"How does microwave superheat water?"Is it the same way as infrared stove?
The same way that anything else does.
Is it the same way as infrared stove?Do you know what
anythingmeans?
This isn't some weird magical phenomenon.Here's what wikipedia says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumping_(chemistry)Is it the same way as infrared stove?Do you know whatanythingmeans?
Bumping occurs when a liquid is heated or has its pressure reduced very rapidly, typically in smooth, clean glassware. The hardest part of bubble formation is the formation of the small bubble; once a bubble has formed, it can grow quickly. Because the liquid is typically above its boiling point, when the liquid finally starts to boil, a large vapor bubble is formed that pushes the liquid out of the test tube, typically at high speed. This rapid expulsion of boiling liquid poses a serious hazard to others and oneself in the lab. Furthermore, if a liquid is boiled and cooled back down, the chance of bumping increases on each subsequent boil, because each heating cycle progressively de-gasses the liquid, reducing the number of remaining nucleation sites.The problem is the description there doesn't match with my experiments. First, the superheating can be done slowly. The boiling/desuperheating process can also be done slowly.
Here's another demonstration of superheated water explodes inside the microwave while being heated.Please, please put some information in the text about the videos.
For example, one of those videos seems to have been produced in Russia and seems to be a commercial business (the people who made the video may get paid per view by Google). At the current time, a lot of sanctions have been put against Russia. Even scientific endeavours that involved a collaboration (for example, the ExoMars mission carrying the Rosalind Franklin mars rover) have been put on indefinite hold. It's not clear that a UK based forum website should be promoting those videos.AFAIK, playing a Youtube video from a third party site isn't count as a view. I tested it with my own video. CMIIW.
Microwaves heat water rapidly. There just isn't much time for bumping to happen or nucleation sites to form. Other forms of heating, like putting a beaker of water into an oven fail to match this rate of heating. There is much more time for the formation of a gas bubble, a nucleation site where further changes in phase can happen.As I said previously, rapidness doesn't seem to be the cause of superheating. It can be done slowly, just like the desuperheating process, either by boiling using contact with conductive material, or just letting it slowly cool down to normal warm water.
especially when the underlying principle of the process is not widely understood,You may not understand it. That does not mean it is not understood.
That's why I made the investigation in the first place.
AFAIK, playing a Youtube video from a third party site isn't count as a view. I tested it with my own video. CMIIW.
But keep in mind that most Russians have nothing to do with the invasion. They just want to live their lives peacefully.I'm well aware of that. I'm saddened by the net effects of the current situation. The situation with Russia was just one example of why it's helpful to have some text describing any video links. I honestly don't know if we should stop watching Russian made YT videos at the moment, or if there's more good to come from continuing to co-operate and work with a common goal like developing science. I just don't know - but the users should have the choice and should always be aware that some of those YT videos may be monetized.
You may not understand it. That does not mean it is not understood.If you think you already understand it, you should be able to describe my experimental results correctly.
Did your investigations lead you to the explanation of why the liquid does not boil?So far, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_pressure
you should be able to describe my experimental results correctly.I wasn't aware that you had done any experiments.
I haven't finished editing the videos. But I've provided a spoiler in case you have no patience to wait until tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow. It depends on my workload.you should be able to describe my experimental results correctly.I wasn't aware that you had done any experiments.
What did you do?
What happened?
Is there anything that wasn't explained by the conventional explanation?
Is there anything that wasn't explained by the conventional explanation?
What's the conventional explanation?Is there anything that wasn't explained by the conventional explanation?
Is this Wikipedia article considered a conventional explanation?What's the conventional explanation?Is there anything that wasn't explained by the conventional explanation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_water
Superheated water is liquid water under pressure at temperatures between the usual boiling point, 100 °C (212 °F) and the critical temperature, 374 °C (705 °F). It is also known as "subcritical water" or "pressurized hot water". Superheated water is stable because of overpressure that raises the boiling point, or by heating it in a sealed vessel with a headspace, where the liquid water is in equilibrium with vapour at the saturated vapor pressure. This is distinct from the use of the term superheating to refer to water at atmospheric pressure above its normal boiling point, which has not boiled due to a lack of nucleation sites (sometimes experienced by heating liquids in a microwave).
Is this Wikipedia article considered a conventional explanation?This bit is.
