Incredible ..... solid water!

[Ahmed]

Excuse me, I did not want to disturb, I leave you to your cleaning scene ...

[moinsdewatt]

Who were you talking about in this thread? From Georges Charpak?

Other than that, you might be interested in such a process - which does not require ANY energy - instead of sinking into improbable and unproven assumptions.

Who is this post for?

I did not understand.

[Obamot]

Of course I would not answer that to Ahmed Boudioux

There are some who lose their sense of humor here. I had to aim my smiley ... ^^

What happens to you these lessdewatt times? Did not you get your formaldehyde dose like Bamboo? Do you miss DD? Ahmed answer you more? Did you eat a lion? Your sweet tacked or you are in tax recovery?

[moinsdewatt]

In agriculture / horticulture, this type of water retainer is already old (I heard about it about thirty years ago; this has been common for well 10 or 15 years: planting in arid areas as a water reserve "starter"; "watering" green plants at home - for the holidays ...

Maybe the present substance is more effective? But we must also see the cost?

View: http://www.biotanic-culture.com/product ... product=24

or: http://www.ionic-france.fr/produits/retenteurs-eau.php

or: http://www.puteaux-sa.fr/795rehum.htm

Etc. ..

I do not understand that we are doing "sensationalism" with something so banal, presented in such a "miraculous" way. It's in the spirit of the media era ...

For plants, the principle is simple:

- the substance retains water, enough so that the "gel" can be transported without the water flowing

- but not enough for plants: the roots of plants have a sucking force, which depends on the plant ...

So no miracle!

once again it 's Did (which I appreciate because it gives its sources, unlike others follow my look ....) that makes the right answer.
No new miracle.

It is known.
see here : http://jardin.salaberiko.com/index.php?page=2
for example, the Stockosorb brand of German firm Stockhausen.


On the left, the retentor in its solid form, granulated, on the right the gel obtained with 5 grams of Stockosorb and 2 liters of water.

[Obamot]

What I see especially:

The gel, it will be confined in its environment, degraded naturally year after year without attaching itself to cells or tissues of plants

Experiments conducted Mexico, which knows the worst years of drought in its history, have shown a marked increase in the yield of maize, reputedly very greedy water: 600 kg per hectare normally to 5, 7 even 10 tons per hectare (with watering decreased by more than 50%). Other studies on tomato plants showed an increase in yield of almost 110%, an average tomato weight of 10% and an advanced harvest of almost 10 days.

We are therefore in the presence of the same indications as the original post. Experimentation in Mexico, performance, capacity, duration etc. Everything fits.

Moreover, I note since this interesting link, confirmation of the safety of the product. As a thorough explanation, under biochemistry, had tried to demonstrate it above ...

For the rest, Lessdewatt does in the syllogism, according to a reasoning of the type:
- I found this product from another source, so it's not the same product because it does not have the same name ... blah blah blah ... so it's not innovative ... blah blah blah ... so this thread is useless etc ..

With reasoning like that, we go far! Pathetic.

Well, what is your post Lessdewatt for? To pass the time?

And even if this product already exists, but what are we really frank. On the contrary, it's good and shows that it does not wind (just water ahahahaah). This beautiful product deserved a thread.

[moinsdewatt]

In Obamot,

I did not say that the thread was useless.

I am simply saying that we find something known and already marketed in Europe.

Do not look further.

But I know that in this forum some like to reinvent the wheel or the thread to cut the butter.

so soon a thread '' Incredible ... we found a thread to cut the butter ''.

[Obamot]

As you continue to do in sophistry, give us a date that shows unequivocally when he discovered this principle of diapers applied to agriculture? Because the fact that a journalist eventually misunderstood the chronology, does not indicate in any way that Sergio Rico ...> it is not actually the forerunner!

Without it and in the state, everything you say is totally unfounded.



Because for the moment, as far as I went back, there is no mention of potassium in the previous formulas (but solvents that Alain G was right to be wary of):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superabsorbent_polymer

[Obamot]

And Lessdewatt take the words of others to insturmentalize them, he starts spinning bad cotton and doing bad faith like Dedeleco. This is called being on the downward slope. Because Did67 told me later:

Yes that's it.

