62 million people from all causes of death die each year. In 2006, more than 36 million died from hunger or disease due to micronutrient deficiencies

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faim_dans_le_monde

[sen-no-sen]

5) Increasing the volume of agricultural production in the arid zone by 1600% would certainly solve the problem of undernourishment in the world, thereby reducing the population explosion, the main cause of high infant mortality, which results from this, and therefore of have a decisive impact on the environment.

You know how we Obamot that hunger in the world is more geopolitical problems than technical problems, the misery of the world is systemic, we can even say that it is wanted.
If we really wanted to put hunger in the end, we would rain directly in the desert (there are patents for that).

[Obamot]

Yes I know it very well

However, it would also solve the big problems of advancing deserts! The man is thus able to curb the production of Co2, producing vegetation in arid zone!

And this makes it possible to cut short the fatalistic arguments of hunger in the world. That collapses as long as it knows that the hellish cycle of rainfall shortage is no more than a fake problem.

And this allows especially local governments, if not the peasants themselves, to take control of their destiny and not to be subjected to this inevitability.

Since it is the perenniality of the agricultural world that stops undernourishment. That is why I allow myself to say that it is a revolution - if not in the drawers it should be done in the minds - because we have the perfect resolution of the problem by the binomial cause and effect.

[sen-no-sen]

Yes I know it very well

However, it would also solve the big problems of advancing deserts! The man is thus able to curb the production of Co2, producing vegetation in arid zone!

Mouai, but it's like rubbing your feet while your hands are on a cactus!
We should already stop increasing pollutant emissions.
Environmental reconstruction is certainly a very lucrative business in the making, so, roughly speaking, we are shaving on one side of primary forests, and on the other we are replanting ersatz forests paid for with international subsidies ...

[Obamot]

Why ? It's not good?

Ok, don't shoot me -> [] get out.


PS: For the fight against undernourishment, I stand.

[Ahmed]

PS: For the fight against undernourishment, I stand.

The "fight" against undernourishment serves as a pretext for all scientific excesses; it was used to legitimize the "green revolution", Monsanto invokes it ...

Hunger and malnutrition are not technical problems!
The peasants could "take their destiny in hand" if they were not victims of unfair and eradicated practices.

I maintain!

[Obamot]

It is not because Monsanto wrongly evokes it, that it is false. For here we involuntarily start in the syllogism.

That we say that we fight "to eradicate hunger in the world", or "against undernourishment" or "against mortality" due to these infamous situations that you describe otherwise (and even better than I have been able to do) will unfortunately change nothing to statistics. But it opens our eyes to what is happening upstream. So thanks.

So I agree that the causes are elsewhere and that we should not tend to forget them so quickly. Just note that with this invention there is no more alibi possible, that's what I meant ...

I maintain that you are right to maintain. and a thought for those who have no food and that this invention (as possibly others of the same kind) could have saved.

[bamboo]

1) Acrylic polymers have shown great harmlessness, since they largely replace dangerous or even deadly products.

Less dangerous does not mean "very safe".

6) The designer - as a chemist - declares that the water molecules are not denatured. By his patent, he commits his responsibility ... He must know what he is talking about!

Filing a patent does not incur liability.

[Did67]

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 ...

[Obamot]

You do not read Did67: it's amha aggregation. That said, I have long agreed with this fair trade approach.

Hey, since you're talking about ions, not necessarily. For me, once the polymerization is done, there is relatively no chance that this substrate chemically mixes with the water! So if you put fertilizer, it can eventually mix with water, but as it is soluble in it ... And if we think about it, it is the rains that penetrate the fertilizer deeply ( or large losses of products disseminated unnecessarily in soils). In arid zones, there is little rain, so there is limited penetration. So with such a system, it would take a lot, a lot less, if you know what I mean ... So all good for nature.

Moreover the chemist confirms a process (reversible) that lasts ten years .... If this polymer was water-soluble to the point of leaving residues in the water, it would never last so long amha:

1) Acrylic polymers have shown great harmlessness, since they largely replace dangerous or even deadly products.

Less dangerous does not mean "very safe".

No, what you miss almost every time is to set the right priorities in your reasoning (I apologize for telling you, there you chipboard). Here again these chemistry work hypotheses:

- The example of latex has already been given => although the components of this polymer are soluble in water, why then do they not mix with it? Well, this is precisely the whole elementary principle of polymerization! This is why polymer-based glues solidify, then after this behave like plastic (body paint is nothing more than a waterproof film similar to a plastic film ... for example , and the water runs over it in this case)

- it has already been said that the water molecule remains unchanged.

There remains the "dangerousness" of ionization by rainwater. You speak...!

1) the ionization of water in the atmosphere is constant and presents no danger, on the contrary when it rains, it is profitable.

2) in this case, the storage of water in the polymer would be via ionization. This is the same one described by Did67, a principle that is used in some humidifiers to purify the air (by extension, rain also acts as "natural washing machine"):



3) as the rainwater is naturally charged abundantly with negative ions, it is therefore safe and on the contrary very profitable!

As a bamboo you should know, as water knows you