The question I want to answer is, "what makes good nucleation sites?".Is this Wikipedia article considered a conventional explanation?This bit is.
"This is distinct from the use of the term superheating to refer to water at atmospheric pressure above its normal boiling point, which has not boiled due to a lack of nucleation sites (sometimes experienced by heating liquids in a microwave)."
The explanation is " due to a lack of nucleation sites "
My experiments also show that microwave water superheating is a different phenomenon from bumping, because it can be done slowly.Heating water slowly in a clean test tube with a flame can also cause bumping.
My experiments also show that microwave water superheating is a different phenomenon from bumping, because it can be done slowly.Heating water slowly in a clean test tube with a flame can also cause bumping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumping_(chemistry)
Bumping is a phenomenon in chemistry where homogeneous liquids boiled in a test tube or other container will superheat and, upon nucleation, rapid boiling will expel the liquid from the container. In extreme cases, the container may be broken.[1]
Bumping occurs when a liquid is heated or has its pressure reduced very rapidly, typically in smooth, clean glassware. The hardest part of bubble formation is the formation of the small bubble; once a bubble has formed, it can grow quickly. Because the liquid is typically above its boiling point, when the liquid finally starts to boil, a large vapor bubble is formed that pushes the liquid out of the test tube, typically at high speed.
Have you tried to de-superheat the water by slowly dipping a metal object into it?Of course I haven't.
I've got an electric air heater which is useful to bend acrylic plates. The hot air can reach up to 300°C, which should be enough to boil demineralized water in a smooth glass, and bring it to superheated state, if the microwave is not necessary....
Of course I haven't.Then you have no evidence that it was superheated.
I know that the best approach is to avoid superheating in the first place or, if you know that it has happened, you let it cool- undisturbed.
or you could use a candle.ordinary candles are too small, hence it would be hard to overcome radiation heat loss from the water surface and its container. Besides, the hot air is cleaner, so we don't have to worry about soot.
So what?
Then you have no evidence that it was superheated.In a laboratory context, you often have a thermometer...
ordinary candles are too small,I assure you that you can boil a test tube full of water with a candle flame.
How do you know if the water has been superheated, by using only thermometer?Then you have no evidence that it was superheated.In a laboratory context, you often have a thermometer...
I assure you that you can boil a test tube full of water with a candle flame.how big is the test tube?
It hardly matters how you heat the water.My experimental results suggest otherwise.
Superheating is nothing to do with microwaves.
People were documenting superheating and supercooling before they knew about microwaves.It hardly matters how you heat the water.My experimental results suggest otherwise.
Superheating is nothing to do with microwaves.
I'll post them here soon after I finished uploading them.
how big is the test tube?Do you know what a test tube is?
People were documenting superheating and supercooling before they knew about microwaves.Can you share the link?
Have you never worked with different sized test tubes?how big is the test tube?Do you know what a test tube is?
Yes, and they are all pretty close to the same size.Have you never worked with different sized test tubes?how big is the test tube?Do you know what a test tube is?
So... you want a video from before they had microwaves.People were documenting superheating and supercooling before they knew about microwaves.Can you share the link?
A video would be better.
Yes, and they are all pretty close to the same size.Why do you expect everyone else to use the same size?
Do you know what a boiling tube is?Does it really matter what I know about them?
What about a micro tube?
So... you want a video from before they had microwaves.Your own video would be enough. I bet you have a smartphone.
How many pre WWII video recorders do you think there were ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_chipSome different phenomena may have similar symptoms. In this case, explosion of heated water inside a microwave oven may seem similar to bumping. But we need to consider other symptoms too, and compare if they are found in both cases.
Here's a reference from 1930.
https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-biological-chemistry_1930_88_contents/page/78/mode/2up?q=antibumping
Why don't you just accept reality?
The superheating is affected by linear polarization.Interesting claim.
I can repeat the experiments with and without linear polarizer, and measure the steam formed during desuperheating. If you have no patience waiting for my video, you can do it yourself. It doesn't require exotic equipments. Anyone can do that.The superheating is affected by linear polarization.Interesting claim.
You don't have adequate evidence.
How are you polarising the microwaves?In case you haven't seen my video, it's done by placing a linear polarizer on top of the water container. If there's no other mechanism involved, we would expect to see less energy goes into the superheated water, instead of more.