For the rest, the latex was given only as a purely exemplary, to relativize the dangerousness (not even supposed of me) of the substrate, to show that nature also produces substances not very healthy while they have the reputation of being a priori. We do not count the natural toxins that remain in cooking water in particular, and not many people speak!

I did not have a direct link between latex and polymer, for example.

OKAY. I understand better now.

And am 100% agree.

Anything that is synthetic is not dangerous: eg silicone, widely used for certain sprotheses, is particularly "neutral". Other than hemlock or curare, or even opium, natural, are particularly toxic.

And for the record, glyphosate (the active ingredient of Monsanto's famous Roundup) has a DL50 superior to ... emer salt. In other words, the dose needed to kill 50% of a rat sample is much higher than that of salt!

This is part of one of my reservations about the dogma that founds biogical agriculture: what is synthetic is rejected; what is of natural origin is accepted.

[that said, I consume as much "organic" as possible, for other reasons; and I grow "more than organic" - without product if possible; but if I have to treat I sometimes use a synthetic narrow specter pyrethrinoid rather than a natural broad spectrum rotenone; but my garden would not be certified, suddenly!].

Indeed, Did67 tells us that products of a similar type already existed (and even since the sixties) but they were far from innocuous. We are still in the fallacy of saying, "since it already exists there is no inovation»

Thus, Lessdewatt does not seem to want to understand that potassium polyacrylate should not be confused with other preparations that already exist, but are not harmless, such as:
- sodium polyacrylate and its harmful effects (prohibited in feminine hygiene tampons ...>)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyacrylate_de_sodium

Polyacrylamide which is based on a neurotoxic agent.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyacrylamide

- The bipolymers, with acrylonitrile as base (by ammoxidation of propene) to produce absorbent products with similar properties, but they are copolymers.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile

Acrylic acid, mentioned above in the manufacture of plastics.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acide_acrylique

- polyvinyl alcohol, mentioned above and used for the manufacture of paints and glues.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcool_polyvinylique
etc ...

[Did67]

I say it again: it's old; of memory, 20 or 30 years!

I repeat: learn to beware of the media and not drink to their sources of sensations (whose main purpose is to sell ... information, even if it is partial, mounted foam ...)

Let's learn not to lose our common sense. I remind you that according to the data of this "article" (I do not call it an article, but "bullshit in sentences"), it would take 5 tons per hectare to store half the water it maize, selected and fertilized and processed elsewhere, is needed to reach 100 quintals.

[and Obamot, you would come out of these exchanges grown up if you could admit that you got carried away a bit quickly - just reread the second post in this thread: "revolutionary ..." before turning me on like I was a asshole who has understood nothing! But hey, you do well as you want. I do not judge you. I express an opinion]

[Obamot]

Both of you are really looking for lice in the straw!

I say it again: it's old; of memory, 20 or 30 years!

I repeat: learn to beware of the media and not drink to their sources of sensations (whose main purpose is to sell ... information, even if it is partial, mounted foam ...)

60 years, I put the link higher! It does not explain anything about the advantages of this formula ...!

The question of the media is of little concern, as long as no one has demonstrated the opposite of the benefits announced, nor has it proven that the performances achieved were not (and they seem to be according to the link of Lessdewatt ...)

Let's learn not to lose our common sense. I remind you that according to the data of this "article" (I do not call it an article, but "bullshit in sentences"), it would take 5 tons per hectare to store half the water it maize, selected and fertilized and processed elsewhere, is needed to reach 100 quintals.

Did67 talks about "common sense", but what? Unless I'm mistaken:

1) The amount of water needed varies depending on the watering mode!
How can one base a judgment on assumptions? Did67 did not prove the validity of his aggressive remarks! So he can not say his words yet. Or as he gives us precise figures and links ... Let him describe to us what a variety of water-saving but it is based, and how much it is supposed to consume injected as and when needs of the plant until the harvest period ...? And maybe there will be something to understand about his sling!

