/ 8-O /

There is fuck all reputable about that site, m'dear.

 

I won't be mailing though, reminds me of BourqueFan, but with more pseudoscience.

 

And what the hell is a food technician?

I'm a food technician.

No. What you eat is technically food. It's not the same thing at all.

after glancing at your tips the other day I did check my lava lamp and it is definatly too hot to keep your hand on, which isn't bad for a tiny bulb - not too sure about heating the house that way mind

Just read your tips, and whilst I understand why people might use things like that to save a bit of money is it really a good way to live? Do you really enjoy basically getting rid of all of lifes luxuries?

Unfortunately, they do, at least a continually oscillating one.

Fortunately, everything else he says is total bollocks.

How does that work, then? And is there any difference between man-made and natural microwaves?

That's exactly what I was thinking as I read of the death of some US fitness guru, among whose pearls of wisdom were "If man makes it, don't eat it. If it tastes good, spit it out." OK, he lived to 96, but was it worth it?

All electromagnetic radiation is formed of a continually oscillating electric field vector (oscillating between +Amplitude and -Amplitude) with a magnetic field vector doing the same thing, but perpendicular to it.

 

Microwaves (and radio) are produced by oscillating electric charges. When the charges are moving one way it's a +ve current and -ve if the other way. Microwaves are microwaves, there only differences are the power and frequency.

 

In terms of what this guy's saying, microwaves only heat up food because they make polar molecules (like water) vibrate. They don't do anything to the internal workings of the molecule (unless it gets hot enough to break up).

 

Simply put, microwaves don't have enough energy to cause 'chemical' changes in atoms. This is how UV, XRay and Gamma causes cancer, by altering the chemistry of DNA molecules in your cells. There's no way microwaves can do that. It's possible that there may be another, more complicated mechanism that could be activated by them, but I doubt it.

Essentially the difference between ionizing radiation and non? Or am I wrong?

Hmmmz, I never thought of amplitude as being polarity before. In that case, all light has polarity, no?

Yes it does, hence polaris(ed?)(ing?) filters.

But that's a different concept, isn't it? It refers to the direction that a wave is oriented (relative to a plane) rather than the amplitude. Unless that's what the Boffmeister was talking about.

I actually don't know (not without thinking so hard that it might make my brain hurt), I just felt like adding a little potential chaos to the world.

Sometime you just gotta take a dump. :{)

HERE IS A DIAGRAM IN AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY


You can see that the blue wave (electric field) moves up and down across the centre line. If you measured the electric field at any one point it would be +ve or -ve (or zero, mebbe). But the is continually varying, and you have to think that +ve and -ve actually mean in this case, so this is where you're heads will probably explode...

That diagram actually only shows plane polarised light, you can also have the E/B field vectors actually rotate at some predefined rate (circularly/elliptical polarisation), in which case "polarity" of the wave means NOTHING. In the plane polarised case the +ve/-ve direction depend entirely on the particles that emitted them, and there may not be a clearly definition axis in this case anyway.

Really what you need to look at is that when the wave is pointing in a given direction, it will exert a force on a 'polar' molecule (i.e. one with a +/- direction bias) and when it oscillates back to the opposite direction the molecule will go in the oppposite direction - essentially the molecule vibrates with the frequency of the microwaves.

Most "light" is plane polarised.

In regards to the ionising radiation, this is simply what radiation is able to ionise a given atom. To do this it needs to knock an electron out of its shell in the atom, so for a given element there's a set amount of energy needed to do this. Low UV is just about enough to do this in some atoms, but it can't penetrate, which is why we get sunburnt.

Visible light doesn't have enough energy to do this, nor do anything below that (IR, Microwaves/Radio (there's not functional difference between a radio/microwave or really IR/micro, it's just a definition - RADar actually uses microwave frequencies)). If microwaves were enough to cause ionisation and hence cancer, we'd be fucked as visible light would be much worse.

Any other questions?

Oh, I was going to do a quick explanation of sources (I am about to do this in class :D)

 

Radio - caused by large oscillation of electric charges - any A.C. running along a wire 10+cm long will give out a bit of radio wave

 

Microwave - same cause as radio, but shorter wavelength. I always use a microwave oven as a baseline. There's about 2-3 waves fitting into an oven.

 

IR - Now we get a bit smaller, thermal infrared is caused by oscillation of molecules - anything warm (above absolute zero) will be giving off IR

 

Visible - (as well as Near-IR) is caused by atomic vibrations or high energy heating (bulbs, THE SUN)

 

UV - now we start getting into energy transitions in the atom - things getting hit by other EM radiation can cause this and make stuff give off UV. Interestingly, UV paint/ink doesn't "glow" in UV, it absorbs UV light and re-emits in in a lower frequency, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see it.

 

X-Rays - you can give off x-rays with REALLY hot stuff. In fact, old X-ray sources would be similar to a souped up CRT. Also, pulling sellotape fast off the rolls gives off a few x-rays :)

 

Gamma - can only be cause by stuff going on in the nucleus - radioactive materials, nuclear bombs, fission, fusion, or nuclei that have been excited someway.