Are you taking account of the fact that the magnetron produces a polarised beam?Is it linearly polarized? What's the axis of polarization?
Is it linearly polarized? What's the axis of polarization?I believe so and along the axis of the output coupling connector, I think.
Perhaps you've also watched my other video on microwave transceiver with double reflector. Reflection can change polarization axis.Is it linearly polarized? What's the axis of polarization?I believe so and along the axis of the output coupling connector, I think.
But don't you think you should have checked that?
So, the effect you are looking for might be caused by the rotation of the dish?Both experiments involved rotation of the dish.
So both had variable polarisations.The polarizer was co-moving with the container, as well as the water. Thus, in the perspective of the water, the incoming microwave has constant polarization angle.
So the intensity would vary with time.So both had variable polarisations.The polarizer was co-moving with the container, as well as the water. Thus, in the perspective of the water, the incoming microwave has constant polarization angle.
I've uploaded another video investigating superheated water by microwave oven. This time I used a larger container to show inhomogeneity of the superheated water.The video shows little if any superheating.
How much air can the water hold?Not very much, but if the water is nearly boiling then any air bubbles are also expanded by the presence of water vapour.
I repeated the heating for dozens of times with the same water, without the sign of reduced quantity of bubble in later tests. I don't think it came from the release of dissolved air.How much air can the water hold?Not very much, but if the water is nearly boiling then any air bubbles are also expanded by the presence of water vapour.
The release of dissolved air is also limited by nucleation sites. That's the basis of the Mentos and cola demo.
THE CHEMISTRY OF MILK. The principal constituents of milk are water, fat, proteins, lactose (milk sugar) and minerals (salts). Milk also contains trace amounts of other substances such as pigments, enzymes, vitamins, phospholipids (substances with fatlike properties), and gases.
Are they the same phenomenon?In what way do you think they are (significantly) different?
Microwave superheated water can stay in superheated state longer when it's not induced to boil. It can last more than 30 seconds until it loses heat to surroundings.Are they the same phenomenon?In what way do you think they are (significantly) different?
How long can it last using other methods of heating?Exactly the same as with microwaves.
I never see an experiment of superheated water that stays being superheated for long after the heating stopped. Just repeat my experiments, but use other heating methods instead of microwave oven.How long can it last using other methods of heating?Exactly the same as with microwaves.
How would it know the difference?
I never see an experiment of superheated water that stays being superheated for long after the heating stopped.Did you look?
Now I've got a borosilicate beaker which should be suitable for the experiment. Let's see what we'll get.You will get the kind of behaviour that explains why people were using anti-bumping agents a hundred years ago (and longer than that , but they are harder to prove)
Now I've got a borosilicate beaker which should be suitable for the experiment. Let's see what we'll get.Now I've done recording the experiments. These are what I did.
Now I've done recording the experiments. These are what I did.Now I've done editing and uploaded it.
1. Heat demineralized water in the borosilicate beaker in microwave oven until some bubbles are formed. Then test if it's superheated using a steel fork.
2. Reheat the water using microwave oven, and repeat the test.
3. Reheat the water using infrared ceramic stove until some bubbles are formed, and repeat the test.
4. Reheat the water using infrared ceramic stove until some bubbles are formed, and repeat the test.
5. Compare the results to determine if they are produced by the same phenomenon.
Nucleation doesn't only require a foreign particle. Nucleation by movement is often observed when supercooled water freezes as frost on a car roof.Is it foreign particle and movement, or
Microwave absorption does not depend on convection so is less likely to invoke boiling nucleation as the water is heated relatively uniformly throughout its bulk or even top-down, unlike a conventional cooker.Standing wave in microwave oven produces non-uniform heating, that's why rotating base is provided in the first place.
there's a mechanism in superheated water by microwave which is not available in other heating methods?You have not provided sufficient evidence to convince anyone of that claim.
Sufficiency of evidence can be different from one person to another. I'm pretty convinced by this experiment.there's a mechanism in superheated water by microwave which is not available in other heating methods?You have not provided sufficient evidence to convince anyone of that claim.
Now I've done recording the experiments. These are what I did.Now I've done editing and uploaded it.
1. Heat demineralized water in the borosilicate beaker in microwave oven until some bubbles are formed. Then test if it's superheated using a steel fork.
