Heating water for coffee - efficiently.

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Disabled Account
Joined 2017
it'd be a bit bold to take any assumptions from it.

Just insert the words "may be" into any conclusion and you're covered.

For example I "may be" related to Cal Weldon and its too early to say but 99% of scientists argue that they may someday prove this assumption correct. :whazzat:

But yeah, kind of a dick move to be making any sort of conclusion when I haven't got a full understanding of the article.
 
Last edited:
But yeah, kind of a dick move to be making any sort of conclusion when I haven't got a full understanding of the article.

?

I thought you jumped to conclusions and was trying to gently pull you back from that. Certainly didn't mean any sort of snide commentary. If I had access to the full article, I'd be happy to tell you just how large an effect they measured.
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2017
?

I thought you jumped to conclusions and was trying to gently pull you back from that. Certainly didn't mean any sort of snide commentary. If I had access to the full article, I'd be happy to tell you just how large an effect they measured.

Don't worry about it, you were sufficiently polite.

Nope I was just sharing the possibility so that you guys can jump in and prove me wrong :)

So what I'm gathering from that paper is that microwave irradiation of water and hydrogen peroxide causes the chemical reaction of hydrogen peroxide and water to occur far more quickly?

Asking a question.

So what you are implying is that water chemically reacts with other chemicals in the water when placed in a microwave oven.
Replying to something that scott wurcer may have been implying as a result of the post about that scientific article. I'm basically asking another question of scott wurcer here so that he can clarify his position. and he did:

No I'm saying only that folks are researching what microwaves do to water. I don't have a clue about the chemistry involved.
And this is just me regurgitating what my limited understanding of what the paper's conclusions are:
The conclusion from that paper is that the chemical reactions occurring in tap water are sped up in a microwave oven, so the water "oxidizes" or "ages" quicker and actually becomes less viscous, similar to how engine oil loses its viscosity as it ages.

Basically what its saying is that chemical reactions are occurring quicker in the water/hydrogen peroxide mix when exposed to microwave radiation.

If that is occurring in tap water then there may be all sorts of changes in the water chemistry as a result of not only dissolved solids reacting but also dissolved chemicals.

Basically its not only heating (vibrating) the water molecules it is also breaking the bonds between atoms.
Here is where I made the "jump to conclusions":
Ah yes but you may have unwittingly stumbled upon a solution as to the reason why microwaved water tastes different than traditionally boiled water using a heating element.
Again that "may" word again. So... Are you implying that a paper detailing any sort of chemical reaction taking place while exposed to microwave radiation does not mean that chemical reactions do not take place in a simple glass filled with tap water?

Or are you implying that chemical reactions may be taking place, but that it is wild of me to conclude that chemical reactions alone could explain why microwave radiation is causing tap water to taste differently from ordinarily boiled water?

My stance is that there may be a chemical reaction taking place in the tap water in the glass in the microwave and that it might explain the difference in taste. In addition to any other reaction taking place in regards to dissolved solids and oxygenation of the water. As a result of reading this article.

I mean, bottom lining it here, if scientists have observed chemical reactions taking place in a glass of water and hydrogen peroxide that is being irradiated by microwave energy then I believe that other chemical reactions could also be taking place in an impure glass of water inside of an ordinary microwave oven.

Bottom lining it even further, I'm saying that an observation of one natural process in one experiment (chemical reactions) could mean that another natural process could be occurring in another experiment, or in this case, a domestic task. ie boiling water. I'm not saying anything other than that.
 
Last edited:
Here is where I made the "jump to conclusions":
Again that "may" word again. So... Are you implying that a paper detailing any sort of chemical reaction taking place while exposed to microwave radiation does not mean that chemical reactions do not take place in a simple glass filled with tap water?

Or are you implying that chemical reactions may be taking place, but that it is wild of me to conclude that chemical reactions alone could explain why microwave radiation is causing tap water to taste differently from ordinarily boiled water?

My stance is that there may be a chemical reaction taking place in the tap water in the glass in the microwave and that it might explain the difference in taste. In addition to any other reaction taking place in regards to dissolved solids and oxygenation of the water. As a result of reading this article.

I mean, bottom lining it here, if scientists have observed chemical reactions taking place in a glass of water and hydrogen peroxide that is being irradiated by microwave energy then I believe that other chemical reactions could also be taking place in an impure glass of water inside of an ordinary microwave oven.

Bottom lining it even further, I'm saying that an observation of one natural process in one experiment (chemical reactions) could mean that another natural process could be occurring in another experiment, or in this case, a domestic task. ie boiling water. I'm not saying anything other than that.

Haha, it's all good. If the water tastes different being boiled in the microwave versus the stove/electric heaters, then the difference must be in the chemical composition. That's a given, so I figured we were past that point. What that change is would be the discussion, where it read you were hanging your hat on the whole H2O2 thing. So sorry if I misread that. If anything, with the stirring due to boiling, I'd expect *more* is happening in the case of the normal boil due to degassing and fluid movement. Likewise, ceramics are pretty inert so you're getting less interaction with the heating vessel in the nuke.

Drinking very pure water has a really strange taste. Promise. :)

Can we go back to being nonsensical, please?
 
Do you guys who uses RO (Reverse Osmosis) add some of the trace minerals back to the water after filtering, I have learned that very pure water isn't that healthy in the long run to due the lack of trace elements as RO is very efficient in removing virtually everything.
Also, water without trace elements is a bit accidic, not good tasting.
What is the reason RO is so popular in US, fluoridation?
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.