- according to the CRDP, for 10'000 T of maize, 1'340 m3 of water per hectare is required, but for a common variety, not especially aclimated for arid zones (6 700 m3 for 18 t / ha of grains / dry matter). Indeed, if one makes the calculation, 25kg of this polymer makes it possible to accumulate 10% of the water necessary! But it is a little fast forget that a) the farmers on the spot still have water resources for watering b) a rainfall although low, but that would be sufficient, since it would allow the renewal of the substrate in water according to the proportions described, c) the water would then be renewed in the substrate according to the natural precipitations and / or artificial inputs! I deduce from the yield of 600kg per hectare produced without frost, that the amount of water needed, corresponds pile hair to the absorption capacity of it. There is therefore a good correlation in the figures announced in the article by the journalist. Then we can still debate the merits of the amount of water actually needed for the growth of these plants, but it does not seem at all farfelu, since the need for water in drip, are not the same only for natural watering or irrigation, which sees most of the water lost by infiltration into the soil, and the part in the upper layer is quickly evaporated by heat!

The quantity of water required varies at least according to the water supply mode, the type of land and the cultivated variety: there is no evidence that it is not possible to grow maize with only 10% of the quantity necessary in our regions, by natural precipitation!

2) Overall and non-selective appraisal of the problem
The question of water consumption is not everything, in arid zones, there are many issues to be solved and which require significant resources, which peasants in arid zones do not have:

- the water supply necessary for additional irrigation requires pumps that should be purchased and maintained, possibly irrigation canals and ... water (in France, producers specializing in irrigated corn spend an average of € 2900 for their operation!)

- if the peasants have the chance to have a watercourse in their area, it is necessary to do big work to create a collective network of irrigation;

- as these are unserved regions, pump power can often use other energy sources such as diesel, which is not an ecological method.

- The phenomenon of the infernal cycle of famines is however well known: for lack of precipitation, producers must imperatively increase the quantities of water but reduce the surfaces. The conditions of access to water determine
the profitability of irrigation. We know more, the reduction of surfaces requires maize with better yield, and Monsanto is watching with its transgenic products ...

- in France, during years of drought, the necessary water supply can reach 2700m3 per hectare (2005). Thus, this situation does NOT spare ANY country because of global warming.

- Did67 speaks of 100 quintals, while in France in times of drought, these farmers plaffonnent between 22 40 quintals per hectare ... then in Mexico. This type of argument borders on bad faith. Especially when we know that the profitability of an irrigation system (whether physical or in the form of water in gel) depends for many loads that producers must assume!

- the water needs also depend on the characteristics of the soil and the local weather, points which are decisive to define if such a supply of water in the form of gel is perntinent for these regions (or not). But Didxnumx seems to also avoid this point in his appreciation.

- there is often a shift in arid regions, between the presence of precipitation and the period of growth until harvest. This point is also to be taken into account in the phase difference between availability of water and demand to satisfy needs.

- Did67 seems to speak of impressive water needs which he suggests that it would not be possible to meet them with water in the form of a gel, but he who appeals to reason, why did he not he did not suggest growing anything other than plants that require large amounts of water - just because local farmers do their best to be wrong in growing corn, while others crops would be more appropriate - that would take away the merits of such an approach to watering!

Source: Agreste - Farm Accountancy Information Network (Rica)

3) Means and conditions available on site!
They have very little water available and are out of phase, they do not have the means to do major irrigation works and they also lack the means to pay for the energy needed for pumping. While gel water does not require energy! (For the extraction of water.)

Obamot, you would come out of these exchanges if ...

Obamot does not need to get out of it ... He does not feel too big or too small Joking aside, I'm always excited about this great idea ... whether it's old or not does not matter to me.

And I have no difficulty in admitting that Did67 unearthed the fact that the principle already existed, or that the journalist was eventually misguided and that it would be this sequence that would have excited me! What the hell, still a beautiful syllogism! ..What I consider to be "revolutionary", is due to the special characteristics of this product, and is above all relative, not only to its safety but also to its ecological aspect (which go hand in hand), and all that has been described throughout my posts.

On the other hand, some would do well to widen their vision of things, before giving some advice to those whom they imagine to be their detractors .... And it is necessary to remind once more, that the interest of such a product is to provide a solution that can locally solve the problem of hunger.