2. Reheat the water using microwave oven, and repeat the test.
3. Reheat the water using infrared ceramic stove until some bubbles are formed, and repeat the test.
4. Reheat the water using infrared ceramic stove until some bubbles are formed, and repeat the test.
5. Compare the results to determine if they are produced by the same phenomenon.
Comparison with Infrared Stove
Why infrared stove fails to produce superheated water?
What kind of evidence is sufficient to convince you?Repeatable evidence.
Superheating is a hit-and-miss phenomenon.No. I can produce it consistently using microwave, 10 out of 10 if needed.
Then why can't you produce it with an IR source?Superheating is a hit-and-miss phenomenon.No. I can produce it consistently using microwave, 10 out of 10 if needed.
What I need are demineralized water and smooth surfaced glass container.
Then why can't you produce it with an IR source?Superheating is a hit-and-miss phenomenon.No. I can produce it consistently using microwave, 10 out of 10 if needed.
What I need are demineralized water and smooth surfaced glass container.
Is it because you are only heating the bottom of the jug (The IR won't go through the glass) rather than the bulk of the water (as you do with microwaves)?
At this point, is there anyone still doubt that there's a mechanism in superheated water by microwave which is not available in other heating methods?No. What you have demonstrated is that microwave heating of very clean water in very clean glass may not have sufficient nucleation triggers to prevent superheating.
So we can see that practically none of the radiation is shorter than about 2 microns (where it would get through the glass jug).Do you think gas stove will give better result?
And the peak is at about 4 microns- which is where your spectrum of borosilicate shows that it absorbs strongly.
And this is why I keep saying you should learn some science.
No. What you have demonstrated is that microwave heating of very clean water in very clean glass may not have sufficient nucleation triggers to prevent superheating.
Why infrared stove fails to produce superheated water? Because the infrared stove heats the bottom of the container and thus generates much stronger convection currents than are present with microwave heating. Convection = movement = nucleation.Have you seen my videos, especially where superheating and de-superheating occur at once?
I find this site quite informativeThen, since that site tells you the IR from a ceramic heater is mainly near 3 to 10 microns, why did you say that borosilicate is transparent- even though you showed a spectrum which tells you it is opaque ?
Transparency is not a binary value. Some of the infrared radiation can pass through the glass. Although it's not clear yet what happens to the rest of the spectrum. How much is reflected instead of absorbed?I find this site quite informativeThen, since that site tells you the IR from a ceramic heater is mainly near 3 to 10 microns, why did you say that borosilicate is transparent- even though you showed a spectrum which tells you it is opaque ?
Do you think gas stove will give better result?
How much is reflected instead of absorbed?And again...
The spectrum would be different than black body radiationHow different?
And again...You should answer it yourself.
Why do you refuse to learn science?
The answer is "not much" that's why I ignored it.Radiation from the left side of the heater comes with high incident angle before it reaches the right side of the beaker, and vice versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#
How different?The ceramic plate filters out some wavelengths.
Again it would be helpful if you learned the science that was available a hundred years ago.When was the microwave oven invented?
Do you think gas stove will give better result?
When was the microwave oven invented?1955
The ceramic plate filters out some wavelengths.By Kirchhoff's law, the ceramic plate does exactly as good a job of re-emitting those wavelengths as it does of absorbing them.
The ceramic plate doesn't glow red. It's significantly cooler than the heating element.The ceramic plate filters out some wavelengths.By Kirchhoff's law, the ceramic plate does exactly as good a job of re-emitting those wavelengths as it does of absorbing them.
Do you think gas stove will give better result?It looks like I have to do the experiment myself, just as usual.
So the fact that visible light goes through borosilicate is even less relevant.The ceramic plate doesn't glow red. It's significantly cooler than the heating element.The ceramic plate filters out some wavelengths.By Kirchhoff's law, the ceramic plate does exactly as good a job of re-emitting those wavelengths as it does of absorbing them.
So the fact that visible light goes through borosilicate is even less relevant.The ceramic plate is somewhat transparent to red light, as shown in the video. So, the water receives some red and infrared radiation, beside the heat conduction from the borosilicate glass.
So, the water receives some red and infrared radiation,And the red light goes straight trough the water- because water is colourless.
Identify all differences and similarities between microwave oven and infrared stove in boiling demineralized water inside a smooth container. Then identify which differences contribute to the difference in their result regarding superheating of water.So, the water receives some red and infrared radiation,And the red light goes straight trough the water- because water is colourless.
What point are you trying to make?
OK the so called infrared stove does shine a small amount of red light through the water.Identify all differences and similarities between microwave oven and infrared stove in boiling demineralized water inside a smooth container. Then identify which differences contribute to the difference in their result regarding superheating of water.So, the water receives some red and infrared radiation,And the red light goes straight trough the water- because water is colourless.
What point are you trying to make?
OK the so called infrared stove does shine a small amount of red light through the water.A similarity between infrared stove and microwave oven : Some heat is generated in the water.
Do you think that is likely to have an effect?
At about 37 seconds you imply that my breath is at 100C on a cold day.How would you interpret the condensation there?
Your experiment shows that heating water from the bottom is less likely to cause superheating than if you heat it throughout.The fire clearly touches the side of the beaker as well.
So what?
In reality, superheating was documented long before anyone had microwave ovens.What's your evidence? A video may be?
So it is clearly possible to superheat water without using microwaves.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2022 13:19:12Personal experience.
In reality, superheating was documented long before anyone had microwave ovens.
So it is clearly possible to superheat water without using microwaves.
What's your evidence?
I missed this at the time you posted it.What kind of heater did you use?Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2022 13:19:12Personal experience.
In reality, superheating was documented long before anyone had microwave ovens.
So it is clearly possible to superheat water without using microwaves.
What's your evidence?
Why do you think my experiments using infrared and gas stove didn't produce superheated water?You need clean , smooth equipment.
Chemists (and others) have been putting effort into avoiding the problem of superheating water since, at least, when my dad's chemistry books were written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumping_(chemistry)
Bumping occurs when a liquid is heated or has its pressure reduced very rapidly,We can reliably produce superheated water using microwave even with a slow heating process. The superheated water can also be boiled slowly by immersing only a small amount of object.
You need clean , smooth equipment.I used the same equipment for microwave as well as other kind of heaters, but the results are different.
The explanation is " due to a lack of nucleation sites "
Do water molecules carry watches?No. The experimenters are the ones with watches.
If not, how do they know if they have been heated quickly?
If they don't know, then how can they act differently?
On the other hand, in microwave superheating, the boiling can occur long after the heater is turned off, and the water is moved away from the microwave.I assure you that this happens with conventional heating too.
Anti-Bumping GranulesThe obvious difference with my setup is the heated media. It uses ethanol/water mixture, while I used de-ionized water.
In Safeguards in the School Laboratory (11th edition), section 6.2 we state:
"The avoidance of ?bumping? can be achieved by the addition of pieces of broken pot or special anti-bumping
granules, which promote smooth boiling. Anti-bumping material should only be added to a cold liquid. If there is a
need to add it to a liquid that has already been heated, the liquid should be removed from the heat and allowed to
cool for several minutes, otherwise it may boil over.''
A letter received from a member provides a dramatic illustration of the necessity for this advice:
"During a class distillation of an ethanol/water mixture the teacher in charge realised that the pupils had not added
anti-bumping granules. He asked the pupils to stop heating and remove the bungs from the flasks. On adding
granules to two of the flasks violent boiling occurred and hot ethanol was thrown out, to a height of one metre or
more. The ethanol on the bench was then ignited by a bunsen burner ...... "
Did you think your post made sense?Do you understand what my experimental results mean? I heated de-ionized water in a borosilicate beaker using microwave, infrared cooker, and gas stove. The microwave consistently produced superheated water. The other heater consistently produced normally boiling water. There must be at least one unidentified factor causing the difference.
Don't you understand what this means?
Blindly accepting authoritative texts is not understanding.Refusing to accept the testimony of someone who worked in a lab for 30 years or so is also "not understanding" reality.
Refusing to accept the testimony of someone who worked in a lab for 30 years or so is also "not understanding" reality.Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results. Moreover, I don't know the details of your experience.
Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.
I don't know the details of your experience.That's OK, because I do.
I told you the observations and you asked for documentation. I provide documentation, and you say I shouldn't accept it.Your documentation still can't answer my question, what caused the difference in my experimental results.
How can I know that you didn't lie or being mistaken?Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.
Why should I trust you?I don't know the details of your experience.That's OK, because I do.
The fact that you, on a few occasions, did not see it doesn't change that, does it?What is the probability that ten out of ten trials giving the same results come from random events?
You can't.How can I know that you didn't lie or being mistaken?Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.
There must be something that caused the difference. Which so far hasn't been identified.Here's a candidate.
The only big difference is that the temperature gradients are typically less steep..
Here's another video trying to explain superheated water by microwave. It says that water can become hotter than its boiling point without actually boiling. Unfortunately, it's not demonstrated in the video, since the thermometer only show 208?F, instead of a number larger than 212?F.Measuring the temperature of superheated water is challenging, since foreign material dipped in it can cause it to boil. Infrared thermometer has its own challenges, since it's affected by emmissivity of the surface.
You would be more trustworthy if I can replicate your experiment.You can't.How can I know that you didn't lie or being mistaken?Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.
But that's equally true whether I'm being a scientist or being a scientist.
Why would it be more trustworthy if I was a scientist rather than a scientist?
Your PoV makes no sense.
It's still me.
Infrared thermometer has its own challenges, since it's affected by emmissivity of the surface.I have good news for you.
https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/superheating.htmJust like any hypothesis, its veracity still needs to be verified.
Why does it occur to a greater degree in microwave ovens than in saucepans or kettles?
In a microwave oven, the water is usually hotter than the container, whereas parts of the kettle or saucepan are usually hotter than the water. Further, the surfaces of some containers used in microwave ovens may be very smooth, almost at a molecular scale, whereas this is not true for kettles or saucepans.
Microwave ovens heat the water directly: the microwaves pass through the container and the water, and the water itself absorbs energy from them. The container absorbs little energy directly. In a kettle or saucepan, the container itself (saucepan) or a heating element (some kettles) is hotter than the water. The hottest points cause a small amount of local superheating, boiling is initiated here, and this then stirs the water.
Countless observations of bumping have been recorded.Nevertheless, my setup can still consistently produced superheated water when microwave oven is used. Which was the reason why I tried to identify the difference in the first place.
You can buy stuff to stop it.
https://apcpure.com/product/anti-bumping-granules/
If you can't replicate it, that's your screw up.
What about at the center?Infrared thermometer has its own challenges, since it's affected by emmissivity of the surface.I have good news for you.
The emissivity of water near its boiling point is the same as the emissivity of water near its boiling point.
A more interesting problem is how far into the water does the thermometer "see"?
Just like any hypothesis, its veracity still needs to be verified.
Microwave ovens used to heat food are not set to the frequency for optimal absorption by water. If they were, then the piece of food or liquid in question would absorb all microwave radiation in its outer layer, leading to a cool, unheated centre and a superheated surface. [4] Instead, the frequency selected allows energy to penetrate deeper into the heated food. The frequency of a household microwave oven is 2.45 GHz, while the frequency for optimal absorbency by water is around 10 GHz.Here's some info to consider in experiments using microwave oven.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating
If the container can be heated from the outside to be hotter than the water, and the water is still superheated.Just like any hypothesis, its veracity still needs to be verified.
What experiment would show it to be false?
Come back when you have tested it.
I just finished editing my old video using microwave oven to heat up a neon test lamp. It breaks down and burn in flame, and leaving some smoke. Instead of explanations, this short video asks some questions, like which part of the neon lamp absorbs microwave energy the most? What's the nature of the flame and smoke?
I'm still surprised how the experiments went at the end
Please note: This is for educational purposes, I don't encourage people to try this themselves
can you post a picture of the neon lamp?I just finished editing my old video using microwave oven to heat up a neon test lamp. It breaks down and burn in flame, and leaving some smoke. Instead of explanations, this short video asks some questions, like which part of the neon lamp absorbs microwave energy the most? What's the nature of the flame and smoke?
Here it is.
can you post a picture of the neon lamp?Just google it.
I don't see how this was meant to helpcan you post a picture of the neon lamp?Just google it.
I don't see how this was meant to helpcan you post a picture of the neon lamp?Just google it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(2017_film)
but that's what I got by googling "it".
This is what a neon lamp commonly looks like, but it's not what was in your video.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neon_lamp_NE-2.JPG
+DC (left), -DC (center), AC (right) supplied to NE-2 type neon lamps
In this video I demonstrated how microwaves lose a great deal of their power, when you step away from the antenna source, In case you're wondering how far away I can get from my Lectenna, and light them up with my microwave, it was 37 feet.